The progressive left will stop at nothing. The conservative movements tend to work within the laws and do not resort to illegal surreptitious and violent process unlike progressives.
Do explain. Explain how Jan. 6 was non violent, and provide any example at all of what the left has done in America that even comes close to that. And conservatives work within the laws and ethics? How did Trump get his final justice onto the Supreme Court? Obama was denied a justice a full year before the election because it was an election year, said McConnell. Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in eight days before Trump left office.
Trump, the adjudicated rapist and 34-count felon, and the maga GOP have completely discarded the rule of law, and you know it. AND Trump told MTG she was glad her son was receiving death threats for her vote to release the Epstein files, where Trump is mentioned 38,000 times.
Do tell me how progressives have even come close to any of this. I'll wait.
To a Royal Commission in Australia about the ABC coverage of Oct 8 ... a 58-page submission (distilled from more than 150 pages) that provides a compelling case about the main distortions and three false narratives. The submission lays out how the ABC has pushed the “famine” hoax, the “baby killers” slur and the “genocide” claims, all buttressed by meticulously researched examples, as well as detailing how the ABC amplified Hamas propaganda.
The tone was set early. A “sentiment analysis” of reporting in the two weeks after the October 7 atrocities found “ABC headlines were 4-5 times less sympathetic to the impact on the Israeli population”.
Remember this was in the wake of 1200 obscene murders, including of women, children and the infirm, as well as rapes, defilement and hostage taking; hundreds of hostages were unaccounted for and the war against Hamas had hardly begun. This perversion of the victim versus perpetrator dynamic has only grown since.
What the hell does this have to do with the facts I posted, that I dared you to debunk? The OP said that the left was lawless and VIOLENT in the pursuit of its agenda, and so far, neither you nor the OP has addressed my takedown of that, noting that these accusations were actually true of the *right.*
And what's your response? Some report about an ABC affiliate in Australia being biased in its reporting on Israel, although I actually had to glean that as your writing is so poor. What a joke. How does that disprove my facts? Gee, should I reply with all of the DOZENS of right wing media outlets who are biased? Give me a freakin' break.
This is so typical... attempt to change the subject and deflect. Why? Because you don't have a leg to stand on regarding the right wing violence in the US, which is *no comparison* to that of the left. THAT IS THE TOPIC.
You're a poor writer and a terrible debater. Stop wasting my time.
Violence is ubiquitous and belongs to the entire spectrum of what is called politics, as exemplified by your anger and contempt at being gainsaid. You parrot political memes and attribute their wisdom to yourself.
The topic is ("populism" is being denied as "extremist") and you myopically narrow everything to whatever it is you believe is "violence" while addressing instances where you attribute it to be unjustified, or malicious or unwarranted.
I see your nation as founded on multiple instances of violence - Invasion, conquest and occupation of a land filled with nations long established on the length and breadth of two continents, independence from the founding culture by war and North and South unified by savage fratricidal violence.
You live in a population armed to the teeth with lethal weapons with an obscene murder rate amongst your citizens and neighbours.
Rage on, typical American individualist locked into your Frightful Fours courtesy of Dr Spock.
"To be sure, German vigilance against the far right is fully justified..."
You already lost the argument. Lesson: don't cede ideological ground...EVER! Your adversaries will only use it to further isolate then destroy you and yours.
Still squishy. Think about it. It's a definitional problem. See how everything trades on the common terms 'German', 'vigilance', and 'far right'. But they are not precisely defined (or definable); thus the problem.
We have no values? Hmmm. Do you even understand what "woke" means or its history? It was coined by the musician Lead Belly in 1938 as a plea to "stay vigilant against racial injustice." The phrase "stay woke" at the time meant that Black Americans should be ever vigilant of racial prejudice in the context of personal safety, because so many of them were dying due to racial hatred.
The term #staywoke came back into usage during the BLM movement for those same reasons. It was maga that began using the word "woke" as a pejorative since 2020, expressing contempt for anyone who cared about social justice.
So please, explain this woke ideology back to me from your POV, and what exactly is wrong with what I just outlined.
I should have replied to him directly. Still, I thought the historical refresher would be helpful as to why “stay woke” has been a phrase among Black Americans for so long. You said you disagreed with these “woke” values, which I find perplexing, as the words were a call for safety during dangerous times.
