@Holo Cambridge dictionary are lacking the whole art of describing - rationality and reasoning. Hence the reason why people are struggling to debate. We do have some "far left"; they are known as skin heads to me, and they are also, known to, be irrational and do come across as unable to cohesively, say what they think. Nazis and Communism are both, in the same authoritarian battle on the left. The only reason why the Nazis are different, is due to their capitalist gain's and the dislike for Jews is different. Bolshevik people are pro - Jews and Nazis eliminated them from exsistence.

So, debate is an easier method for people to be exposed.

However , I was informed , about 2 years ago - the Antifa section in America are educated. So, they realise, they are creating a superincumbent juxtaposition on grand proportuons. One can assume, this is to rule, through creating chaos. On the other hand, they just may well be sado-masscists.

I have pondered on this whole , in experience to debate.

If you're a sado-masscist and you don't want to debate, then, your purpose would be to highlight other people's faults on the internet. Only the American , Antifa would blatantly pretend they were something they're not, because, they hide themselves with masks. So for Antifa deception is key to their exsistence right now. So, they battle it out on the internet and stooge themselves.

The problem is, when you look at places like New Zealand. Where they need conversation, they need to build some kind of international connection , to even learn to debate. The kiwis can't either and they weren't taught the standards in schools.

Now we are going into an age where anarchial feminista movements, have brainwashed governments, into thinking - hey we don't need to encourage anyone to debate . Shut the internet down. The government seem to be winning at the moment because, anarchy on the internet - has been the governor for a while.

@Holo wait for it.... as I am going to talk about the problem. As I know that I am anonymous, so, I can speak my mind on here. You cannot put a face to me, chase me around, try to ruin my life in anyway. It is virtually impossible for you to do that here. Thus, the art of debating, would perhaps be more advanced with all types of conclusions. Without people being deemed as hyposensitive. Just read this part of "Fudgebooks", new policies;

***Defining Hate Speech***

"The first challenge in stopping hate speech is defining its boundaries.

People come to Facebook to share their experiences and opinions, and topics like gender, nationality, ethnicity and other personal characteristics are often a part of that discussion. People might disagree about the wisdom of a country’s foreign policy or the morality of certain religious teachings, and we want them to be able to debate those issues on Facebook. But when does something cross the line into hate speech?

Our current definition of hate speech is anything that directly attacks people based on what are known as their “protected characteristics” — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, or serious disability or disease."

Albeit, I have argued before that we are not able to cultivate debate on the internet. Certainly not to these, harmonious levels like you see here on discord. Because, your job, face, where you live, e.t.c. is all exposed on facebook. When people finally are able to conduct a debate and really entertain the idea of arguing both sides of the coin. There we have rationality.

But at what point, in those word's, do you see a rational behaviour outcome?

what the fuck? @TEABAG!!!

Also hate speech doesn't exist, just really spicy insults

@Holo, when people try to control the content of what you mean, they miss the point. I think the point, and the plot of Facebook has been lost. And they just consider you as a, scientific social experiment.

Debates are only really useful for convincing the croud that is listening anyway.

Debating someone with the purpose of changing their mind doesnt work.

Yep. You can only change an open mind.

If someone is so full of energy that they're defending their viewpoints in a proper debate, then they're almost guaranteed to stick to their views.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-one-thing-we-can-count-on-these-are-strange-times-indeed

http://www.feedspot.com/?dadi=1#feed/f_8607/article/5340820822?dd=431152294380904

my definition of terrorism - someone who commits violence, on behalf of a political organization with a history of violence

so, lone wolf shooters are not terrorists in my opinion... anyone agree or disagree? it would make ANTIFA terrrorists

no

lone wolfs are terrorists, the only necessary qualifier is the use of terror against a community to push an agenda

There are different *types* of terrorists depending on the backing, but it is as Coolitic said. Regarding AntiFa as a domestic terrorist group, however, I tend to agree

I think the name of terrorist implies the definition

AntiFa is simply a terrorist group because they admit to using fear as a tactic

They intend to give terror and fear to drive of their opponents they deem "fascists."

@Coolitic the problem is govt uses it as an excuse to tack on extra charges... you commit any kind of felony, next thing you know, you're a terrorist

that doesn't change the definition of a terrorist

who created the definition?

whats wrong with just calling lone wolves, commiters of massacre?

they are, they're also terrorists

the solution is to prevent govts from using the label of terrorist to remove your rights

i dont see why we need to expand the definition of terrorist - it's authoritarian, it's using language for authoritarian ends, therefore orwellian

that is the default definition of terrorist, it's in the fucking name retard

i think the way to prevent govt removing rights is to more strictly and rigidly define the definition of terrorist

instead of actually telling the govt that they dont get to use that label as an excuse to remove your rights, you have the retarded idea of changing the definition?

someone who makes people feel scared shouldn't be it... it's too vague

hey i never said that shouldn't be done... the label shouldn't be used to remove rights either - but I think definitions are important, for legal reasons as well

I win!

@What Would Jack Conte Do? , I know that certain denominations of Christianity are apocalyptic. So, they can behave in a cult like manner over the misfortune of others. As it says so on the Bible. So, there are too many reasons why, this question , @What Would Jack Conte Do? but, they're not lone wolf, but, they took a little piece of what was said out of context and like any other opportunity of their belief; took it upon themselves. Like the guy from the Christchurch shootings. He travelled around the bad location's. How do we know, he's not apart of a cult?

And by the way @What Would Jack Conte Do? Britain and Europe removed their enemy of the country law's, because, of Europe. It is time to ask yourself whether or not they think treason law's are more effective, perhaps.

I don't think it stopped the IRA much but it reduced the other problems. Treason law's . Gave the country back it's fundamental right to make that decision.
By the way the new terrorist law's are an excuse for extra mistrust and extra insecurities because they can randomly pick on someone the government deems , as a terrorist. They may not necessarily be one. But then through the interrogation they may.

The definition of a terrorist is not necessary for law enforcement purposes

In recent years I've seen people citing Norway as an example of functioning democratic socialism. Well, I always doubted their claim, and my go-to response was that it's anecdotal evidence at best (selection bias). But perhaps pointing out Norway's natural resources makes for a stronger rebuttal:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/08/the-myth-of-democratic-socialism/

Plus, the lack of a connection between increasing socialism and wealth.

By the way it's the same with Austria. We're rich on natural resources.

I'd argue our high taxation is probably detrimental, but we don't notice the effects of that because we have all this natural wealth.

The more utopian your society already is, the larger amounts of socialism it can handle.