On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 16:02:53 +0000 (UTC)
Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

> I *am* a fundamentalist to some extent. What does that have to do with
> my opinion that it is wrong to attack and offend a 10 year old, to
> label him "fair game" etc., due to something which, allegedly, his
> father did? Can you just bloody admit that you were wrong, very
> wrong, to claim this?

I didn't "claim it" as such; I merely looked at the facts and decided, on balance, that he was "fair game" as others were framing it.

But you won't accept that I and others are allowed to hold or come to such such an opinion. For you there's no tolerance of dissenting views, no "I don't agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it". Instead you demand people reject their own views and accept yours.

It doesn't matter that people have come to a rational and considered opinion. If not aligned with yours they are wrong, very wrong. Period.

Your frothing outrage comes down to a single tweet from a comedian; "Barron will be this country’s first homeschool shooter".

Tasteless maybe, but I've heard worse. Offensive, perhaps, but Freedom of Speech means we have no right not to be offended.

But not for Trump supporters and the fascist rightwing. Those not saying it, not even agreeing with it, merely noting Free Speech allowed it, that Freedom of Speech meant we had to tolerate it, were deemed enemies of the people.

You are attempting to redefine Free Speech as "only what I find acceptable".. You are rejecting America's First Amendment, wanting it replaced by your own definition of what's acceptable and isn't.

You reject the right of others to have self-determination, the right to decide for themselves. That's fascism.

I could demand you accept you are wrong, very wrong, but I don't because I'm not a fascist. I will allow people to decide for themselves, will allow people to come to conclusions and hold views I disagree with. It's you who won't and the rest of your fascist tribe.

And, let's be honest, it's really got nothing to do with what was said or who it was directed at. It's all about polarising tribes, consolidating 'with us or against us' division, defining the enemy, perpetrating the Culture War, enabling the Cancel Culture the rightwing indulges in.

For you it comes down to whether Barron Trump is fair game or not. For others it's which end of the egg they crack open.

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 16:02:53 +0000 (UTC)
Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

> > You both suck up to TWP because he leans to the right and you hope
> > to bring him fully on-board with your agendas.
>
> Sure, we just need TWP on-board and we'll start the revolution.
>
> I respect TWP, he seems like a sensible "old school gentleman", he's
> polite, and his comments are on point.

And there you go again.

You respect TWP merely because he tends to agree with you. If he didn't you would turn on him like everyone who doesn't.

> I *am* a fundamentalist to some extent. What does that have to do with
> my opinion that it is wrong to attack and offend a 10 year old, to
> label him "fair game" etc., due to something which, allegedly, his
> father did? Can you just bloody admit that you were wrong, very
> wrong, to claim this?

That's the fascism I describe; the imposition of your personal beliefs as if universal absolutes, universal truths. Your insistence that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Biden is wrong.
His administration is wrong.
The people who voted for them are wrong.
Liberals are wrong.
Blacks are wrong.
That "crazy bitch" is wrong.
The police are wrong.
Anyone who thinks Barron Trump is fair game is wrong.
Anyone not believing as you want is wrong.

When everyone is wrong except you it is time to consider that it's actually you who is wrong.

In article <20220405084701.0000250c@ntlworld.invalid>,
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

[...]

Waste of time, trying to debate a deterministic finite automaton
with one state.

Loose Cannon wrote:
> In article <fjs2K.326502$Gojc.48999@fx99.iad>, JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Would it surprise you to know that hippys advocacy for free speech
>> extends to threats to murder jewish men, woman, children, spouses [and
>> family pets] ?
>
> Hardly anything would surprise me w.r.t "Happy" (now that's a riot).
>
> I recall one of his first posts I read, it was about the Russian
> passenger jet blown out of the sky by an ISIS fraction. I was
> scratching my head, saying to myself "man, this guy is STRANGE".
>
> Then came his justification of the attacks on the then 10 year old
> Barron Trump, and I just basically gave up.
>
>> Hippy Sez Aug 3, 2006:
>
> [...]
>
>> here is the whole sordid affair if you've got an hour to kill and want
>> to see what set him off, and the aftermath
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/uk.current-events.terrorism/c/Me98t_d6e9g?hl=en#f9adc44b21e7189a
>
> Phew.
>
> Sure adds a different twist to his standard "if it's us, it's bad" attitude, as
> summarized by TWP; and it appears criminal, although apparently different rules
> apply for newsgroup posts -- e.g. I once tried to complain to British authorities
> about a certain poster who cheered the rape and murder of British infants, but
> to my surprise was told it's not illegal, "since he did not advocate such
> actions, merely supported them"(!?) or something of the sort. Don't know where
> HH's posts fall from the legal POV. I assume he could claim he was being "ironic".
>
>> At that time this group was vibrant, with a dozen + regular posters,
>> most of whom reviled hippy.
>> He had one attached at the hip buddy, Chris Hills, an alcoholic software
>> peddler, and rumor had it that they regularly engaged in sodomy.
>
> Well I wouldn't know about the sodomy part :)
>
> IMHO HH is one of these people who profess to love humanity, but cannot
> develop any human feelings towards individual people.
>
> Add to this his enormous hatred of the West and of White people, his total
> and complete inability to be even 1% objective about any issue involving
> both, and you get the (sad) picture.
>
> You and I clashed in the past over some issues, possibly will do so again
> in the future, but at least I know that I'm communicating with a real
> person, who can think and feel.
>
I have him pegged as a sad, lonely cunt who gets his dose of
socialization projecting and rabble rousing on the internet.

