Schellenberger on White Supremacist Terrorists
-
@jon-nyc said in Schellenberger on White Supremacist Terrorists:
‘Weaponize’ is the new ‘racism’. There’s nothing the word can’t do.
What an odd thought. Never seen anybody fundamentally and profoundly shamed by claims they weaponized some rhetoric. I think you're reaching, and you may even be weaponizing a whataboutism about rhetorical usage of words, but I don't think you're racist.
-
How odd to think words are weapons. Maga and woke have completed their merger. But I don’t think you’re a racist either.
@jon-nyc said in Schellenberger on White Supremacist Terrorists:
How odd to think words are weapons. Maga and woke have completed their merger.
Since this makes no discernable point, I'll reiterate my own in different language. It's a weak and stupid whataboutism to equate rhetorical usage of the word "weaponized" with rhetorical usage of the word "racist".
I mean I could bring up the institutional, cultural, total equation between "racist" and "evil", that you and I both have lived through our whole lives. But at that point, it's so gross, to pretend we're having a real discussion.
-
Thanks for being more specific, the sources of your misunderstanding aren’t always obvious at first take.
My comparison to racism wasn’t meant to be ‘total, institutional and cultural’ rather, as my last sentence hinted at, they are both epithets that partisans seem to grow beyond their original meanings to include most anything they don’t like.
Hope that helps.
-
Thanks for being more specific, the sources of your misunderstanding aren’t always obvious at first take.
My comparison to racism wasn’t meant to be ‘total, institutional and cultural’ rather, as my last sentence hinted at, they are both epithets that partisans seem to grow beyond their original meanings to include most anything they don’t like.
Hope that helps.
@jon-nyc said in Schellenberger on White Supremacist Terrorists:
Thanks for being more specific, the sources of your misunderstanding aren’t always obvious at first take.
My comparison to racism wasn’t meant to be ‘total, institutional and cultural’ rather, as my last sentence hinted at, they are both epithets that partisans seem to grow beyond recognition of their original meanings.
Hope that helps.
Oh, it's so amazing. You've realized that a certain rhetorical framing is the same as a certain other rhetorical framing. Oh I'm convinced, you win again. This is not real discussion, and you are not good at real discussion. You are too concerned with rhetorical wins.
-
Projecting again. I made a point, I thought pretty clearly. You misunderstood it and I clarified, granted matching your original snark.
The only losers I see are the poor members who had to read through your tedium. And of course me, who had to respond to it.
-
Projecting again. I made a point, I thought pretty clearly. You misunderstood it and I clarified, granted matching your original snark.
The only losers I see are the poor members who had to read through your tedium. And of course me, who had to respond to it.
@jon-nyc said in Schellenberger on White Supremacist Terrorists:
Projecting again. I made a point, I thought pretty clearly. You misunderstood it and I clarified, granted matching your original snark.
The only losers I see are the poor members who had to read through your tedium. And of course me, who had to respond to it.
Yep, gaslight yourself, then gaslight everybody else. It's worked well for you. But what you are not, is a good faith participant in any debate.
