what are you on about?
i can see nothing of what you criticize in hazel's post.
she is not conflating anything.

you probably just got ticked off by her using the N-word (no, not that n-word, the other one).
Her using it might have been a little unfortunate, given Godwin's law and its aftermath...

You've got to stop playing moderator-- I gave hazel reputation and started with "hear, hear." That indicates strong agreement, not critique. Playing MITM only makes things more confusing. I don't need you to be an intermediary or translator, and you have a habit of misunderstanding/misinterpreting what people are saying. I say this as politely as it can be said.

Godwin's law is moot when talking about the alt-right. He says so himself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Godwin's law is dead. At the very least, it takes a back seat to world events involving white supremacists. Even for Mike Godwin. Self-censorship is the last thing we need, we need thoughtful critique and careful examination of the world, not to be afraid of talking about it or covering up and hiding/hiding from relevant information.

There is no alt right or alt left, they are the same thing working for the same people/groups/entities etc....

Horseshoe theory? There is an alt-right and an alt-left IMO, but they're both fascists, and nothing the world really needs (except as a bad example.)

Horseshoe is interesting but I think its more similar to either two wings on the same bird (similar to political parties pretending to be opposed to each other) or the snake eating its own tail/tale.

History has shown repeatedly that those groups are one and the same, brown shirts, black shirts, fascists, socialists, communists etc... I agree with you, and history has shown that those groups/ideologies do only two things well---destruction and mass murder.

As soon as you posit that the Left and the Right are equivalent the terms lose any meaning which is generally exactly the idea. It makes the easier to simply dismiss rather than actually consider any platform. That the extremes wish to use force to implement their agendas is a similarity (and one to be emphatically avoided) but that doesn't make +1 = -1, ice = fire, up = down, etc.

Enorbet, but ice in its extreme burns just like fire, you should know that. Fire in its extreme moves like water, +1 and -1 can be the same if the goal is 0 (zero).

i wasn't playing moderator.
nobody except hazel can see who gave her reputation.
i am not playing MITM, just voicing my opinion, just like you are and everybody else here (well, at least in General).
with that said, you also have a habit of misunderstanding/misinterpreting what people are saying. I say this as politely as it can be said.

nice.

we will see where this leads to in the end.

Extreme acids and bases. The bottom of the ocean and outer space. Parental abuse and parental neglect. We acknowledge the differences on an intellectual level, but the damage or threat is similar and related.

Conflating the right with the alt-right on the other hand, only strengthens the latter and weakens the ability for half of the political system (the right) to stand against the alt-right, leaving it entirely to the left, who now lose millions of potential/possibly needed right-wing allies (you read that correctly) from fighting the most dangerous fringe fanatics. It's very risky politics, for short-term gain and long-term destruction of the political system.

The real effect of this happening is that the extremists overpower the moderates, and the horseshoe is inverted-- with extremists at the top and moderates on the "fringe."

The way to stop that is to establish and maintain a clear line, not to get confused and accidentally lend ten-fold credence ("they make up half the country now!" NO they dont!) and status to the extremists. But the line that really matters isn't between alt-right and alt-left-- it's between the alt-collective (the extreme) and the majority of each side of the political spectrum. That's the line the world can't afford to squander for the sake of rhetoric.

I will give this reputation, just so you can see that it is possible to sign it.

EDIT: it will have to wait though, I already repped you for something you posted in another thread. I will be able to prove this point later. I do wish you would stop putting words in my mouth all the same. You do not understand me, and you are getting in the middle of me responding to someone else. Once or twice is an honest mistake. After that, it's closer to trouble-making. I don't question your intentions at all, only the merit or need for your assistance. If nothing else, consider (along with your good intentions) that I consider it unhelpful and distracting. The honest thing to do is consider the possibility-- I'm not asking you to take my word for it, but consider it. Thanks.

Your opinion was a misinterpretation of what I said, and it was unhelpful, and not for the first time. I hope you will learn from this habit and develop a different one instead. I don't expect you to read minds, only to hopefully learn from mistakes and misunderstandings. That's not an unreasonable thing to wish.

please don't flatter yourself, and don't flout your suspicions lest they become self-fulfilling.
i have no interest in targeting you specifically or - how did you put it - "troublemaking" on behalf of you. none.

you're right, i misunderstood that post of yours.
if you feel that i'm making a habit out of this then it's just that, your feeling. your interpretation.

if you'd have reacted differently i'd have said sorry.

That comment is unnecessary and borders on rudeness.

Don't shift responsibility for your actions onto me.

I already said I'm not questioning your intentions, only your actions. If you're not interested in making trouble, why don't you do as I kindly suggested and cease?

It has happened more than once in a week, are you saying otherwise?

I don't require an apology. I would have liked for you to learn from it, but you insist on making excuses and shifting the blame.

Gentlemen, please!! I was merely expressing my opinion, not trying to start a war. And anyway, I had no idea that you could find out who gave you a reputation point. I always assumed it was completely anonymous.

Unless it is signed. You should have one that says "hear, hear." I could be more explicit and add my handle, though it could actually be "forged" the same way. I could rep someone and say George Washington approved (as could anybody.)

Let's be clear about this though, you've done nothing to start anything. Your posts were useful and insightful. Some of ondoho's posts are also useful and insightful. I can only hope some of mine are as well.

You did nothing wrong hazel...Just some blokes sharing some thoughts and having a lively discussion.