ICE CUBE - MAN DOWN (Offical Discussion)

[Sccit]

It’s interesting that you’ve framed this discussion as dependent on me answering an unrelated question about political affiliation, which doesn’t affect the points I’ve made about Ice Cube or systemic issues at all. I’ve been focused on the actual topic from the start, while you’ve continuously shifted the conversation away from it.

I’m not here to play a game of personal gotchas, but to discuss ideas and facts. If you’re genuinely interested in having a real conversation about Ice Cube or the original argument, I’m still open to that. If not, we’ll both have to agree that this isn’t going anywhere productive.

i don’t engage with people who refuse to answer simple questions

i find them to be huge douchebags

carry on..

[Safe+Sound]

i don’t engage with people who refuse to answer simple questions

i find them to be huge douchebags

carry on..

It’s interesting that you keep asserting you won’t engage with people who refuse to answer simple questions, while simultaneously avoiding any meaningful engagement with the core discussion yourself. By focusing on a “simple question” that’s actually irrelevant to the main topic, you are sidestepping the evidence and arguments that have been laid out.

In reality, it seems you are looking for an excuse to disengage from the debate. You’ve repeatedly deflected the central issue about Ice Cube and instead turned the conversation into something personal, which is a classic tactic to avoid answering tough questions or addressing points you can’t refute.

It’s ironic that you accuse me of being disingenuous when you yourself are creating this diversion. If your standard is refusing to engage with someone who doesn’t answer your questions, it appears you’ve set up a one-way dialogue, which is not conducive to honest debate.

[Safe+Sound]

like i said, if you can’t even be man enough to answer a simple question then it shows me you’re a disingenuous person with a side agenda

that (mixed in with the fact that your long winded paragraphs are a chore to read) made me stop taking you serious a couple pages back

any more novels?

Also, you've just contradicted yourself again.

Earlier, you claimed that revealing a political affiliation (specifically as a Democrat) would “expose” an agenda, implying that this disclosure would somehow undermine my arguments. Yet now, you are saying that not disclosing it indicates a hidden agenda. This is a clear inconsistency, because you’ve shifted from saying disclosure would reveal bias to suggesting that not disclosing is proof of bias.

This contradiction suggests that no matter what I do—whether answering or not—you are attempting to paint me in a negative light. It exposes the fact that your line of questioning is less about genuine engagement and more about creating a narrative where you can dismiss me, regardless of my response.

You're not really looking for an answer to your question, but rather using it as a tool to deflect from the actual discussion, which has been clear for quite some time now.

[Sccit]

Also, you've just contradicted yourself again.

Earlier, you claimed that revealing a political affiliation (specifically as a Democrat) would “expose” an agenda, implying that this disclosure would somehow undermine my arguments. Yet now, you are saying that not disclosing it indicates a hidden agenda. This is a clear inconsistency, because you’ve shifted from saying disclosure would reveal bias to suggesting that not disclosing is proof of bias.

This contradiction suggests that no matter what I do—whether answering or not—you are attempting to paint me in a negative light. It exposes the fact that your line of questioning is less about genuine engagement and more about creating a narrative where you can dismiss me, regardless of my response.

You're not really looking for an answer to your question, but rather using it as a tool to deflect from the actual discussion, which has been clear for quite some time now.

bro are u autistic?

of course political affiliation would influence ideology

conservatives would be more inclined to agree with me while liberals would agree wit u

this isnt rocket science

and yes, i would like to know who i’m talking to before we can build

but you’re hiding your identity while expecting me to continue engaging .. doesn’t work that way




still refusing to stay on topic too … you said u were done so many times, yet u continue. like i said, can’t help yourself.

at least teecee gets the hint. i can respect that, despite disagreeing with his ideology. you’re just one of those cats who has trouble reading the room. do better.

[Safe+Sound]

bro are u autistic?

of course political affiliation would influence ideology

conservatives would be more inclined to agree with me while liberals would agree wit u

this isnt rocket science

and yes, i would like to know who i’m talking to before we can build

but you’re hiding your identity while expecting me to continue engaging .. doesn’t work that way




still refusing to stay on topic too … you said u were done so many times, yet u continue. like i said, can’t help yourself.

at least teecee gets the hint. i can respect that, despite disagreeing with his ideology. you’re just one of those cats who has trouble reading the room. do better.

It’s ironic that you accuse me of avoiding the topic, but every time the conversation steers back to Ice Cube or evidence-based points, you either deflect or try to steer the discussion toward something irrelevant, like my political affiliation. You said political affiliation would expose an agenda, yet you also claim that not sharing it shows I have a side agenda. That’s a glaring contradiction.

