Home
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Other Topics
Off topic discussion
Kings Wiki Update Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jean Valjean" data-source="post: 1035356" data-attributes="member: 11262"><p>The feminists and SJWs drove us out of the relatively neutral, mainstream forums where we otherwise would've shared our views. For the sake of reaching more people, we would've moderated our tone to appeal to the masses, if we'd been allowed to continue speaking in those places. But whenever we dissented in the slightest from the party line or said anything mildly politically incorrect, they called us extremists, bigots, misogynists, etc. and kicked us out.</p><p></p><p>Therefore, we had to retreat to our own "safe spaces" where we could speak freely, and where entryist feminists and SJWs were banned in order to keep them from taking over and disrupting the conversation through censorship, shaming, etc. (as they do in every other online community that tolerates their presence). Naturally, this tended to produce a radicalization and a polarization of the discourse. But whose fault is that?</p><p></p><p>For the most part, feminists and SJWs refuse to engage their opponents in any kind of civil debate. When we're on their turf (e.g. a college campus, or a corporate workplace policed by HR), we're forced to stay quiet to avoid offending them, because they don't want to hear what we have to say. So it's easy to get out of the habit of accommodating their sensibilities when we do decide to express our opinions, in a place where we're free to do so.</p><p></p><p>Our only choices are to either acquiesce entirely to all SJW and feminist doctrine, or be branded intolerant, ignorant, hateful, etc. Since they're going to hate on us anyway, we have no particular reason to try to moderate our tone to appease them, when the time comes that we decide not to go along with their agenda.</p><p></p><p>We can try to meet our opponents halfway, but they're not going to meet us halfway, so what's the point? Whom are we trying to appeal to? The public is not going to openly come over to our side (although they might vote for someone like Donald Trump in the privacy of the voting booth) till the rebellion against political correctness has been successful enough that people feel it's safe to speak their minds. In trying to accomplish that rebellion, sometimes we can make effective use of tools like rhetoric, which help us to excite and rally the troops, and provoke a rash response from our critics. (So yes, it's arguably a form of trolling, but it's for a good cause.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jean Valjean, post: 1035356, member: 11262"] The feminists and SJWs drove us out of the relatively neutral, mainstream forums where we otherwise would've shared our views. For the sake of reaching more people, we would've moderated our tone to appeal to the masses, if we'd been allowed to continue speaking in those places. But whenever we dissented in the slightest from the party line or said anything mildly politically incorrect, they called us extremists, bigots, misogynists, etc. and kicked us out. Therefore, we had to retreat to our own "safe spaces" where we could speak freely, and where entryist feminists and SJWs were banned in order to keep them from taking over and disrupting the conversation through censorship, shaming, etc. (as they do in every other online community that tolerates their presence). Naturally, this tended to produce a radicalization and a polarization of the discourse. But whose fault is that? For the most part, feminists and SJWs refuse to engage their opponents in any kind of civil debate. When we're on their turf (e.g. a college campus, or a corporate workplace policed by HR), we're forced to stay quiet to avoid offending them, because they don't want to hear what we have to say. So it's easy to get out of the habit of accommodating their sensibilities when we do decide to express our opinions, in a place where we're free to do so. Our only choices are to either acquiesce entirely to all SJW and feminist doctrine, or be branded intolerant, ignorant, hateful, etc. Since they're going to hate on us anyway, we have no particular reason to try to moderate our tone to appease them, when the time comes that we decide not to go along with their agenda. We can try to meet our opponents halfway, but they're not going to meet us halfway, so what's the point? Whom are we trying to appeal to? The public is not going to openly come over to our side (although they might vote for someone like Donald Trump in the privacy of the voting booth) till the rebellion against political correctness has been successful enough that people feel it's safe to speak their minds. In trying to accomplish that rebellion, sometimes we can make effective use of tools like rhetoric, which help us to excite and rally the troops, and provoke a rash response from our critics. (So yes, it's arguably a form of trolling, but it's for a good cause.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Other Topics
Off topic discussion
Kings Wiki Update Thread
Top
