Because he reduces the number of KKK and Nazis in the world. As opposed to leaving them to their echo chamber of bigoted hate and worsening divisive strongman authoritarian genocidal racial-supremacist “solutions”. As already highlighted in the same sentence. I’m not sure how else to further clarify that point.
Why was that questioned so? Is there something I’m missing about the Daryl Davis story? Or … LOL … are the accusations about MoG true? LOL Or just some passing misinterpretation? I’d still like to know.
I got mixed up with Daryl Davis and David Duke, hence why I deleted my comment lol
Ah, thanks very much for clearing that up. Makes sense now why questioned, retracted, and questioned.
conspiracy mode
Whom did/do you think I’m conspiring with about what?
Or were you using that term in a manner some ways deeper into the cascade of newspeakification [where it’s no longer meaning about conspiring, not just making those who scrutinise seem like theorists or peddlers of spurious falsehoods, but that there’s no such thing as conspiring and the word’s fully Orwellianised to mean nothing about conspiring at all, to remove the word and idea from peoples vocabularies and minds, depriving them of all capacity to catch conspirators~ as was the intention when the CIA started popularising the name-changing]?
;)
Every opportunity taken to pointedly dispel the newspeakification. ;)
Oh gosh, I better be scared of posting here… wouldn’t want to be fash (in the eyes of tankies). :P Scared, not scared.
Heck, even if the accusations have merit, I’d rather be Daryl Davis, than leave it to fester in a worsening echo chamber.
Either way, “Cui bono?”
deleted by creator
I wonder what that reply was…
Oh, I see it in email notification…
Because he reduces the number of KKK and Nazis in the world. As opposed to leaving them to their echo chamber of bigoted hate and worsening divisive strongman authoritarian genocidal racial-supremacist “solutions”. As already highlighted in the same sentence. I’m not sure how else to further clarify that point.
Why was that questioned so? Is there something I’m missing about the Daryl Davis story? Or … LOL … are the accusations about MoG true? LOL Or just some passing misinterpretation? I’d still like to know.
I got mixed up with Daryl Davis and David Duke, hence why I deleted my comment lol
but yeah, go off on conspiracy mode dude to reply to a deleted comment
Ah, thanks very much for clearing that up. Makes sense now why questioned, retracted, and questioned.
Whom did/do you think I’m conspiring with about what?
Or were you using that term in a manner some ways deeper into the cascade of newspeakification [where it’s no longer meaning about conspiring, not just making those who scrutinise seem like theorists or peddlers of spurious falsehoods, but that there’s no such thing as conspiring and the word’s fully Orwellianised to mean nothing about conspiring at all, to remove the word and idea from peoples vocabularies and minds, depriving them of all capacity to catch conspirators~ as was the intention when the CIA started popularising the name-changing]?
;)
Every opportunity taken to pointedly dispel the newspeakification. ;)
I don’t get it.