2020 General Election Predictions

[heydaralon]

HM: You are debating with Martin here, but in all honesty, from what little I know about you, I think your belief system is actually quite similar to his.


In the sense of, you both are very big on the fruits of the Enlightenment project.



All of this postmodernist SJW shit is to undo the Enlightenment. In a nutshell, that is what they are doing. And interestingly enough, while trying to dilute the meanings of words and change them and pretending to be more open minded or something, they are actually creating a system that tries to utterly reclaim the past and present by changing these words. It leads to Hell. It will not ultimately help women, or minorities or anyone really, because its methods of inquiry are flawed. But bad modes of thought can last a very long time before they burn out.

Its interesting to me that you are not more hostile to it than you are.

I do not think you like what is going on, but if you don't see this as a threat (and quite frankly a belief system diammetrically opposed to your own), what do you see as a threat?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I don't like it at all, and am fairly livid at the abandonment of liberalism and the Enlightenment.

But, there is a simple calculus that I think needs to be accepted by people who want to defend the Enlightenment project:

Racism, conceptually, works as a pre-fab motte and bailey for progressives. We have all seen how it works - if you have a point that a progressive doesn't like it will be attacked as racist. The person making the argument then starts to explain all the ways in which they aren't prejudiced or bigoted, and they try to provide evidence of their commitment to diversity, et cetera. Here we are, in the bailey of 'racism is morally wrong.'

Next, the progressive will retreat to the motte of 'no, racism is a system that creates disadvantages for non-whites with predictably negative results.' At this point, you have a choice. Argue that their definition of racism is wrong - which is just the opportunity they want to trot out red lining, discrimination in the New Deal, government housing for WWII vets, and all the other times America has failed to live up to its ideals...

Or, you can keep them confined in the motte. It is trivially simple to argue that ideals of individualism, freedom to participate in the market in whatever way you can, and a country founded in law rather than bloodlines are the best way to mitigate the problems that arose from an imperfect execution of our ideals.

Here is the key. The progressives WANT to be arguing about the past, because it is in the past that their arguments have moral resonance. They WANT the opportunity to lecture you about systemic racism, and they know they will get the chance when you defend yourselves from the accusation of racism.

I don't like it, but there is absolutely nothing we are going to be able to say or do that will convince progressives to abandon their definition, but we can lay siege to their definition.

Obviously, the die hard agitators and activists aren't going to budge, but if you aren't busy defending yourself, you can make a morally superior case that less fanatic people will recognize.

Extreme left ideology has a high floor - higher than it should be - but it has a very low ceiling.

[Martin Hash]

OR...

When someone calls you a racist, say "I'm a racist," and move on, but you don't have to accept their damn Oral Illusion. I'm a bigot. I'm prejudiced. So, what R U going to do about it? You wanna commit violence then come at me mutterfukker.

That's how you handle it, Hanny.

p.s. It's going to come to violence anyway.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

That looks like a much more dangerous capitulation than the one I am suggesting.

Like I have already said, if you have already abandoned the idea that the American project can work, and that it can be intellectually and morally defended, then you can respond with 'come at me bro.'

It isn't a strong position at all, though. It is two cowards circling each other when neither have the courage of their conviction that they can realistically win a fight.

[C-Mag]

They want Nipple Studs
https://nypost.com/2020/04/10/democrats ... %20buttons

[Martin Hash]

That looks like a much more dangerous capitulation than the one I am suggesting.

Like I have already said, if you have already abandoned the idea that the American project can work, and that it can be intellectually and morally defended, then you can respond with 'come at me bro.'

It isn't a strong position at all, though. It is two cowards circling each other when neither have the courage of their conviction that they can realistically win a fight.

I’m a coward.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

That looks like a much more dangerous capitulation than the one I am suggesting.

Like I have already said, if you have already abandoned the idea that the American project can work, and that it can be intellectually and morally defended, then you can respond with 'come at me bro.'

It isn't a strong position at all, though. It is two cowards circling each other when neither have the courage of their conviction that they can realistically win a fight.

I’m a coward.

I find that extraordinarily unlikely, given your resume.

I think you are afraid of the damage progressives are doing to civil society, as any sane person should be.

[Haumana]

They want Nipple Studs
https://nypost.com/2020/04/10/democrats ... %20buttons

Those debates would be fun too! Not such a slaughter.

[C-Mag]

They want Nipple Studs
https://nypost.com/2020/04/10/democrats ... %20buttons

Those debates would be fun too! Not such a slaughter.

Agreed. But I deserve Biden - Trump debates.
Establishment Joe vs. the Dissident POTUS

[Hastur]