He is unmarried with no children, has self confessed to being an
internet addict, probably jobless as well ,,, This is his life, and he
has apparently taken his ire at having such a sorry lot in life out on
his race and country.

Why he is so consumed with hate & jealousy of the USA, am not really sure.
I think he craves power and influence, and is highly chagrined that the
great British Empire is no longer powerful or influential, largely
because the USA took that spot.

Look how he constantly whines bout the hapless TWP, who hardly even
posts, minds his own business and just tries to express his view [and
hippy has said the most derogatory things about TWP including, wait for
it ,,, Being a racist, a fascist and a right wing zealot, mostly because
TWP is for Brexit]
This shows to me that he is a consumed control freak losing control, and
is apt to lash out like a butthurt child especially since no one is "on
his side" [his recent lapdog muhammed doesn't count, he is a raghead and
possibly just a hippy sockpuppet]

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 20:30:17 +0000 (UTC)
Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

> In article <20220405084701.0000250c@ntlworld.invalid>,
> The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Waste of time, trying to debate a deterministic finite automaton
> with one state.

And it's another cut and run.

You cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that what was said about Barron Trump is permissible as Free Speech, whether you like it or not, whether anyone likes it or not.

You can't admit you are against Free Speech, want to impose your "decent people" caveat, want to limit the Free Speech of others. You cannot defend the indefensible nor admit the wrong in what you want so you cut and run and try to blame others for doing so.

You weren't trying to debate,; you were simply pushing me to agree you are right. You aren't and I won't accept your attempt to narrow Free Speech.

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 18:58:44 -0400
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> I have him pegged as a sad, lonely cunt

Whatever. You decide that about anyone who doesn't agree with your views and you are just playing to the gallery of those who share your racist, fascist views.

I expect you are enjoying trolling Loose Cannon into agreeing with you even though he hates you for your anti-Semitism, will consider that a win, another co-opted into your tribe of white supremacist hatred, are hoping TWP will join you. Everyone against me and Mohammed is what you want and what you are chasing.

It's just tribalist propaganda with the usual name-calling and demonisation. It's how fascists roll.

In article <20220406074238.00003fd9@ntlworld.invalid>,
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> You cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that what was said about Barron
> Trump is permissible as Free Speech,

While the lying automaton continues to accuse me of the above, I will
note, for the esteemed -- and huge! :) -- readership of this forum,
that I never claimed in was not permissible. I did say it was morally
wrong to attack and insult a 10 year old boy, label him "fair game"
for such attacks (as the lying automaton did), etc.

The lying automaton cannot bring itself to admit that it's morally
wrong to label a 10 year old "fair game" for nasty, ugly attacks; but
it's not its fault -- as noted, it's a single-state automaton.

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 08:26:27 +0000 (UTC)
Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

> In article <20220406074238.00003fd9@ntlworld.invalid>,
> The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:
>
> > You cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that what was said about
> > Barron Trump is permissible as Free Speech,
>
> While the lying automaton continues to accuse me of the above, I will
> note, for the esteemed -- and huge! :) -- readership of this forum,
> that I never claimed in was not permissible. I did say it was morally
> wrong to attack and insult a 10 year old boy, label him "fair game"
> for such attacks (as the lying automaton did), etc.
>
> The lying automaton cannot bring itself to admit that it's morally
> wrong to label a 10 year old "fair game" for nasty, ugly attacks; but
> it's not its fault -- as noted, it's a single-state automaton.

Whatever.

I don't believe it is morally wrong, you have provided no conclusive evidence that it is, have simply asserted that it is.

Whether it was a "nasty, ugly attack", an "insult", is entirely subjective. You can call it that but others disagree.

It seems you are now saying it is permissible to say it but people should not.

I would say 'suck it up', you are blowing the issue out of all proportion.

