And so what? The eye-roll and the 'look at where that led us' statement WASN'T supposed to imply a causal relationship? Because otherwise tying social justice with Nazism holds no meaning whatsoever.
My statement was what it was. When I say we have been here before, I say we have been here before because we have been here before. The left using lies about race to fuel hate and division and blame the group they attack. How you interpret the meaning of that is up to you.
And as I say, you may indeed believe that SJWs are right, or, that this can end in a bum banging rendition of khumbaya around the campfire for people of all races. And who knows? It might. Just because race hate has never worked well in the past doesn't mean it won't if we just keep trying. It's the same with the economic policies of the left. It might work next
Now, I don't claim to be a prophet. I can't tell how this will go. Hence why I say we have been here before. And, some of us do not like where we are.
I think blaming a race of people for your problems and basing it on lies is bad. If you disagree that's ok. You are allowed to disagree with me.
What do you mean by "mainstream"? Because the definition I'M familiar with is that mainstream means 'the dominant trend in something' like say politics.
In the sense in which I used it I mean ideas around privilege get air time in the media and even in politics these days, not that it's dominant.
And Trump could have just signed a denuclearization deal with NK. Who cares what's in it or what it says, right? As long as there's a deal, that's what's best for everyone, right?
I say aim for a deal that is good for all people, but have no deal as an option, and you characterise that as me saying that a deal that is bad or worse than no deal is better than no deal because it's a deal...
That is as stupid as it sounds, which is why I wrote it that way.
I'm happy to discuss things with you, and I enjoy the debate to some degree, but can you at least try to not bounce around absurdity to absurdity?
The whole point of this debate is that a no deal Brexit is not ideal, but it needs to be an option. Taking a worse deal than no deal is not reasonable, but seemed to be all May could manage.
Neither of these things are as simple as you seem to be implying they are, but it's your right to believe you could fix all the problems with Brexit in a week if you wish. Doesn't make it true, but you're free to believe it.
Leaving with no deal is better than taking a deal that's worse than no deal, and it is better than staying when the people voted to leave.
Don't reward the EU for being anti-democracy.