Last Active: Today
Threads: 613
Posts: 7,913
Reputation:
86
Apr 05, 2015, 18:31 pm
(This post was last modified: Apr 06, 2015, 13:24 pm by RobertX. Edited 1 time in total.)
OK, I stand correct - only partially.
Whether it's 2015, 2000. or 1990, we're in the same shithole as the lobby groups.
Now, I don't mind being corrected, I would like some examples on why Sunde is right about this little quarrel over semantics. I'll say it again: whether it's "piracy," "file-sharing," or "bootlegging," same old shit; the lower hanging fruit are (grammar?) the ones that are made examples of by the lobby groups, and that the lobby groups are always made fruits (and examples) out of by either themselves or the rest of the world.
I acknowledge that right now, most people share out of the goodness of their hearts and that, as such, they believe it brings power to the betterment of society, but it's kind of like other issues, like the death penalty. Although there are positive/negative changes in the world regarding this issue, the arguments are still the same, and it will always be the same.
Please, prove me wrong because, in this case, I would want to be wrong.
Thank you.
Last Active: Jun 30, 2024
Threads: 115
Posts: 4,813
Reputation:
32
(Apr 05, 2015, 18:31 pm)RobertX Wrote: Please, prove me wrong because, in this case, I would want to be wrong.
Thank you.
Practical example:
If I were to tell you that I am a commie before laying my arguments about redistribution of wealth on you, you'd probably be kneejerking you way into strawmen about totalitarianism, mass murder and Stalin. If not you, then the other 90% of SB's userbase.
Now if I adressed some real issues of unequality, poverty, power abuse etc, inherent in capitalism, without resolving to recognizable commiepropaganda (pro or con) terminology, I might even convince Stormium that capitalism is a bad idea.
In the same way Velvetfog might had convinced me that his libertarian elitism was noble, if he hadn't confessed his admiration for Ayn Rand beforehand.
In the same way I dismiss conspiracy theories as soon as I see the word illuminati mentioned.
In the same way the word feminism has lost any discursive power...
And so forth...
If you're fighting for a controversial cause, the worst thing you can do is to associate with any established ideology as people will project all sorts of prejudice before giving any thought to your argument.
Last Active: Today
Threads: 613
Posts: 7,913
Reputation:
86
Apr 06, 2015, 16:47 pm
(This post was last modified: Apr 06, 2015, 17:21 pm by RobertX. Edited 1 time in total.)
Thanks, eagle, I think I get it now.
So it's "politically incorrect."
I can say my wife is beautiful, and not lie, but if I also said she's fat, nobody would think she's beautiful but would admittedly say I'm not lying.
Last Active: Mar 30, 2022
Threads: 46
Posts: 910
Reputation:
16
"Politically incorrect" is a tautological term. It's used when someone thinks that he's way smarter than his opponent, so he thinks the dumb one could only attack him personally accusing him of being politically incorrect. Of course, the politically incorrect one is the arrogant one, so the term validates itself.
Why can't we use a swastica? We can change its significance and give it a new meaning. Why not?
Because it would be retarded, that's why.
Things has a meaning, and pretending that you can change it is so arrogant and self centered that you can end up using tautological terms and thinking it sounds sensible.
Last Active: Yesterday
Threads: 5
Posts: 478
Reputation:
-4
(Apr 06, 2015, 18:03 pm)connor17 Wrote: "Politically incorrect" is a tautological term. It's used when someone thinks that he's way smarter than his opponent, so he thinks the dumb one could only attack him personally accusing him of being politically incorrect. Of course, the politically incorrect one is the arrogant one, so the term validates itself.
Why can't we use a swastica? We can change its significance and give it a new meaning. Why not?
Because it would be retarded, that's why.
Things has a meaning, and pretending that you can change it is so arrogant and self centered that you can end up using tautological terms and thinking it sounds sensible.
Yea, "politically incorrect" is simply a grenade to toss into free speech. You shut it off abruptly by creating instant outrage over the words used in free speech. Then the argument that was debated no longer has any relevance. Kaboom. No more debate. Or the debate devolves into a comical talking pirouette that neuters the seriousness of the arguments. Libtards just LOOOVE this grenade.
|
