Debate between ideological opponents is impossible when there is no objective basis for the meaning of a word. The dialect used by the left is completely different than that of the right, while the right is using words based on the consensus of the majority and from sources such as dictionaries, the left are seeking to undermine our intellectual weapons (words) by redefining words and trying to renegotiate words in a way that makes the right look bad, by changing the dialect and thus changing the intended meaning of what the right says.
We need a new way of negotiating the meaning of words with the left, we cannot let our ability to have dialogue be undermined. They are taking words like racism and sexism renegotiating the meaning in a way that suits them, and paints them in a particularly favorable light.
They use these weasel words to pathologize anyone who disagrees with them. Their disregard for objectivity and the destabilization of words and meaning is like a virus, it changes their word view completely.
We interpret the world through our words, if you cannot rely on your words then you cannot rely on your own thoughts and ideas, you are destabilized and easily molded and influenced, you are kept in a state of delusion.
If you believe racism = prejudice + power for instance, then you can retain your principles e.g an opposition to racism while still acting against your principles e.g attacking whites on the basis of being white.
How do we combat this? Do we need to resort to the creation of our own dictionary? Do we need to resort to their own tactics, and redefine their words in a way that puts them at odds with their principles?
The way out is to gas the kikes and ignite the upcoming race war. There's little to nothing you can do for most fo the people who already got brainwashed.
Wyatt Brooks
Leftists must be launched into space.
Xavier Sanchez
Move past terms such as racism and the likes, white nationalism is more metaphysical than racial realism anyway.
Joshua Gonzalez
You can't discuss with a left-winger. In the words of a famous czech artist, you can't win a battle against an idiot, because he will always win, no matter what,.
Aaron Phillips
>How do we navigate this hurdle Sup Forums? Violence.
Nathan Rivera
I realized the left was redefining words but until recently I didnt realize how bad it actually was. I was arguing with a friend, she was fervent with anger and did not realize I was actually agreeing with her because her dialect was twisted in a way that posed what I said as in opposition to what she was saying.
I've also noticed almost all of my arguments with leftists come down to arguments over semantics and become completely detached from the original arguments, navigating this makes debating them IMPOSSIBLE, words are crucial to ones logic and pattern of thought, if ones logic is disrupted then the only rule of debate is thrown out the window.
Dylan James
Yup. One think (((Noam Chomsky))) got right was the linguistic underpinning to much of human intelligence. Therefore, by controlling the language, you control the mind.
Hence, by upsetting or eliminating the ability to use language, you destroy the mind. It's an effective vector, and one that is difficult to change after the initial plasticity of language learning very early in life.
Jeremiah Perez
>How do we navigate this hurdle Sup Forums? Fuck them. 'Nuff said.
Nolan Hughes
Let me get this straight: The words we use to think - are thinking US?
Wyatt Miller
In a sense, yes. Symbolic manipulation (abstract thinking) is done in large part through language (words i.e. symbols and their larger assemblies, i.e. grammar). So if you cripple or control that, you wind up crippling or controlling a large portion of higher human intellect.
Liam Howard
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Brayden Green
>higher human intellect "Higher" is purely subjective.
Samuel Rogers
...
Hunter Carter
>violent extremism Islam >women's health abortion >systemic racism absence of racist system >human right WILD CARD: anything the left wants >toxic masculinity masculinity
Daniel Cooper
Higher in the sense of things that human intellect can do more easily than lesser animals. Sure that's fuzzy unless you want to get all ivory tower academic, but despite whatever subjective definitions come in to play I'm sure you can imagine the general concept.
It's not as though you're going to sit down and have this same discussion with your cat or a nigger.
Daniel Richardson
Politicians currently use social shaming in attempting to control speech.
Logan Hughes
>We need a new way of negotiating the meaning of words No we don't, words are already precisely define they don't change meaning over time no matter how many times you call your child a 'kid'
Start by meaning what you say and saying what you mean Look up what 'nice' or 'academic' mean and you will understand why the 'nice' guy can't find a girlfriend or why 'academics' have no solutions.
I just straight up call any leftist who tries to smear me with weasel words, a paedophile. It's working pretty well so far, they get shook.
David Lopez
'No objective basis for the meaning of a word'
W e W l A d
There are shill threads, slide threads, and then there are threads that are just pure retarded. Saged and hidden
Aaron Wilson
>you can imagine the general concept. No, there is no objective "higher" or "lower". These are subjective values i.e. good, bad, or neutral.
Jaxon Ward
>How do we navigate this hurdle Sup Forums?
Parker Morgan
I am not saying there is no objective basis for the word, rather I meant that its impossible to debate if there is no AGREED UPON objective basis for words. The dictionary would be a great objective basis for words but the left rejects the dictionary in favor of redefining words to suit their goals, principles, ect.
Adrian Hernandez
OK. Why don't you have a deep philosophical conversation with a wild bear next time you see one youtube.com/watch?v=jvnx4M293oU
Cameron Hill
Why are Americans so proud of being morons?
Hunter Reed
If you play by rules with absolutely no integrity, there is no way to win.
James Jones
That's part of the brainwashing operation. Just like it's "cool" for negroes to be into gangsta rap and not be good fathers, it's "cool" to be a weak, feckless moron if you're a white male.
Are you new to the Jewish menace?
