Remember when Tucker Carlson defended a teacher who gave a lap dance to her 15-year-old student?

[T'Chenka]

"I can excuse pedophilia, but I draw the line at LGBT+ people existing"

"But it's CISGENDER pedophilia, which is the important distinction."

[T'Chenka]

If you want to say neither should be allowed, fine.

I'm maybe in the minority but I'm not 100% okay with this. People should be able to accurately or semi-accurately describe people using adjectives and labels on this forum. If somebody is a Republican and you call them a fascist, that might be a little too far, but if they're a Republican cheering on people who want to overturn democratic election results, calling them a fascist should absolutely be allowed because that's an accurate description. I would prefer if the moderators of this forum refrain from turning it into a safe space for anti-democracy insurrectionists.

When and if Schumer, Newsom and Tlaib start advocating for overturning election results, it should also be okay to call the red avatars that cheer them on fascists as well.

[T'Chenka]

If you want to say neither should be allowed, fine.

I'm maybe in the minority but I'm not 100% okay with this. People should be able to accurately or semi-accurately describe people using adjectives and labels on this forum. If somebody is a Republican and you call them a fascist, that might be a little too far, but if they're a Republican cheering on people who want to overturn democratic election results, calling them a fascist should absolutely be allowed because that's an accurate description. I would prefer if the moderators of this forum refrain from turning it into a safe space for anti-democracy insurrectionists.

When and if Schumer, Newsom and Tlaib start advocating for overturning election results, it should also be okay to call the red avatars that cheer them on fascists as well.

Ok fascist

I'm not reporting this post and I wouldn't advocate for anybody else to report it either. It doesn't bother me to be called names (in most cases), even if they're very inaccurate names.

[T'Chenka]

"I think LGBTQ people are groomers but it's just, like, my opinion bro lol" is on more or less on the same level as "I think Mexicans are lazy but it's just, like, my opinion bro lol".

You can make the claim if you REALLY want to, but it's an insanely stupid idea to do so unless you're bringing the receipts. A certain somebody who shouldn't be named is going to end up infracted, rightfully so, and then whine and whine and whine about it.

[T'Chenka]

I really hate the term grooming. It makes perfectly positive behaviour seem bad. Forming a positive relationship with a child is GOOD. Engaging in a sexual relationship with a child is BAD. Most people who form positive relationships with children are NOT pedophiles. Can we please distinguish here?

In American English, the word "groomer" is entirely and exclusively used in the sexual abuse contest. That's not always the case for "groomed" but it is for "groomer," which is the nasty word used by the repeat offender on this thread.

To be fair, it's also used to mean somebody who cuts and brushes hair, basically a hairstylist, for animals like dogs and horses. For humans, yeah, you're right.

[T'Chenka]

Trolling doesn't suit you very well.

Its not trolling to say people who believe that tens of millions of people who support a different party then them are fascists. Saying you can't vote for the main opposition party without being a terrorist or a traitor is authoritarianism 101 and these people cannot seriously claim they care about democracy.

You just made a blanket statement statement implying that a political party being the main opposition party automatically means that that party isn't a terrorist or traitor party. I know that's probably not what you meant, but that's what you did.

So if I take your post that you just made, and apply it to some country who's main opposition party is literally the We Want To Commit Terrorism Party, or the Literally Anti-Democracy Party, you might be right that the voters for that party aren't terrorists or traitors necessarily / automatically, but they're most certainly pro-terrorism, anti-democracy, terrorism enablers and fascism-enablers.

Would you like to re-word your post to make more sense, or do you want to settle for just being right only on a technicality? Sometimes people do not add "enablers" or "supporters" to the words "terrorist" and "traitor" and therefore you're technically correct.

[T'Chenka]

Its not trolling to say people who believe that tens of millions of people who support a different party then them are fascists. Saying you can't vote for the main opposition party without being a terrorist or a traitor is authoritarianism 101 and these people cannot seriously claim they care about democracy.

You just made a blanket statement statement implying that a political party being the main opposition party automatically means that that party isn't a terrorist or traitor party. I know that's probably not what you meant, but that's what you did.

So if I take your post that you just made, and apply it to some country who's main opposition party is literally the We Want To Commit Terrorism Party, or the Literally Anti-Democracy Party, you might be right that the voters for that party aren't terrorists or traitors necessarily / automatically, but they're most certainly pro-terrorism, anti-democracy, terrorism enablers and fascism-enablers.

Would you like to re-word your post to make more sense, or do you want to settle for just being right only on a technicality? Sometimes people do not add "enablers" or "supporters" to the words "terrorist" and "traitor" and therefore you're technically correct.

Actually those nations where that is true are literally not democracies.

Okay, so the argument you are now making is "if a political party is the main opposition party in a legitimate democracy, they are automatically not a terrorist or traitor party".

Without explaining WHY that is the case, it doesn't really seem like a good argument to me at all. What exactly is it that you're claiming happens in a legit democracy that automatically prevents the main opposition party from being / becoming a terrorist or traitor party?

[T'Chenka]

Okay, but when did T'Chenka say that all Republicans were terrorists?

