You must learn to love the party.

Straight out of Orwell.

yeah...i know how that worked

and it was a reality for some people 29 years ago

Think of lucid dreaming. If you know you're dreaming and you're dreaming long enough to get the hang of it you can do anything you want. Anything. Reality bends to your whim. It's pretty fucking awesome.

@Bo_Co By the way, to your earlier questions about denials, Walter Duranty covered the USSR for the new york times and won a pulitzer. The NYT eventually had to apologize for that.

Now imagine if there was another conscious mind sharing that reality who could also bend anything within it to his whim. Including you.

How are you going to treat him? Friend? Indifference? Enemy?

He's the only thing in the universe other than you that can harm you.

Out of simple self-preservation you must either dominate him or destroy him.

That's post-modernism.

>not joining up to double-bully your enemies

Sure, for a time. But in the end there can be only one will.

>I have a gun
>you have a gun
>surely one of us must kill the other
I dont really buy that tbh

That's not a good analogy.

Let's say I'm Ben Shapiro and I say there are only two genders.

In what sense? That it doesn't map to a scenario that has no actual logical structure?

And you're some special snowflake who thinks they're a third (or fourth, or fifty-seventh gender).

If both of our believes actually alter reality, we can't exist simultaneously.

Either our beliefs have to change or we have to change.

Either Ben has to start believing in the 57 genders, or the snowflake conforms to one of the two genders.

Please explain this guys https://youtu.be/N3irid2qUVk

Your analogy fails because my having a gun doesn't mean you don't have a gun.

They actually can, because the two sides aren't using the same concept

Remember now, we're not just talking about words, we're talking about reality.

Further, reality has no basis on belief

Reality is altering with our belief in this scenario. Lucid dreaming.

Yes, and you could have both the leftist concept and the righty concept exist simultaneously, because ultimately the lefty version is meaningless

You're sticking to the modernist metaphysics. I'm using different metaphyiscs.

You have to start thinking outside the modernist box if you want to understand these creatures.

No, I'm saying the leftist narrative is not a necessary contradiction. If anything it's overcategorization

You look at how these people express "genders" and you find that we already have words that describe these concepts in the vast majority of cases

They just map to a binary system

Whereas the narrative suggests they break the system

Ben saying "there are only two genders" is invalidating the existence of the snowflake. It's saying 'the reality you perceive is false'.

No it isn't, when you boil it down to the concepts being described

Would u thonk that men who trans to women did it because they believe women have it better than men in western culture?

Think*

Ben is saying "there are males and females", snowflake is saying " "there are feminine men and masculine women and I'm assigning those separate categories from man and woman"

Where each measurable point in the gradient becomes a category

Thats dumb