Canada is under attack. This is how White people are responding.

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Republican58America First! 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    What Jewish manipulators are you talking about?

    [–]sylla94 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

    you're such a fucking faggot. fuck you

    [–]Republican58America First! 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

    Ask a simple question and get insulted, some debate sub.

    [–]sylla94 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    eat shit

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    You clearly don't ask questions in good faith, all you do is sealioning in the same way leftists do (which is ironic, since leftists themselves originally coined this term to use against the online right, even though they're the most guilty of it themselves).

    Whenever people on this sub actually take the time and effort to answer your questions seriously and provide you with the evidence you demand, you just ignore them and pretend like the conversation never happened in the first place, so debating you is like talking to a brick wall.

    If you want people on this sub to stop treating you like shit, maybe stop behaving like this. I've often seen people accuse you of being Salos, but I don't think that's true; even Salos is much more intellectually honest than you, so comparing you to Salos would be an insult to him.

    [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    you just ignore them and pretend like the conversation never happened in the first place, so debating you is like talking to a brick wall.

    The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn’t help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn’t help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. [He] had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn’t remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

    Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn’t know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.