6 ms·

They always try to be vague when the truth is difficult to defend.

by emmet 2y ago

throw10920 2y ago
You both are actively lying. I'm not talking about Tyler Kay, I'm talking about Wayne O’Rourke, whose tweets did not advocate for murder at all, let alone “set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards”. Not once did I mention Tyler. That's something you fabricated to deceive and mislead. It's people like you that enable authoritarianism around the world by gaslighting others and justifying suppression of speech.
- eigenket 2y ago
  Oh, that guy posted "Today was a terror attack by a Muslim...heads must roll" which again sounds like a call to violence to me. Sorry I picked the wrong guy calling for racial violence, my mistake.
  - throw10920 2y ago
    You actively lied about the person that was jailed to further a political agenda of suppressing free speech, protest, and democracy. That's not a mistake, that's malice. Your bad indeed. Moreover, it's pretty clear that "heads must roll" is a euphemism used for people being punished or losing their job, and is almost always used in a non-violent context: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heads%20will%20roll https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heads%20will%20ro... There's no clear call to violence here. You are actively trying to justify tyranny.
    - eigenket 2y ago
      I didn't lie, I got the wrong guy because you weren't specific. In the context of his tweet I think it was clearly a call to violence. Almost always is not the same as always.
      - throw10920 2y ago
        > I got the wrong guy because you weren't specific That doesn't make it any less of a lie - you said something factually false about the person I was referring to. You also made an assumption that you knew could be false in order to push a political agenda and deceive others. > Almost always is not the same as always. This is grasping for straws, and has the tyrannical premise of "guilty until proven innocent" behind it. I really hope that you're not in a position of power in my country, or any one for that matter.
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Dude, cool your jets. The site guidelines call for you to assume good faith; you are failing at that. While you're at it, look up the definition of "lie". It doesn't mean "made a mistake out of confusion".
        throw10920 2y ago
        You're right, I should be better about assuming good faith - I'd say that at this point there's at least some evidence that the user is not acting in good faith, but it's still pretty tenuous, and I wasn't acting that way to begin with. Thank you for calling that out.
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Well, see, I've never assumed bad faith... um... at least not today... so far... Thanks for listening when called out. That's not easy.
        eigenket 2y ago
        > and has the tyrannical premise of "guilty until proven innocent" behind it No it doesn't, for three reasons. 1. This is an internet forum not a court of law 2. He already plead guilty to his crime and been convicted, hes no longer in the "innocent until proven guilty" phase 3. Calling for violence wasn't even the crime he was convicted of. That was "publishing written material to stir up racial hate" [1]. Now you can reasonably say (and I expect you would) that you don't think that publishing written material to stir up racial hate should be a crime. Personally I think it should, because stirring up racial hatred is pretty damaging. [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III/crossheading/acts-intended-or-likely-to-stir-up-racial-hatred https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III/crossh...
  - nec4b 2y ago
    I'm curious, what do you think "heads must roll" means? Is English your first language?
    - eigenket 2y ago
      Heads must roll has two meanings to me 1. The original meaning is that people must be killed. 2. The more common meaning these days is that people must be punished in some less dramatic way (usually fired). It is typical of racists to use phrases with double meanings like this. The idea ia that when their words are quoted back at them they can attempt to avoid consequences by claiming they intended the other meaning. I am a native English speaker.
      - nec4b 2y ago
        >> It is typical of racists to use phrases with double meanings like this. Using phrases with double meaning (euphemisms) is a sign of people who read a book or two and have the intelligence to understand the play on words. Some people unfortunately don't have this ability and they take everything as literal.

They always try to be vague when the truth is difficult to defend.

by emmet 2y ago

They always try to be vague when the truth is difficult to defend.

You both are actively lying. I'm not talking about Tyler Kay, I'm talking about Wayne O’Rourke, whose tweets did not advocate for murder at all, let alone “set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards”. Not once did I mention Tyler. That's something you fabricated to deceive and mislead. It's people like you that enable authoritarianism around the world by gaslighting others and justifying suppression of speech.

eigenket 2y ago
Oh, that guy posted "Today was a terror attack by a Muslim...heads must roll" which again sounds like a call to violence to me. Sorry I picked the wrong guy calling for racial violence, my mistake.
- throw10920 2y ago
  You actively lied about the person that was jailed to further a political agenda of suppressing free speech, protest, and democracy. That's not a mistake, that's malice. Your bad indeed. Moreover, it's pretty clear that "heads must roll" is a euphemism used for people being punished or losing their job, and is almost always used in a non-violent context: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heads%20will%20roll https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heads%20will%20ro... There's no clear call to violence here. You are actively trying to justify tyranny.
  - eigenket 2y ago
    I didn't lie, I got the wrong guy because you weren't specific. In the context of his tweet I think it was clearly a call to violence. Almost always is not the same as always.
    - throw10920 2y ago
      > I got the wrong guy because you weren't specific That doesn't make it any less of a lie - you said something factually false about the person I was referring to. You also made an assumption that you knew could be false in order to push a political agenda and deceive others. > Almost always is not the same as always. This is grasping for straws, and has the tyrannical premise of "guilty until proven innocent" behind it. I really hope that you're not in a position of power in my country, or any one for that matter.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Dude, cool your jets. The site guidelines call for you to assume good faith; you are failing at that. While you're at it, look up the definition of "lie". It doesn't mean "made a mistake out of confusion".
        throw10920 2y ago
        You're right, I should be better about assuming good faith - I'd say that at this point there's at least some evidence that the user is not acting in good faith, but it's still pretty tenuous, and I wasn't acting that way to begin with. Thank you for calling that out.
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Well, see, I've never assumed bad faith... um... at least not today... so far... Thanks for listening when called out. That's not easy.
      - eigenket 2y ago
        > and has the tyrannical premise of "guilty until proven innocent" behind it No it doesn't, for three reasons. 1. This is an internet forum not a court of law 2. He already plead guilty to his crime and been convicted, hes no longer in the "innocent until proven guilty" phase 3. Calling for violence wasn't even the crime he was convicted of. That was "publishing written material to stir up racial hate" [1]. Now you can reasonably say (and I expect you would) that you don't think that publishing written material to stir up racial hate should be a crime. Personally I think it should, because stirring up racial hatred is pretty damaging. [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III/crossheading/acts-intended-or-likely-to-stir-up-racial-hatred https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III/crossh...
- nec4b 2y ago
  I'm curious, what do you think "heads must roll" means? Is English your first language?
  - eigenket 2y ago
    Heads must roll has two meanings to me 1. The original meaning is that people must be killed. 2. The more common meaning these days is that people must be punished in some less dramatic way (usually fired). It is typical of racists to use phrases with double meanings like this. The idea ia that when their words are quoted back at them they can attempt to avoid consequences by claiming they intended the other meaning. I am a native English speaker.
    - nec4b 2y ago
      >> It is typical of racists to use phrases with double meanings like this. Using phrases with double meaning (euphemisms) is a sign of people who read a book or two and have the intelligence to understand the play on words. Some people unfortunately don't have this ability and they take everything as literal.