Now you've crossed from being disingenuous into outright lying.

I did not assume you're a Nazi, i said "you seem well acquainted with Nazism" which, based on your eagerness to defend them, is accurate.

You have not once expressed that you "support everyone having a right to express their opinion" in this thread, nor even in this post. You've merely attempted to employ the Socratic method (rather clumsily) to excuse Nazism.

When you're done pretending you're the victim here and you're ready to have a genuine conversation let me know.

Just gonna pretend that the rest of the thread doesn't exist, are you?

We're talking about the high number of neo-nazis on Gab and their influence on Gab in general. Could someone have a conversation with a Nazi about the weather? Maybe, but the odds of the phrase "Jewish space lasers" coming up is significantly higher than in a conversation with someone who isn't a Nazi.

But to be clear, i did not say "conversing with Nazis makes people spread their talking points to others". I said they would be getting talking points from Nazis. Nothing is "making" people spread Nazism.

Which part is confusing you? You seem well acquainted with Nazism so I'll assume it's the "second hand" part.

A definition of 'second hand' is 'indirect' or 'from an intermediate source'. Ergo, in my comment i meant they would be getting talking points from people who don't think they're Nazis but converse frequently with Nazis.

Does that clear it up for you?

No, you're right.. some don't openly oppose gay rights. Yet. They're merely xenophobic racists.

Linguist Ruth Wodak has stated that the populist parties rising across Europe do so for different reasons in different countries. In an article published in March 2014, she divided these political parties into four groups: "parties [which] gain support via an ambivalent relationship with fascist and Nazi pasts" (in, e.g., Austria, Hungary, Italy, Romania, and France), parties which "focus primarily on a perceived threat from Islam" (in, e.g., the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, and Switzerland), parties which "restrict their propaganda to a perceived threat to their national identities from ethnic minorities" (in, e.g., Hungary, Greece, Italy, and the United Kingdom), and parties which "endorse a fundamentalist Christian conservative-reactionary agenda" (in, e.g., Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria).[8] According to The Economist, the main attraction of far-right parties in the Scandinavian countries is the perception that their national culture is under threat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_nationalist_parties_in_Europe#:~:text=Right%2Dwing%20or%20far%2Dright,Democrats)%20and%20in%20Serbia%20(United

Ah, so you won't hear any Nazis directly. You'll just get second hand Nazism from people that are totally comfortable conversing with neo-Nazis. Yeah that's much better.

Jeebus... 'I'm only in the mood for a little bit of Nazism today, i won't log for long'

Please feel free to point out any specific statements they made which are inaccurate.

"Unions exist" not 'were created' or 'have always been'. Yes, some Unions have fairly unpleasant histories as do the employers that they were organizing against. Unions have typically been much faster to offer protection to marginalized groups than employers or even governments have. My mother's Union protected her back in the 80s when it was still perfectly legal and commonplace for people to be fired for being gay. My immigrant father's Union protected him in the 70s from bigoted management. My union has been offering protection for transsexuals for decades.

Union violence was often a direct response to the violence of employers. Employers' casual disregard for the safety and lives of their workers undoubtedly outstrips any violence perpetrated by Unions. Let's also not overlook the violence of their paid union busters either. Thankfully Unions have moved past that despite so many employers ignoring or circumventing safety standards and sending their employees out with missing limbs or in body bags.

And if you're going for historical accuracy, it's very likely that the formation of Unions would have been impossible without violence.

I went to a Sikh wedding a while ago, the groom's family was Sikh and the bride's family was from Vancouver. After the service the bride and groom sat on the floor while people talked to them from behind. As they were turned to talk to the people behind them everyone else would pass in front of them and leave money in their laps. There were no gifts.

They also did a North American type reception a few days later and there were gifts for that but they were registered.

I didn't either. Found it four pages deep. under "other privacy settings", nonchalantly placed at the bottom of the last page. And i just did a search for that kind of thing two weeks ago and somehow missed it.

Do you have a source for this? I've looked but haven't found anything.

Even with just regular file sharing sites you can find anything very easily