OK, I will do it for you, considering as how you are so busy and all (spending your days so prolifically commenting here that TD awarded you the Golden Esther Award for Excessive Speech)

You:

Criticism of speech is not suppression of speech, and neither is people flagging your speech (i.e., showing you the door). You’re free to post your speech anywhere else that will have you

Me: I never once claimed any of the above. I merely, and consistently have demonstrated the speech suppression mechanism of this forum (which was my stated goal), and yours and others roles as gate keepers, aka useful idiots; and coincidentally encountered the fact tat those who write the best about free speech, are actually part of why speech is not freebut in fact is a privileged American narrative that was usurped in the 1960’s going forwards

You:

Twitter may be a “public forum” in a colloquial sense of the term. But Twitter is not an actual public form in that it is owned by the general public or the government. No one can force it to host any kind of speech

Me: I never claimed Twitter was anything close to anything other than a corporate/private speech filtering mechanism, and that:

• with a public face, infested by intelligence agency and NGO trolls who create speech crisis, and then police the speech crisis they create (The Hasbara-Nazi’s-zionists problem; or the fact that we are all so concerned about Harvey Weinstein’s fake rapes, more than the actual Prison Industrial Complex rape training grounds that create and nurture, and use rape as a tool of social control; and that spawns rape ideology)

You:

When you make a claim of fact, you’re the one who must provide a citation for that claim. Responsibility for backing up a claim lies with the person who made it

Me: You and others here have never argued against any fact I have ever presented, ever, because that requires engagement with the facts at hand via the links provided, which you have never done. You and others are actually merely derailers and distractors, protecting your pet causes, and your non-rational allegiance to religious prohibitions on speech, aka lashon hara (in your case "deist" atheist-agnostic perspective, honestly, what the hell is that if not confusion?).

You:

*I’ll gladly debate something with you when you provide a point worth debating instead of “ThE eViL jEwS aRe StIfLiNg My SpEeCh!”-level conspiracy theory bullshit. My religious beliefs (agnostic atheism, BTW) have nothing to do with that.

Me: Again, I never said any of that, and considering that I wrote the first story in the US, about the first post 911 manufactured Somali terrorist, you are beyond disingenuous.

I cited known and specific efforts of the ADL (the Redirect method and Moonshot CVE, used by a racist group to literally subvert the thought processes of targeted audiences)and other US-FVEYs-Israeli intelligence affilliated shitbags who derail American law and culture. I am well aware of the many other religionists and shitbags that are involved in these actions too( but you have never seemed to acknowledge that-why, exactly? Yeah-thought so…).

I suspect that somehow, you derive profit by always dragging the anti-Jewish trope into EVERY dissent. Why is that?

For the record, ROGS is not anti-Jewish, nor do Jews call me such, ever. But I am also not pro-semitic

As I stated, you are likely gaining culural capital and cache from such absurdity ( and really, your purported atheist agnosticism is incompatible with rationalism,and in fact agnosticism only indicates confusion, or fear of the unknown

So, to be clear, you are essentially against my speech, because I put Jews (and the Jews among my own relations) on a level playing field: I consider Jews merely as human beings, no different, no better, and no worse than myself in any regards, and as myself, merely part of human kind.

I consider organizations that claim to speak for all de Joos as involved in criminal activity, because that’s what those highly vocal organizations(for which you are a very useful puppet) are descended from, which is historical fact.

SO, most of your commentary runs this way, smearing me with antisemitic tropes, almost as if you work directly for Meyer Lansky and his klan, or the Bronfmans, who are heavily invested in pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian anti-America stances, and who historically have reduced discourse to the exact binary you are arguing.

You:

Your version of “civility” is “nobody calls me on my bullshit”. You know what happens when someone rightfully calls me on my bullshit, regardless of whether they’re civil? I say “fair point” and try to learn from my mistake

Me: Since when is my bullshit some kind of evidentiary standard?

I mean, for a rationalist/deist/agnostic/etc, you seem to once again confuse standards of evidence, which you have done on many occasions.

You have never once clearly engaged nor argued, nor debated any point I ever made. And I will be glad to debate you on any front, on any topic, ever. But you yourself (enabled by TDs in-house gag of trolls) do not engage in debate of any kind, and certainly the NGO/intel troll farm/political think tank friendly flag button inhibits useful debate of any and every kind.

Remember: I have been raising awareness of organized gang stalking and the groups that do it, or are invested in the private contractors that do it, for nearly ten years here and elsewhere (many elsewhere’s, actually) and that dialectic has changed massively.

Those groups range from Mormons to Baptists, to Catholics, to Jews, and its called "third party punishment" and goes on all over the world, where there is organized religion. You have never taken me to task for citing police union led mobs, Baptist mobs, or the Cathlioctocon, but you take umbrage that I include Jews on a level playing field; or that I not only include Jews(and invite their dissent too!), but nearly indict Jewish NGOs ad the ADL specifically in training cops in Israel, and sending them back here as zionists who shoot people in the back, and run hidden gangs in (militarized) policing.

As such, I suspect that you are either gaining cultural capital, actual capital, or are deluded, or disingenuous, which is why I have called you a police apologist in the past.

You:

Corollary to the last point: Your opinions deserve no respect for the fact you have them, and you deserve no respect in a discussion for the fact that you’re a part of it. You would likely refuse to kiss my ass only because I’m part of this comment thread; I see no reason to kiss yours for the same reason

Me: Um, weird. And interesting in the Freudian/evolutionary sense that you show your ass at this point. Greater and lesser apes do this for several reasons, and one of them is submission.

I won’t try to prove your motive here, but yeah, I don’t kiss no asses, unless its in my porn stash, labelled as "WOW! Dat ASS!"

Other times, in the country I live in, where porn is nearly un-necessary due to the constant supply of ACTUAL and REAL asses to kiss ( for free, for love, or for a small price), I do indeed kiss me some real asses, and I thoroughly enjoy every dirty bit of that well established and necessary rite of human interaction.

On that note, sure, sometimes I am wrong, and have said so at those times. Whoop dee doo daa all day. But bullshit is NOT a form of evidence in a debate about facts and never was. So which is it? You are arguing factually, or from the standpoint of bullshittery? Cant have it both ways right? .

But I am not wrong in general thrust of what I write or claim, and you and the TD troll brigade have never engaged with that in any substantive way, because you are a gate keeper; a foil against actual rational discourse; and a useful idiot and derailer by belief in the speech prohibition.