Seems to me like specifically choosing causes based on dividing people so they are easier to conquer.
Drive wedges between people. Tell them they're special, or that they're the opposite of special. Tell them they can't talk about someone else or can't be talked about. Tell them they deserve special treatment or special punishment. Bring up long dead grievances out of nowhere.
Anything but treating our neighbors as brothers and sisters. The most dangerous thing is if we see each other's as equals!
Drive wedges between people. Tell them they're special, or that they're the opposite of special. Tell them they can't talk about someone else or can't be talked about. Tell them they deserve special treatment or special punishment. Bring up long dead grievances out of nowhere.
Anything but treating our neighbors as brothers and sisters. The most dangerous thing is if we see each other's as equals!
trigger for racist antiracists
In Sun Tzu's The Art of War, one of the most critical things a strategist must to do is to pick the battlefield. You want to be on ground where you stand to gain whenever you advance, but you don't really stand to lose if you ever have to retreat. You also want your pawns to perceive that victory is their only option and to retreat at all or to rout would mean the end so the only option is to fight.
Under that perspective, choosing something that wasn't even considered bad before someone declared it the worst thing you can do about 10 years ago is a perfect choice of battlefield. If you advance, you can harm your political enemies, and if you retreat you don't need to give up anything you actually care about since it's a manufactured controversy, but the pawns perceive a retreat as meaning the worst people ever won a decisive victory.
While people defend the irrelevant ground of whether it's ok to paint your face or if you should be shot and gagged and dumped in the street if you ever have, the powers that be are bussing (white) violent hoodlums into (black) neighbourhoods they don't live in to burn the place to the ground, ensuring that those communities can never accumulate any sort of wealth or power and are always genuflecting to the powers that be, begging for a tiny slice of prosperity while the richest people get richer than ever before.
Under that perspective, choosing something that wasn't even considered bad before someone declared it the worst thing you can do about 10 years ago is a perfect choice of battlefield. If you advance, you can harm your political enemies, and if you retreat you don't need to give up anything you actually care about since it's a manufactured controversy, but the pawns perceive a retreat as meaning the worst people ever won a decisive victory.
While people defend the irrelevant ground of whether it's ok to paint your face or if you should be shot and gagged and dumped in the street if you ever have, the powers that be are bussing (white) violent hoodlums into (black) neighbourhoods they don't live in to burn the place to the ground, ensuring that those communities can never accumulate any sort of wealth or power and are always genuflecting to the powers that be, begging for a tiny slice of prosperity while the richest people get richer than ever before.
That's absolutely true. That's the problem with losing nuance and subtlety in the current era. You end up with a set of rigid and strict rules that don't care about context, and it's easy to hunt down people for breaking the rules, but it becomes less clear that those people actually are doing anything wrong and ought to be punished.
To give the devil his due, I don't think Trudeau did anything wrong at the time. He wasn't being hateful or trying to hurt anyone, he was just being the same sort of narcissist that goes "Well, of 35 million people, I'm the guy who should be in charge of everything" and doing something outrageous to become the center of attention.
The only problem is that he's an adherent to that rigid fundamentalism and if it was anyone else in the world who got caught with photos like that he'd be holding the pitchfork at the front of the lynch mob. Just like back in the 2000s when those anti-gay Republicans kept getting caught with gay prostitutes.
To give the devil his due, I don't think Trudeau did anything wrong at the time. He wasn't being hateful or trying to hurt anyone, he was just being the same sort of narcissist that goes "Well, of 35 million people, I'm the guy who should be in charge of everything" and doing something outrageous to become the center of attention.
The only problem is that he's an adherent to that rigid fundamentalism and if it was anyone else in the world who got caught with photos like that he'd be holding the pitchfork at the front of the lynch mob. Just like back in the 2000s when those anti-gay Republicans kept getting caught with gay prostitutes.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1
>but the other part of this is the importing from foreign cultures
Not just for Canada, but many countries. Why on earth does Japan have to walk on eggshells because America owned African slaves?
I find the angry calls of "cultural imperialism" from certain Americans to be mind boggling in the face of those same exact Americans actively trying to impose their culture on the rest of the world.
Not just for Canada, but many countries. Why on earth does Japan have to walk on eggshells because America owned African slaves?
I find the angry calls of "cultural imperialism" from certain Americans to be mind boggling in the face of those same exact Americans actively trying to impose their culture on the rest of the world.