hahaha3hahaha has been GUESTED

[Army of GOD]

Well atm the poll is 50%. Right down the middle.

This following quote is being cited as the offending portion of hahaha3hahaha post.

hahaha3hahaha wrote:Maybe there are still groups existing today that carry on that line, but what about the ones that fight against things like prostitution and homosexuality- I think those are very fair causes.

If he had written:

what about the ones that fight against crime - I think those are very fair causes.

Would he still have been punished? FYI. Prostitution is criminal in the VAST majority of the US. Homosexuality and/or activities pertaining to it is also criminal in many states too. Ever hear of sodomy laws? Right or wrong they do exist on the books.

Incorrect - homosexuality is NOT criminal in ANY state. Period. None. Homosexual ACTS may be, but homosexuality itself is not. If you cannot distinguish between the two, then you should not be involved in the discussion, to be honest.

Gotta love how the Americans think it's all about them. There are many countries where homosexuality, not just limited to homosexual acts, is completely outlawed.

So you're trying to say America stanks, yet "many countries" already have thoughtcrime?

Dammit America! We're never gonna win the race to tyranny!

[hahaha3hahaha]

So you're trying to say America stanks, yet "many countries" already have thoughtcrime?

Never said either of those 2 statements, re-read my post, moron.

[Army of GOD]

So you're trying to say America stanks, yet "many countries" already have thoughtcrime?

Never said either of those 2 statements, re-read my post, moron.

How do you outlaw homosexuality then?

Not homosexual ACTS, but homosexuality itself.



EDIT: Oh, and you never truly said "America stanks", but you implied it. If I thought 'Stralians were rather egotistical, then I'd think it's a pretty shitty place to be.

[Woodruff]

Well atm the poll is 50%. Right down the middle.
This following quote is being cited as the offending portion of hahaha3hahaha post.
hahaha3hahaha wrote:Maybe there are still groups existing today that carry on that line, but what about the ones that fight against things like prostitution and homosexuality- I think those are very fair causes.
If he had written:
what about the ones that fight against crime - I think those are very fair causes.
Would he still have been punished? FYI. Prostitution is criminal in the VAST majority of the US. Homosexuality and/or activities pertaining to it is also criminal in many states too. Ever hear of sodomy laws? Right or wrong they do exist on the books.

Incorrect - homosexuality is NOT criminal in ANY state. Period. None. Homosexual ACTS may be, but homosexuality itself is not. If you cannot distinguish between the two, then you should not be involved in the discussion, to be honest.

Gotta love how the Americans think it's all about them.

I know this is a difficult concept, but perhaps if you read the post I was responding to, you'll have a basic understanding of why it was that I responded in the manner that I did.

For instance, you'll note that jefjef made the statement "Homosexuality and/or activities pertaining to it is also criminal in many states too."

There now son...does it perhaps become a bit more clear? Run along and play now.

Next time...read the fucking post, you trolling idiot.

[Woodruff]

"In the States"- Bad term to use right there. Different things apply in different countries. Isnt this someones opinion. I mean look at where they live in perspective to us. How is it putting a group down if something is outlawed in someones environment. I mean do we get banned for saying man those drunks are..... Finish the sentece. In some cultures maybe something as little as that could be seen as haneous. If CC is so liberal.... then why is it that some opinions on things that other countries would not allow.. are allowed on here... but when it switches perspective to someone from a different background, they cant hold their opinions to what is in their law, their systeming, their government.... Idk its late but i hope that makes sense. Hahaha should not have been banned.

Please point to where homosexuality is outlawed anywhere in the world. Homosexual ACTS may be outlawed, but I'm pretty sure that mind-reading isn't QUITE YET happening (though from what I understand, they are getting close).

[hahaha3hahaha]

...you trolling idiot.

And the cow complains about others moo-ing?

[Woodruff]

...you trolling idiot.

And the cow complains about others moo-ing?

Brilliant repartee! Just brilliant!

[vodean]

How did America hate posts get in here?

[jefjef]

Well atm the poll is 50%. Right down the middle.

This following quote is being cited as the offending portion of hahaha3hahaha post.

hahaha3hahaha wrote:Maybe there are still groups existing today that carry on that line, but what about the ones that fight against things like prostitution and homosexuality- I think those are very fair causes.

If he had written:

what about the ones that fight against crime - I think those are very fair causes.

