Inkbunny

"They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern [alluding to Pavlov]. You can not change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior." - Yuri Bezmenov

alistair

4 years, 6 months ago

link

@ UrianKitsune

Heh, yeah. I try not to bring up Bezmenov or Gramscian Damage too much, because I got tired years ago of being treated like a kook for trying to bring the actual, no-bullshit threat of lingering Soviet/communist subversion to people's minds. Try telling someone that they are the attack vector of a memetic virus, and they get a little hostile. Can't imagine why.

AngyNoodle

4 years, 6 months ago

link

Truer words have never been spoken

moyomongoose

4 years, 6 months ago

link

Activists actually have a creed they adhere to that goes, "When all else fails, resort to violence".

You ever notice when some leftist activists seem to be running out of ammo in a battle of wits, they're ready to whump ass on someone...Like decking someone who opposes them is going to show who wins the argument.

Ameinias

4 years, 6 months ago

link

Liberals and socialists aren't people. At best they're 'people'.

alistair

4 years, 6 months ago

link

The other edge of the dehumanization sword is the implication that a given behavior is inhuman. This obscures the fact that we are all capable of doing horrible things. When we say, "a person or persons who exhibit Behavior X no longer belongs to the 'people' set" we are necessarily saying that Behavior X is not a human behavior, which is obviously false. This blinds us to our own potential failures and those we identify with in terms of tribe. When a large enough population is so blinkered, it ends up turning a blind eye to some really stunning atrocities.

I think this is what lies at the heart of the Christian doctrine of Original Sin, although it is generally lost in the semantic and ideological shuffle. The incorrect, or at least incomplete, interpretation is "we are all sinners"; the more useful interpretation is "to sin is to be human; think not that you are above sin."

Qwertyiopmpc

4 years, 6 months ago

link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs

EstebanG

4 years, 6 months ago

link

Y'ever notice that the most eloquent argument, combined with empirical evidence, has no effect on certain people? Those people need a clue-by-four.

“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Conan the Cimmerian

UrianKitsune

4 years, 6 months ago

link

Hehehe, To think I have people keep telling me that I'm too aggressive for not putting up with insane authoritarian bullshit. Guess I'm the twat XD

Jukain

4 years, 6 months ago

link

Depends on the activist. Do they actually know what they are talking about? Are there flaws in their reasoning? Also, it is a common idea that you can say whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's rights. There are a few things that people forget in that: that means I can argue back. Also, being able to argue doesn't make you right, at least not to other people. You can also believe in what you want, but no one has to agree with you.

What is the point, then? I find a proper debate to be about opinions, and they are usually to simply get ideas out there, it isn't to "win". There are things some people can think about that you can't, and vice versa. A debate is NOT about facts. Facts can be observed, demonstrated, or calculated, and are the same for everybody if done correctly. That is called education, or studying. It is not a debate.

RoareyRaccoon

4 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Jukain

The activist twats are people who have destroyed the atmosphere just about everywhere, so people need to tread on eggshells or get their shit ruined. Everybody is aware of them, everybody knows what I'm referring to. They're scum and they think themselves moral exemplars while they act worse than everybody else. This isn't a debate, or an attempt at one, it is pointing directly to specific behaviour, that people actually do, and saying it's awful.

Ameinias

4 years, 6 months ago

link

How can we get rid of the activists though? They are quite many.

RoareyRaccoon

4 years, 6 months ago

link

You can't, there's no need to either XP. Oppose their shit.

Ameinias

4 years, 6 months ago

link

In other words, accept losing your job.

RoareyRaccoon

4 years, 6 months ago

link

No, the more people openly oppose their behaviour, the less power they have to actually do it in the first place. It is lack of opposition that gives them power to begin with.

Ameinias

4 years, 6 months ago

link

Sure, but we're in a dilemma here. We could crush them... but 'we' aren't organised. There are people who've tried to actively oppose the fascists, but the fascists always win, and, more importantly, those resisting them always lose. If the fascists let even a single anti-fascist win... then more and more anti-fascists would come out. Thus, the fascists can't let a single anti-fascist win.

You also have to realise that while the fascists aren't a majority, they are quite a big minority.

RoareyRaccoon

4 years, 6 months ago

link

Fascists always win? Could've fooled me XP.

Ameinias

4 years, 6 months ago

link

Well they have so far, have they not? Sure, they lost WW2, but that was a regular war. This is a culture war. They walked The long march through the institutions and right now they control all relevant aspects of society: universities, schools, government agencies and least, but most important, the media. Even the Police, I'd say.

alistair

4 years, 6 months ago

link

"	Ameinias wrote:
	Well they have so far, have they not? Sure, they lost WW2, but that was a regular war. This is a culture war.

