Conservatives need to be able to offer a narrative and language that rejects the ever-mutating liberal one. No conservative should ever use ''undocumented migrant'' to refer to illegal immigrants. No conservative should ever say ''Kyiv''. No conservative should ever say ''gender affirming healthcare''.
Conservatives need to be able to offer a narrative and language that rejects the ever-mutating liberal one. No conservative should ever use ''undocumented migrant'' to refer to illegal immigrants. No conservative should ever say ''Kyiv''. No conservative should ever say ''gender affirming healthcare''.
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The regime and its supporters use neuro-linguistic programming to shape the political environment and to psychically castrate the conservatives (which in the US simply means anyone not cheerfully enthusiastic about the social engineering of the regime). All opportunities for debate or the broadcast of opinion become humiliation rituals for conservatives once they buy into the language of the regime. There will be no real progress until the dissenters and dissidents start using language properly and thereby redirect the focus back onto reality.
The weakness and cowardice of the self-proclaimed 'conservatives' disgusts potential voters and rightly so. This helps demobilise the constituencies that could be used to contest the regime's policies.
Correcting this will allow the dissenters to wield microaggressions against the constituencies of the regime. This is essential for meaningful politics. Instead of "gender affirming healthcare" they need to talk about grooming, mental illness and castration. And illegal immigrants are "illegals" and "criminals" who form a replacement population based on the ruin of the rule of law and the annihilation of citizenship.
Its not even a questions of liberals or conservatives. Concepts, especially political ones, need to be well defined. If we lose sight of that all discussion is worthless.
People who play fast and loose with historical concepts should not engaged with in any form.
I disagree. Some people may need a second chance. The standard of discussion is so low that many people of goodwill simply do not understand how it is done and may be making mistakes unwittingly. Remarkably few people today have any exposure to the rigorous use of language. There is a reason that Leviathan/Cthulhu has dumbed down education and culture!
I'd say that we should engage with everyone, without prejudice, provided that they are civil. IMO it is dangerous to evade discussion, to go hors de combat as it were, because that leaves regime apologists in an uncontested position and that is the greatest danger of all. The best response to a bad idea is a good one and the experience of debating those who argue in bad faith is to expose them. It works.
Those who think for themselves need experience taking on the regime. Hiding in intellectual ghettoes (the favourite past-time of generations of 'conservatives') is a recipe for failure. I have long thought that we need more organised training in debate, including both formal logic, classical rhetoric and a bit of the latest psychology/neuroscience (because logic only works on one dimension).
The value of polemic (practiced properly) is that it fortifies the confidence and capacity of the dissenters. We stand to secure the gains from this, not just by ensuring that heterodox ideas remain current in public, but by retaining space or visibility in the public sphere. The demonstration effect will apply and encourage others to either come forward or at least send a message of comfort to those who can't or won't come forward just yet.
And nothing beats real-world experience...today's 'conservatives' are disgusting and vile creatures, happy to waffle on inside their sectarian ghettoes where transparent nonsense can pass for self-evident truths and (being full of self-pity in the best hyper-feminine manner) whine about the Left. They are not called polemics for nothing... ╧А╬┐╬╗╬╡╬╝╬╣╬║╧М╧В means 'warlike'...this is indeed war by other means. The regime's supporters are hostile for a reason, the regime defines itself politically by enmity towards dissenters. Silence is unconditional surrender. And I'd rather be damned for what I have said or written than for being suspected of thought-crime.
Conservatives need to be able to offer a narrative and language that rejects the ever-mutating liberal one. No conservative should ever use ''undocumented migrant'' to refer to illegal immigrants. No conservative should ever say ''Kyiv''. No conservative should ever say ''gender affirming healthcare''.
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The regime and its supporters use neuro-linguistic programming to shape the political environment and to psychically castrate the conservatives (which in the US simply means anyone not cheerfully enthusiastic about the social engineering of the regime). All opportunities for debate or the broadcast of opinion become humiliation rituals for conservatives once they buy into the language of the regime. There will be no real progress until the dissenters and dissidents start using language properly and thereby redirect the focus back onto reality.
The weakness and cowardice of the self-proclaimed 'conservatives' disgusts potential voters and rightly so. This helps demobilise the constituencies that could be used to contest the regime's policies.
Correcting this will allow the dissenters to wield microaggressions against the constituencies of the regime. This is essential for meaningful politics. Instead of "gender affirming healthcare" they need to talk about grooming, mental illness and castration. And illegal immigrants are "illegals" and "criminals" who form a replacement population based on the ruin of the rule of law and the annihilation of citizenship.
Its not even a questions of liberals or conservatives. Concepts, especially political ones, need to be well defined. If we lose sight of that all discussion is worthless.
People who play fast and loose with historical concepts should not engaged with in any form.
I disagree. Some people may need a second chance. The standard of discussion is so low that many people of goodwill simply do not understand how it is done and may be making mistakes unwittingly. Remarkably few people today have any exposure to the rigorous use of language. There is a reason that Leviathan/Cthulhu has dumbed down education and culture!
I'd say that we should engage with everyone, without prejudice, provided that they are civil. IMO it is dangerous to evade discussion, to go hors de combat as it were, because that leaves regime apologists in an uncontested position and that is the greatest danger of all. The best response to a bad idea is a good one and the experience of debating those who argue in bad faith is to expose them. It works.
Those who think for themselves need experience taking on the regime. Hiding in intellectual ghettoes (the favourite past-time of generations of 'conservatives') is a recipe for failure. I have long thought that we need more organised training in debate, including both formal logic, classical rhetoric and a bit of the latest psychology/neuroscience (because logic only works on one dimension).
Yes you are actually correct. I think i was to uncharitable in my last comment.
Ultimately polemics will will always have their value especially in this modern age.
The value of polemic (practiced properly) is that it fortifies the confidence and capacity of the dissenters. We stand to secure the gains from this, not just by ensuring that heterodox ideas remain current in public, but by retaining space or visibility in the public sphere. The demonstration effect will apply and encourage others to either come forward or at least send a message of comfort to those who can't or won't come forward just yet.
And nothing beats real-world experience...today's 'conservatives' are disgusting and vile creatures, happy to waffle on inside their sectarian ghettoes where transparent nonsense can pass for self-evident truths and (being full of self-pity in the best hyper-feminine manner) whine about the Left. They are not called polemics for nothing... ╧А╬┐╬╗╬╡╬╝╬╣╬║╧М╧В means 'warlike'...this is indeed war by other means. The regime's supporters are hostile for a reason, the regime defines itself politically by enmity towards dissenters. Silence is unconditional surrender. And I'd rather be damned for what I have said or written than for being suspected of thought-crime.
yes, lesson number 1, dont use the language of your foes