When I hear the phrase “woke ideology,” I have no idea what that even means, as that was created by the Right. Any liberals I know are a mixed bag of opinions, not subscribing to any fixed “ideology,” There is consensus on things like due process, human rights, affordable health care, the environment, quality education from K-12, the wealth gap, and the like, but “woke ideology” accordingto maga seems to consist of one issue and that's trans people. Bathrooms. Sports teams. One would think that's all we sit around and talk about. It's exhausting.
The core of the woke ideology is that the world is divided into oppressor groups and oppressed groups. Wokism originated in the USA so these groups are almost always defined from a US-American point of view.
Some examples, with the oppressed group first followed by the corresponding oppressor group:
* women / men
* black people / white people
* Muslims / Christians
* gay people / straight people
* trans people / cis people
Wokism as a value system says that one must judge people by their group identities and always be one the side of the oppressed group.
So discrimination against an oppressed group is always wrong, but discrimination against the corresponding oppressor group may be virtuous and is in any case less wrong than discrimination against the oppressed group.
Note that one group identity often missing or only mentioned in passing is working class people / rich people. This is because wokists
disproportionately come from the university-educated professional and managerial classes and see working class people as somewhat of an outgroup. They'd deny this of course, but consider that the British Labour Party has has all-women shortlists for parliamentary candidates for decades but has never had all-educated-at-state-school shortlists.
(Perhaps not co-incidentally, according to opinion polls, working class people now trust the Reform UK Party more than they trust the Labour Party).
It happens that I am white and male. I don't think that I should be discriminated against for these characteristics, but the British government disagrees. I will never be on the side of people who are against me, nor would I expect anyone else to be if they had any sense.
(Obviously there's more to wokism than that, and I'd have to write a whole blog post to do the subject justice. Hey, maybe I will.)
> “woke ideology” according to maga seems to consist of one issue and that's trans people
They do it because it works. Politicians out of self-interest concentrate on talking points they know will work. Trump's most effective ad during his presidential campaign was the "Kamala's for they/them" ad:
As I waded into this word salad, I immediately knew you were a white guy. And what you describe was made up entirely by white men. Sorry, but it's white men creating the collapse and chaos in the world right now. Take some responsibility, and maybe you'll find yourself with a life instead of in the late-night weeds of whatever this is.
The thing is, AfD really has links with neonazis. It uses nazi rethoric, it talks to neonazis, and it has neonazis in strategic positions within the party.
Hello, I don't know if you have read Jared Stacy's "Reality in Ruins." He goes for a twofer with trying undercut both Western science and what he calls Christian Evangelism in America. I have written 1200-word essay that I believe exposes his "cultural Marxist" attack on Christian Evangelism to get to Western science.
The argument is that politics in Europe in general is too much on the left, and that conservative thought is more and more marginalized, in particular by smearing them as extreme.
While it may be true, the weakness is that, in my view, you vastly understate the problem of differentiating extreme-right-in-disguise from conservative.
I personally agree in-so-far as I have a sentiment that politics is too left-leaning, and conservatives are often forced into the difficult position where apparently they have to chose between silence, being fodder for extreme-right propaganda, or being smeared.
For the sake of this argument I define "extreme-right" as ideas and actions aimed at replacing democracy with a form of hierarchical government without all people with a passport being able to vote for or against it, either directly or indirectly. That includes revoking passports or citizenships, especially on a larger scale.
The problem with your assessment with respect to Germany is that it neglects the years-long, strictly rules-based efforts of the Verfassungsschutz in trying to decide whether the AfD is, as you argue, just a conservative party, or in fact an extreme-right, anti-democratic movement acting in disguise.
I'm not an expert on that institution or in any way affiliated. What I want to do is to highlight the actual process of "has spied for years" to make clear that our institutions cannot just in-passing classify parties as extreme, as you make it sound.
While you state the "for years", you put it in one list with single lawsuits against single persons. A single lawsuit against a single person, whether justified or not, is something entirely different than, as I said, years of strictly rules-based observation of a party under suspicion.
As said, to me, you vastly understate the problem of differentiating extreme-right-in-disguise from conservative. Extreme-right acting as conservative-in-disguise is no mere fantasy, it is historical fact and it is still possible today. And professional propaganda, known and refined since then, makes it really hard to "just look at the facts".
