Na our whole thing is freedom of association.

Why r u like this

It's right there, first principle written out.

~~True actually fuck democracy~~ im not making a good case for myself here

lol

I mean the first principle is individual rights, does freedom of association not come under that?

If freedom of association is 'our whole thing' then why is the UK banning anyone from their page that is even vaguely identitarian?

If not, I'm happy to be corrected

what page sorry

facebook?

Or why is Jon Wong being labeled as sympathetic to the alt-right for hanging with GI?

facebook then

because facebook is gay and cancer

'Bullocks' on your FoA.

This argument seems like tone policing to me

Practice what you preach, pastor.

oh right i speak for all the UK i forgot

Freedom of association also means freedom to disassociate

and all the UK liberalists

and all the people in charge of the facebook in the group even though I have no leadership role and am not on facebook

And thus begins another day long argument, many battles shall be fought and countless brain cells shall be lost. Who shall win? Hell if I know...

Well, it is 'our whole thing'.

p e d a n t

You figure if it is 'our whole thing' we would all apply it.

This argument started from a piece of exaggeration being taken as an absolute statement

A piece of incorrect exageration?

Okay, I'll take the "our whole thing" back if it really means that much to you

To rephrase: if the liberalists value free association, I don't think there's any problem with using someone else's video to explain your point, and I don't think anything is going to get anywhere if the group can only ever use the things Legitimate Liberalists ™ make

I've used PragerU to explain some things to some people, such as the Israel issue. I feel it was an adequate explanation of the situation. But looking at opportunities for liberalists to generate content from a liberalist perspective as well. If our goal is to educate people on the principles it might be beneficial generating them from less controversial sources. As I recall PragerU was involved in some sort of lawsuit that got them pretty bad heat?

Otherwise we fall into Kyle Cucklinski territory and we're just mirroring other people's content as our own.

I actually agree with hellstorme on this. Reiterating points from controversial sources woth our own perspective and additions can help put forward ideas we agree with without the baggage of the association. Plus the more content we generate the more "brand recognition" we will have and therefore to a certain degree legitimacy

Our own perspective and additions, sure. And I'm definitely not against liberalists making their own content. But my comment was a response to Fogmind, who said that to avoid the association with Prager we should make the same video as his "without Prager's brand or his politics attached to it". That is what I was arguing against. Because that's just a waste of time

PragerU made the above video to bash 'the left'. Us making a similar video without the goal of bashing one side, but showing an alternative to the thinking is a clear benefit.

Thats fair. I dont imagine fogmind had a copy paste of prager in mind but i can see where the wprry stems from

Yep, agreed on that front.

Fog's comment was basically what you just agreed to.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-politics-afd/after-far-right-demos-afd-overtakes-german-social-democrats-idUSKCN1LK1K2

*faint hell march sounds*

Its meet the clubs dsy at my college, so I went by the tpusa booth and got a pin

I wish I didn't miss the townhall 8(

'The Dems probably shouldn't bet on a populist beating an in-power populist without a serious game-plan to do shit better.'