These word salad chefs annoy the shit out of me. They throw words together like they're so articulate, when really they're just talking fancy-sounding nonsense.
Example from the text: "The Christianization of politics makes people in a democracy less persuadable." This is utter nonsense. First of all, why Christianity? Actual objectivity without an agenda would have suggested a more general religious reference. He could have said, "The infusion of religion into politics makes people in a democracy less persuadable." That's at least a statement you could try to support. But even then this sentence is idiocy. Is this dickhead arguing that people being "persuadable" is good and desirable in a democracy? Because, in fact, It's how good-natured and tolerant and "persuadable" that Christians have been for so long in America that has gotten us into this freaking mess.
Notice he didn't say, "the Islamization of politics make people in a democracy less persuadable?" That might actually be a hypothesis that could be supported. Except, wait one moment? How many democracies are Islamic?
Persuading rational people who have their moral compass on north is not difficult when the topic that is the subject of the persuasion is not an affront to rationality and decency and humanity.
This douche bag is just pissed that Christians have finally drawn some lines and we're not going to be persuaded to let our children be groomed and brainwashed in school, we're not going to be persuaded to let politicians (of whatever stripe) steal elections, and we're not going to be persuaded to hand over our country to a bunch of globalists.
Write like you mean it, Gerson. This is low-effort bullshit you're spewing.
These word salad chefs annoy the shit out of me. They throw words together like they're so articulate, when really they're just talking fancy-sounding nonsense.
Example from the text: "The Christianization of politics makes people in a democracy less persuadable." This is utter nonsense. First of all, why Christianity? Actual objectivity without an agenda would have suggested a more general religious reference. He could have said, "The infusion of religion into politics makes people in a democracy less persuadable." That's at least a statement you could try to support. But even then this sentence is idiocy. Is this dickhead arguing that people being "persuadable" is good and desirable in a democracy? Because, in fact, It's how good-natured and tolerant and "persuadable" that Christians have been for so long in America that has gotten us into this freaking mess.
Notice he didn't say, "the Islamization of politics make people in a democracy less persuadable?" That might actually be a hypothesis that could be supported. Except, wait one moment? How many democracies are Islamic?
Persuading rational people who have their moral compass on north is not difficult when the topic that is the subject of the persuasion is not an affront to rationality and decency and humanity.
This douche bag is just pissed that Christians have finally drawn some lines and we're not going to be persuaded to let our children be groomed and brainwashed in school, we're not going to be persuaded to let politicians (of whatever stripe) steal elections, and we're not going to be persuaded to hand over our country to a bunch of globalists.
Write like you mean it, Gerson. This is low-effort bullshit you're spewing.