You make it sound like some dubious misuse of intelligence services, to me it is quite the opposite. The AfD is currently officially under suspicion. But "Suspicion" does not mean that some guys in some (left-of-center?) bureaucracy decided that the AfD is somehow suspicious. At first, the party was seen as to be checked ("Prüffall"). That means Verfassungsschutz gets active and assesses patterns,
**but only with publicly available material**. The AfD was classified as "Prüffall" in 2019. Only after 2 years of investigation the Verfassungsschutz tightened the classification to "Verdachtsfall", i.e. being under suspicion of extreme, democracy-threatening tendencies. Since then, it has indeed been possible to investigate the party using intelligence-gathering methods. But those methods are still much restricted, only the next step, officially classifying as extreme-right ("Gesichert rechts-extrem"), allows to extend the intelligence measures.
And yes, the service can classify by itself, but that is bound to strict laws, and parties may file lawsuits against classifications. And the AfD did, in 2021 when classified as suspicious, and after some dragging on in 2022 the court in question ruled that the classification was legally justified. Which it is up to now. And right now, that pattern repeats as the AfD filed a law suit against the next-level classification as confirmed extreme right, with the result of that classification being suspended.
So we don't yet have an answer to a question that, at least in my view, is very difficult to answer: is the AfD a conservative party that acts in a populist manner, or is it in fact extreme-right in disguise? Are there just unavoidable currents, or are those currents so strong that the party is infact "taken over" ? I think that is the current mainstream view of the history of the AfD: euro-critical group -> neo-conservative -> extreme-right has taken over.
If we allow discrete classifications, the nature of humanity has a tendency to accept the status quo or to believe and act on the situation that if it is not broken, don't try to fix it and if it is obviously not working, cooperate with change for the better.
Sloganeering with Left and Right, Far or Extreme is proving to be utterly unhelpful in dialogue.
However, there is one fly in the porridge: too many so-called “right-wing” leaders in European countries align themselves with Putin—Alice Weidel, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán, etc.
Being in favor of traditional indigenous cultural norms, and leveraging that through appeals to “the pure people” against the “corrupt elites,” is certainly no more extreme than advocating culturally relativist and radically transformative norms while appealing to “the virtuous people” against the “ignorant masses.”
But aligning with Putin is most definitely extreme: unethical, self-loathing, irrational, and quite possibly subsidized by dirty Russian money.
I understand and agree with the fury. Aligning with Putin is not a minor ideological defect. It is a profound moral and political disqualification. Reconciling with Putin is akin to reconciling with Hitler in 1943, and it should not be advocated by any serious proponent of Western civilization.
That said, I would put the emphasis on exposure, prosecution where laws have been broken, and permanent political disgrace rather than hanging rhetoric. Support for Putin should be treated as a bright red line in any serious Western democracy.
> Because of Germany's past, the right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the easiest target for vilification. It's called neo-Nazi.
The problem with AfD is not that they are against immigration or against wokism. It is that they are too close to Russia, which means they are traitors against Germany and against European civilisation.
Thus, people on the left who're against AfD because they're against immigration are wrong. And people on the right who're for AfD are also wrong.
Totally agree. To me, it was so obvious that no one was more responsible for Trump's election than the ridiculous policies and hypocrisy of the left.
I think this is an excellent piece. Straight forward and common sense and fair minded. Precisely the point. Well done.
The progressive left will stop at nothing. The conservative movements tend to work within the laws and do not resort to illegal surreptitious and violent process unlike progressives.
Do explain. Explain how Jan. 6 was non violent, and provide any example at all of what the left has done in America that even comes close to that. And conservatives work within the laws and ethics? How did Trump get his final justice onto the Supreme Court? Obama was denied a justice a full year before the election because it was an election year, said McConnell. Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in eight days before Trump left office.
Trump, the adjudicated rapist and 34-count felon, and the maga GOP have completely discarded the rule of law, and you know it. AND Trump told MTG she was glad her son was receiving death threats for her vote to release the Epstein files, where Trump is mentioned 38,000 times.
Do tell me how progressives have even come close to any of this. I'll wait.
What an astonishing open mind, everything sensible has fallen out of it!
Explain, if you dare. Which of my facts are wrong? Or was this just a dig... a cowardly hit and run?