Would he still have been punished? FYI. Prostitution is criminal in the VAST majority of the US. Homosexuality and/or activities pertaining to it is also criminal in many states too. Ever hear of sodomy laws? Right or wrong they do exist on the books.

Incorrect - homosexuality is NOT criminal in ANY state. Period. None. Homosexual ACTS may be, but homosexuality itself is not. If you cannot distinguish between the two, then you should not be involved in the discussion, to be honest.

Woody. Sodomy laws ban the activity. As far as saying the "states" it was an example. Both these activities are considered crimes all over the world. YOU know exactly what I was saying.

[Woodruff]

Well atm the poll is 50%. Right down the middle.

This following quote is being cited as the offending portion of hahaha3hahaha post.

hahaha3hahaha wrote:Maybe there are still groups existing today that carry on that line, but what about the ones that fight against things like prostitution and homosexuality- I think those are very fair causes.

If he had written:

what about the ones that fight against crime - I think those are very fair causes.

Would he still have been punished? FYI. Prostitution is criminal in the VAST majority of the US. Homosexuality and/or activities pertaining to it is also criminal in many states too. Ever hear of sodomy laws? Right or wrong they do exist on the books.

Incorrect - homosexuality is NOT criminal in ANY state. Period. None. Homosexual ACTS may be, but homosexuality itself is not. If you cannot distinguish between the two, then you should not be involved in the discussion, to be honest.

Woody. Sodomy laws ban the activity. As far as saying the "states" it was an example. Both these activities are considered crimes all over the world. If you cannot comprehend that perhaps YOU should not enlighten us with your vision.

My point is quite clear - any law which bans homosexuality is useless and impotent. There is no way to ban homosexuality, as it exists only in the mind. As I stated previously, mind reading does not yet exist, so any law banning homosexuality has no teeth. Sodomy refers to homosexual ACTS, which is not the same thing as homosexuality.

[jefjef]

Well atm the poll is 50%. Right down the middle.

This following quote is being cited as the offending portion of hahaha3hahaha post.

hahaha3hahaha wrote:Maybe there are still groups existing today that carry on that line, but what about the ones that fight against things like prostitution and homosexuality- I think those are very fair causes.

If he had written:

what about the ones that fight against crime - I think those are very fair causes.

Would he still have been punished? FYI. Prostitution is criminal in the VAST majority of the US. Homosexuality and/or activities pertaining to it is also criminal in many states too. Ever hear of sodomy laws? Right or wrong they do exist on the books.

Incorrect - homosexuality is NOT criminal in ANY state. Period. None. Homosexual ACTS may be, but homosexuality itself is not. If you cannot distinguish between the two, then you should not be involved in the discussion, to be honest.

Woody. Sodomy laws ban the activity. As far as saying the "states" it was an example. Both these activities are considered crimes all over the world. If you cannot comprehend that perhaps YOU should not enlighten us with your vision.

My point is quite clear - any law which bans homosexuality is useless and impotent. There is no way to ban homosexuality, as it exists only in the mind. As I stated previously, mind reading does not yet exist, so any law banning homosexuality has no teeth. Sodomy refers to homosexual ACTS, which is not the same thing as homosexuality.

I agree that a thought can not be banned. But that is not what my post or this thread was even about.

I assume you voted.

[hahaha3hahaha]

To all of the people that hate me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IouG22RzOmg

[AAFitz]

In a nutshell, I wasn't banned for anything to do with Nazis or trolling, I was banned because medefe agrees with homosexuality and prostitution. I'm going to leave the thread at that.

You don't want to clarify about the part where you accuse me of switching the word "fight" for "cause" as you did, when I obviously used the exact word you used?

You were banned for trolling with a nazi thread about the swastika and its many uses, including as a symbol of hate and go on to profess that the fight against homosexuality and prostitution is a very fair cause.

Guessing as to medefes motivations is alright I guess, but even if he agrees with homosexuality and/or prostitution, he still had every right to ban you for trolling, and homophobic comments under CC rules.

Its as black and white as what you wrote, and no matter how many times you say you didn't say what you said...its right there. You've had plenty of opportunities to explain how it was misconstrued, and what you really meant, but instead you simply deny the actual words you chose, and the actual intent that is obvious by them, once again, simply not taking responsibility for your actions.

