Your reply doesn’t make sense because it seems you didn’t understand what was said. (intentionally or unintentionally)
You don’t seem to understand a lot of my reply, let’s see if we can clear some stuff
Nobody mentioned fascists or requiring anyone to advocate for anyone else’s rights.
The post was complaining about the 2nd amendment folks not getting upset that ICE was treading on people’s rights… Why would they? Why would you expect any other group to defend your rights.
I’m not sure how this relates to either the original message you responded to, or your reply to it.
You don’t seem to understand what satire is. Either the original poster was truly upset the 2nd amendment folks were not defending other people’s rights. Or he was trying to make a satirical point outlining that 2nd Amendment people had no intention of defending people’s rights and just wanted guns. I think given the context it is the latter. Satire is great when trying to convince others that the other party is wrong I.E. Gun rights advocates were possibly lying
I will say however that a basic level of reading comprehension and good faith (the latter more than the former) would be required before i personally cared about someone’s opinion of me, laughter included.
… Ok
As we’ve established above, this is also unrelated.
I’m simply pointing out that when there is need on the left to defend yourselves with firearms you’ve undermined your case. Look up videos with armed protesters or what the Black Panthers are doing to repel ICE. The police and ICE are a lot less willing to deploy excessive force or even to engage with armed individuals.
Also, “anybody who doesn’t agree with me is a lefty” is a weak foundation for both conversation and understanding.
I literally quoted Carl Marx what makes you think I’m not on the left? Go left enough and guns are back on the table.
You don’t seem to understand a lot of my reply, let’s see if we can clear some stuff
I would argue i understood your reply fine, i wasn’t arguing against the merit (or lack thereof) of your points, only that they weren’t related to the message you were replying to.
The post was complaining about the 2nd amendment folks not getting upset that ICE was treading on people’s rights
Not really, i already provided a rough translation, it seems we aren’t going to agree on interpretation so let’s just agree to disagree on this one.
… Why would they? Why would you expect any other group to defend your rights.
A somewhat valid point… in a situation where it applies, alas, it does not in this case.
You don’t seem to understand what satire is.
I understand the post was satire, with an edge of actual outrage, or at least that’s my interpretation.
Given that you also seem to recognise it as satire, it seems odd you’d go out of your way to reply in such a serious tone, but you do you.
Even more strange is that you’d argue against positions never taken, but we’ve already been over that.
Either the original poster was truly upset the 2nd amendment folks were not defending other people’s rights. Or he was trying to make a satirical point outlining that 2nd Amendment people had no intention of defending people’s rights and just wanted guns. I think given the context it is the latter. Satire is great when trying to convince others that the other party is wrong I.E. Gun rights advocates were possibly lying
All of that is still based on an points never raised in the original reply, see my original translation.
I’m simply pointing out that when there is need on the left to defend yourselves with firearms you’ve undermined your case. Look up videos with armed protesters or what the Black Panthers are doing to repel ICE. The police and ICE are a lot less willing to deploy excessive force or even to engage with armed individuals.
That’s a more complicated discussion and i don’t disagree on some of those points, but it still doesn’t apply here because there was no reference to defense of gun rights, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of using a position to argue that you wouldn’t take in the actual situation, see my original translation.
I literally quoted Carl Marx what makes you think I’m not on the left? Go left enough and guns are back on the table.
I made no assumption of your place on the political spectrum, i stand by my original reply.
Though i will concede i did make it seem like it was aimed at you directly and that was not my intention, my bad.
TL;DR;
You don’t seem to understand a lot of my reply, let’s see if we can clear some stuff
The post was complaining about the 2nd amendment folks not getting upset that ICE was treading on people’s rights… Why would they? Why would you expect any other group to defend your rights.
You don’t seem to understand what satire is. Either the original poster was truly upset the 2nd amendment folks were not defending other people’s rights. Or he was trying to make a satirical point outlining that 2nd Amendment people had no intention of defending people’s rights and just wanted guns. I think given the context it is the latter. Satire is great when trying to convince others that the other party is wrong I.E. Gun rights advocates were possibly lying
… Ok
I’m simply pointing out that when there is need on the left to defend yourselves with firearms you’ve undermined your case. Look up videos with armed protesters or what the Black Panthers are doing to repel ICE. The police and ICE are a lot less willing to deploy excessive force or even to engage with armed individuals.
I literally quoted Carl Marx what makes you think I’m not on the left? Go left enough and guns are back on the table.
I would argue i understood your reply fine, i wasn’t arguing against the merit (or lack thereof) of your points, only that they weren’t related to the message you were replying to.
Not really, i already provided a rough translation, it seems we aren’t going to agree on interpretation so let’s just agree to disagree on this one.
A somewhat valid point… in a situation where it applies, alas, it does not in this case.
I understand the post was satire, with an edge of actual outrage, or at least that’s my interpretation.
Given that you also seem to recognise it as satire, it seems odd you’d go out of your way to reply in such a serious tone, but you do you.
Even more strange is that you’d argue against positions never taken, but we’ve already been over that.
All of that is still based on an points never raised in the original reply, see my original translation.
That’s a more complicated discussion and i don’t disagree on some of those points, but it still doesn’t apply here because there was no reference to defense of gun rights, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of using a position to argue that you wouldn’t take in the actual situation, see my original translation.
I made no assumption of your place on the political spectrum, i stand by my original reply.
Though i will concede i did make it seem like it was aimed at you directly and that was not my intention, my bad.