You seem fixated on trying to reduce this debate to something as simplistic as “liberal vs. conservative” and assume my political identity would somehow undermine the validity of my points. But in reality, the strength of an argument is based on evidence, logic, and reasoning, not who is making the argument. You’ve dismissed nearly everything I’ve brought up by saying you didn’t read it—so I have to wonder, how can you engage in a debate when you’re not willing to engage with the points being made?

I’m not “hiding my identity”—I’m refusing to let this conversation be derailed into something irrelevant. You’ve continually avoided responding to the actual points about Ice Cube and the original topic, and instead, it’s become about you throwing out personal attacks. If you’re truly interested in discussing the topic at hand, then let’s return to it. Otherwise, it seems like you’re looking for an exit from the conversation without admitting that your diversionary tactics aren’t working.

[Sccit]

It’s ironic that you accuse me of avoiding the topic, but every time the conversation steers back to Ice Cube or evidence-based points, you either deflect or try to steer the discussion toward something irrelevant, like my political affiliation. You said political affiliation would expose an agenda, yet you also claim that not sharing it shows I have a side agenda. That’s a glaring contradiction.

You seem fixated on trying to reduce this debate to something as simplistic as “liberal vs. conservative” and assume my political identity would somehow undermine the validity of my points. But in reality, the strength of an argument is based on evidence, logic, and reasoning, not who is making the argument. You’ve dismissed nearly everything I’ve brought up by saying you didn’t read it—so I have to wonder, how can you engage in a debate when you’re not willing to engage with the points being made?

I’m not “hiding my identity”—I’m refusing to let this conversation be derailed into something irrelevant. You’ve continually avoided responding to the actual points about Ice Cube and the original topic, and instead, it’s become about you throwing out personal attacks. If you’re truly interested in discussing the topic at hand, then let’s return to it. Otherwise, it seems like you’re looking for an exit from the conversation without admitting that your diversionary tactics aren’t working.

[Safe+Sound]

It’s funny you chose a Jennifer Lawrence GIF because she actually shares many of the views I’ve been discussing. She publicly criticized Donald Trump for refusing to condemn white supremacy, which is right at the heart of our debate. Maybe we have more common ground than it seems!

[Westdog]

You both speak in different trajectories. Safe+sound, you really look like someone who is practicing lawyer skills by studying. to be heard better, try to formulate more succinctly, even complex things

[Sccit]

It’s funny you chose a Jennifer Lawrence GIF because she actually shares many of the views I’ve been discussing. She publicly criticized Donald Trump for refusing to condemn white supremacy, which is right at the heart of our debate. Maybe we have more common ground than it seems!

but donald trump HAS condemned white supremacy lollllllll

[Sccit]

You both speak in different trajectories. Safe+sound, you really look like someone who is practicing lawyer skills by studying. to be heard better, try to formulate more succinctly, even complex things

big facts.. just tryna have a human conversation, that’s all

[Safe+Sound]

but donald trump HAS condemned white supremacy lollllllll

Your claim that “Donald Trump has condemned white supremacy” is technically correct but falls apart when you examine the broader context of Trump’s rhetoric and actions. While there may have been moments where he reluctantly disavowed white nationalists under public pressure, the totality of his behavior paints a different picture. Trump has repeatedly engaged in dog-whistle politics that either subtly or explicitly appeal to white supremacist ideologies.

Just a few prime examples are Trump’s infamous “very fine people on both sides” comment following the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville organized by neo-Nazis and white nationalists, his failure to condemn the Proud Boys when given a direct opportunity during a presidential debate in 2020, instead telling them to “stand back and stand by,” his subsequent support of Kyle Rittenhouse, a figure idolized by far-right extremists after the Kenosha shootings and inviting Rittenhouse to Mar-a-Lago and calling him “a nice young man," not to mention prominent white nationalist and Holocaust-denier Nick Fuentes (along with newly minted antisemite Kanye West). None of these begin to account for his more recent history, much less the racist rally denigrating Latinos, African Americans, and Jews at Madison Square Garden.

This history undermines your argument that Trump’s isolated condemnation of white supremacist groups should be taken at face value. The weight of evidence shows a clear pattern of catering to and emboldening white nationalists, while half-hearted disavowals appear more like political necessities than genuine repudiations. Thus, Trump’s actions and rhetoric have had a significant and lasting impact on normalizing white supremacist views in American politics, even if he occasionally offers a reluctant condemnation when under public pressure.

[Sccit]

Trump’s infamous “very fine people on both sides” comment

[Safe+Sound]

Do you know who Robert E. Lee is?

