Actually no, what you’re doing is taking a specific claim about media exploiting nonviolence and using it as propaganda, to proselytize nonviolence itself, using an old book.
If what I am saying isn’t true, why would you feel the need to do that?
Also, why would it even matter how old nonviolence is? I said media et al. is using nonviolence, not that they invented it.
Because of the fact he went off topic to proselytize, for one.
That and I have dealt with many of his ilk in my life. The reason why he did that is because he, like all of his kind, are fundamentally insecure in their position of moral and intellectual dominance over American discourse, and they fear anyone challenging or questioning their behavior. It’s why so many social media sites ban such talk as mine under inciting violence, because it’s an unspoken paradigm that’s taboo to challenge in our culture. I saw it happen on Reddit all the time.
What he’s really hankering after is to stop anybody else thinking about it or challenging nonviolence. It’s how people like that operate. They don’t care about the common man.
It’s weird as fuck that they do this but it’s true. You actually can get banned from Facebook or Reddit just from talking about violence in a philosophical light unlesss you’re opposing it, and fuck your so-called freedom of speech in the process.
And whenever you do anyway, someone like him always slinks around to pander from what really comes off as a sales script. The same old tired arguments, most of them from movies or games because those are the means by which the media indoctrinates people with those beliefs.
I can’t say I got that impression from them to be honest. Feels like you have assumed a lot from a couple of comments (though I totally get being jaded after a while of seeing the same kind of thing).
I think this could be a really interesting thing to explore both sides of the argument as I do think you have a point. Just seems like you’re both interpreting it differently in terms of tone (which I guess fits in a way, given your stances)
No, I’m literally quoting a very well known, in depth discussion of the issue from Ethics of Ambiguity
Actually no, what you’re doing is taking a specific claim about media exploiting nonviolence and using it as propaganda, to proselytize nonviolence itself, using an old book.
If what I am saying isn’t true, why would you feel the need to do that?
Also, why would it even matter how old nonviolence is? I said media et al. is using nonviolence, not that they invented it.
Why are you assuming they’re arguing in bad faith?
The age of the book is irrelevant, the philosophical ideas are still worth engaging with, even if you don’t agree with them
Because of the fact he went off topic to proselytize, for one.
That and I have dealt with many of his ilk in my life. The reason why he did that is because he, like all of his kind, are fundamentally insecure in their position of moral and intellectual dominance over American discourse, and they fear anyone challenging or questioning their behavior. It’s why so many social media sites ban such talk as mine under inciting violence, because it’s an unspoken paradigm that’s taboo to challenge in our culture. I saw it happen on Reddit all the time.
What he’s really hankering after is to stop anybody else thinking about it or challenging nonviolence. It’s how people like that operate. They don’t care about the common man.
It’s weird as fuck that they do this but it’s true. You actually can get banned from Facebook or Reddit just from talking about violence in a philosophical light unlesss you’re opposing it, and fuck your so-called freedom of speech in the process.
And whenever you do anyway, someone like him always slinks around to pander from what really comes off as a sales script. The same old tired arguments, most of them from movies or games because those are the means by which the media indoctrinates people with those beliefs.
If you don’t believe me, try it.
I can’t say I got that impression from them to be honest. Feels like you have assumed a lot from a couple of comments (though I totally get being jaded after a while of seeing the same kind of thing).
I think this could be a really interesting thing to explore both sides of the argument as I do think you have a point. Just seems like you’re both interpreting it differently in terms of tone (which I guess fits in a way, given your stances)
There has to be an instance where it’s possible to do it without risking being banned. I’m surprised the mods here didn’t delete anything I said yet.