"enlightened"

thecybersmith
When you say hate groups, do you mean hate groups as defined by the extremely biased SPLC?

splodey-goat
I mean hate groups as defined by common sense.

thecybersmith
That isn't objective.

splodey-goat
He has spoken in support of honest-to-god self-proclaimed neo-nazis
true objectivity is impossible but I feel like after a certain point there's no excuse.

thecybersmith
He said that some of theme might have been fine people. He's trying to be diplomatic.

splodey-goat
there is no such thing as a neo-nazi who's a "fine person"

splodey-goat
By not explicitly and harshly calling out neo-nazi behavior he enables neo-nazis by allowing them to think what they're doing is acceptable in the public eye.
There is no "but" here, the Charlotesville riots, both of them, were organized by nazis for nazis, attended by people wearing nazi parephrenalia and shouting nazi slogans.

splodey-goat
You can have whatever opinions you have about the counter-protesters and their actions, but to say that their actions were equal to the actions of literal goddamned nazis only makes nazis feel safer and everyone nazis are against (so basically almost everyone) less

splodey-goat
Come on mr enlightened, don't have a response?

splodey-goat
Just gonna ignore this one too, right?  That'd be easier than confronting the cognitive dissonance of admitting you've supported someone who tacitly supports genocide, after all.

thecybersmith
I was in the shower!

splodey-goat
Well you can't blame me for thinking it.

thecybersmith
Seriously mate, just because I do ten minutes without answered doesn't mean I concede!

splodey-goat
It wouldn't be out of character of you to ignore your critics.

thecybersmith
Trump has to try to heal the river,not widen it.

splodey-goat
letting nazis take a stronger foothold is not "healing" anything

thecybersmith
He has to be above that sort of thing.

THIS is why I support the idea off a monarch. The head of state NEEDS to be nonpartisan.

splodey-goat
Anyone who can't take a stance as simple as disavowing actively genocidal groups is either genocidal themselves or has as much backbone as a chocolate eclair, and either way I wouldn't call them fit to rule.
Are you fucking for real, dude
Monarchs are inherently self-interested.

thecybersmith
No they aren't. Some monarchs have DIED for their people.

splodey-goat
That doesn't mean monarchism is inherently good.
If you give too much power to one person there's nothing to stop them from doing whatever the hell they want.
a king refusing to disavow nazis would be even *worse* than the president refusing to.

thecybersmith
I don't want a tyrannical monarch. I don't support ABOLUTE power for the monarch.

splodey-goat
Please note the Trump discussion isn't over either.
You've unilaterally failed to display why not disavowing nazis is an even remotely okay thing to do.
If you want a monarch with conditions then it doesn't need to be monarch now does it?

thecybersmith
Those Nazis were law abiding citizens of The Land Of The Eagle.

splodey-goat
they were NAZIS
The counterprotesters were law-abiding citizens, too, dumbass.

thecybersmith
The British Monarchy is not absolute. You're conflating Monarchy with Tyranny.

splodey-goat
You're conflating monarchy with "I want a dictatorship but I know people will call me out if I say I want a dictatorship"
The British monarchy has no political power.  You could remove the royal family entirely and not disrupt the actual inner workings of the government

splodey-goat
Donald J Trump, when asked *specifically* if he would speak against the advocation of genocide in America, refused to answer.
That's not something you do unless you're cool with genocide.

thecybersmith
DO NOT BLASPHEME! THE MONARCHY KEEPS BRITANNIA STRONG!!!

splodey-goat
and I'm sure you can prove that empirically, not just with a gut reaction of nationalism.
If monarchies are so fucking great why has virtually every monarchy in history either been disbanded or demoted to the position of figurehead?
If your model of an ideal monarchy is one in which the monarch doesn't actually *do* anything other than exist, that's kind of a self-defeating argument.

thecybersmith
BECAUSE THE ILLUMINATI WANTED US TO BE WEAK! THEY RADICALISED SMALL GROUPS OF MALCONTENTS TO DISRUPT STABLE SYSTEMS!
You present a false dichotomy. THere is a middle ground between nothing and aboslute power.

splodey-goat
k but you just used the British monarchy as an example of a good monarchy
which is a zero-power monarchy
ey but you know what?

thecybersmith
Not a perfect one. I wish our monarch had more power shan she does now.

splodey-goat
Fuck you

thecybersmith
I thingk we hist the sweet spot in the late 18 hundreds.

splodey-goat
I've had my fun but I'm not gonna spend a second more talking to someone so far gone that they think we need kings to protect us from a conspiracy theory