[niMic]

"In the States"- Bad term to use right there. Different things apply in different countries. Isnt this someones opinion. I mean look at where they live in perspective to us. How is it putting a group down if something is outlawed in someones environment. I mean do we get banned for saying man those drunks are..... Finish the sentece. In some cultures maybe something as little as that could be seen as haneous. If CC is so liberal.... then why is it that some opinions on things that other countries would not allow.. are allowed on here... but when it switches perspective to someone from a different background, they cant hold their opinions to what is in their law, their systeming, their government.... Idk its late but i hope that makes sense. Hahaha should not have been banned.

Please point to where homosexuality is outlawed anywhere in the world. Homosexual ACTS may be outlawed, but I'm pretty sure that mind-reading isn't QUITE YET happening (though from what I understand, they are getting close).

I completely agree with the banning, but come on, don't be silly. That's just pedantic.

[Woodruff]

"In the States"- Bad term to use right there. Different things apply in different countries. Isnt this someones opinion. I mean look at where they live in perspective to us. How is it putting a group down if something is outlawed in someones environment. I mean do we get banned for saying man those drunks are..... Finish the sentece. In some cultures maybe something as little as that could be seen as haneous. If CC is so liberal.... then why is it that some opinions on things that other countries would not allow.. are allowed on here... but when it switches perspective to someone from a different background, they cant hold their opinions to what is in their law, their systeming, their government.... Idk its late but i hope that makes sense. Hahaha should not have been banned.

Please point to where homosexuality is outlawed anywhere in the world. Homosexual ACTS may be outlawed, but I'm pretty sure that mind-reading isn't QUITE YET happening (though from what I understand, they are getting close).

I completely agree with the banning, but come on, don't be silly. That's just pedantic.

It is, I agree. Yet words DO have meaning. People should use them properly.

[AAFitz]

"In the States"- Bad term to use right there. Different things apply in different countries. Isnt this someones opinion. I mean look at where they live in perspective to us. How is it putting a group down if something is outlawed in someones environment. I mean do we get banned for saying man those drunks are..... Finish the sentece. In some cultures maybe something as little as that could be seen as haneous. If CC is so liberal.... then why is it that some opinions on things that other countries would not allow.. are allowed on here... but when it switches perspective to someone from a different background, they cant hold their opinions to what is in their law, their systeming, their government.... Idk its late but i hope that makes sense. Hahaha should not have been banned.

It was his trolling on the issue that got him banned, not any actual real attempt at an honest discussion on the topic. Further, posting that a fight against homosexuals as a fair cause will always be homophobic, especially when using it to somehow justify the use of the swastika. Bigotry, and trolling are both against the rules explicitly. And there is no doubt one could get banned for an inappropriate discussion about drunks too.

Everyone, including haha is simply avoiding the actual sentence that got him banned. At one point he even forgets he used the word "fight", and called the word "fight" barbaric....He essentially called his own post barbaric, simply because he forgot what he had actually written. It was both ridiculously homophobic, meant to troll, and seated in the middle of an inflamatory topic in the first place.

He certainly could have discussed this topic and not broken the rules. He simply did not do a good job of it, and was therefore banned.

Posting that you disagree with the ban on the swastika is probably possible inside of the guidelines, not to say that it cant be deemed in appropriate. Posting that you disagree with homosexuality is easy to do within the guidelines...assuming you follow them. Certainly any mature discussion about helping stop prostitution could easily be discussed. However, if you construct the discussion, in a way as to be completely trolling...completely homophobic, and at least possibly racist at the same time....well... you get banned.

Most are trying to defend his right to discuss those topics which is fine. I agree that if carefully done, the subject is not taboo, per-se...however, in this case, with what he wrote, it so clearly breached the guidelines, as to be...."laughable", that anyone would expect to get away with it.

