Unicorn_Colombo t1_iugzbo0 wrote on October 31, 2022 at 7:03 AM

Reply to comment by MrSpaceGogu in Czechs rally against rising extremism and voice support for Ukraine by WexfordHo

So let me be clear. You agree that the anti-government protest had everything from extreme left to the extreme right, populists, anti-everything, pro-russian collaborators etc.

You also agree that our current government is right-wing. Like ODS, the traditional right-wing party (ČSSD used to form the traditional left), KDU-ČSL which are Christian conservatives, TOP09 which split from KDU-ČSL because they (KDU) weren't right-wing enough. Only Pirates are kind of on the left, but even they like to present themselves and centrist.

You also agree that the current rally is essentially pro-government, support for the government and their current steps/politics, including the political support of Ukraine.

Yet, despite all this, you find it alright and proper interpretation of the situation when someone says:

> Right wingers, wreck yourself before you Czech yourself.

So tell me fellow heretic, should the current right-wing government wreck itself?

DTHCND t1_iuh68bt wrote on October 31, 2022 at 8:51 AM

> You agree that the anti-government protest had everything from extreme left to the extreme right, populists, anti-everything, pro-russian collaborators etc.

They didn't say any of that. In fact, they said the exact opposite of some of these things; they said the protest was in response to an earlier pro-Russia protest by some extreme left and extreme right organizations. At no point did they mention "populists" or them being "anti-everything."

> You also agree that the current rally is essentially pro-government, support for the government and their current steps/politics

They didn't say this either.

> Yet, despite all this

Despite all what? Despite all the words you're putting in their mouth?

Unicorn_Colombo t1_iuh8a9h wrote on October 31, 2022 at 9:23 AM

> They didn't say any of that. In fact, they said the exact opposite of some of these things

Which exact opposite? Be specific.

> At no point did they mention "populists" or them being "anti-everything."

They didn't mention that. I just provided more context.

Have you read what kind of people were there? Do you know anything about it? Would you disagree that there were populists on the anti-government protest?

> They didn't say this either.

They reacted to a post that specifically claimed that... and they didn't disagree either.

> Despite all what? Despite all the words you're putting in their mouth?

I am not. I am trying to establish baseline by describing the reality.

Or do you disagree with any of the points, such as that:

a) The previous protests contained both left and right elements of the political spectrum, plus various populist, possibly russian actors, etc.

b) The current rally is pro-government as it expresses support of governments policies, especially regarding the current situation in Ukraine

c) Government is right-wing

I can support all these statements with links to Czech articles, twitter, videos etc.

Osiris32 t1_iuhwb3t wrote on October 31, 2022 at 1:43 PM

> They didn't mention that. I just provided more context.

That's called "lying."

DTHCND t1_iuilz63 wrote on October 31, 2022 at 4:41 PM

> Which exact opposite? Be specific.

I already was. Here's what I wrote again: "they said the protest was in response to an earlier pro-Russia protest by some extreme left and extreme right organizations." So no, they did not say the protest consists of "pro-Russian collaborators" nor the "extreme left" nor the "extreme right."

> They didn't mention that. I just provided more context.

Yes, I know. Like I said, you're just putting words in their mouth.

> Have you read what kind of people were there? Do you know anything about it? Would you disagree that there were populists on the anti-government protest?

I don't particularly care. I'm just pointing out that you're being a dick and arguing in bad faith. You're making stuff up and acting like the person you're replying to said stuff that they didn't. It's not cool.

If you think you have a valid argument, you should be able to argue it without making up lies about what the other person said.

> They reacted to a post that specifically claimed that... and they didn't disagree either.

No, they didn't. The post "they reacted to" doesn't claim this protest is "pro-government" either. It also doesn't claim it supports their "current steps/politics."

> I am not. I am trying to establish baseline by describing the reality.

Yes, you are. They didn't say almost everything you claimed they did. Heck, you even admitted to putting words in their mouth in the first paragraph of your reply to me. Just to jog your memory: "They didn't mention that. I just provided more context."

> Or do you disagree with any of the points, such as that...

I don't have an opinion on the protests nor did I ever even remotely claim to. Like I said above, I'm taking issue with you making up strawman to argue against.

> I can support all these statements with links to Czech articles, twitter, videos etc.

Good. So instead of making up lies about what the other person said, you could have just laid out facts yourself with supporting documentation. Why didn't you just do that from the start?