A Catholic Priest discusses our times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfB...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P2...

These are parts 1 and 2. There are two more in the series, that you can find easily.

Yep. Politics for the Left is no longer about policy. Anyone on the Right who is still talking policy doesn't get it. This is a spiritual war.

A Priest discusses what he has learned as an exorcist:

Then show me the outrage from libs over this comment. There is none. Zero.

Silence is consent.>

Silence is consent.>

Now I took the trouble of venturing into Rogoff-land and see for myself:

Kenneth Rogoff

There was no outrage whatsoever over the <concentration camp> comments. None.

After I ran that post up the flagpole and after <George Wallace> shamed them on the Rogoff page for a day and a half, just a couple libs dared to offer a very mild rebuke, but it's too little, too late.

<Troller>, what should have happened is everyone on that page (on the left, we're talking about the libs) should have dog packed <al wazir> relentlessly. He should have had 12 people debating him at a time. They should have then ridiculed him, denounced him and disowned him.

Then they should have gone to the <Support> forum and brought his <hate speech> post to the owner's attention, trying to get him permanently banned from the site - <if> - they were to be consistent with how they react to offensive posts coming from the Right.

They didn't do that.

<Troller>, we know from many years of experience on that page that when the libs disagree strongly about a post, they gang up, ridicule and refuse to let go of it, going on and on, day after day, never letting that poster live it down, and then they go to management and try to get them banned.

This is an established pattern.

That post of <aw> has been condemned both by me and <perfidious>>

and

<Jan-14-21
Premium Chessgames Member Diademas: <al wazir: <Diademas: Not according to this brilliant legal philosopher:> I think my point is clear. What is yours?>

I didn't think that was too difficult to figure out. Today, in the post linked to, you argue that inciting a stampee or a riot should have legal consequences. Even if no one gets hurt by your actions. Kenneth Rogoff (kibitz #457806)

While a year and a half ago you said this:
<Where an activity has no victim, there should be no law forbidding it.> Kenneth Rogoff (kibitz #399649)

This seems contradictory to me.
That the case in question was what the rest of us would describe as child molestation or statutory rape didn't make me look more favorably on your 360. Adding up with your willingness to see 75 million of your countrymen in concentration camps just for not sharing your worldview, makes me question your sanity.>

Maybe people do not take <aw> seriously, the last post seems to suggest exactly this.

<Jan-15-21
Premium Chessgames Member Big Pawn: I purposely didn’t say that silence is always consent.>

This starts to look like double standards to me. But I would rather not venture into hair-splitting.

You haven't realized how the Left works. 40 years ago there wasn't a consensus among Dem voters that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. And there certainly wasn't a consensus that transvestites should be reading to children in public libraries.

You won't understand how the Left works until you understand how cultural Marxism works. First they get radical crazies to push some horrific idea. Then, if societal pushback is too great, they settle for some compromise which moves society to the Left a bit less than what thy tried to achieve.

Then they just keep repeating that process, gradually pushing more and more into Leftist depravity.

At the beginning of the 1960s, America had prayer and Bible study in public schools. Marriage was for men and women. Homosexuality was prohibited in the public arena and in many states it was illegal. So was abortion and birth control.

That's how demoralization of a society works.

It's not weird.

Everyone has different ignore lists, so you cannot link to a <page> or else anyone with a different ignore list won't get the same post you get.

I note that 1 member - who seems to be widely discredited ->

On the right, on the left he's an, <intellectual>.

<has aired the notion of concentration camps. No one is backing it up, on the contrary. Logical thinking implies the idea of concentration camps has no general backing, no?>

Gosh, sounds like <defund the police>!

<Do you sincerely believe this?>

I only need to see <civil rights> champions, destroy black families, incarcerate/bury, black individuals. You folks call it a, <Great Society>.

<Great Society>

It's not weird...>

Ah, clear. Thanks!

<You won't understand how the Left works until you understand how cultural Marxism works. First they get radical crazies to push some horrific idea. Then, if societal pushback is too great, they settle for some compromise which moves society to the Left a bit less than what thy tried to achieve.>

I understand the premise here. But related to my original post, I asked if people in here really believed that liberals - I take it, this means the 50% or so left of the middle - wants Christians to be put into concentrations camps. This was the statement above.

Apart from that, I agree that the mechanism described by you has happened. However, I also have some remarks:

1) You say "they" get some radical crazies to work. Who are "they" and do you really think somone approached <al wazir> to make him post what he did? The audience in here is ridiculously small. Point being, do not take everything as part of a conspiracy.

2) The mechanism is not reserved for the Left. It is a political weapon - unethical perhaps - but surely the Right has the means and intention to put it to their own use as well.

<Donchenko has replaced Dubov at Tata Steel.>

<OCF: I challenge <tga> to defend his highlighted affirmation.>

<tga: Heh.

Since you reject the historical record in advance, this challenge is tantamount to declaring yourself the victor in advance.>

Aye, and since you accept the historical record in advance, you assume your conclusion, declaring yourself the victor in advance. Oops!

<If you want to have a discussion about the historic record, then you must <accept> the historic record to have the discussion.>

Translation: If you want to debate a point with me, you must agree with all my a priori conclusions.

<If you don't accept the historic record, then the discussion might as well be a recording of 2 children discussing their Unicorn herds, and the majick medallions all the Unicorns wear.>

<OCF: I challenge <tgm> to defend that claim.>