What do you mean by you don't understand science? Like you don't understand the process by which scientific knowledge is aquired? Or you don't understand the mechanisms behind things like biology or physics? Or something else?

You know that a lot of us, probably even most of us, have literally never been compared to Nazis, right? Any guesses as to why that might be?

Could one of the reasons be that we do not spend our time rushing to defend Nazis? Their message is pretty clear and they do a decent job of letting everyone know what it is all on their own. They don't really seem to need anyone to help them but I'm sure they appreciate it when someone does.

It's interesting that, when I have encountered people who i suspect may be 'free speech absolutists' and have looked over their comment history, they have only ever been expressing their concerns about censorship regarding Nazis, Andrew Tate, "straight pride", or various right wing causes. Not once have i seen a comment by a 'free speech absolutist' that was defending drag queen story times, pro-choice protests, 'extinction rebellion', or PETA. If I were to look at your comment history, what would i find?

And past life debt collection

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.

And then sue the crap out of anyone that has anything somewhat similar

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.