Message from @Catboi
Discord ID: 683385479554662466
you're intellectually inconsistent on purpose
@Nyaboron I have explained EXACTLY what I meant so if you are still confused that's on you. You are so mad over something that is completely pointless. You are just not equipped to have this conversation.
So your argument is just to tell @Nyaboron that he is “not equipped to have this conversation “
Explaining what you mean isn’t defending the point you made. Just because you have rationalized something in your head doesn’t make you right
Lol @ hours long semantic arguments.
@Unironic Ohio Supremecist lol I wouldn’t have joined in but he called Nyaboron not equipped as like his mic drop
Lol.
is that a personal attack? hmmm
yeah that's his 2nd
he just keeps calling me stupid while he himself doesnt own a dictionary
he doesnt understand that I'm not confused by what he means, but that I'm calling him out on his degenerative misuse of the English language.
Because people recognize it for the political and emotional bullshitting that it is
@Nyaboron "you're intentionally stealing the impact of the word violence while changing the meaning to suit your needs.". Yes.
You sound like the Feminists who say looking at them is a sex crime
>Well it's not rape, but it's still a violation of my consent and bodily autonomy, so it's kinda like rape
@Nyaboron "you're intellectually inconsistent". Wrong.
In the same way that feminists try to elevate anything they don't like to rape, you're trying to elevate anything you don't like to the severity of physical harm
which is why people are calling you out
@Catboi Not exactly. In your example the the feminists argument centers on the fact that she feels like its rape; In my example the point centers on the actual intention of the person making the veiled threats.
You can argue all you want.. doesn't make what I'm saying any less true.
I'm not interested in arguing about the details
I'm just explaining clearly to you why people are calling you out
It's about the type of behavior and your intentions not the actual semantics
arguing that is just playing a word game
@Catboi "I'm not interested in arguing" That explains it all.
(((Wittgenstein))) was right!
Getting back to the original point, I don't think you can say propaganda is violence. @Tony_Swann It can lead to violence eventually but it isn't violent.
Well your word games are only appealing to austists who watch Molymeme
Arguing accomplishes nothing since you're going to keep to try insisting your emotional and intentional games around the word violence are just so different than what the Feminists do when they say the male gaze is rape... even though any normal person can see you're using the same tactic...
You're trying to make your position seem more important by likening non-Violence to VIolence
just like Feminists are trying to make their claims seem more severe and important than they really are by making everything rape and assault...
It's the same way that, "TAX IS THEFT", is only a convincing one statement killshot to the hyper-autist agorist spergs.
To put it simply, everyone knows what you're doing.and you trying to argue about definitions doesn't chang the fact... god are you like the right wing Fondby?
@McFansy I agree with you that propaganda isn't "physical" violence but my original point was about the entire political system being violent in nature. Like i was saying to MechMage I think we basically agree, the difference is just about the framing of the issue. I really don't see why these other guys are getting so triggered by that.
I wasnt able to debate because I was at work all day, jackass
all violence is physical
its intellectually dishonest to change the denotation of a word to fit what you want it to in order to weaponize the connotation.
propaganda is not violence in any sense
it can be malevolent just like violence can be