He has said before it is fair to call anyone who votes Republican terrorist enablers before

Depending on the voter, they are either terrorist-enablers OR the enablers of terrorist-enablers, yes. At least, modern 2021 / 2022 Republicans. I'm not speaking about Republicans from any era, I'm talking about the current version of the party.

I'm not making a partisan argument based on my feelings or political leanings, I'm making an argument based on the facts.

EDIT - to be extra clear, I feel this way about modern Republican voters being fascists or fascist-enablers, but the reason that I also am willing to use the description "terrorist-enablers OR the enablers of terrorist-enablers" is because of the actions that the Trumpian wing of the GOP are willing to potentially take, including the very real possibility of another January 6th incident happening on either a federal or state level. The evidence STRONGLY suggests that January 6th was not a "one and done" situation and that some of the more hardcore MAGA Republicans, if properly motivated, would be willing to do something like that again without any hesitation whatsoever.

Trump in particular has made several threats implying that he will call on his mob if he is held accountable for his actions, and yet MANY Republican lawmakers enable him by continuing to support him and not denouncing his actions. If you vote for your local congressman, and he's willing to enable Trump and his insurrection army, you are enabling somebody who is enabling a terrorist mob leader. That's just a factually correct statement.

[T'Chenka]

Someone voting for a party based on their support of their policy on taxes, abortion, education etc does not make them a terrorist enabler one bit. 

Well, if you vote for the 2022 Republican Party based on your support of their policies on taxes, abortion, education, etc, but despite the fascist actions of some of the party's leadership (Trump especially and DeSantis to a smaller extent) and the party's unwillingness to denounce Trump and his terrorist insurrection and threats of further anti-democracy terrorist mob actions, then you are choosing to enable GOP congresspeople who are enabling fascist GOP leaders and enabling Trump who is willing to cause mob terrorism. You don't necessarily WANT that to happen, but you are willing to enable it as a tradeoff in order to get the policies you want, which you view overall as more important than not enabling fascist actions by several GOP lawmakers and mob violence by Trump.

Also saying in a democracy that you can't vote for one of the two main parties is by definition authoritarian

Nobody is saying you literally cannot vote for them. People are saying that voting for them is morally unacceptable when you factor in the implications of that vote.

[T'Chenka]

if you vote for the 2022 Republican Party based on your support of their policies on taxes, abortion, education, etc, but despite the fascist actions of some of the party's leadership (Trump especially and DeSantis to a smaller extent) and the party's unwillingness to denounce Trump and his terrorist insurrection and threats of further anti-democracy terrorist mob actions, then you are choosing to enable GOP congresspeople who are enabling fascist GOP leaders and enabling Trump who is willing to cause mob terrorism. You don't necessarily WANT that to happen, but you are willing to enable it as a tradeoff in order to get the policies you want, which you view overall as more important than not enabling fascist actions by several GOP lawmakers and mob violence by Trump.

Also saying in a democracy that you can't vote for one of the two main parties is by definition authoritarian

Nobody is saying you literally cannot vote for them. People are saying that voting for them is morally unacceptable when you factor in the implications of that vote.

Name any major politician who has been charged with terrorism or treason by the DOJ let alone convicted cause so far that has not happened. If you want to call people these things without being an authoritarian than at the very least cite the cases where these politicians have been charged with those crimes.

Hundreds of Trump's rabid supporters have been charged with violent insurrection. I don't know the legal name of the crime... I don't think "violent insurrection" is the legal term for what the judge sentenced them for, but it's definitely a form of terrorism.

We all know that Trump aimed all of the insurrectionists at congress... just listen to his January 6th speech. He hasn't been charged criminally, but he clearly aimed his mob and members of his mob HAVE been charged.

That takes care of "terrorist". As for "fascist"... it isn't a crime to be a fascist. The evidence that several Republicans including Trump, Mastriano, Taylor Greene, Boebert etc wanted to turn overturn the 2020 election and may very well attempt to disrupt democracy in 2024 is ALL OVER the media and the internet, and we all know about it. Asking me to provide evidence of that is silly, but if you insist, there are hundreds of threads in US General Discussion with links in the OPs which can show you evidence of this.

One thing I'd like to note as well... you've been going hard on the whole "you can't prove it's true unless a judge said so" thing this week. That's broadly not how political definitions work. If I go to a political rally and watch a guy on stage give a speech about how Trump needs to mobilize his "army" to storm congress on January 06 2025 to ensure the election is certified in his favour, I wouldn't need a court case and a judge to tell me that the guy standing on the stage is a fascist, even if it WAS illegal to be a fascist and he COULD be charged as one. It's just common sense to know that he is one.

[T'Chenka]

I’m objecting mainly to posters on here calling republicans terrorists or traitors cause both those are severe severe crimes that gets someone locked up for life in a supermax

"People that don't get arrested and charged in a court by a judge for things aren't those things" isn't really a great argument in regards to using labels for people in the english language.

If I stand here and watch somebody rape / murder / assault my neighbour, you're arguing that the assailant is literally not a rapist / murderer / violent criminal if the police never identify the culprit or if a court of law doesn't find them guilty. Is that the best argument you've got?