To repeat (again and again):
Which is this current thread in his own words talking about Richard Spencer.
Previously he said:
To which he was corrected in the following fashion:
The initial responses were simply a correction of what he had said. Obviously as the easily disproven statement gets proven false repeatedly the tone changes and the argument skews away from any sort of rational act. So if you are going to step in on the behalf of someone being taken out of context, it would be appreciated if you would take the time to read the passages in question so that you are not confused.
And yes, repeating the same bad argument with no acknowledgement that you had been corrected does imply a level of support for the side you are falsifying the information for. Otherwise, why would you insist on going from ‘simply wrong’ to ‘stubbornly claiming it’s not your fault you didn’t know but continue to assert the same position about because you don’t actually know anything about Richard Spencer’?