And who exactly were the "very fine people" who were not neo Nazis or white supremacists - who should be condemned - but were also on the side of the neo Nazis and white supremacists? This doesn’t resolve the underlying contradiction in Trump’s statement—it amplifies it. While Trump eventually disavowed neo-Nazis and white supremacists during his Charlottesville remarks, he simultaneously made a distinction that is difficult to justify: suggesting that there were “very fine people” on the same side as those marching with neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and Klansmen.

if there were individuals at the rally who were not neo-Nazis or white supremacists, why were they aligned with a movement that openly espoused such hateful ideologies? The rally’s core purpose was to unite various far-right factions, including white nationalists, to protest the removal of a Confederate statue—a symbol many see as representing the defense of slavery and white supremacy. Anyone choosing to attend a rally organized by neo-Nazis would be well aware of the implications of their participation, which undermines Trump’s attempt to separate them from the extremists.

In essence, Trump’s comment that there were “very fine people” on both sides ignores the broader context: a person who marches alongside neo-Nazis and white supremacists is, at the very least, complicit in promoting their views. If individuals at the rally were there merely to oppose the removal of a Confederate statue without subscribing to the racist ideologies present, they were still standing shoulder-to-shoulder with those who championed white supremacy. But more importantly, the statue itself is an embodiment of time entrenched in slavery. To separate these unnamed people he made up as “fine people” sidesteps the bigger issue of what their presence signified and diminishes the dangerous nature of the event.

This mirrors the contradictions in your own arguments. You cherry-pick parts of a speech or comment that serve your narrative but fail to engage with the full context that renders those comments problematic. Much like Trump’s inconsistent remarks, your arguments waver between acknowledging certain issues and conveniently overlooking critical contradictions when challenged.

[Sccit]

Do you know who Robert E. Lee is?

And who exactly were the "very fine people" who were not neo Nazis or white supremacists - who should be condemned - but were also on the side of the neo Nazis and white supremacists? This doesn’t resolve the underlying contradiction in Trump’s statement—it amplifies it. While Trump eventually disavowed neo-Nazis and white supremacists during his Charlottesville remarks, he simultaneously made a distinction that is difficult to justify: suggesting that there were “very fine people” on the same side as those marching with neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and Klansmen.

if there were individuals at the rally who were not neo-Nazis or white supremacists, why were they aligned with a movement that openly espoused such hateful ideologies? The rally’s core purpose was to unite various far-right factions, including white nationalists, to protest the removal of a Confederate statue—a symbol many see as representing the defense of slavery and white supremacy. Anyone choosing to attend a rally organized by neo-Nazis would be well aware of the implications of their participation, which undermines Trump’s attempt to separate them from the extremists.

In essence, Trump’s comment that there were “very fine people” on both sides ignores the broader context: a person who marches alongside neo-Nazis and white supremacists is, at the very least, complicit in promoting their views. If individuals at the rally were there merely to oppose the removal of a Confederate statue without subscribing to the racist ideologies present, they were still standing shoulder-to-shoulder with those who championed white supremacy. But more importantly, the statue itself is an embodiment of time entrenched in slavery. To separate these unnamed people he made up as “fine people” sidesteps the bigger issue of what their presence signified and diminishes the dangerous nature of the event.

This mirrors the contradictions in your own arguments. You cherry-pick parts of a speech or comment that serve your narrative but fail to engage with the full context that renders those comments problematic. Much like Trump’s inconsistent remarks, your arguments waver between acknowledging certain issues and conveniently overlooking critical contradictions when challenged.

neo nazis and white supremacists also march at pro palestinian rallies..

does that mean that there are only bad people at those rallies?

false equivalence young’n



and i know you’re one of those “free palestine” weirdos, which is why i used that example


 

[Safe+Sound]

neo nazis and white supremacists also march at pro palestinian rallies..

does that mean that there are only bad people at those rallies?

false equivalence young’n



and i know you’re one of those “free palestine” weirdos, which is why i used that example


 

Boy, you're really not good at this. I am getting a little bored, but I'll humor you:

Your attempt to draw a parallel between neo-Nazis and white supremacists attending pro-Palestinian rallies and the Charlottesville rally is, in fact, a false equivalence itself. The key difference here lies in the nature of the events and the core purpose of the rally.

In Charlottesville, the event was organized specifically by white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and other extremist groups to protest the removal of a Confederate statue—a symbol that is deeply tied to racism and the defense of slavery in American history. That is fundamentally different because the organizers and the central theme of the rally were directly linked to white nationalist ideology. The purpose of the rally was to defend a symbol of white supremacy (the Confederate statue), making it impossible to separate “very fine people” from those core beliefs. In this case, any attempt to dissociate “fine people” from the hateful ideologies present is misleading.

So your comparison fails because it ignores the intent and focus of the Charlottesville rally. Attending a rally that is founded on white supremacist ideologies is not the same as attending a rally on a political or humanitarian issue where extremist individuals may be present but are not representative of the core cause.

By misapplying this analogy, you once again evade addressing the inherent contradiction in Trump’s remarks and the reality of what was at stake during the Charlottesville event. You are deflecting from the core issue—Trump’s failure to fully and consistently denounce the ideologies that underpinned the rally—and instead, creating a comparison that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.