3/4 of your examples are: "If they violate the rules, try to give them a consequence." Except for that drinking part, and most of your intro.
That's an important issue because you've gone from consequences for rule violations to subversively attempting to destroy someone's life. You might as well have said:
Do you know a leftist who's an alcoholic? Send him whiskey.
Do you know a leftist that is a manic depressive? Tell him to kill himself.
Do you know a leftist that had his son recently die? Remind him that it's his fault and he deserves it.
Do you know a leftist that has a crummy car? Cut his break lines.
Or really, you could end each question with "Shoot them" and skip all the subversive elements because you're not trying to do anything in a "kinder" manner when you are encouraging people to "destroy the host".
You've done nothing but mimic their behavior because it hurts you and makes you feel bad. So, you want to hurt them. It isn't going to be an effective tactic because it proves them right. In fact, it guarantees the violence you are pretending you care about avoiding. Yes, they have every right to blame you for their failures... because you caused them. It's not his failure that you cut his breaks. And if he survives and decides to go after you, that really is your fault, and I'll shed nary a tear the result you earned.
Considering Leftists have massive establishment cultural power and capital, proving them 100% right about how right wingers are secretly out to get them, can't be reformed, and must be purged... when it's also your own argument... is going to be a massive self-own and a detriment to the rest of us who are anti-Leftist.
The smart thing to do would be to build parallel institutions and enough emotional and psychological fortitude to deal with their nonsense, so that you no longer have feelings of extreme insecurity... but you'd rather just hurt somebody instead.
If your position was: have them face consequences to their actions, and learn from their behavior, then I'd agree with you. And you half-heatedly argued that point. But that's not what your primary argument is. Instead, you're arguing: hunt them down like animals so I can feel better about what they did to me.
I didn't tell you to cut anyone's brakes. I told you to stop putting up guard rails.
You've fundamentally misunderstood the entire point, because you're suffering from an excess of nobless oblige.
Our enemy is a nihilistic, self-erasing, miserable personification of self-loathing. He escapes this with performative outrage and unearned and undeserved outside support.
These parasites depend on the productive and the positive to perpetuate their purposefully pointless existence. They are overgrown children, and it's long past time we stop playing the adult on their behalf and allow them to suffer the consequences of their actions.
You've fundamentally misunderstood the entire point
It's certainly possible I did because 3/4 of your examples seemed fairly normal, but you intonation and alcohol example seems far more malicious.
because you're suffering from an excess of nobless oblige.
I'm not taking that because it makes me feel good. It doesn't. It is tactically superior. Fundamentally, the ability to forgive and teach independence/self-sufficiency to the benighted victims who are cast out by the Left's eternal purity spiral is the strongest form of subversion to their cause that exists.
There is nothing better than individual self-interest to upset an asserted collective interest. They, themselves, depend on that to make money.
To my original point, forcing them to feel the consequences of their actions is necessary. Going out of your way to hurt them with consequences you deem inevitable or necessary, regardless of whether they were actually going to have them happen naturally, is a whole different thing that validates their entire narrative about power. That is, 'to seize power and use it against everyone enemies before they use it against you'.
They are overgrown children, and it's long past time we stop playing the adult on their behalf and allow them to suffer the consequences of their actions.
I don't disagree with that sentiment at all, but it sounded like you weren't stopping there. It sounded like you were going further to incite and cause consequences that weren't something they had already earned.
3/4 of your examples are: "If they violate the rules, try to give them a consequence." Except for that drinking part, and most of your intro.
That's an important issue because you've gone from consequences for rule violations to subversively attempting to destroy someone's life. You might as well have said:
Do you know a leftist who's an alcoholic? Send him whiskey.
Do you know a leftist that is a manic depressive? Tell him to kill himself.
Do you know a leftist that had his son recently die? Remind him that it's his fault and he deserves it.
Do you know a leftist that has a crummy car? Cut his break lines.
Or really, you could end each question with "Shoot them" and skip all the subversive elements because you're not trying to do anything in a "kinder" manner when you are encouraging people to "destroy the host".
You've done nothing but mimic their behavior because it hurts you and makes you feel bad. So, you want to hurt them. It isn't going to be an effective tactic because it proves them right. In fact, it guarantees the violence you are pretending you care about avoiding. Yes, they have every right to blame you for their failures... because you caused them. It's not his failure that you cut his breaks. And if he survives and decides to go after you, that really is your fault, and I'll shed nary a tear the result you earned.
Considering Leftists have massive establishment cultural power and capital, proving them 100% right about how right wingers are secretly out to get them, can't be reformed, and must be purged... when it's also your own argument... is going to be a massive self-own and a detriment to the rest of us who are anti-Leftist.
The smart thing to do would be to build parallel institutions and enough emotional and psychological fortitude to deal with their nonsense, so that you no longer have feelings of extreme insecurity... but you'd rather just hurt somebody instead.
If your position was: have them face consequences to their actions, and learn from their behavior, then I'd agree with you. And you half-heatedly argued that point. But that's not what your primary argument is. Instead, you're arguing: hunt them down like animals so I can feel better about what they did to me.
I didn't tell you to cut anyone's brakes. I told you to stop putting up guard rails.
You've fundamentally misunderstood the entire point, because you're suffering from an excess of nobless oblige.
Our enemy is a nihilistic, self-erasing, miserable personification of self-loathing. He escapes this with performative outrage and unearned and undeserved outside support.
These parasites depend on the productive and the positive to perpetuate their purposefully pointless existence. They are overgrown children, and it's long past time we stop playing the adult on their behalf and allow them to suffer the consequences of their actions.
It's certainly possible I did because 3/4 of your examples seemed fairly normal, but you intonation and alcohol example seems far more malicious.
I'm not taking that because it makes me feel good. It doesn't. It is tactically superior. Fundamentally, the ability to forgive and teach independence/self-sufficiency to the benighted victims who are cast out by the Left's eternal purity spiral is the strongest form of subversion to their cause that exists.
There is nothing better than individual self-interest to upset an asserted collective interest. They, themselves, depend on that to make money.
To my original point, forcing them to feel the consequences of their actions is necessary. Going out of your way to hurt them with consequences you deem inevitable or necessary, regardless of whether they were actually going to have them happen naturally, is a whole different thing that validates their entire narrative about power. That is, 'to seize power and use it against everyone enemies before they use it against you'.
I don't disagree with that sentiment at all, but it sounded like you weren't stopping there. It sounded like you were going further to incite and cause consequences that weren't something they had already earned.
If I had used 'smokes too much weed' and 'buy him a bong' instead, I'm guessing you wouldn't have reacted so strongly.