She's off the mark, but she does have a bit of a point. CRT is clearly racist and incitement to genocide, but think about whom you're trying to convince with these arguments: You're trying to convince normies who've been so steeped in the myth of white privilege that you'll never get through to them by saying "This is racist against white people." It's better to argue against CRT on the basis that it's ahistorical and factually wrong.
Again, you're not trying to convince leftists. They really are in it for the power. You're trying to convince normies. Most people still aren't living their lives subsumed by the culture war.
Consent to any suggested -ism is what creates a hierarchy under false authority; because to consent to suggestion represents using free will to consent to a suggestion made by the free will of another. Free will represents the sole authority over self; consenting to the free will of another represents the ignorance thereof.
It is the free will of those who suggest the -isms that then has the power to define the narrative (the mainstream) for all who consent to believe it.
going along with lies in an attempt to sell people the truth never works well
What if we are form within flow aka life (form) moving from inception towards death (flow) and flow represents constant change; while both true and false represent forms ignorance thereof?
Could ti be that us consenting to the suggestions of others causes us to believe "true"; which then allows others to contradict it aka "false"? Does nature offer false information?
I'm with dagthegnome on this one. Normies absorb Leftist narratives, but they are swayed fairly easily because they know they don't know a lot of things. That's the Left's primary trick: calling them ignorant and laughing at dissent as if their position is normal.
It doesn't work in all cases, typically emotional appeal works, but in some cases fact based arguments do work.
Complaints about the Coronavirus origin, treatments, and lockdowns are finally bubbling up because Scientists kept individually investigating and found that the consensus was consistently wrong
Historians basically attacked the 1619 project from all directions, despite major efforts to get it inserted from the media and Leftist politics.
CRT isn't directly an incitement to genocide, it's just that genocide is the inevitable conclusion of someone who accepts it, given enough time has passed to reinforce the indoctrination.
I agree that arguing ahistory is a working solution, but the behavior of so many CRT pushers is so galling that I think anti-white rhetoric is perfectly fine.
We can convince normies that CRT is anti-white when we show them publicly humiliating and degrading white children. Or when they use white students as literal human shields. Unlike in many other cases, the immediate emotional reaction is something we can use to our advantage because the Leftists over-extended so hard.
When the Leftists demand a $15 minimum wage, a simpleton half-wit normie might think "oh yeah, I want poor people to have money."
When the Leftists demand a white kid should kill himself and he comes home crying, a simpleton half-wit normie will think, "Hey, what the fuck, you can't do that to kids!"
The second you start talking about white genocide, some random will chime in with muh stormcuck or some derivative, in an attempt to shame op into silence (see: dagthegnome). A large swath of normies are unreformable civnats. They’re scared of being labeled muh rayciss and inoculated against facts and reason.
I literally say in the comment you're replying to that CRT is incitement to white genocide. So that's two stormcucks in this thread who are too stupid to know how to read.
FACT, noun [Latin factum, from facio, to make or do]. Doing represents setting form into flow aka acting upon in response to (form to flow). Reason represents the conflict between true versus false, caused by ignoring flow. Why? Because flow represents ongoing change; while true/false represents affixed assumption in ignorance of ongoing change.
The few are the ones making the suggestions to divide the many into the conflicts of reason; which they then control by suggesting contradictions (to both sides) to keep them going against each other. It's called talmudic reasoning.
She's off the mark, but she does have a bit of a point. CRT is clearly racist and incitement to genocide, but think about whom you're trying to convince with these arguments: You're trying to convince normies who've been so steeped in the myth of white privilege that you'll never get through to them by saying "This is racist against white people." It's better to argue against CRT on the basis that it's ahistorical and factually wrong.
In your experience, has this ever worked on leftists? Being factually wrong and hypocritical is their normal state.
Again, you're not trying to convince leftists. They really are in it for the power. You're trying to convince normies. Most people still aren't living their lives subsumed by the culture war.
It's not a lie to argue against CRT on the basis that it's ahistorical and factually wrong.
Consent to any suggested -ism is what creates a hierarchy under false authority; because to consent to suggestion represents using free will to consent to a suggestion made by the free will of another. Free will represents the sole authority over self; consenting to the free will of another represents the ignorance thereof.
It is the free will of those who suggest the -isms that then has the power to define the narrative (the mainstream) for all who consent to believe it.
What if we are form within flow aka life (form) moving from inception towards death (flow) and flow represents constant change; while both true and false represent forms ignorance thereof?
Could ti be that us consenting to the suggestions of others causes us to believe "true"; which then allows others to contradict it aka "false"? Does nature offer false information?
I'm with dagthegnome on this one. Normies absorb Leftist narratives, but they are swayed fairly easily because they know they don't know a lot of things. That's the Left's primary trick: calling them ignorant and laughing at dissent as if their position is normal.
It doesn't work in all cases, typically emotional appeal works, but in some cases fact based arguments do work.
Complaints about the Coronavirus origin, treatments, and lockdowns are finally bubbling up because Scientists kept individually investigating and found that the consensus was consistently wrong
Historians basically attacked the 1619 project from all directions, despite major efforts to get it inserted from the media and Leftist politics.
CRT isn't directly an incitement to genocide, it's just that genocide is the inevitable conclusion of someone who accepts it, given enough time has passed to reinforce the indoctrination.
I agree that arguing ahistory is a working solution, but the behavior of so many CRT pushers is so galling that I think anti-white rhetoric is perfectly fine.
We can convince normies that CRT is anti-white when we show them publicly humiliating and degrading white children. Or when they use white students as literal human shields. Unlike in many other cases, the immediate emotional reaction is something we can use to our advantage because the Leftists over-extended so hard.
When the Leftists demand a $15 minimum wage, a simpleton half-wit normie might think "oh yeah, I want poor people to have money."
When the Leftists demand a white kid should kill himself and he comes home crying, a simpleton half-wit normie will think, "Hey, what the fuck, you can't do that to kids!"
The second you start talking about white genocide, some random will chime in with muh stormcuck or some derivative, in an attempt to shame op into silence (see: dagthegnome). A large swath of normies are unreformable civnats. They’re scared of being labeled muh rayciss and inoculated against facts and reason.
I literally say in the comment you're replying to that CRT is incitement to white genocide. So that's two stormcucks in this thread who are too stupid to know how to read.
Stormcuck isn’t an insult you whinny little bitch but thanks for outting yourself as a civnat faggot.
Thanks for outing yourself as illiterate.
There seem to be a lot of larping edgelords out today who are missing your point entirely.
It's going to be like this all summer until school goes back in.
FACT, noun [Latin factum, from facio, to make or do]. Doing represents setting form into flow aka acting upon in response to (form to flow). Reason represents the conflict between true versus false, caused by ignoring flow. Why? Because flow represents ongoing change; while true/false represents affixed assumption in ignorance of ongoing change.
The few are the ones making the suggestions to divide the many into the conflicts of reason; which they then control by suggesting contradictions (to both sides) to keep them going against each other. It's called talmudic reasoning.