"No we don't protest when they kill us, that's what the left does, that's wrong."
Summary: If the Boston Tea Party happened today right wingers would be bending over backwards to condemn the protest as "something the left does, not us."
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
TallestSkil on scored.co
17 hours ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
> It's really hard to convince those folks.
They’re not Christians. It’s honestly extremely easy to convince them because they *think* they have an ideological framework in place already. Where overt non-Christians have no historical frame of reference and reject the concept of collective thought or action, even evangelical zionists carry around a book (they they have never read) that destroys their worldview. All you have to do is tell them to open *their own possession* (so you’re not tricking them with an altered copy) and turn to a handful of verses where God Himself says jews are damned forever.
> I don't see how a milquetoast consverative like Charlie Kirk getting shot proves that talking doesn't work. I'd be interested in hearing an explanation on that.
* Philosopher: “Here is truth and what we should do about it.”
* Sophist: “No, truth does not exist. I want to do something else.”
* P: “Here is axiomatic proof of the immutability of certain things and the harmfulness of the thing you want to do..”
* S: “Truth does not exist; I will continue to do as I please.”
* P: “You are now harming me as well as yourself with your beliefs and actions. You must stop this for our common good.”
* S: “You are now imposing your opinions on me by harming my pleasure. I will no longer listen to you and continue to do as I please. Cease talking.”
* P: “But your actions harm you both in the moment and over time. Harm to you is harm to me, by social association. I will guide others not to follow your example.”
* S: “If you attempt to prevent others from becoming like me, you become a direct threat to me. You are creating an army against me. Stop talking. Now.”
* P: “I wish you no harm and will not physically act to prevent you from your actions. I only wish you to understand my position.”
* S: [gunshot]
>All you have to do is tell them to open their own possession (so you’re not tricking them with an altered copy) and turn to a handful of verses where God Himself says jews are damned forever.
Probably just in my case then as I'm not great at debating. I've attempted this with my grandfather and pointed out multiple verses (John 8:44 and Revelations 2:9 and 3:9) and he accused me of cherry picking and continued to take the stance that Jesus is a jew despite me trying to argue that no, modern jew ≠ biblical jew.
And I see your point about Kirk now. You're basically saying that because he was starting to talk about jews more recently as a problem (or starting to slide into noticing himself), that they (either jews or shabbos goyim) decided to shoot him. And in that regard, since all he did was talk without taking physical action, his attempts at talking about it were pointless because he ended up getting shot and the audience he had that could have had their eyes opened, will now not have their eyes opened since he's dead.
You make a good case for the futility of talking about it / attempting to shift public perception, but again, I don't believe it's entirely worthless. The more that people become aware of it, as far as I'm concerned, the better. In short, it increases the chance that maybe we will be able to do something about it once enough people become aware, like a hitting a critical mass. I don't entirely agree with your sentiment of "everyone that can be convinced already has been". Whether or not that includes the ones who matter. Since the most it seems that people do once they do become aware is just try to spread more awareness, rather than taking physical action. I'll reiterate my point, it might not be much, but at least it's something, so it's not entirely futile.
They’re not Christians. It’s honestly extremely easy to convince them because they *think* they have an ideological framework in place already. Where overt non-Christians have no historical frame of reference and reject the concept of collective thought or action, even evangelical zionists carry around a book (they they have never read) that destroys their worldview. All you have to do is tell them to open *their own possession* (so you’re not tricking them with an altered copy) and turn to a handful of verses where God Himself says jews are damned forever.
> I don't see how a milquetoast consverative like Charlie Kirk getting shot proves that talking doesn't work. I'd be interested in hearing an explanation on that.
* Philosopher: “Here is truth and what we should do about it.”
* Sophist: “No, truth does not exist. I want to do something else.”
* P: “Here is axiomatic proof of the immutability of certain things and the harmfulness of the thing you want to do..”
* S: “Truth does not exist; I will continue to do as I please.”
* P: “You are now harming me as well as yourself with your beliefs and actions. You must stop this for our common good.”
* S: “You are now imposing your opinions on me by harming my pleasure. I will no longer listen to you and continue to do as I please. Cease talking.”
* P: “But your actions harm you both in the moment and over time. Harm to you is harm to me, by social association. I will guide others not to follow your example.”
* S: “If you attempt to prevent others from becoming like me, you become a direct threat to me. You are creating an army against me. Stop talking. Now.”
* P: “I wish you no harm and will not physically act to prevent you from your actions. I only wish you to understand my position.”
* S: [gunshot]
Probably just in my case then as I'm not great at debating. I've attempted this with my grandfather and pointed out multiple verses (John 8:44 and Revelations 2:9 and 3:9) and he accused me of cherry picking and continued to take the stance that Jesus is a jew despite me trying to argue that no, modern jew ≠ biblical jew.
And I see your point about Kirk now. You're basically saying that because he was starting to talk about jews more recently as a problem (or starting to slide into noticing himself), that they (either jews or shabbos goyim) decided to shoot him. And in that regard, since all he did was talk without taking physical action, his attempts at talking about it were pointless because he ended up getting shot and the audience he had that could have had their eyes opened, will now not have their eyes opened since he's dead.
You make a good case for the futility of talking about it / attempting to shift public perception, but again, I don't believe it's entirely worthless. The more that people become aware of it, as far as I'm concerned, the better. In short, it increases the chance that maybe we will be able to do something about it once enough people become aware, like a hitting a critical mass. I don't entirely agree with your sentiment of "everyone that can be convinced already has been". Whether or not that includes the ones who matter. Since the most it seems that people do once they do become aware is just try to spread more awareness, rather than taking physical action. I'll reiterate my point, it might not be much, but at least it's something, so it's not entirely futile.