Post: #1

Looking at this year's many, many social media scandals, I'm reminded of a book I read 10yrs or so ago. A guy named Bart Croughs wrote a book named "In the name of the woman, the gay & the alien", a referral to the Christian saying in the name of the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit. As you might understand it's about progressivism's highest virtue and how they have replaced Christian morality of yesteryear.

First: in the case of West vs. non-West the progressive chooses the side of non-West. (Such as colonialism, Crusades, the idea of English being the first language, etc.)

Second: in the case of minority vs. majority the progressive chooses the side of the minority. (Such as gays, immigrants, muslims in Europe, non-cis, etc. Women, although majority, are considered a minority also)

Third: in the case of minority vs. non-West, the progressive is conflicted. (Gays vs. muslims, inter-ethnic migrant clashes, Israel's Palestinian troubles, white feminists vs. PoC feminists, SWPLs beat up by minorities, etc.),

As is deducible, straight white dudes are not explicitly considered bad, but they're definitely no angels either -- talk back and you're a subversive element indeed. I'd advice you guys to take this line of reasoning into the back of your mind when steering through life. This is the culture now and it doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon. Soit.

Even better: use it to your advantage.

Whenever there's a discussion that's in law 1 or law 2 territory, I subvert the discussion by pushing it in law 3 territory. That will make sure to create short-circuit in the most annoying progressive element of any discussion an make him/her drop the subject.

Post: #2

Is this thread only for white guys?

Post: #3

What makes you think that? This is how progressives think.

But good that you ask, so we can get that out of the way. I'm not really interested in the race aspect, I'm more interested in making it through life as good, happy & succesful as possible.

Post: #4

could you give an example of how you would derail a conversation towards rule #3? I don't see how to do that outside of a convenient circumstance like the lesbian who wanted a man haircut vs. the muslim barber that refused on religious grounds.

Post: #5

(12-23-2013 10:21 AM)wiscanada Wrote:  could you give an example of how you would derail a conversation towards rule #3? I don't see how to do that outside of a convenient circumstance like the lesbian who wanted a man haircut vs. the muslim barber that refused on religious grounds.

A progressive thinks justice is:
-Giving citizenship to illegals
-Available healthcare for the newly minted citizens
-Available wellfare for the newly minted citizens
-Ability to subject immigrant men to taxation, divorce court, etc

Whereas, the actual realspeaker thinks justice is:
-Eliminate the conditions that caused the people to migrate, which involves any of the following:
----eliminate corruption in the home country
----refuse to trade with the upper class of the home country. Eliminate the entrenched class systems.
----Give the people aid and infrastructure in their home country, protected by western force.

I (as a conservative) understand why I cannot get along with progressive thought. In my mind, real justice would involve holding the upper classes accountable for leadership. The act of turning a blind eye to enjoy the upper class delights at the cost of social decay is inexcusable.

Post: #6

Easier than you might think. Useful concepts are cultural relativism, cultural appropriation/imperialism , intersectionality, shit like that. For examples you can check out really basic critical race theory shit and the endless arguments about intersectionality on feminist blogs.

It's not that hard to get a feel for the very formulaic hamster logic they use, especially if you don't care much about it to pay attention to the details .

you can exploit the obvious elitism of SWPL types by making them look racist or put some populist argument into lefty socialist jargon and accuse them of classism and secretly supporting the system. I mean that's often done sincerely.

Identity politics is so bs and subjective that you can pretty much argue for anything if you frame it right. It won't necessarily make them agree but it will mess with them and keep them from putting you in a box they can demonize.

It's all about connotations and associations for them. Remember the whole dog whistle thing? That's how they view things. They look for key words, phrases and patterns that match a pattern that they recognize as "wrong". It's not unique to progressives but it is central to them. Avoid "smelling" of wrongthink and you throw them off

Post: #7

(12-23-2013 10:21 AM)wiscanada Wrote:  could you give an example of how you would derail a conversation towards rule #3? I don't see how to do that outside of a convenient circumstance like the lesbian who wanted a man haircut vs. the muslim barber that refused on religious grounds.

I'm not interested in winning discussions like these, because I know you can't ever convince the opposite party of being wrong factually. They equate their position with moral truth. I'm more inclined towards the strategy mentioned by the protagnist in the movie "Thank you for smoking!". He said that lobby's work by fueling doubt on the other side, this creates a rift in public opinion of pro/against vote.

Practically, if there's, say, a women vs. men discussion on the pay gap, you can never win on facts. That's law 2 territory, so you'll lose for sure. You must let them talk for awhile, then steer the discussion towards the issue of feminists always lecturing foreigners on their 'Western' values. (Law 3 territory)

My intention is not about wanting to be right on these things, because for myself, I've already concluded that most prog ideas are wrong -- Why would I need or want to convince other people? They can believe whatever they want. Actually, the biggest realization about PC issues should be that it's a timewaster and a distraction that should be avoided or minimized. That's why the territory 3 approach is my preferred approach. You can let others feel satisfied about their ideas, but they'll also stop trying to convince you.

Post: #8

(12-24-2013 05:07 AM)Maciano Wrote:  Practically, if there's, say, a women vs. men discussion on the pay gap, you just walk away because she's an uppity cunt anyway

Fixed it for you

Post: #9

Architekt

I think you missed the point. It's about situations where you can't get around that shit, and it's not just women.

Post: #10

The only time I'd indulge someone in such a discussion is if they're rational enough to actually argue in facts and have a proper debate about the topic in the first place. Any other situation I'll keep my mouth shut or just ignore it and leave - it's generally just not worth the effort