Duries Air Freshener

Thanks for the confidence boost pal

As you know, I know how links work. Feel free to address my comments. Also, I thank the person who shall remain nameless that PM'd me, saying that although they don't agree with what I say, the abuse I take isn't merited.

Don't put yourself down.

Not really. There are plenty good philosophical, scientific, historical and personal arguments that support the existence of Jesus as God.

Didn't actually realise they linked to articles, but I thank you for the usual charm we've all come to expect from you Authoritarianism - The Independent probably isn't the best source if you seek credibility. Nevertheless, the accusations of authoritarianism simply don't hold water. The tweet in question just expressed opinion that GOP voters want loyalty to Trump. Ultra Nationalism - Nothing in that link suggests she's an ultra nationalist. Look up the definition of the term and you'll see what I mean. Chauvinism - How does her agreement with biological reality make her a chauvinist? Xenophobia - You'd be doing well to explain this one, as all I can see are negative comments about illegal immigration. Theocratic - At no stage does she call for a theocracy. Racism - You're seriously claiming "So I'm walking around and seeing some good people and I see white people, Black people, brown people, yellow people,”is racist?! That appears to be the premise of the article. Homophobia - At no one was anything negative about homosexuals or homosexuality said. Transphobia - All she did was attack Dr Levine for (insert pronoun here)'s stance on entering sports of the opposing sex and have harmful treatment at such a young age. Any right thinking person would feel the same. Reactionary - I'll give you that. I'm now of the conclusion that you didn't even read these links properly yourself.

The floor is yours to explain why these labels apply to MTG.

Aye, I’d say it’s probably a good one, Asim. What are your thoughts? It’s one you can’t apply to the ten people listed in the Daily Kos article. Maybe the author(s) of the Wikipedia piece are just trolls, idiots and c***s?

That's not what I'm saying at all. The only reason I stand out is because 99% of people on here are left wing. Me pointing out the incorrect usage of 'far-right' is not trolling. Most normal people don't bandy it about willy nilly the way that's done on here. There's no way the ten names listed in that article are far-right. All your sneering and insults are like water off a duck's back. I simply won't be reacting to it. If people don't want to engage sensibly, then putting me on ignore is preferable for me. Even the wikipedia definition shows something wildly different to what's said on here, and pretty much aligns with what I laid out in orange text on page 171 of this thread. "Far-right politics, also referred to as the extreme right or right-wing extremism, are politics further on the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of being authoritarian and ultra-nationalist, as well as having nativist ideologies and tendencies.[1] Historically used to describe the experiences of Fascism, Nazism, and Falangism, far-right politics now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views. Far-right politics have led to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or conservative social institutions."

It's on page 171 in orange text.

I don't think it would, depending on what she has actually said. Most of what you've described just seems to be unsavoury opinions or statements, but I'd imagine what you claim she has said/done and what she has actually said/done are two entirely different things. Earlier on I described what I believed far-right to be, so it'd have to align. I've already stated that I don't see how Christian Nationalism is far-right for example.

Whatever you say, Asim. I’ll leave the door open If you want to continue the discussion further P.S. your daft wee insults don’t get to me

99.9% of the population will have no idea who he is.

I don’t have other names. Do you think we could ever get on? It would be nice.

I think I answered them individually in orange text Bro

I’ve never spoken of using recreational drugs mate.

Then you’ve not managed to show her as being far-right.

For ‘White Nationalist Conference’ are you referring to AFPAC? If so, then you’ll need to explain how it fits my take on what far-right actually is.

You’ll need to provide evidence of these claims, Asim, and I’m unsure as to why advocating Christian Nationalism makes one far-right anyway. What I won’t be doing is lowering myself to your level in terms of personal insults. You should know that by now.

I don't know them all, but the idea that MTG is far-right is David Icke stuff. Same with Matt's Idea Shop and Tim Young.

My point was about the incorrect use of the term 'far-right', and that they're trying to apply it to anyone that holds wholesome values. The headline clearly states '‘Groomer’ rhetoric’s toxic spread on social media revolves around 10 key far-right influencers'. My opinion is that you'd have to engage in some serious mental gymnastics to claim the ten listed influencers as far-right. I didn't mention the things you and others are trying to pin on me Bro

**Picks self off the floor after being held in contempt and called scum and stupid** Actually, in summary, you've mischaracterised my stance. I have not, by any stretch of the imagination, described advocating of mass murder as wholesome. Nor have I said anything about homosexuals being executed en masse, never mind dispute it being far-right. My honest opinion is that you've deliberately cherry picked certain parts of the article in a desperate attempt to link it to my general stance. In other words, you're acting in bad-faith.

I read the link, but what he brought up didn't contradict my stance.

What on earth are you talking about?

The scheme sounds pretty decent and I hope people make it work. The amount of litter on the streets, in parks and woodland etc is horrendous. It’s a sad sign of how far society has backslidden that we essentially have to bribe people to play their part, but I’m still glad we’re doing it. In an ideal society we wouldn’t even require street sweepers. I don’t agree with the slater that there’s a climate emergency though. Hyperbolic nonsense.