[stahrgazer]

I disagree with the ban for a few reasons.
1. He didn't say anything except that he thought part of a group's cause was reasonable. Saying a fight against homosexuality is reasonable is not in any way deflaming homosexuals; it's simply a stated opinion. I saw nothing in the post that indicated he admired methods that a group of swastika-carriers might use for their fight against whatever they're fighting.
2. While he spoke of swastikas, CC has, in the past, allowed swastika avatars, and allowed livechat encouragement of the types of acts Nazis and neo-nazis perpetrated because the mods liked the person who was talking about the things and using the swastika avatar. Because they liked the person, they chose to believe that person's back-up statement that it was used as a sign of peace, despite chat evidence that it was purposely used to bring a swastika onto an avatar with all the evil parts a swastika can invoke.
3. While invoking discussion of a swastika could be considered an attempt to stir up the forum, there are quite a few "political" threads that would stir up the forum just as much if not more, but those people were not warned or banned, and those threads were not locked.
4. CC has acknowledged trolling by people in other threads while doing nothing specific to the troll -- no ban, and not even an official warning.
5. So, basically, I'm saying, I disagree with the ban because CC has not been consistent with its dealings of those who use or discuss swastikas, or those who troll.

CC inconsistent?

p.s. I disagree with the ban DESPITE disliking the use of swastikas because of the evil things they now imply and if I were haha's mommy I'd turn him over my knee and paddle him butt good!

[jefjef]

In a nutshell, I wasn't banned for anything to do with Nazis or trolling, I was banned because medefe agrees with homosexuality and prostitution. I'm going to leave the thread at that.

You don't want to clarify about the part where you accuse me of switching the word "fight" for "cause" as you did, when I obviously used the exact word you used?

You were banned for trolling with a nazi thread about the swastika and its many uses, including as a symbol of hate and go on to profess that the fight against homosexuality and prostitution is a very fair cause.

Guessing as to medefes motivations is alright I guess, but even if he agrees with homosexuality and/or prostitution, he still had every right to ban you for trolling, and homophobic comments under CC rules.

Its as black and white as what you wrote, and no matter how many times you say you didn't say what you said...its right there. You've had plenty of opportunities to explain how it was misconstrued, and what you really meant, but instead you simply deny the actual words you chose, and the actual intent that is obvious by them, once again, simply not taking responsibility for your actions.

Is this the sentence your rambling on about?

what about the ones that fight against crime - I think those are very fair causes.

[AAFitz]

I disagree with the ban for a few reasons.
1. He didn't say anything except that he thought part of a group's cause was reasonable. Saying a fight against homosexuality is reasonable is not in any way deflaming homosexuals; it's simply a stated opinion. I saw nothing in the post that indicated he admired methods that a group of swastika-carriers might use for their fight against whatever they're fighting.
2. While he spoke of swastikas, CC has, in the past, allowed swastika avatars, and allowed livechat encouragement of the types of acts Nazis and neo-nazis perpetrated because the mods liked the person who was talking about the things and using the swastika avatar. Because they liked the person, they chose to believe that person's back-up statement that it was used as a sign of peace, despite chat evidence that it was purposely used to bring a swastika onto an avatar with all the evil parts a swastika can invoke.
3. While invoking discussion of a swastika could be considered an attempt to stir up the forum, there are quite a few "political" threads that would stir up the forum just as much if not more, but those people were not warned or banned, and those threads were not locked.
4. CC has acknowledged trolling by people in other threads while doing nothing specific to the troll -- no ban, and not even an official warning.
5. So, basically, I'm saying, I disagree with the ban because CC has not been consistent with its dealings of those who use or discuss swastikas.

CC inconsistent?

p.s. I disagree with the ban DESPITE disliking the use of swastikas because of the evil things they now imply and if I were haha's mommy I'd turn him over my knee and paddle him butt good!

Well, its fair of you to simply not assume that he was not trolling. Pointing out that another troll, may have got away with some other trolling is completely irrelevant without an actual example, especially when this trolling was done, with mention of hatred of jews, calling a fight against homosexuality a very fair cause. Threads will always be decided upon a case by case basis, and since they are constructed using language, which includes nuances and subtleties to say the least, there is no way to compare one post to another, unless they are truly exactly the same. Even haha suggested that he only used the word cause, and not fight...which he didnt....and in the same breath accused me of being to analytical about the subject...
...not counting the whole assuming I must be a jewish homosexual that likes prostitutes, simply because I found his post offensive...but that, I think...makes it fully clear, his entire intent was indeed to troll. And while he fully succeeded...it certainly cost him respect of many in my opinion.

As far as the parenting...I actually would hope that his parents would never see that their child posted something like that. I choose to assume he really was just trolling, and am far more comfortable with that. Id simply hate to think he fully believed what he was typing, or meant it...and since he himself called a "fight" against homosexuals barbaric...there is at least plausible deniability there.

