the normalization of Nazism continues apace.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
the normalization of Nazism continues apace.
Yeah, that's one way to imagine you've won an argument. 'Well, the rest of the world thinks I'm cool -I mean, right.'
That and a bunch of (conservative) billionaires.
Oh hey, you identified the other poster I'd argue engaged in strawmanning. Why not actually engage with the better arguments instead of dismissing the rest of them as "jumping to strawmanning"? You just argued with Silvanus that "everyone on your side does not think the same as you" (an argument I don't think Silvanus actually has made, but I have not kept track of all your discourse), yet you summarized the thoughts of the posters here in a "And now that you've all agreed to the silly things you believe"-statement.
Oh yeah, look at how great the US corporate governance and policymakers are due to them having lots of supporters with guns.
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,557
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
And idiots keep answering to you point by point, as if these points mattered to you, completely oblivious of the your underlying manipulative intent. As if you'd go "oh good news, turns out that scene isn't traumatizing for kids" or "oh good news, turns out gays/trans aren't degenerates", etc - while you actually want and require to manufacture these moral panics in order to support your actual agenda.
You're like a corrupt lawyer. I adress your intent, the worldview and the strategy that are the cause of your arguments. They keep playing whack-a-mole with your fake arguments, as if reality had any relevancy to them.
The thing to be denounced is you and what drives you. Not the little empty rhetorical sockpuppets you agitate in your anything-goes attempts at rationalization.
________
And actually it's a large scale problem. The US need a huge "let's cut your shit, we need to talk about the fundamentals" whenever the talibans get litigious. The idea that its democracy can function in a permanent state of legal micro-agressions and little bad faith attempts at cultural conquests is absurd, it's not a playground. And these little controversies, with their false implicit "we're all driven by the common good", just obfuscate intents and aimed actual societal models. It's like the micro-agressions of a mobbing situation, it's the mobbing itself that must be adressed, not each micro-agression in isolation before the next one. The US has to decide once and for all whether or not the White Straight Christian Male has a defining patriarchal role for the whole of society (locally and/or abroad). Because starting from a yes or a no there makes the whole difference, in all these fake little controversies that flood society with their fake little stakes, fake little motives and fake little rationales.
Last edited:
Those are two separate things. I did not mean to say that all their responses to my post were against strawmen.
A) In response to the comment that I was "100% correct" about the position none of them had said over pages of discussion, I was saying I'm pretty good at identifying people's positions and arguing against them instead of creating a strawman. There was an example in Wolf's post for me to pick on, but that was mostly a comment on past behavior, not specifically applying to the responses to that post.
Then seperately:
B) Having established that I was "100% correct" in my assessment of their positions (even though they wouldn't actually say it prior), I'm content to just let that stand. I'm not responding to each individual poster because I'm content to leave them where they are. There's not a gap that can be bridged between "it's healthy to show sexual content to youth" and "it's problematic to show sexual content to youth". I have no doubt that the people of the future, probably including some of the people here, will look back years from now and wonder "Why did they illustrate Anne Frank's sexual thoughts? And why the hell did they make it required reading in schools?" That's the way the current of culture is flowing.
The US citizenry hasn't used it recently, so the rich and the government deem it not credible, and it's not an enabler of good policy, it's insurance from total collapse, and a total takeover of the rich if they ever want to force a large number of people to be unhoused via automating away jobs.
Fyi, if the citizenry have taken to the streets to violently overthrow large corporations (and much of the government with them), that's not "insurance from a total collapse". That is a total collapse, and job automation will be the least of everyone's problems for a significant amount of time.
Whether such actions would be worth it long-term is another discussion, but let's not pussyfoot around the short-term suffering, death, and destruction it would cause.
Then the government should make sure we have long-term policies to deal with automation. What good is a TV being ten dollars if you and 66% of the population are homeless, and there are ten people in a factory making say TVs? It's on them to not make us worse off, the US citizenry is at full employment, and they don't have that much free time anyway to protest it.
Cowards! I'm surprised the Canadian Parliament is even doing this. Why? What the hell they have to gain from defending Nazis? Hope it's worth it, you sick fuckers!
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,557
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
Don't worry, we're still learning what nazism means through the precious testimony of OH NOES SHE SAID 'TITS' BURN THE BOOK FIRE THE TEACHER GOOSESTEP BEHIND OUR GOD-APPOINTED LEADER TOWARDS THE VERY FINE PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION.
This just in, populist party hates people wearing "worker clothes".
Because the workers aren't rich and are therefore the enemy.
Most people can be, and frequently are, wrong. Most people lack sufficient information to make informed decisions about certain topics, or are driven by their own emotional insecurities and failings. Saying that most people agree with you and then refusing to elaborate is, frankly, a bad argument.
You are misusing the concept of sexualization in a way that is actively unhelpful, because you seem to mistakenly view children as devoid of sexuality, and you are completely wrong. Children are not devoid of sexuality at all. In fact, children are sexual beings from pretty much the moment they are born. Many children will start masturbating or engage in sexual play as soon as they discover that their genitals are sensitive to touch, often when they are toddlers. Many children will be curious about other people's bodies and look for opportunities to see them naked.
Suppressing knowledge of sex or healthy, age appropriate sexual exploration doesn't result in children with no sexuality. In fact, it often results in children with warped or stunted sexuality, who do not understand the difference between healthy and unhealthy forms of sexual expression and who are extremely vulnerable to abuse or their own poor decisions or, worse case scenario, have views on sexuality formed entirely by the porn industry. It is, by any rational or pragmatic metric, the absolute worst way to counter the real problems of child sexualization.
If you think children should be told it is morally good to delay having sex until they turn 25, then fine. That is an agree to disagree position. If you think those children should intentionally be kept ignorant of sex because this will suppress their desire to do it until they turn 25, that's not an agree to disagree position. That's a dangerous, counterproductive and harmful position based on bad information and driven by an unhealthy desire for control.
I think the problem was that no-one vetted him prior, so they were not aware he was a veteran of the SS.
I do have a question about the Nazi, did the Canadian government just find him? Did they send him a letter first? Did he nearly have a heart attack because he thought he got found out?