ipsa scientia potestas est-adaequatio intellectus et rei
Originally Posted by miss BabyDoll
A racist's guide to online political discussion: pretend to be a Conservative.
lol nice affirmation of my photo.
isn't free speech a great thing.
ipsa scientia potestas est-adaequatio intellectus et rei
Free speech is a wonderful thing. Yet another racist's guide to online political discussion: everyone who criticizes me is trying to censor my speech.
who said anything about me being censored?
the free speech reference was a reminder that i can say what i please, when i please. now, take your passive-aggressive offended baby-rage elsewhere.
ipsa scientia potestas est-adaequatio intellectus et rei
And I can say what I please, which is that you have the world view of a histrionic little child who can't see the nuances in the other side's arguments.
yeah of course you can. just don't quote me is what i was telling you but you somehow failed to understand me. whatever, you're a waste of my time. bye.
ipsa scientia potestas est-adaequatio intellectus et rei
The "racist" label is a metric institutions use to dictate who they will throw their institutional weight out to materially marginalize.
If an idea were factually solid and consistent, but it still fit the prescription of "racist," that fact alone could, and in the past has, been used to socially invalidate it. Also, it's not just grassroots censuring of ideas labeled racist either. Platforms of public discourse, which often retain monopoly in their niche because of networking effects, liberally use the "racist" charge to choke certain subjects from public discussion. Applying a label to an idea is NOT criticism, it is an ad-hominem. An ad-hominem that, in this case, is not grassroots, but bears an asymmetrical, institutional stigma.
Also, when someone starts throwing out innocuous-looking conservative ideas, the same types who slander with the "racist" label turn around and accuse these perfectly innocuous ideas of being """"dogwhistles,"""" assume they are always coded language with no benefit of the doubt extended, refusing to engage the implications of these proposals on their own terms or merit.
So whether or not you're "lawful" in handling some right-leaning ideas, it's damned if you do or don't.
You've totally boxed up the conversation so the only conclusions it can yield are done on YOUR terms.
And no, you don't get to use the "Well, if you're not a wayciss, why are you so afraid of being called one, HUUUUUUHHHH?!" counterargument. You can say the same thing about calling someone a pedophile or a rapist, but people can still get falsely accused of being them, and the implications of that charge are rightful grounds for anger by the accused.
Last edited by Grendel; 07-24-2019 at 02:48 AM.
I agree with you that this exists on the Left to some extent; I advance that this is rather due to the inherent tribalism of political discourse, meaning that something similar exists on the Right -- by the conflation of Liberalism with ANTIFA for instance. I assure you that I can tell the difference between Conservatism and Reactionary racism.
Conservatives, especially the Burkean kind, hold a well-articulated, sophisticated ideology that doesn't have the reflexive prejudice and overwrought simplicity of moral outlook inherent to racists and reactionaries.
Avoid propaganda, of which the purpose is to suspend critical thought and spread uncritical thought.
But if you must suspend critical thought, I recommend having a sound track.
Particularly one with Faye Wong singing, and female jet pilots.
Human development starts with people that want progress and progress with those around them, not people that want to swap fluids between themselves in a torrent of their collective contempt and disgust.
What's your fucking progress?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote