Tuesday, September 6, 2016

I Love When They Buy The Ammo

Some edits were made on rereading, as it came across harsher than I intended, and a few points required clarification to me.

Article for context. Thanks to @voxday for making this exchange possible, it made my day.

It absolutely never fails to amaze me how completely inept some people are at thinking their own position through thoroughly. A short list of the logical errors in the piece:
  • Equating opposition to free trade with uncontrolled taxation of indigenous peoples. 
  • Completely failing to distinguish between the natural growth of a homogeneous culture and the artificial, imposed changes of multiculturalism which destroys culture.
  • Holding one out-of-context quote from the Declaration of Independence as the end-all Supreme Truth of reality.
  • Conflating a desire for peaceful separation with forced marches and looking backwards.
  • Saying "Claiming a Label Doesn't Make It Accurate" then proceeding to strawman-tell everyone what they believe and where that places them.
It's largely a reductio ad absurdum piece, which makes perfect sense given the Twitter feed of the author. I find the juxtaposition of the "Newsmax #22 top conservative blog" claim and the name/general tenor of the twitter feed fascinating, given the conservative penchant for decorum concerns.

Consider the following exchange with the author I had earlier, noting the immediate jump to "You think I'm a Jew right?" along with the attempt at a mic-drop snark:

Far from accusing him of being Israeli, my remark was that he is talking nonsense he does not understand with the expectation that people will accept it at face value and agree, while not actually being a part of any of the groups he wants to ride to an ideological victory,

Much less "You're a Jewy Jew", and far more this:

"I'm saying all the right things, why isn't it stopping?!"

Like Beni Gabor in the film, he and those like him choose no side but their own interpretation of Conservativism (whatever they think that means), ride all sides when it suits them, and thinks that by their recitation of principles they do not understand nor take part in, they have mastered those around them, or at least risen above such 'base' things as having in-group preferences.

That's what "I agree with this concern this group has, but I cannot in good conscience actually endorse them or their concern because of other things they think and say" means. It doesn't make you superior to that group, it makes you a coward. It's intellectual socialism; when someone 'wins', they can say "yeah, I am part of that!" but when someone 'loses', then it's all on that group and their shoes stay clean. Private gains, public losses.

What I find the most fascinating about these types of exchanges is how quickly they run to a charge of Anti-Semitism or white supremacy even when it's completely inappropriate. One does not need to hate something to recognize that it has an undue influence and a negative effect on their affairs, nor does one need to see it around every corner to believe it needs to be addressed. I have developed a theory as to the root cause of this phenomenon:

It clearly explains why they cannot differentiate between self preservation and supremacy, between Left and Right, or between critique and hate. 

Of course, maybe it's just a character issue:

Unlike the highly respectable 'Mulder's Shroom Ride', I am not "Newsmax Top 50 Conservative Blogs - #22", so perhaps I am just confused here, as he suggests. I shall therefore let the reader be the judge.