"I believe in your right to say what you want, and i hold myself to that, but if you believe you shouldn't be allowed to say the things you are saying, then you should hold yourself to that standard and censor yourself. I will continue to defend your right to say what you want"

My core principle.

Don't advocate solutions I would not want to be held to.

treat others the way you want to be treated. don't order those under your command to do anything you would not do, etc

"If I were a white male I would want others to tell me how awful my privilege is, and to correct the historical injustices done by my kind by redistributing my wealth and power to the oppressed"

Mine needs better wording for conveyance

But I generally use it for general circumstances.

It's not the wording, it's the metaphysics

I don't advocate targeting based on race or religion

You have an entirely different and incompatible set of first principles.

Lest my race or religion be targeted.

Therefore no matter how you formulate your ideas they will be ineffective against progressives.

Yeah

Progressives control academia, academia controls language

There's the first problem

Quit letting people take language away

Most of the cancerous ideologies come about because someone changed a definition of a word or two.

academia controls language HA

Hell, the negative connotations behind 'liberal' come from people who shunt liberty taking it for their own.

you have never met a southerner apparently

lol

But it holds true for some of the routines like "racism = power + prejudice" "uhh no racism is just prejudice", they tend to win battles like that

"undocumented migrant"

"assault weapon"

"hate speech"

a new one that you'll hear soon is "robust expression"

I'm gonna look up robust expression and be prepared

it'll be used in place of "free speech"

the idea being that even though some speech is banned, what you have left can still be used for "robust expression"

I know its a joke, but that stuff is straight out of 1984 "Newspeak" stuff. Its really hard not to see them using 1984 as a manual.

Here's the kicker, though...

The ones opposing Trump think they're the protagonists in 1984

they don't win these battles because the control academia. Its because they scream the loudest

and the opposition has for too long just ignored them. opting for the "ignore and sometimes say sure" to shut them the hell up

Hillary Clinton wrote in her book she thought the lesson of 1984 was that people didn't listen enough to leaders, the press and experts.

how tf did they take that away?

Maybe to them Winston was the villain of that book.

that is disturbing given that this is the part who claims to be for gay rights

or ironically

but hey, when society raises a whole generation of adult children, what do you expect

I had one guy the other day say that Ted Cruz sounds like the pigs from Animal Farm.