Anyone?

One is what you call people when you're losing an argument and the other is what you call people you don't want to argue in the first place?

Bwhahahahaha

You're not that stupid.

What do you mean? If you're assuming I'm some right-winger, I'm not. Those Peter Griffin memes I made were purely a satire of bad right-wing arguments.

Generic you. Not you personally you.

I say it all the time

Tim Pool: Liberal
AOC: Leftist

"Tim Pool: Liberal"

No. He's a centrist. If he were liberal, we wouldn't demonize left-wing politicians and ideas as much.

No, he's a classical liberal, that's why he calls out bad ideas and stupid people in his party.

but the terminology has been so butchered over the years that they now mean entirely different things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

There is no real difference, those names have become almost meaningless. New terms are needed (think Libtard). Your average Dem.Trump-hater is anything but "liberal".These people have not been liberal in the true sense of the word for ages. Their "liberal" mantra today is: "we are tolerant and all-inclusive, unless you disagree with us - then you must be silenced"

Typical kneejerk left reaction lol

I mean, I'm not wrong. Why disagree with tolerance and inclusiveness?

Depends how far you take it. I'll never accept beastiality or paedophila.

Most people who advocate for tolerance and inclusiveness stand against those two things, as any sane person should.

That's not what you said.

But that's what I'm saying now. Besides, how does that contradict what I said before?

So, by admitting you're not saying what you said before, you admit my objection had merit?

I don't think it's a race, but then again, LGBTQ+ is just as important for equality. It might not be the same issue, but prejudice is still prejudice. Being close-minded is what's wrong. Not willing to accept other people, not because of their personality; but by trivial things like race, sexuality or gender (heck I would throw religion in but that's a whole different can of worms); is wrong.

That's not what I said.

Tolerance and inclusiveness isn't exclusive to race.

How much tolerance and inclusiveness do you have for Christianity?

So, saying that people who advocate for tolerance and inclusiveness don't advocate for bestiality and pedophilia, is contradicting what I previously said and is admitting that your objection has merit?

Holy f**k. Are you trying to be obtuse? I mean, really. I'll break it down again.

OP: blah blah blah

You: Don't like tolerance and inclusiveness? You must be racist!

Me: That doesn't make him a racist. He never mentioned race. You could argue about bigotry, but not racist with just that

*confusion intensifies*

I can't be more clear than that.

Tolerance and inclusiveness is all about treating people equally. So, yes. Christians are no exception.

And did I ever say tolerance is exclusive to race? No. I didn't.

"Holy f**k. Are you trying to be obtuse? I mean, really. I'll break it down again.

OP: blah blah blah

You: Don't like tolerance and inclusiveness? You must be racist!

Me: That doesn't make him a racist. He never mentioned race. You could argue about bigotry, but not racist with just that

*confusion intensifies*

I can't be more clear than that."

So he's using a slippery slope to demonize LGBT. Case closed.

Hahaha Yes, case closed, in your mind. LGBT IS NOT A RACE.

No one can say I didn't try. Done wasting time with you. Good luck with the liberalism mental disorder. Get back to me when LBTG gets declared a race.

I never once said LGBT was a race. You're using another straw man.

Which are things that have absolutely zero to do with race. Yet you accused him of one of the worst things you could think of.

I sincerely hope you mull over what I'm saying.

Not really. The fact you're using a slippery slope fallacy is a no-brainer.

You allowed for the slippery slope. And that's one of the weakest fallacies because it does happen

I called you out on a fallacy, which honestly does hurt your argument, yet you respond with another slippery slope fallacy. Why's that? Did I hurt your narrative?

Fallacy aside, one of the major reasons why gays, lesbians, and trans people fought for rights was because they were trying to prove they weren't pedos. So logically, they would never advocate for pedophilia.

"But what about those few people?"

That's a cherry pick. Which is another fallacy.

You called someone that questioned 'tolerance' a racist. What fallacy is that?

There's only two possibilities to what he meant.

He's either being racist, or he's using a slippery slope.

*sigh*
I'll try this once more.

He DIDN'T mention race. This is why people laugh at you leftists claiming everyone and everything is racist.

Are you upvoting me?

So everyone you don't like is a leftist? Got it.

The deflections here are getting intense.

Is he attacking people of other races or people of LGBT? Pick one.

Who'd he attack besides leftists? Point it out to me. Show me where. Quote it.

LTBG ain't a race.

"LTBG ain't a race"

I never said that. I said he's either attacking people of other races OR people of LGBT.

[image deleted]I think you missed the point: if you don't agree with the left's crazy policies, they will disown you, and/or attempt to silence you REGARDLESS of your race,color, or creed.

No.