Be wary of loose definitions. Mussolini's Italy was about the only proper Fascist state; maybe Franco's Spain too? Fascism, the word, means something. Throwing the word around too loosely risks falling into the same traps as the Progressive social justice brigades; the word "fascist" becomes a thought-terminating cliche, and leaves one open to definition-based ripostes.
Authoritarian, totalitarian, tyrannical, are more accurate words for what the current neo-commies exhibit.

Ameinias

4 years, 6 months ago

link

I don't understand you. At all. The fascists have been extremely successful in the way they use language. Their use of language is one of their greatest strengths. When they use words it has a single purpose: to achieve something. Frighten someone, silence people, distort people's view of reality et cetera. It's evil, because they are evil fascists, but there's no way of winning against that except playing the same game. You don't win against fascists by being nice to them.

alistair

4 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 4 years, 6 months ago by Owner

"	Ameinias wrote:
	I don't understand you. At all.

Alrighty. Give me your definition of "fascist," then, so we can talk on the same terms. It does not seem to match my definition, the way you use it.

Ameinias

4 years, 6 months ago

link

By itself it means nothing.

alistair

4 years, 6 months ago

link

"	Ameinias wrote:
	By itself it means nothing.

So, when you call people "fascists" you are calling them "nothing"? You actually don't mean anything when you say it? Is it just a generic BadWord(tm) you use for meaningless name-calling? It sure doesn't seem like that's the case with you, but if you say it is so, then I guess it is.

Ameinias

4 years, 6 months ago

link

They oppress, harass, 'deplatform' and stalk people, they force them into silence. That's enough to call them fascists. But the main reason we should use that word - and other, similar words - is because it works. Be offensive - you shouldn't have to defend yourself from their accusations, they should have to defend themselves from your accusations. Being a liberal is bad, evil, fascist and oppressive. We should call them that, we should harass them, deplatform them (extremely difficult given that they won the culture war, but even trying is worth something) and try to force them into silence.

Treat them like the evil fascists they are. It works and it's the only thing that does. Being nice does not work. They aren't people, they're scum.

alistair

4 years, 6 months ago

link

"	Ameinias wrote:
	They oppress, harass, 'deplatform' and stalk people, they force them into silence. That's enough to call them fascists.

But that is not what "fascist" means. If I were to call someone who does that a "fascist" I would be saying something I know isn't true. No thanks.

"	But the main reason we should use that word - and other, similar words - is because it works. Be offensive - you shouldn't have to defend yourself from their accusations, they should have to defend themselves from your accusations.

Is it not better to use accusations that are, well, true? A person can be offensive without telling lies. When "they" levy accusations, the correct move is to demand they support the claims, presuming the accusations are false. If we just throw accusations around willy-nilly, it would discredit us in the same way it discredits them.

"	Being a liberal is bad, evil, fascist and oppressive.

I disagree with your implied definition of liberal, though I do understand what you are saying.

"	We should call them that, we should harass them, deplatform them (extremely difficult given that they won the culture war, but even trying is worth something) and try to force them into silence.

No. No deplatforming, no harassment. No censorship, not ever. That is evil.

"	Treat them like the evil fascists they are. It works and it's the only thing that does.

You still need to explain what a "fascist" is. It makes you look like a fool if you throw the word around too loosely. And it is not the only thing that works.

"	Being nice does not work.

We don't have to be nice. But that doesn't mean we have to act like lying thugs.

"	They aren't people, they're scum.

In my world view, scum are people too.

This thread is growing a little tedious. I may drop out soon.

alistair

4 years, 6 months ago

link

No one person has to fight the entire war on their own.  It is a multi-dimensional conflict, with many potential theaters one can take part in.  The smallest, and the easiest for most people, is to simply stand up and refuse to say things you know to be false.  Don't worry about trying to be in the vanguard; the purely defensive play is useful.

Up from there is the active debate, as reasoned and calm as one can manage.  The nutjobs won't be turned, but people on the sidelines will notice.  A person has to be willing to take a lot of shit, but for the most part it's just words, though still with a small chance of actual risk.

Alongside that, censorship re-routing.  Help others to stand up and speak.  Join sites dedicated to freedom of expression, and contribute to them.  Use technologies built to resist censorship.  This is extra fun when the tech was developed by the very people who would oppose us using it.

Never accept defeat.  Remember that the vast majority of people simply don't care about this shit.  They don't care, and they get annoyed when they're faced with it, right up to the point that they get targeted.  When that happens, we need to be there to show them they are not alone in being the victim of mob aggression.

I know it seems insurmountable, but the authoritarian Christian right seemed insurmountable 25 years ago, too.  Now they're effectively powerless, because people stopped paying attention to them.  And these bastards today aren't relatively peaceful like those folks were; when the mask slips and the violence and aggression comes to bear, people increasingly realize that these fuckers are not the good guys.

Ameinias

4 years, 6 months ago

link

"The smallest, and the easiest for most people, is to simply stand up and refuse to say things you know to be false."

