The left are copying the ((())) thing to delegitimize our arguments
>The meme is this. You put heavy quote marks around the phrase “legitimate concerns” – maybe make it “““legitimate concerns”””
>The implication is that there are no such things as legitimate concerns. Those who claim to have them are probably, underneath it all, just racists, albeit with a more sophisticated vocabulary than your average EDL thug.
>Really, though, this a dismissive rhetorical trick to avoid engaging with the whole subject.
They actually make a reasonable argument of why we shouldn't use the ((())) thing
reminder that it wasn't long ago that the left was anti-immigration and anti-globalization
Henry Cooper
When the left tells you you're doing it wrong it means it's working and hurting their feelings.
Carson Wright
What? That's the stupidest coup of a meme I've seen. The echo is pointing out a coincidental fact. Sounds like they're using it for arguments they don't like.
Grayson Anderson
> it wasn't long ago that the left was anti-immigration
When?
Parker Ortiz
The (((New Statesman)))
Dominic Davis
In the US, the left was anti-immigrant as recently as the early 90s. This was around the time they realized that hordes of uneducated brown people could be swayed to vote for them, though, just like blacks via pandering and small financial concessions.
Aaron Ross
Trade unions have traditionally been anti-immigration for obvious reasons.
Easton Cruz
I just assumed they meant that it was an argument made by Jews... like they were echo quoting themselves.
They are kinda using it the same way we use it. When we read an article and we find out the coincidental fact of who wrote it, we shut it down just by pointing out the author. It's a short hand way of shutting down whatever the author is saying. They are doing the same thing. It's the dismissal of our arguments and concerns, which they don't think are legitimate. They think our points of view are racist and not based on fact. Therefore they can dismiss our """legitimate concerns""" about immigration or gender or whatever.
The article makes the argument that this shouldn't happen. The merits of the argument should be made. It applies to us too. If we have a (((journalist))) telling us to enjoy the cuck lifestyle or mass immigration, we shouldn't just use the ((())). Our argument, if we believe it, is strong and we should make it. Of course we are online and Twitter or whatever though so it's easier to just shut it down
Samuel Phillips
Sure thing (((OP)))
Camden Brown
You clearly have no understanding of how either of these symbols came about, otherwise you wouldn't be attempting to contrast them right now
Julian Nguyen
the left is schizophrenic. this is not new.
Joshua Sanders
Go ahead and explain then
Anthony Lewis
>When we read an article and we find out the coincidental fact of who wrote it, we shut it down just by pointing out the author. It's a short hand way of shutting down whatever the author is saying. Not at all, it's just a warning of the presence of Jewish tricks.
Xavier Roberts
The echo is not used to shut down arguments. It is used to illuminate implications.
Noah Nelson
So if everybody starts using the """new meme""" it's completely disarmed, right?
Christopher Hernandez
Yeah, that's the point though. It highlights them and possibly trickery without any argument having to be made. Look at the way this annon has used it for exampleWe both know what he is saying without him having to really say anything. He has said loads, shut down any argument and made his point in one sentence.
Jaxon Russell
I don't even dislike jews desu and I have literally no idea if the New Statemen is even run by jews I just like claiming every single organisation is for a laff
Just start using the left's memes anti-semitically and all of a sudden they can't use them any more
Daniel Edwards
Fair enough that's true, but Implications = >the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated
It has been necessary to use scare quotes for decades now because of the j-media's abuse of language. Two people use the same word but one definition is clearly understood by the masses and the other is restricted to communist academics and the media.
The echoes serve a different purpose entirely. If Jews were clearly marked out as such, rather than disguising themselves as White, their agenda would never have gained the traction that it has. So next time you're watching anti-White propaganda from (((Cathy Newman))) on Channel 4, remind yourself that she is a kike and see if it changes anything for you.
I'm not saying what they are doing is anti-Semitic or a short hand way of highlighting the origins of someone like ((())) does. They are not using it for people, but for ideas. They are using it to
>rebut an opponent’s point
Without making the argument. That was the only comparison I was making
Carter Anderson
the left always done this though. they don't have a counter-argument so they call people questioning their agenda fascist, racist, anti-semitic et al to shut it down, now codified as political correctness. this snark the article is referring to is exactly the same thing. "nothing to see here, move along goyim"
David Richardson
there isn't anything new. the stupid ((( ))) thing was itself just a more-obnoxious version of ' '.
Jeremiah Gonzalez
An awareness of motive.
Sebastian Hughes
>(((They))) actually make a reasonable argument of why we shouldn't use the ((())) thing fixed this for you
Ian Fisher
Yeah, the article is saying that they shouldn't though. That they should
>engage with detail and complexity.
>The left’s blithe rejection of “legitimate concerns” about immigration led us to Brexit. So please, if you think that concerns about gender ID reforms are wrong, explain why
The basic point I was trying to make in comparison with the ((())) is that if we believe in the strength of our arguments we to should make it and engage with detail and complexity.
Jews have been hiding in plain sight for a long time. They know that they are Jews while the average White does not assign any importance to this. The echoes simply level the playing field, making their subversion much less likely to succeed.
The left creates problems just to say they'll fix them next.
In 20 years they'll be anti-homo and say homosexuality is a tool of the burgeoise or some shit
Parker Sanchez
What the fuck are you talking about.
Carson Green
I say this because ((( they))) think their argument is better than ours. They think if they
>>engage with detail and complexity.
They will convert us. For example They think they should make a >robust defence of immigration...If you truly believe that immigration doesn’t drive down wages, immigration is good for the health of the economy...those are arguments that a party could, and should, make.
Using the “““legitimate concerns””” >absolves you of the hard work of argument.
What I meant is we don't need to use ((())) the same way they don't need to use the scare quotes. There argument of why they don't need to use them is the same. The merits of our argument should be better. When there is a shitpost piece of journalism we shouldn't just be saying it's them. We should be able to engage with detail and complexity to destroy their argument
