Message from @The Electric Lizard

Discord ID: 676418307628335144


2020-02-10 13:21:34 UTC  

without a definition they're able to basterdise it in the school

2020-02-10 13:21:41 UTC  

and in the education system

2020-02-10 13:21:44 UTC  

this is what i'm saying

2020-02-10 13:21:48 UTC  

look at the word racist

2020-02-10 13:21:53 UTC  

but how do we win that conversation?

2020-02-10 13:22:00 UTC  

we threw it around a lot, and now they're redefining it in education

2020-02-10 13:22:04 UTC  

I understand what you're saying, you don't need to explain

2020-02-10 13:22:08 UTC  

oh sorry

2020-02-10 13:22:20 UTC  

i don't mean to be condescending if it came across like that

2020-02-10 13:22:29 UTC  

I'm just asking how can it help to continue down their deconstructivist path, questioning every stone before you step on it

2020-02-10 13:22:50 UTC  

i'm not asking for us to define everything over again

2020-02-10 13:23:00 UTC  

i'm saying when it's presented we must act to kill it

2020-02-10 13:23:13 UTC  

so if the argument comes, the definition of the word is something we must fight on

2020-02-10 13:23:19 UTC  

ignoring it is not helping

2020-02-10 13:23:29 UTC  

Ignoring it is rarely tried

2020-02-10 13:23:49 UTC  

the opposite is true from my estimations

2020-02-10 13:23:58 UTC  

in parliament it is commonly ignored

2020-02-10 13:24:19 UTC  

spending valuable debate time arguing meaning is time wasted - people broadly understand meaning or can be made to by thoughtful speechcraft

2020-02-10 13:24:33 UTC  

I do not believe so

2020-02-10 13:24:41 UTC  

it looks like we differ on how we see this

2020-02-10 13:25:10 UTC  

i've not an idea on how we can find common ground on this, should we rest the argument for another time?

2020-02-10 13:25:50 UTC  

well firstly, here is what I'd suggest. strike directly to the issue, present an unlosable argument, then and only then allow the other side to claw backwards to definitions. You either reach a point where they disagree with common sense or you reach a point where their definition is unworkable.

2020-02-10 13:26:13 UTC  

the semantics portion of any debate loses the non-philosophical viewer

2020-02-10 13:26:24 UTC  

I think I would fall back to AA's argument here on the motte and bailey

2020-02-10 13:26:27 UTC  

and that's who you're trying to convince, not the other person

2020-02-10 13:26:34 UTC  

exactly

2020-02-10 13:27:05 UTC  

I think what you described is the method by which I'd suggest I am asking for action on

2020-02-10 13:27:28 UTC  

I'm not looking for the strategy or method right now, just the idea that we should be protecting the language from bastardisation

2020-02-10 13:28:04 UTC  

which I do agree with (sorry if I didn't make that clear) - just that I think it's mostly impossible while the marxists are in the schools

2020-02-10 13:28:26 UTC  

So my position here is that we resit the redefinitions in every place we can

2020-02-10 13:28:40 UTC  

not so much that we should copy their tearing at the defintions

2020-02-10 13:28:49 UTC  

mainly that we should put up a wall and start defending

2020-02-10 13:29:06 UTC  

I think that loses the viewers though

2020-02-10 13:29:07 UTC  

rather than just allowing them to slip their bullshit into our lives

2020-02-10 13:29:26 UTC  

So again, if I'm talking purely on the idea of what to do, and not how to do it

2020-02-10 13:29:34 UTC  

if we don't argue our definitions but rather simply state them as fact, then we skip that step.

2020-02-10 13:29:34 UTC  

how to do it could be done anyway

2020-02-10 13:29:51 UTC  

I would accept stating the fact as the argument in itself

2020-02-10 13:30:01 UTC  

I think I'm using the word argument in a different way to you are

2020-02-10 13:30:07 UTC  

which is a semantic argument in itself XD