Further, the poll is an absolute joke, because it only includes those that stumbled on this thread...and typically those that would probably vote for the ban, would not waste their time with such a poll in the first place. A poll in a community this large, with a sample size as small as every poll is, readers these things rather silly, except maybe for entertainment purposes.

These polls only ever show what the percentage of the people voted think... it is never reflective of the actual CC community, or even necessarily reflective of all the people that even read the thread...for example... I have not even voted, but its fairly clear what I would vote...lol

[AAFitz]

In a nutshell, I wasn't banned for anything to do with Nazis or trolling, I was banned because medefe agrees with homosexuality and prostitution. I'm going to leave the thread at that.

You don't want to clarify about the part where you accuse me of switching the word "fight" for "cause" as you did, when I obviously used the exact word you used?

You were banned for trolling with a nazi thread about the swastika and its many uses, including as a symbol of hate and go on to profess that the fight against homosexuality and prostitution is a very fair cause.

Guessing as to medefes motivations is alright I guess, but even if he agrees with homosexuality and/or prostitution, he still had every right to ban you for trolling, and homophobic comments under CC rules.

Its as black and white as what you wrote, and no matter how many times you say you didn't say what you said...its right there. You've had plenty of opportunities to explain how it was misconstrued, and what you really meant, but instead you simply deny the actual words you chose, and the actual intent that is obvious by them, once again, simply not taking responsibility for your actions.

Is this the sentence your rambling on about?

what about the ones that fight against ??crime ??- I think those are very fair causes.

You wrote that sentence and are misquoting him... By all means you can change what he wrote, but it will be irellevant to the discussion.
This is what he actually wrote

....what about the ones that fight against things like prostitution and homosexuality- I think those are very fair causes.

Stop being such an analytical prick and stop reading in between he lines! You're replacing the word 'cause' with 'fight', to make it sound barbaric.

You don't have to be very analytical to see that he calls the very word "fight" that he chose and used as barbaric. Perhaps you forgot what he actually wrote, as he obviously has. Unless of course someone hijacked his thread, and implanted those words you and he seem to think are not there.

Certainly you can switch out that line with a great number of words that may or may not have made it less offensive, but since he was banned for what he wrote, and not what he may have written.... its kind of silly..perhaps you should actually read the rambling...and should certainly read the actual quote before commenting.

I think a fight against crime is a very fair cause too.
I think a fight against hunger is a very fair cause.
I think a fight against global warming is a very fair cause.
I think a fight against homophobia is a very fair cause.
I think a fight against racism is a very fair cause.
I think a fight against trolling is a very fair cause.

These are all statements that use most of the words...but again...are irrelevant because they aren't the ones hahaha used in the actual thread being discussed. I promise though. If you get banned for using the phrase a "fight against crime"...ill be right there defending you. If you instead use the phrase "a fight against homosexuality" you're on your own. Quite frankly, switching them is beyond silly. Im curious if it was just a mistake, or if you actually thought it might somehow change what he wrote, and actually got vacationed for.

I do find it ironic that hahaha complained about me switching words, when I did not...and that you are doing it in an effort to somehow defend him.

He could have posted that he thought a fight against potato famine was a very fair cause...and I doubt hed have been banned for it...especially if people against potato famines actually used the swastika... however, defending the use of the swastika, because some groups used it in a fight against homosexuality...is trolling...and so obviously trolling as to be laughable.

[stahrgazer]

Making mention of a few loose points doesn't make someone a hater. He may be; he may not be; but in those comments he made, I didn't see "hater," or "bannable offense." I didn't see the dude encouraging people to take up swastikas and join in murderous rampages; I didn't see bashing statements and such.

calling a fight against homosexuality a very fair cause.

If that deserves a ban, then I guess I deserve a ban, then, too, because I believe a fight against homosexuality is a very fair cause, depending on the time, place, and methods used to engage. My homosexual friends understand my viewpoint and have no issue with it.

Similarly, I believe pro-life is a very fair cause, depending on the time, place, and methods used to engage; I believe this even though personally I'm on the side of pro-choice.

I live in Port St. Lucie, where the former head of the KKK used to reside (didn't know it when I moved here.) I was appalled that they were allowed to march down US 1 in their hoods with their red-lettered sheets and such. I can be appalled at them, their methods, burning crosses and such and still indicate that some of their arguments: equality for white people, too; can be a "very fair cause." It's a fair cause even if a particular groups methods are wrong and unfair. If it wasn't a fair cause, depending on methods used, then Congress would have long been arrested for trying to reverse affirmative action, right?

