I have to keep bitching, I don't mean to be outright disrespectful to you in a personally attacky sort of way but separately I very much mean to treat your arguments that way. I think much of what you have mentioned here is illogical, amoral, or a philosophical dead end of one kind or another.

First it seems you are encouraging people to use double speak and avoiding saying what they actually mean, specifically as a show of compliance. I could spend all day giving this the "leftist metawhatever" treatment that you have presented me regarding Imp but I'll just say this is morally reprehensible in my opinion because I associate it with the USSR which I am biased against.

Next, it sounds to me like you are arguing the hypothetical suggestion of the existence or operation of any class of wealthy people in general is leftist metanarrative, and that on this basis, we have a social responsibility not to discuss the possibility. That is morally wrong and also factually incorrect. It is objectively true that wealthy people exist, and that each person has an identity, and that people within identity groups express in-group preference.

Even more nextly... do you reckon any of us can name an actual left wing forum where Imp would be welcome to attack all women on the basis you've presented here? (Being that since "woman" is an identity, and attacks on identity are sectarian, and leftists exploit this, it is therefore fundamentally leftist)?

My last bit of bitching is: does left wing thought exceed the limits of free speech on KIA2? In order to communicate here, should we only say right wing things? But not tooo right wing, since that's actually leftist again? Is there a chart somewhere to help miscreant posters identify the allowable portion of the spectrum of human thought?

I have to keep bitching, I don't mean to be outright disrespectful to you in a personally attacky sort of way but separately I very much mean to treat your arguments that way. I think much of what you have mentioned here is illogical, amoral, or a philosophical dead end of one kind or another.

First it seems you are encouraging people to use double speak and avoiding saying what they actually mean, specifically as a show of compliance. I could spend all day giving this the "leftist metawhatever" treatment that you have presented me regarding Imp but I'll just say this is morally reprehensible in my opinion because I associate it with the USSR which I am biased against.

Next, your logic would suggest that the hypothetical suggestion of the existence or operation of any class of wealthy people in general is leftist metanarrative, and that on this basis, we have a social responsibility not to discuss the possibility. That is morally wrong and also factually incorrect. It is objectively true that wealthy people exist, and that each person has an identity, and that people within identity groups express in-group preference.

Even more nextly... do you reckon any of us can name an actual left wing forum where Imp would be welcome to attack all women on the basis you've presented here? (Being that since "woman" is an identity, and attacks on identity are sectarian, and leftists exploit this, it is therefore fundamentally leftist)?

My last bit of bitching is: does left wing thought exceed the limits of free speech on KIA2? In order to communicate here, should we only say right wing things? But not tooo right wing, since that's actually leftist again? Is there a chart somewhere to help miscreant posters identify the allowable portion of the spectrum of human thought?

I have to keep bitching, I don't mean to be outright disrespectful to you in a personally attacky sort of way but separately I very much mean to treat your arguments that way. I think much of what you have mentioned here is logical, amoral, or a philosophical dead end of one kind or another.

First it seems you are encouraging people to use double speak and avoiding saying what they actually mean, specifically as a show of compliance. I could spend all day giving this the "leftist metawhatever" treatment that you have presented me regarding Imp but I'll just say this is morally reprehensible in my opinion because I associate it with the USSR which I am biased against.

Next, your logic would suggest that the hypothetical suggestion of the existence or operation of any class of wealthy people in general is leftist metanarrative, and that on this basis, we have a social responsibility not to discuss the possibility. That is morally wrong and also factually incorrect. It is objectively true that wealthy people exist, and that each person has an identity, and that people within identity groups express in-group preference.

Even more nextly... do you reckon any of us can name an actual left wing forum where Imp would be welcome to attack all women on the basis you've presented here? (Being that since "woman" is an identity, and attacks on identity are sectarian, and leftists exploit this, it is therefore fundamentally leftist)?

My last bit of bitching is: does left wing thought exceed the limits of free speech on KIA2? In order to communicate here, should we only say right wing things? But not tooo right wing, since that's actually leftist again? Is there a chart somewhere to help miscreant posters identify the allowable portion of the spectrum of human thought?