your argument was that right wingers here use violent speech and leftists didn't even come close
In terms of severity, yes.
outright ignoring and rejecting history
You're using loose relations of what those parties stood for and what leftists stand for and drawing bad comparisons. Nazis, North Korea, Pol Pot, all stood for an unequal society that relied on one group, either by genetics, religion, or otherwise, ruling over the others. Leftist parties today are largely based on equality among race/class/gender/orientation etc.
You're making the same mistake that you're telling me not to make, and putting Nazis on some arbitrary left/right system. Yes, they were anti-capitalist. They were also anti-communism. They were also anti-gay. They were also anti-gun ownership. The comparison is weak.
You are not engaging in good faith discussion, you probably aren't even capable of such.
I'm more than happy to engage with you on a format that is outside of paragraphs where you can make assumptions about me, then start ranting about them, only for me to have to try and dismantle false perceptions. You won't though. Nobody ever does, under the guise of declaring me to be the one incapable.
You're so fast to sling insults and say that I'm not capable of good faith conversation? Please.
There is no pro big centralized government right wing party
There certainly are, and they call him God Emperor
I challenge you to try and engage in a real, actual vocal debate with me. I'd be delighted to, and engage in genuine good faith discussion. I have a feeling you'll just call me a faggot and say "blah blah you can have the last word I'm tired" when in reality you just know that once we talk, you'll realize your assumptions were all wrong.
Let me know! Otherwise I'm not really interesed in your mud slinging
Are you actually one of those tankie retards tbat buy the "real communism has never been tried" shit and thinks all those communist countries somehow weren't communist because they didn't actually achieve your religion's mythical end state?
No. I'm saying that fascism and genocide are inherently anti leftist. Leftists are constantly embracing diversity and are forcing DEI hires and allowing for religious expression. Most of the figures you named before are in part defined by their oppression of specific groups of people.
Do you know what left and right actually are defined by? It's not retarded horseshoe theory, where you start blaming anything bad leftists do on them "swapping around" after they fail, or reddit's worthless political compass.
Of course! I agree 100%. This should be obvious.
Right wing extremists are anarchists. Left wing extremists are totalitarians. Authoritarian leftists, SOCIALISTS and COMMUNISTS were the driving forces behind every atrocity of the 20th century.
This sort of political spectrum is not linear. Left wing extremists can become totalitarian, as can right wing extremists. Right wing extremists can become anarchists, as can left wing extremists. These sorts of beliefs are not mutually exclusive. There is, in fact, the need to include the social, economic, etc right/left beliefs.
By saying "leftists," you're including anyone on the political left, which is largely anti-conflict/war, so there is a major discrepancy between the terminology and the reality.
things like the delusional leftist attacking the congressional baseball game to shoot at republicans - crickets.
I was on leftist sites, and it certainly wasn't crickets. He was shot and killed. People talked about it as a great argument for gun control, because people, in general, don't really like violence.
thousands were jailed without trial for 4 years.
I agree, the US justice system is poorly run and needs reform. Did you know that in the US roughly 1/4 of prisoners are jailed without trial?
There's an interesting article I found about prisons in general. It's a long read but I thought it was interesting!
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2025.html
You are intellectually dishonest in how you reply - you aren't arguing from any real position, you're wasting my time.
My argument is that pathetic internet mudslinging is not "invented" by leftists as if it's some mastermind plan, as if conservatives don't also have their pockets of extreme rhetoric calling for violence.
And that's just what they are, pockets. This is a pocket here and I have been on this site and sites like it for years. I see the shit that gets said here and it's heinous, and also gets cheered for. I saw the same sort of comments about Hillary, Obama, Biden, and more.
"But it's different," you might say, for this that or the other. They deserve it because xyz, or they started it. Nobody started it. It's been going on for centuries. It continues to bleed into political parties as they evolve over the course of time. It was just like this 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and beyond. THe only difference is now it's so easy to be aware of it, and obviously you're going to be outraged when the other side does it.
I recognize the "kill all men" rhetoric but I also have talked to women who say that and I don't actually get any heat at all. I've engaged with conversation with people on here and they'll literally tell me to kill myself when I say something even slightly against the grain.
I don't recall an instance where windows were smashed in by leftists to get into the capitol, but feel free to correct me.
I'm not trying to waste your time. I'm being 100% genuine with you. Don't mistake me disagreeing with you as trolling.
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union
lol they’re leftists now? Mao is leftist?? North Korea is leftist??? Are you high?
Feet first into a wood chipper is still a higher bar. Is your argument that your rhetoric is brand new? Because, people insulting others for political party is older than dirt
You can go on every major social media and find worse than that, in massive numbers, unprompted
Feet first in a woodchipper and free helicopter rides is a pretty high bar.
the last two hundred years had leftist groups produce death tolls in the hundreds of millions
...when?
It isn't a no true Scotsman
It is. You have a group (people who have been 'conscious' the last decade or two), and declared that if I have xy belief then I cannot possibly be part of that group in good faith. It's literally no true Scotsman.
Now this is a logical fallacy, i.e. a strawman argument.
It's kind of what's implied by your comment. You brush conservative comments that talk about killing people off as "spicy takes," but the point of the thread is admonishing liberals who call for conservatives to be killed. What's the difference?
“ nobody who has been conscious for the last decade or two would ever claim what you just did.”
No true Scotsman.
So, when you do it, it’s spicy takes, but when liberals do it, it should be taken seriously. That doesn’t really add up.
In what way? Like, exactly the way that u/SuurSuomi39_II suggested leftists call for conservatives?
Mmm, "randomness" definitely wasn't the point. Yes, the multiverse events were the driver of the plot, but that wasn't the point of the movie. It centered around relationships and choice.
Was there emotional connection between the characters? I suppose, once you get past them blaming each other for all of their problems, and seeing all of the realities where they're better off if they'd never gotten together.
I'm wondering if you even took in the dialogue or you watched it while scrolling your phone. There was far more to it than this, especially considering the different realities.
I think you're confusing silly with random. Yes, it was silly, but there was leadup to that, particularly in the display of the trophy early on which was a knock on auditors.
The bagel, I'll give you as a bit too much, and a bit of a blow, but the movie isn't about the silliness. It's about the emotional connection of the characters, which I found to be well done
I mean, the randomness wasn't for random's sake. It wasn't like a "holds up spork" shit at the wall willy nilly. There was purpose behind most of the "random" bits, if not for meaning then for at least setup/punchline.
I'm not sure what was obnoxious about either the protag or the antag. They were pretty standard.
This isn't really a great argument considering the winners for best actress over the past few years: Michelle Yeoh at age 60 in 2022, Jessica Chastain at age 43 in 2021, Frances McDormand at age 62 in 2020, Renée Zellweger at 49 in 2019
There are also real artists who are doing real shit. Don't minimalize it by showing people doing this sort of performance art bullshit. There are also graphic artists, animators, creators of actual stories whose jobs are at stake