• jimbolauski@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I can’t argue with someone who steps into a thread, tries to make a comparison, then refuses to provide a single example of why their comparison is right, then goes on to continually project that they’re the correct and rational one while it’s the other one that’s refusing to do those things.

      You are just stuck on a nonsense requirement that there by has to be a good white supremists but you can’t answer any of my questions as to why.

      I’m simply asking you to go first, since you’re the one that made the comparison. That’s all.

      I stated multiple times there doesn’t need to be a good white supremists provided rational for why, none of which you have tried to dispute

      f you can’t do that then why are you even here if not to just project and troll?

      If you are so eager to have a discussion then you would answer my questions or rebut my reasoning. Instead you keep repeating that there needs to be a good white supremists without providing reasoning.

      Here are some questions to ponder.

      • what would one good white supremists change?
      • With one good white supremists would they become less of a threat?
      • If a group has 10 murders in it does the group become less dangerous if the 11th is not a murderer?
      • What makes the rarity of white supremists instances of violence incomparable to the rarity of Muslim instances of violence?
      • How does the trail of tears, slave trade, make white supremacy a danger today?
        • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s obvious you can’t provide intelligent reasoning as to why I need to provide a good white supremists.

            • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              So far you have failed to provide a satisfactory reason for comparing a group of hateful racists (of which all of them are) to a religion (of which some of them believe justifies violence).

              I have, both rarely have violent incidences and are not a threat to society.

              Now it’s your turn to answer a question.

              How do nonviolent Muslims make the violent ones less of a threat to society?

              This goes way beyond basic prevalence. You just don’t seem to understand that.

              How does this go way beyond basic prevalence?

                • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  You still don’t get your comparison doesn’t work because you can’t claim one isn’t a threat when one is literally baked into society and one is a religion which only some members interpret the teachings of with the justification of violence.

                  This is where you provide evidence

                  In other words, you can’t stop focusing on prevalence of violent attacks between the two organized groups because in your mind, that’s all there is.

                  Both threats are overblown and used as propaganda, that’s the common link.

                  You claim there are good white supremacists.

                  Back to this lie, I never claimed that there was a good white supremists. You have yet to provide where I made this claim.

                  The other has become more than just a single group or organization, and is now baked into our way of life.

                  Still waiting for evidence that white supremacy is now baked into out way of life.