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 10:35:42 +0100
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 08:26:27 +0000 (UTC)
> Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:
>
> > In article <20220406074238.00003fd9@ntlworld.invalid>,
> > The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > You cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that what was said about
> > > Barron Trump is permissible as Free Speech,
> >
> > While the lying automaton continues to accuse me of the above, I
> > will note, for the esteemed -- and huge! :) -- readership of this
> > forum, that I never claimed in was not permissible. I did say it
> > was morally wrong to attack and insult a 10 year old boy, label him
> > "fair game" for such attacks (as the lying automaton did), etc.
> >
> > The lying automaton cannot bring itself to admit that it's morally
> > wrong to label a 10 year old "fair game" for nasty, ugly attacks;
> > but it's not its fault -- as noted, it's a single-state automaton.
>
> Whatever.
>
> I don't believe it is morally wrong, you have provided no conclusive
> evidence that it is, have simply asserted that it is.
>
> Whether it was a "nasty, ugly attack", an "insult", is entirely
> subjective. You can call it that but others disagree.
>
> It seems you are now saying it is permissible to say it but people
> should not.
>
> I would say 'suck it up', you are blowing the issue out of all
> proportion.

I would also ask why you get so heated about this when you don't get so heated by Jesse referring to "niggers", "kikes" and "chinks", when he refers to women as "gash" ?

Do you consider that acceptable ?

You asked me why I was being racist and chauvinistic towards Beyonce when I wasn't but never a word when it comes to Jesse being deliberately racist and misogynistic.

Why is that ?

In article <20220406103542.00007143@ntlworld.invalid>,
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

>> The lying automaton cannot bring itself to admit that it's morally
>> wrong to label a 10 year old "fair game" for nasty, ugly attacks; but
>> it's not its fault -- as noted, it's a single-state automaton.

> Whatever.
>
> I don't believe it is morally wrong,

There's really nothing to discuss, then.

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:42:08 +0000 (UTC)
Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

> In article <20220406103542.00007143@ntlworld.invalid>,
> The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:
>
> >> The lying automaton cannot bring itself to admit that it's morally
> >> wrong to label a 10 year old "fair game" for nasty, ugly attacks;
> >> but it's not its fault -- as noted, it's a single-state automaton.
> >>
>
> > Whatever.
> >
> > I don't believe it is morally wrong,
>
> There's really nothing to discuss, then.

You haven't answered why you get so heated about this issue but don't get so heated by Jesse referring to "niggers", "kikes" and "chinks", when he refers to women as "gash" ?

Do you consider that acceptable ?

You asked me why I was being racist and chauvinistic towards Beyonce when I wasn't but never a word when it comes to Jesse being deliberately racist and misogynistic.

Why is that ?

In article <20220407085340.0000591c@ntlworld.invalid>,
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> You haven't answered

Sue me then.

There's simply no use in trying to have a discussion with you.

IMHO, you're devoid of any logic and objectivity, and you're guided
only by your immense hatred of The West/US/White people.

That you don't consider it morally wrong to launch nasty, personal
attacks against a 10 year old, further indicates that you have a
serious personal problem.

Last but not least, it's just boring as hell; as I already mentioned,
"deterministic one-state automaton" etc.

Have a good life.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 12:10:40 +0000 (UTC)
Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

> In article <20220407085340.0000591c@ntlworld.invalid>,
> The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:
>
> > You haven't answered
>
> Sue me then.

What a silly thing to say.

If you won't explain why you don't criticise Jesse for calling people "niggers", "kikes" and "chinks", calling women "gash", it doesn't bother me.

I am happy to let others draw their own conclusions from that.

Same too when you call me out for alleged racism and chauvinism but won't explain why you don't do the same when Jesse is deliberatly racist and misogynistic.

Given your chance to justify why you don't criticise blatant racism and misogyny, your chance to explain your apparent hypocrisy and double standards; "Sue me" seems a very odd and misguided response. But it is what it is.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 12:10:40 +0000 (UTC)
Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

> That you don't consider it morally wrong to launch nasty, personal
> attacks against a 10 year old, further indicates that you have a
> serious personal problem.

Me and millions of others then who don't accept that you have the right to arbitrarily define what's right and wrong, what's morally wrong and what isn't.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/01/snl-katie-rich-suspended-barron-trump-comedians

<quotes>

Paul F. Tompkins, who tweeted his support for Rich on Monday, spoke with Vanity Fair by phone about the controversy. "The joke was talked about for longer than it was online," he said. "And it was circulated way more by the people who were offended by it than the person who posted it. So I feel like there’s definitely a self-righteous, sanctimonious angle to this that is just so hypocritical."

As often happens when comedians find themselves under scrutiny for matters of "taste," several other comedians defended Rich's joke as simply that — a joke.

</quotes>

And while that focuses on the viewpoint of comedians it's also the viewpoint of many others.

And its rich of you to accuse me of having a "personal problem" when it's you who won't criticise Jesse for his blatant racism and misogyny when he calls people "niggers", "kikes" and "chinks", when he calls women "gash". Won't even explain why you won't criticise him for that.

It looks to me like you're the one with the personal problem.