Wow, Vitus. I think you actually had to put in a lot of effort to misunderstand what I wrote that badly.


I was trying to explain the difference to you between being against a thing versus being against a category of which that thing falls under, and you pivoted the conversation.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Vitus, I have to admit I've never understood your game. Are you seriously trying to win an argument by demonstrating that you don't understand something that should be simple to understand?



Topic 1: the difference between being against, say, racism and being against "opposing world views." Here you conveniently don't understand the difference between the two.

Topic 2: A march that is generically referred to as a women's march, but had plenty of clearly defined goals. Before you think its okay to broadly classify an intolerance of specific view points as "opposing world views," yet here you are too lazy to actually read up on what the specific views are and, instead, oppose them because the short name of the march doesn't meet your technical definition of what that should represent.

Old Topic: Much like Black Lives Matters had specific views and goals, and you were critical of them because the name they chose implies....I'm sorry, DICTATES that they should be tackling the issues of black on black crime.



Hey, guess what Vitus. Did you know that the Philadelphia Eagles aren't actual fucking eagles? Yeah, they are people in plastic helmets with pictures of eagles on them. Hey, how about we hear your argument about how they should be flying if they are really eagles? Oh wait, what next? Now you are going to pretend to not understand that point, or tell me that I have the worst analogies, or some other such nonsense.

To what end? So that you and 10 of the usual suspects can walk on merrily through life thinking that you actually defended your position?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Did I?

I might have misunderstood what you wrote, but it doesn't sound like it was that germane to the point under discussion.

I understand that you can be against a specific thing without being against everything else in that category of things. I understand that you can (and everyone does) hold that some opposing views are intolerable without believing that all opposing views are intolerable. I think I already agreed to that distinction. The problem is that a lot of liberals are expanding the subset of intolerable opposing views to include view and opinions which should be understood to be legitimate disagreements.

If you oppose racial supremacy, and also find those views intolerable, I'm not going to complain much about that. (As long as you're not using "intolerable" too literally.) If you oppose stronger border enforcement, that's fine. If you equate support for stronger border enforcement to racism, and therefore maintain it's intolerable, that's not fine. Just for example.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

First off, I respect and agree with everything you wrote.


I agree that its not fine (fwiw, I'm actually on the conservative side of illegal immigration), but if the "liberal" actually thinks that its the result of racism, they may be wrong, but that's not the same as saying that its "because of a differing world view."


There was a recent video...I think in my FB feed, of a hipster who assumed some guy was a skinhead. Why? The guy looked like a skin head. Anyway, they brought the guy into the video and it turned out he wasn't a skinhead at all.


Anyway, he was there supporting some conservative cause. The hipster had a problem with the guy because he thought he was a skinhead. The fact that he turned out not to be one didn't change what the hipster was in opposition to. He was still in opposition to skinheads. He just happened to misidentify one. He might have even been quick to judge, and a whole host of other things that were wrong, but we can't change his opposition to intolerance of whatever this guy's conservative cause was, or intolerance of "different world views."

Anyway, go do some BJJ. I've got a big weekend of fighting coming up and you sure as hell aren't allowed to just sit on your butt while my lower back is aching!

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I agree that its not fine (fwiw, I'm actually on the conservative side of illegal immigration), but if the "liberal" actually thinks that its the result of racism, they may be wrong, but that's not the same as saying that its "because of a differing world view."

Being wrong is one thing, and it happens. But there are a lot of liberals who don't think there can be any other reason to oppose illegal immigration other than racism- they don't believe there exists a legitimate reason to support strong borders, so doing so is ipso facto proof of racism, and therefore intolerable. And they are applying that kind of reasoning to an increasingly wide range of issues. Oppose same sex marriage? Intolerable, because the only reason someone would is rank homophobia. And so on and so forth.

There is a worrisome trend on the left to silence disagreement and dissent of types that are and should remain perfectly acceptable- and by any means necessary. That isn't to say that every liberal is intolerant of opposing views, but yes, a sizable number are.


Anyway, go do some BJJ. I've got a big weekend of fighting coming up and you sure as hell aren't allowed to just sit on your butt while my lower back is aching!

Ha! Wednesday is a night off for me. There are a couple of tournaments coming up in March, though. Trying to decide which if any of them I want to do.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Not sure that I am following the tangent you are on. You stated that confrontation was a bad tactic, no matter what Trump did. I merely pointed out that confrontation was inevitable, and not really controllable, which was (I thought) a response to your primary point about tactics. Have no idea what Wasserman has to do with anything...