This is a very important point: if they are reacting to the chants, then it is trolling and easily dismiss-able. If this kind of sentiment existed, in verifiable ways (not some tinfoil hat conspiracy theories that require three Ph.D.s to understand), prior to the chants, this is a major "got 'em" and it should be posted everywhere.
If any of you have evidence with clear dates (like twitter posts, news articles with dates, etc.), it would be immensely helpful when I'm discussing this with family, friends, and coworkers. Please, someone tell me that those people didn't do that stuff in reaction to the chants...
Just because one party commits an act that's considered immoral doesn't excuse the other party to do the same. Either both acts are immoral or both are moral. You can't have it both ways.
there is nothing immoral about refusing to be replaced. The jews were already the immoral aggressors. Saying that we know what you are doing and we aren't going to allow it is not immoral but a justified act of resistance.
Either the "Jews" (they may not even be Jewish, they could be trolls) are trolling or the White Supremacists reacted to threats of genocide.
You cannot equate trolling to genocide. People trying to piss off White Supremacists for laughs is not the same.
The timeline is important and I am quite positive the reason no one actually answered my question is because it's obvious the "jews" are just reacting and are trolling. And now the White Supremacists are writing a new narrative without being honest about it being a reaction. Which, to me, is despicable and the WS lose this argument quite easily.
I love trolling snowflakes, as well. It's fun watching them get triggered and throw tantrums.
[–] dadudemon1 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
This is a very important point: if they are reacting to the chants, then it is trolling and easily dismiss-able. If this kind of sentiment existed, in verifiable ways (not some tinfoil hat conspiracy theories that require three Ph.D.s to understand), prior to the chants, this is a major "got 'em" and it should be posted everywhere.
If any of you have evidence with clear dates (like twitter posts, news articles with dates, etc.), it would be immensely helpful when I'm discussing this with family, friends, and coworkers. Please, someone tell me that those people didn't do that stuff in reaction to the chants...
[–] i_yam_wat_i_yam 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
This is a tu quoque fallacy.
Just because one party commits an act that's considered immoral doesn't excuse the other party to do the same. Either both acts are immoral or both are moral. You can't have it both ways.
[–] ravensedgesom 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
there is nothing immoral about refusing to be replaced. The jews were already the immoral aggressors. Saying that we know what you are doing and we aren't going to allow it is not immoral but a justified act of resistance.
[–] dadudemon1 ago
That's incorrect.
Either the "Jews" (they may not even be Jewish, they could be trolls) are trolling or the White Supremacists reacted to threats of genocide.
You cannot equate trolling to genocide. People trying to piss off White Supremacists for laughs is not the same.
The timeline is important and I am quite positive the reason no one actually answered my question is because it's obvious the "jews" are just reacting and are trolling. And now the White Supremacists are writing a new narrative without being honest about it being a reaction. Which, to me, is despicable and the WS lose this argument quite easily.
I love trolling snowflakes, as well. It's fun watching them get triggered and throw tantrums.