To a Royal Commission in Australia about the ABC coverage of Oct 8 ... a 58-page submission (distilled from more than 150 pages) that provides a compelling case about the main distortions and three false narratives. The submission lays out how the ABC has pushed the “famine” hoax, the “baby killers” slur and the “genocide” claims, all buttressed by meticulously researched examples, as well as detailing how the ABC amplified Hamas propaganda.
The tone was set early. A “sentiment analysis” of reporting in the two weeks after the October 7 atrocities found “ABC headlines were 4-5 times less sympathetic to the impact on the Israeli population”.
Remember this was in the wake of 1200 obscene murders, including of women, children and the infirm, as well as rapes, defilement and hostage taking; hundreds of hostages were unaccounted for and the war against Hamas had hardly begun. This perversion of the victim versus perpetrator dynamic has only grown since.
What the hell does this have to do with the facts I posted, that I dared you to debunk? The OP said that the left was lawless and VIOLENT in the pursuit of its agenda, and so far, neither you nor the OP has addressed my takedown of that, noting that these accusations were actually true of the *right.*
And what's your response? Some report about an ABC affiliate in Australia being biased in its reporting on Israel, although I actually had to glean that as your writing is so poor. What a joke. How does that disprove my facts? Gee, should I reply with all of the DOZENS of right wing media outlets who are biased? Give me a freakin' break.
This is so typical... attempt to change the subject and deflect. Why? Because you don't have a leg to stand on regarding the right wing violence in the US, which is *no comparison* to that of the left. THAT IS THE TOPIC.
You're a poor writer and a terrible debater. Stop wasting my time.
Violence is ubiquitous and belongs to the entire spectrum of what is called politics, as exemplified by your anger and contempt at being gainsaid. You parrot political memes and attribute their wisdom to yourself.
The topic is ("populism" is being denied as "extremist") and you myopically narrow everything to whatever it is you believe is "violence" while addressing instances where you attribute it to be unjustified, or malicious or unwarranted.
I see your nation as founded on multiple instances of violence - Invasion, conquest and occupation of a land filled with nations long established on the length and breadth of two continents, independence from the founding culture by war and North and South unified by savage fratricidal violence.
You live in a population armed to the teeth with lethal weapons with an obscene murder rate amongst your citizens and neighbours.
Rage on, typical American individualist locked into your Frightful Fours courtesy of Dr Spock.
If you look at recent American politics, the opposite is true.
Very true.
"To be sure, German vigilance against the far right is fully justified..."
You already lost the argument. Lesson: don't cede ideological ground...EVER! Your adversaries will only use it to further isolate then destroy you and yours.
“can be understood” rather than “fully justified”?
Still squishy. Think about it. It's a definitional problem. See how everything trades on the common terms 'German', 'vigilance', and 'far right'. But they are not precisely defined (or definable); thus the problem.
Excellent commentary. I deplore that anything left - no matter how extreme is so-called “progressive”
'Regressive' is more accurate.
The Leftist Church has no values, no principles.
That’s why they attack conservatives.
> The Leftist Church has no values
Whatever else you say about wokism, it is clearly a value system, even if its values are those that some (including me) dislike.
We have no values? Hmmm. Do you even understand what "woke" means or its history? It was coined by the musician Lead Belly in 1938 as a plea to "stay vigilant against racial injustice." The phrase "stay woke" at the time meant that Black Americans should be ever vigilant of racial prejudice in the context of personal safety, because so many of them were dying due to racial hatred.
The term #staywoke came back into usage during the BLM movement for those same reasons. It was maga that began using the word "woke" as a pejorative since 2020, expressing contempt for anyone who cared about social justice.
So please, explain this woke ideology back to me from your POV, and what exactly is wrong with what I just outlined.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I think woke has no values.
But that's what Nanko van Dijk wrote -- I was arguing **against** that proposition.
I should have replied to him directly. Still, I thought the historical refresher would be helpful as to why “stay woke” has been a phrase among Black Americans for so long. You said you disagreed with these “woke” values, which I find perplexing, as the words were a call for safety during dangerous times.
