Reminder on why the left wins and conservatives are born and bred to lose
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (118)
sorted by:
Subversion practically requires lying, at least in intentions, not lying is either cooperation or direct antagonism.
If you're waiting for a 100% perfect chance to fall into your lap, you're just going to twiddle your thumbs as you get inescapably boxed in. We'd be better off if everyone took a guarded swing when you get a 90% chance like jury duty.
Like I said, stick to omitting things you're not directly questioned on and bending definitions and you're almost impossible to do anything to in a criminal court unless you stupidly confess to what you're doing, keep your mouth shut and it's a low risk prospect. If your interrogation is thorough enough that you can't get by without omitting something you're directly questioned about, don't do it, answer the direct question honestly and call yourself unlucky as you become ineligible but otherwise suffer no consequences.
American, and more broadly Western, society currently heavily favors opportunism and being the first to try and take advantage of a situation. You probe with plausibly innocent transgressions, if they're on guard you'll just get a harmless warning and you can just keep testing others until someone's guard finally is down and you know you have the advantage before you start. Many lefty activists know this, that's why they often appear so limp wristed or spineless, they're always testing the water and are happy to back down from an unadvantageous confrontation before the stakes rise, so they can keep looking for someone with their back turned to strike at instead.
So start poking cracks and testing unguarded doors yourselves, it's the most advantageous strategy until something changes and society as a whole stops being so placid and starts being more vengeful.
Subversion does not require lying. It simply requires patience, persistence, and recognizing opportunities. I'm not saying that you wait for a 100% chance, I'm saying you don't lie, which could involve serious legal actions, and blowing up the trail.
To subvert you first have to pretend to agree with the people you intend to try and change from within. If you're not lying you're not subverting, you're just open opposition.
And I'm saying if you can lie smart, where there is negligible chance of serious repercussions, then do it. If you want them to wait until there's no chance of repercussions at all, that would be what I consider waiting for a 100% chance.
That's just not true: you don't have to lie to subvert. You can just agree on specific instances without ever stating your intent to change a larger structure or outcome, nor do you have have to point any of that out. In fact, the most effective subversion is when you don't lie, you never lie, and your opponent comes to your position and takes the action for you without ever feeling that they have been subverted.
Perfect subversion is effectively conversion. Almost perfect subversion is persuasion. And good subversion is to appear as an honorable and respectable alternative. Poor subversion is simple deception. The worst form of subversion is gaslighting.
Eh, semantics I guess. I don't see any need to rebrand persuasion as subversion and what I have always understood as subversion only starts where your scale hits deception. Specifically the kind of deception where you pretend to agree with someone with the intent to undermine their beliefs when they let their guard down.