> Or use progressive arguments against them by pointing to immigrant groups & underprivileged groups with deeply held religious beliefs that conflict with genderist mandates. Bring up Hispanic-American Catholics or Iraqi-American Muslims and ask so-called progressives how they, as privileged white people, dare trample on the deeply-held …
> Or use progressive arguments against them by pointing to immigrant groups & underprivileged groups with deeply held religious beliefs that conflict with genderist mandates. Bring up Hispanic-American Catholics or Iraqi-American Muslims and ask so-called progressives how they, as privileged white people, dare trample on the deeply-held convictions, lived experiences and faith traditions of these less-privileged groups.
The very concept of "privilege" as used by progressives is nonsense. Attempting to fight nonsense with nonsense doesn't work. I'd rather fight nonsense with Truth.
Actually, in logic, the way to prove something false is to find that it leads to a contradiction. Once you have found a contradiction, logic stops, because anything can be made to follow.
If one starts with the rules of "privilege" that so-called progressives declare, and from there one reaches a contradiction within those rules, then one has proven the given rules unworkable. This is in fact the most direct possible attack on the framework of "privilege."
That's why I post long comments and beat people into the ground textually no matter how long it takes. People who read Substacks are looking for arguments and can be convinced of things by logic. People who get their morals from soundbites are not people that it's possible to have a discussion about anything at all with.
We, as a matter of fact, are having exactly that kind of political discussion right now, and we are in fact posting on the blog of a national figure who just had a personal legal campaign launched against him by the current administration. This is a very visible space - and between us we're approaching a full third of the comments.
A heck of a lot of people will read these comments - orders of magnitude more than you might guess. The general rule is that there are 1000 readers for every 1 commenter. Arguments presented persuasively in these comments will be rehashed and reused by every reader in discussions with their friends, family, and co-workers, and reused elsewhere online. This, believe it or not, is the new coffeehouse set.
> Or use progressive arguments against them by pointing to immigrant groups & underprivileged groups with deeply held religious beliefs that conflict with genderist mandates. Bring up Hispanic-American Catholics or Iraqi-American Muslims and ask so-called progressives how they, as privileged white people, dare trample on the deeply-held convictions, lived experiences and faith traditions of these less-privileged groups.
The very concept of "privilege" as used by progressives is nonsense. Attempting to fight nonsense with nonsense doesn't work. I'd rather fight nonsense with Truth.
Actually, in logic, the way to prove something false is to find that it leads to a contradiction. Once you have found a contradiction, logic stops, because anything can be made to follow.
If one starts with the rules of "privilege" that so-called progressives declare, and from there one reaches a contradiction within those rules, then one has proven the given rules unworkable. This is in fact the most direct possible attack on the framework of "privilege."
Unfortunately arguments by contradiction tend not to survive being broken up into soundbites.
That's why I post long comments and beat people into the ground textually no matter how long it takes. People who read Substacks are looking for arguments and can be convinced of things by logic. People who get their morals from soundbites are not people that it's possible to have a discussion about anything at all with.
> That's why I post long comments and beat people into the ground textually no matter how long it takes.
That's nice. However, that's not how political discussions work these days.
We, as a matter of fact, are having exactly that kind of political discussion right now, and we are in fact posting on the blog of a national figure who just had a personal legal campaign launched against him by the current administration. This is a very visible space - and between us we're approaching a full third of the comments.
A heck of a lot of people will read these comments - orders of magnitude more than you might guess. The general rule is that there are 1000 readers for every 1 commenter. Arguments presented persuasively in these comments will be rehashed and reused by every reader in discussions with their friends, family, and co-workers, and reused elsewhere online. This, believe it or not, is the new coffeehouse set.