When I hear the phrase “woke ideology,” I have no idea what that even means, as that was created by the Right. Any liberals I know are a mixed bag of opinions, not subscribing to any fixed “ideology,” There is consensus on things like due process, human rights, affordable health care, the environment, quality education from K-12, the wealth gap, and the like, but “woke ideology” accordingto maga seems to consist of one issue and that's trans people. Bathrooms. Sports teams. One would think that's all we sit around and talk about. It's exhausting.
What do I mean by woke?
The core of the woke ideology is that the world is divided into oppressor groups and oppressed groups. Wokism originated in the USA so these groups are almost always defined from a US-American point of view.
Some examples, with the oppressed group first followed by the corresponding oppressor group:
* women / men
* black people / white people
* Muslims / Christians
* gay people / straight people
* trans people / cis people
Wokism as a value system says that one must judge people by their group identities and always be one the side of the oppressed group.
So discrimination against an oppressed group is always wrong, but discrimination against the corresponding oppressor group may be virtuous and is in any case less wrong than discrimination against the oppressed group.
Note that one group identity often missing or only mentioned in passing is working class people / rich people. This is because wokists
disproportionately come from the university-educated professional and managerial classes and see working class people as somewhat of an outgroup. They'd deny this of course, but consider that the British Labour Party has has all-women shortlists for parliamentary candidates for decades but has never had all-educated-at-state-school shortlists.
(Perhaps not co-incidentally, according to opinion polls, working class people now trust the Reform UK Party more than they trust the Labour Party).
It happens that I am white and male. I don't think that I should be discriminated against for these characteristics, but the British government disagrees. I will never be on the side of people who are against me, nor would I expect anyone else to be if they had any sense.
(Obviously there's more to wokism than that, and I'd have to write a whole blog post to do the subject justice. Hey, maybe I will.)
> “woke ideology” according to maga seems to consist of one issue and that's trans people
They do it because it works. Politicians out of self-interest concentrate on talking points they know will work. Trump's most effective ad during his presidential campaign was the "Kamala's for they/them" ad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hAFHB54gE
As I waded into this word salad, I immediately knew you were a white guy. And what you describe was made up entirely by white men. Sorry, but it's white men creating the collapse and chaos in the world right now. Take some responsibility, and maybe you'll find yourself with a life instead of in the late-night weeds of whatever this is.
The thing is, AfD really has links with neonazis. It uses nazi rethoric, it talks to neonazis, and it has neonazis in strategic positions within the party.
Nothing is more extreme than letting the Capitalist system relentlessly keep importing wave after wave of cheap labour.
Hello, I don't know if you have read Jared Stacy's "Reality in Ruins." He goes for a twofer with trying undercut both Western science and what he calls Christian Evangelism in America. I have written 1200-word essay that I believe exposes his "cultural Marxist" attack on Christian Evangelism to get to Western science.
Your argument has a weakness.
The argument is that politics in Europe in general is too much on the left, and that conservative thought is more and more marginalized, in particular by smearing them as extreme.
While it may be true, the weakness is that, in my view, you vastly understate the problem of differentiating extreme-right-in-disguise from conservative.
I personally agree in-so-far as I have a sentiment that politics is too left-leaning, and conservatives are often forced into the difficult position where apparently they have to chose between silence, being fodder for extreme-right propaganda, or being smeared.
For the sake of this argument I define "extreme-right" as ideas and actions aimed at replacing democracy with a form of hierarchical government without all people with a passport being able to vote for or against it, either directly or indirectly. That includes revoking passports or citizenships, especially on a larger scale.
You write "Germany's _Verfassungsschutz_, its domestic intelligence agency, has for years [spied on the AfD](https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news-corner/german-court-confirms-afd-as-suspected-extremist-group/). It has unsuccessfully attempted to designate the AfD "confirmed right-wing extremist" based on highly disputable allegations."
The problem with your assessment with respect to Germany is that it neglects the years-long, strictly rules-based efforts of the Verfassungsschutz in trying to decide whether the AfD is, as you argue, just a conservative party, or in fact an extreme-right, anti-democratic movement acting in disguise.
I'm not an expert on that institution or in any way affiliated. What I want to do is to highlight the actual process of "has spied for years" to make clear that our institutions cannot just in-passing classify parties as extreme, as you make it sound.
While you state the "for years", you put it in one list with single lawsuits against single persons. A single lawsuit against a single person, whether justified or not, is something entirely different than, as I said, years of strictly rules-based observation of a party under suspicion.