I would lose my job if I did. Sure, the fact that we lost modernism (and got postmodernism instead) was roughly on the order of (but probably more than) a billion times worse, but still, I'm not altruistic enough to lose my job, and more, trying to get modernism back.

alistair

4 years, 6 months ago

link

"	Ameinias wrote:
	I would lose my job if I did.

Your job requires, as in coerces, you to explicitly say things you know are not true? I don't mean it requires you to stay silent when other people speak, but the actual job requires lying? Sounds like an awful job.

Ameinias

4 years, 6 months ago

link

There are many situations where I must hide the truth. Looking at the consequences, I might as well have lied. But yes, there are also situations that may arise where I have to give outright lies (not that I see how that's any worse than hiding the truth).

Ameinias

4 years, 6 months ago

link

And keep in mind that reversing the situation will, at best, take half a century. That's what it took for the liberals to take over all relevant institutions and that's what it will take to take them back. They won't let you though. The institutions used to be conservative, meaning they had a niceness and tolerance of opinions built into them. Conservatives can't take them back as easily though since they're now controlled by fascists.

While taking back the institutions from the inside is necessary to win, you also need to attack from the outside. Call out the fascists for what they are. Don't say "well Obama/Biden/Merkel/Macron are nice people but..." or "liberals mean well...", "I can understand why...". Is this the sort of language they give Trump or any of the liberation parties of Europe? No. Treat any and all liberals the way Trump is treated. Treat them like the scum they are. It must be made difficult to be a fascist. Don't wait until they accuse you of anything - accuse them first. They are fascists, remember? And if they accuse you, never apologise, ever.

alistair

4 years, 6 months ago

link

"	Ameinias wrote:
	And keep in mind that reversing the situation will, at best, take half a century.

I figure about 20-25 years for the wheel to fully turn. And, well, yes. That's no excuse for giving up, though.

Ameinias

4 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 4 years, 6 months ago by Owner

No. There is no wheel turning. They purposefully took control over the institutions. They worked hard for half a century to do it. It seems to have happened in many western countries, but in particular in the USA, the UK, Canada and the Nordic countries.

alistair

4 years, 6 months ago

link

"	Ameinias wrote:
	No. There is no wheel turning. They purposefully took control over the institutions.

Institutions are not people. You can't change an institution without changing the people or making the institution powerless through other means. The only way to do that is to do the hard work in all the many ways one can do so. Yes, it can be done. Yes, it will take time. Despair solves nothing.

Ameinias

4 years, 6 months ago

link

You have to replace the people controlling the institutions. That's what the fascists did. They became journalists, teachers and took control of the universities because they wanted to change society. To change it back, modernists must do the same. If you control the media, the schools and the ideology production at the universities you control all of society.

DiogenesShandor

4 years, 4 months ago

link

There is a wheel turning and that is the problem. You all talk about getting back to where we were but we ARE where we were. The dominant social paradigm always becomes consumed with arrogance and hubris, leading to its eventual ouster, followed by the new order's own gradual descent into the dark side. The best way I can think of to describe it, is if you've ever played the first 2 games of the Diablo computer game series, that's basically what we're seeing now; much as the Dark Wanderer defeated Diablo but then became Diablo, so too the progressive left defeated the 1980's religious far right but them became the 1980's religious far right. Those of you familiar with the late 20th century may recall that there were ACTUAL WITCH TRIALS, including the McMartin trial and the Oak Hill trial. That social order was toppled, but this one that replaced it is the same in all important respects. And in addition to differing only trivially from each other, they both differ only trivially from McCarthyism. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss

What America needs -what the WORLD needs - isn't a change of values, it needs a change of medication. Instead of a generation of fanatics for this followed by a generation of fanatics for that, followed by a generation of fanatics for the other thing, we need a generation of people who take mood stabilizers and valium to stop them from being a fanatic for anything.

DiogenesShandor

4 years, 4 months ago

link

@ DiogenesShandor

The Wheel turns and carries different people and ideologies into different positions, but the positions themselves remain constant.

The wheel makes a revolution and we are carried back to the place where we started.

DiogenesShandor

4 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 4 years, 4 months ago by Owner

@ DiogenesShandor

"Fortunae rota volvitur;
descendo minoratus;
alter in altum tollitur;
nimis exaltatus
rex sedet in vertice
caveat ruinam!
nam sub axe legimus
Hecubam reginam."
-The Carmina Burana, Fortune: Empress of the World, "Fortune Plango Vulnera"

"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. 8All things are wearisome; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 9The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."
-Ecclesiastes 1:7-9

BogdanUrs

4 years, 6 months ago

link

Thank you for leaving your socks off Tails. ;-)

RoareyRaccoon

4 years, 6 months ago

link

@ BogdanUrs

Well, I tend to be inclined to /take/ them off XP.

BogdanUrs

4 years, 6 months ago

link