Acknowledging that doesn't make me a racist any more than admitting that "pro life is a fair cause" makes me anti-choice.

[jefjef]

Well the Nay's have it by a slim margin.

Thanks for all the interesting posts. Guess hahaha3 needed to word his question little more carefully.

[AAFitz]

Making mention of a few loose points doesn't make someone a hater. He may be; he may not be; but in those comments he made, I didn't see "hater," or "bannable offense." I didn't see the dude encouraging people to take up swastikas and join in murderous rampages; I didn't see bashing statements and such.

calling a fight against homosexuality a very fair cause.

If that deserves a ban, then I guess I deserve a ban, then, too, because I believe a fight against homosexuality is a very fair cause, depending on the time, place, and methods used to engage. My homosexual friends understand my viewpoint and have no issue with it.

Similarly, I believe pro-life is a very fair cause, depending on the time, place, and methods used to engage; I believe this even though personally I'm on the side of pro-choice.

I live in Port St. Lucie, where the former head of the KKK used to reside (didn't know it when I moved here.) I was appalled that they were allowed to march down US 1 in their hoods with their red-lettered sheets and such. I can be appalled at them, their methods, burning crosses and such and still indicate that some of their arguments: equality for white people, too; can be a "very fair cause." It's a fair cause even if a particular groups methods are wrong and unfair. If it wasn't a fair cause, depending on methods used, then Congress would have long been arrested for trying to reverse affirmative action, right?

Acknowledging that doesn't make me a racist any more than admitting that "pro life is a fair cause" makes me anti-choice.

except you dont deserve a ban, because you clearly are not trolling and actually are just discussing the topic. Had hahaha presented this as a post, there would be no way there would have been any vacation.

It was not just the content, not just the swastikas, not just the homophobia, but the combination and the fact that it was trolling.

It is refreshing to see someone on the other side of this issue, that can actually present an actual discussion that is relevant, I might add.

But I also will point out, if you agree a fight against the very lifestyle of your friends is a just cause, than really, they are not your friends. Not really.

Further, you can easily discuss your desire for equality for white people...though you may want to wait till there is a time when it is not more than equal for them... but you cannot Use the term "white power" when doing so...because while the two are related, the former has come to represent repression and an accepted racist term.

It is clear, that had you penned the exact topic that hahaha wrote, you indeed would not have been banned, simply because you are very capable of staying within the actual guidelines, even while discussing some fairly turbulent topics. Most importantly though, your goal of discussion is far more evident...and is clearly not trolling, not to say you, like myself, could not slip in that area too.

[jefjef]

hahaha3 wrote:
Maybe there are still groups existing today that carry on that line, but what about the ones that fight against things like prostitution and homosexuality- I think those are very fair causes.

stahrgazer wrote:
If that deserves a ban, then I guess I deserve a ban, then, too, because I believe a fight against homosexuality is a very fair cause, depending on the time, place, and methods used to engage

AAFITZ applauds one and condemns the other.

Trolling?

[stahrgazer]

But I also will point out, if you agree a fight against the very lifestyle of your friends is a just cause, than really, they are not your friends. Not really.

Only if their homosexuality was the entirety of their being. It's not, it's simply one aspect. It's an aspect they can choose to act on or not, even if choosing not would be difficult for them, but whether they act on it or not, it's still not everything that they are.

As for the rest, there are those who believe that any rebuttal is, itself, trolling.

As to your earlier mention, which I let slide at the time but now seems pertinent: indicating where others have gotten away with things in the past is quite valid, as what's tolerated lends evidence as to what is acceptable. The evidence I saw is that those posts were on this side of the line, not the other side, even if they could be considered "awfully close to the line."

I can't see how a single post in a single thread, as 'hot' as the topic might be, is trolling, especially when the thread pointed out was a thread it appeared he had started. Perhaps I am unaware of other evidence, but if that's the case, that other evidence should be included, not merely one post of one thread that people can choose to misconstrue but likewise, could choose not to misconstrue or warp into things he didn't himself neither said nor implied even if "swastika carriers" might say quite outrageous, hateful, and bigotted things accompanied by worse actions.