As said, to me, you vastly understate the problem of differentiating extreme-right-in-disguise from conservative. Extreme-right acting as conservative-in-disguise is no mere fantasy, it is historical fact and it is still possible today. And professional propaganda, known and refined since then, makes it really hard to "just look at the facts".
You make it sound like some dubious misuse of intelligence services, to me it is quite the opposite. The AfD is currently officially under suspicion. But "Suspicion" does not mean that some guys in some (left-of-center?) bureaucracy decided that the AfD is somehow suspicious. At first, the party was seen as to be checked ("Prüffall"). That means Verfassungsschutz gets active and assesses patterns,
**but only with publicly available material**. The AfD was classified as "Prüffall" in 2019. Only after 2 years of investigation the Verfassungsschutz tightened the classification to "Verdachtsfall", i.e. being under suspicion of extreme, democracy-threatening tendencies. Since then, it has indeed been possible to investigate the party using intelligence-gathering methods. But those methods are still much restricted, only the next step, officially classifying as extreme-right ("Gesichert rechts-extrem"), allows to extend the intelligence measures.
And yes, the service can classify by itself, but that is bound to strict laws, and parties may file lawsuits against classifications. And the AfD did, in 2021 when classified as suspicious, and after some dragging on in 2022 the court in question ruled that the classification was legally justified. Which it is up to now. And right now, that pattern repeats as the AfD filed a law suit against the next-level classification as confirmed extreme right, with the result of that classification being suspended.
So we don't yet have an answer to a question that, at least in my view, is very difficult to answer: is the AfD a conservative party that acts in a populist manner, or is it in fact extreme-right in disguise? Are there just unavoidable currents, or are those currents so strong that the party is infact "taken over" ? I think that is the current mainstream view of the history of the AfD: euro-critical group -> neo-conservative -> extreme-right has taken over.
I guess we can now be clear, the Enlightenment was a false dawn.
Christendom needed to be improved, not abolished, as an instrument which fashioned the moral compass of our societies and fellow citizens.
If we allow discrete classifications, the nature of humanity has a tendency to accept the status quo or to believe and act on the situation that if it is not broken, don't try to fix it and if it is obviously not working, cooperate with change for the better.
Sloganeering with Left and Right, Far or Extreme is proving to be utterly unhelpful in dialogue.
I have written pieces expressing much the same view in the past: https://dichebach.substack.com/p/germanys-ruling-elites-nothing-left
However, there is one fly in the porridge: too many so-called “right-wing” leaders in European countries align themselves with Putin—Alice Weidel, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán, etc.
Being in favor of traditional indigenous cultural norms, and leveraging that through appeals to “the pure people” against the “corrupt elites,” is certainly no more extreme than advocating culturally relativist and radically transformative norms while appealing to “the virtuous people” against the “ignorant masses.”
But aligning with Putin is most definitely extreme: unethical, self-loathing, irrational, and quite possibly subsidized by dirty Russian money.
Support for Putin is treason. Traitors should be hanged from the neck until they are dead.
https://tenor.com/view/wtf-meme-really-gif-26853815
I understand and agree with the fury. Aligning with Putin is not a minor ideological defect. It is a profound moral and political disqualification. Reconciling with Putin is akin to reconciling with Hitler in 1943, and it should not be advocated by any serious proponent of Western civilization.
That said, I would put the emphasis on exposure, prosecution where laws have been broken, and permanent political disgrace rather than hanging rhetoric. Support for Putin should be treated as a bright red line in any serious Western democracy.
> Because of Germany's past, the right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the easiest target for vilification. It's called neo-Nazi.
The problem with AfD is not that they are against immigration or against wokism. It is that they are too close to Russia, which means they are traitors against Germany and against European civilisation.
Thus, people on the left who're against AfD because they're against immigration are wrong. And people on the right who're for AfD are also wrong.
I support this new set of commentarirs but it is so far just not very good. This article is an example
John, stop licking your boyfriend's lollipop. It's rotting your brain!!!
Whoa! That's a really out-of-line ad hominem attack. How about sticking to the topic?
With sincere respect, that's not an ad hominem attack. It's just sarcasm 😂
How can anyone know what you mean by such a comment?
What would be good?