Ryan Ramirez
That is exactly what you are doing by arguing for the subjectivity of words though. Higher and lower can have objective meaning if you give them objective meaning. It is not the same as good and bad because good and bad are much more abstract moral concepts, however if you are referring to something as higher or lower there is no connotation for which is good or bad which may be subjective. When fkD37u8 uses it, its simply an assignment of difficulty regarding thinking and position in abstract thought hierarchy. It is not a moral designation such as good or bad. It attains its meaning from its context which gives it an objective basis, unlike good or bad designations.
Elijah Johnson
>It attains its meaning from its context Yeah, well...if you're playing by their rules and starting to get them to see daylight - they'll just change the rules on you. They play a completely unscrupulous game.
Angel Bailey
Yet here we all are, using a common language and using that as a medium of communication to undermine the game. I don't know where in the world you are, but at present we have at the very least myself from the US and OP from Australia and we're roughly on opposite points of the planet.
How cool is that? That's not happening without language. That's not happening without a language to write the software in. And if you look at the low-level protocols for the interlinks that send the bits and bytes back and forth (also documented in language), you will find that there are "symbols" being transmitted over the line that have to be interpreted as a carrier for the information we are conveying through the bleep bloop blop. All of this is a greater expression of the human capacity for language.
And now (((they))) want to censor the internet because it's a threat to (((their))) power. So, effectively, this is language control.
Jackson Howard
Which is why we need to add rules to the game. Thats my entire point. Objectivity gives us the ability to point to a particular source of truth when it comes to the meaning of a word, rather than getting into an argument about semantics which can NEVER be won.
Before debating anyone we all need a way to agree on things objectively. They no longer should have the power to usurp words and their connotations and symbolic power by replacing their meanings. For instance instead of being able to say that prejudice + power = racism, they should be compelled to create a new word for the new meaning, rather than trying to replace the old words meaning while retaining the connotation and feeling of the old word (that racism is bad, and if you are called a racist you should feel bad)
Juan Taylor
>So, effectively, this is language control. Yeah, free for now.
The point is what's needed is a moral compass a sense of integrity that's missing across the West. We can't wait for politics to find this for us - we have to find it in ourselves.
Ethan Martinez
And you have to read to your children starting from a very young age. If you want your kids to excel, read to them. This one simple trick has a tremendous impact on their ability to realize their intellectual potential, not to mention their ingrained moral compass.
There's a good reason why most of the most successful civilizations came up with a written language, not just an oral one, to transmit the collected learning and wisdom beyond the span of a single lifetime.
Daniel Kelly
A moral compass is not an objective source of truth though. The lefts moral compass tells them the right decision is to be deceitful and allows them to disregard their own principles without guilt.
These people have a moral compass but the inputs to their moral compass have been distorted by the distortion of language that it allows them to interpret their actions and the world differently.
A moral compass is inherent to everyone but if you change language you change the meaning, and connotations of everything, it changes the way everything makes you feel, it changes the direction of your moral compass.
Ryan Smith
>A moral compass is not an objective source of truth though. Our own integrity is the ONLY objective truth that we can know to an absolute surety.
This is what is meant by "Know thyself"
Michael James
No. You are completely wrong. You can believe you are being completely true to your principles if your language distorts your thinking in a way that makes it seem as if whatever action you are taking is not in conflict with your principles
A perfect example is antifa, they believe violence is bad, but they see unprovoked attacks against the right as self defense. You can know yourself and deceive yourself which is why we need something objective to look at outside ourselves.
Connor Price
I believe you're talking about fundamentally subjective knowledge, along the lines of gnosticism.
Gavin Clark
>how do we navigate this hurdle We don't, they did this purposefully over decades. This is redpill 101 stuff.
By making Handjob Day a federal holiday. Because that's the only way you'll get one, or make me read a wall of text that a quick overview basically says 'the left invents words and changes definitions, what do?'
Elijah Sanders
>How do we navigate this hurdle Sup Forums? establish definitions at the beginning of a debate
Isaiah Morris
Nah, just call them cunts and trot out the n word, end declare your eternal allegiance to God Emperor Trump. They'll flip out and go be retarded somewhere else.
If they stay then you can work out a sensible discussion.
Gavin Richardson
I feel like the ability to establish clear definitions for words will be made impossible by them, it will only deteriorate into semantics. They will realize they will lose if the accept our definitions.
Austin Ramirez
checked I had a most informative discussion one time on the finer points between "colored person" and "person of color." It was simply impossible to use denotation instead of connotation.
I'm not a lingual perscriptivist myself, but when the denotation and connotation can't align at all then the terminology is inherently #rekt.
James Sanchez
That example of colored person and person of colored is perfect. They describe the exact same thing and have completely different connotations to the left.
We need a way to mend the differences between connotation and denotation within the lefts vocabulary.
Perhaps when we start a debate with a leftists we must give some examples of where their denotation and connotation are misaligned, maybe then they will be aware and unable to refuse our definitions for words and the connotations we attach to words.
Hunter Wood
What I suspect would be more interesting would be to get a simple reading on how many non-whites really give a shit and think we're all nigger-owning KKK lynchers if we use the wrong phrase. My understanding from Sup Forums is that there are tons of people who aren't "white" on our literally hitler white power board, and they don't really give a shit because at the end of the day we're all just basically bullshitting at the bar at the end of the day, even if some of us are actually hardcore racists.
It goes to the identity politics mental programming that has overtaken our educational system (which is no longer focused on things like reading, writing, or rhetoric but rather Pavlovian (who literally used the word "trigger") and Skinnerian conditioning) to cause people not oppressed by any of the connotations to feel as though their own weaknesses are under attack whenever a dedicated trigger word applies to a dedicated oppression group.
