Why do you engage in a conversation that you weren’t a part of, if you’re going to ignore the context of the conversation? That conversation contained the following, two comments before you entered:
Why do you engage in a conversation that you weren’t a part of, if you’re going to ignore the context of the conversation?
You asking me what did I mean by social groups when I didn’t mention social groups is “ignoring the context of the conversation”. Just admit you were a lil bit drunk and took me for the wrong person.
I think it’s fair to assume that you were the one who wrote “social groups”.
Even if you didn’t yourself say that term: You accepted the terminology, so I’ll ask you: how are landlords a “social group” that the “far left” wants to “exterminate”.
How about we skip this step and you just tell us your definition of “social groups” and it will turn out that people “far right” want to “exterminate” are social groups, but people “far left” want to “exterminate” aren’t social groups (and aren’t really fully fledged humans, if you ask me (dehumanizing you enemies is important)).
I’m actually more opposed to the term “exterminate”. The far left would actually rather “expropriate” that certain “social group”.
To “exterminate a social group” means genocide done by the exterminators. To expropriate the wealthy class usually means that the to be expropriated class shoots first.
But you centrists usually can’t tell the difference between violence and expropriation.
Edit: I’ve been looking through your comments. “I never said ‘social groups’! uwu” my ass!
Ok, let me rephrase the question, then:
Why do you engage in a conversation that you weren’t a part of, if you’re going to ignore the context of the conversation? That conversation contained the following, two comments before you entered:
No reason to get rude.
You asking me what did I mean by social groups when I didn’t mention social groups is “ignoring the context of the conversation”. Just admit you were a lil bit drunk and took me for the wrong person.
I think it’s fair to assume that you were the one who wrote “social groups”.
Even if you didn’t yourself say that term: You accepted the terminology, so I’ll ask you: how are landlords a “social group” that the “far left” wants to “exterminate”.
How about we skip this step and you just tell us your definition of “social groups” and it will turn out that people “far right” want to “exterminate” are social groups, but people “far left” want to “exterminate” aren’t social groups (and aren’t really fully fledged humans, if you ask me (dehumanizing you enemies is important)).
I’m actually more opposed to the term “exterminate”. The far left would actually rather “expropriate” that certain “social group”.
To “exterminate a social group” means genocide done by the exterminators. To expropriate the wealthy class usually means that the to be expropriated class shoots first.
But you centrists usually can’t tell the difference between violence and expropriation.
Edit: I’ve been looking through your comments. “I never said ‘social groups’! uwu” my ass!
Oh, but somehow they ended up exterminating that social group instead of expropriating. Given the experience of the 20th century.
Yep.
I’m not a centrist. I’m right-wing. I’m so far right, that I consider nazis to be far left.
I’m not here to defend bourgeois revolutions. Explain how e.g. Nestor Makhno or the CNT/FAI “exterminated” the bourgeoisie.
Yeah. I figured that you didn’t have an internally consistent worldview.
Ah, so you’re a communist with the real-communism-was-never-tried flavor. Ok then.
What about him? He was bourgeoisie himself, participating in bourgeoisie revolution. He’s irrelevant to the question.
Where’s the inconsistency?
Your ignorance amuses me.
Tell me you just did a quick google without telling me…
And the CNT/FAI?
In your worldview. You said yourself that you think nazis are left-wing.