People just take this sht because we know that it’s useless arguing with a leftist. Neither logic nor rationale work. They argue with feelings as if ours don’t matter. Now we know that taking sht just makes matters worse because it’s never enough for them.
This is coming from someone who isn’t white, and someone whose experience with actual racism comes from other corners of the world if it hasn’t already come from the left. Getting called a name by some btch on the internet is about as low a priority as it gets. Left a place where people of my ethnicity were being oppressed as second class citizens overseas for a continent where Affirmative Action exists.
Lmao. Imagine being so woke, you segregate people by race due to privilege. Even if we pretend predominantly white trailer parks don’t exist, quite literally every other asian country outside of the biggest three would like to know what privilege they speak of.
Neither logic nor rationale work. They argue with feelings as if ours don’t matter
That just isn't true.
Starting with Marx himself, all the ideas are rational, logical and analytical. This is largely why the ideas became so popular. People turned away from religious thinking towards "scientific" thinking.
The problem isn't that it's not logical. The problem is that the definitions and axioms that serve as the foundation of the (rational and logical) models lead to models that don't work as such.
The point is that you shouldn't be arguing logic. The logic is fine. You should be pointing out that their models completely fail to predict reality every single time (which what a model does) and the reason this happens is because their definitions are useless bullshit.
Leftism is basically like solving a physics problem by placing yourself in a randomly accelerating point of reference. The math to solve this could be completely fine even though the result will be bullshit.
I'm not talking about the ideology, though I do have a lot to say about its practical applications. I'm talking about arguing with one over social issues and all the inconsistencies found within the modern socialist doctrine, which really speak more about the people following it, admittedly, than the actual ideology itself. It's something like Farm House if Escher wrote it.
All women are empowered, but some women are more empowered than others. Feminism is against misogyny, which any woman can be, unless she celebrates historically feminine traits because that's internalized misogyny, but it's misogyny to criticize women who display strength of character, unless that strength of character just so happens to align with historically feminine traits, because that's inernalized misogyny, but it's misogyny to criticize women who...
Again, you're looking at this mess and thinking "this makes no sense" and thinking there is no logic here.
But there is. It's just that the words "empowered" and "misogyny" aren't defined the way you think they are, as fixed, discrete and continuous concepts defined once.
No, misogyny isn't a fixed value. Misogyny is a function. Misogyny = f(x,y,z). And the actual value you get depends entirely on the context and value of the variables (which are themselves functions)
Whether or not something is misogyny depends on who did the action being judged, their social status, their location in space and time, their nationality, their race, their sexuality, their prior actions and adherence to the faith etc etc etc. And this is by definition.
Within this definition, a man killing women because he hates them can be totally non-misogyny (think trans male POC muslim attacking TERF women at a Trump rally) while a woman buying a dress for her daughter can be totally misogyny.
Trying to argue logic within this framework is useless. You need to argue semantics.
Oh man. I accidentally changed the page while writing a comment down. I'm such a dumbass.
Basically, what I wrote is that there comes a problem with arguing with them. Those variables are always dynamic to them and fit whatever argument they want. There are no standards, and that's what frustrates me the most. What I'd call a chair, they would put a cup of tea and call it a table, and without a mutual agreement on what variables constitute a chair and not a table, there will always be disagreement.
They don't seem to want to have an honest discussion. More like they'd rather play a game with rules they want to set. You rolled a five? Well, it's a Tuesday, so it's really only a two.
It's why I rather say hey, remember when you guys said this? I find it's personally less aggravating than actually sitting down and trying to figure out which "definition" of racism they want to use today, whether systemic, internalized, or whatever suits them best.
People just take this sht because we know that it’s useless arguing with a leftist. Neither logic nor rationale work. They argue with feelings as if ours don’t matter. Now we know that taking sht just makes matters worse because it’s never enough for them.
This is coming from someone who isn’t white, and someone whose experience with actual racism comes from other corners of the world if it hasn’t already come from the left. Getting called a name by some btch on the internet is about as low a priority as it gets. Left a place where people of my ethnicity were being oppressed as second class citizens overseas for a continent where Affirmative Action exists.
Lmao. Imagine being so woke, you segregate people by race due to privilege. Even if we pretend predominantly white trailer parks don’t exist, quite literally every other asian country outside of the biggest three would like to know what privilege they speak of.
That just isn't true.
Starting with Marx himself, all the ideas are rational, logical and analytical. This is largely why the ideas became so popular. People turned away from religious thinking towards "scientific" thinking.
The problem isn't that it's not logical. The problem is that the definitions and axioms that serve as the foundation of the (rational and logical) models lead to models that don't work as such.
The point is that you shouldn't be arguing logic. The logic is fine. You should be pointing out that their models completely fail to predict reality every single time (which what a model does) and the reason this happens is because their definitions are useless bullshit.
Leftism is basically like solving a physics problem by placing yourself in a randomly accelerating point of reference. The math to solve this could be completely fine even though the result will be bullshit.
I'm not talking about the ideology, though I do have a lot to say about its practical applications. I'm talking about arguing with one over social issues and all the inconsistencies found within the modern socialist doctrine, which really speak more about the people following it, admittedly, than the actual ideology itself. It's something like Farm House if Escher wrote it.
All women are empowered, but some women are more empowered than others. Feminism is against misogyny, which any woman can be, unless she celebrates historically feminine traits because that's internalized misogyny, but it's misogyny to criticize women who display strength of character, unless that strength of character just so happens to align with historically feminine traits, because that's inernalized misogyny, but it's misogyny to criticize women who...
That's one example.
Again, you're looking at this mess and thinking "this makes no sense" and thinking there is no logic here.
But there is. It's just that the words "empowered" and "misogyny" aren't defined the way you think they are, as fixed, discrete and continuous concepts defined once.
No, misogyny isn't a fixed value. Misogyny is a function. Misogyny = f(x,y,z). And the actual value you get depends entirely on the context and value of the variables (which are themselves functions)
Whether or not something is misogyny depends on who did the action being judged, their social status, their location in space and time, their nationality, their race, their sexuality, their prior actions and adherence to the faith etc etc etc. And this is by definition.
Within this definition, a man killing women because he hates them can be totally non-misogyny (think trans male POC muslim attacking TERF women at a Trump rally) while a woman buying a dress for her daughter can be totally misogyny.
Trying to argue logic within this framework is useless. You need to argue semantics.
Oh man. I accidentally changed the page while writing a comment down. I'm such a dumbass.
Basically, what I wrote is that there comes a problem with arguing with them. Those variables are always dynamic to them and fit whatever argument they want. There are no standards, and that's what frustrates me the most. What I'd call a chair, they would put a cup of tea and call it a table, and without a mutual agreement on what variables constitute a chair and not a table, there will always be disagreement.
They don't seem to want to have an honest discussion. More like they'd rather play a game with rules they want to set. You rolled a five? Well, it's a Tuesday, so it's really only a two.
It's why I rather say hey, remember when you guys said this? I find it's personally less aggravating than actually sitting down and trying to figure out which "definition" of racism they want to use today, whether systemic, internalized, or whatever suits them best.
Dude, have you ever tried to engage an NPC? No logic works.