Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Right wing sources (Read 506 times)
UnSubRocky
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Crocodile Hunter: Origins

Posts: 25019
Rockhampton
Gender: male
Re: Right wing sources
Reply #15 - Oct 4th, 2022 at 2:29pm
 
FTLW hates people that are not gay, trans, or Islamic fundamentalists. Strangely, he has a problem trying to figure out why Islam is incompatible with having gays and trans people living around them.
Back to top
 

At this stage...
WWW  
IP Logged
 
FutureTheLeftWant
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6625
Gender: male
Re: Right wing sources
Reply #16 - Oct 4th, 2022 at 2:33pm
 
UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 4th, 2022 at 2:29pm:
FTLW hates people that are not gay, trans, or Islamic fundamentalists. Strangely, he has a problem trying to figure out why Islam is incompatible with having gays and trans people living around them.


IT's weird that you're so retarded.  I hate scum

I know gay Muslims.  I've known a few, actually.

The Bible and Qran do not condemn being trans.  Only conservatives do that.  You are white ISIS
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 47546
Gender: male
Re: Right wing sources
Reply #17 - Oct 6th, 2022 at 3:35pm
 
Down with the cis-axial patriarchy
How to debate an evil right-winger (if you must)


Debate is a form of violence. This is why I support the policy of universities “de-platforming” speakers with problematic opinions. After all, impressionable students are hardly likely to be persuaded if there’s no one there to do the persuading.

Conservatives will often try to blindside their opponents with “facts”

Conservatives will often try to blindside their opponents with “facts” and “logic”, slippery manoeuvres that end up making it look as though social justice activists like me don’t know what we are talking about. But for those of you who insist on engaging with these cretins, here are some foolproof techniques.

Firstly, one needs to consider carefully one’s choice of words. “Fascist” and “Nazi” are excellent examples of terms which never fail to undermine the confidence of the unenlightened or the working class. I routinely use them to describe anyone who voted for the Tories, or who supports the monarchy, and the fact that people tend to act so defensively when you compare them to Hitler only goes to show that the analogy is sound.

The other surefire strategy is to convey one’s point of view through the language of intersectional feminist theory. For instance, instead of using the phrase “all straight white men are evil”, you might say “I refuse to redact my positionality in deference to hegemonic cis-axial neopatriarchy normalised through oppressive structural discourses of heteropestilential violence enacted on bodies of colour”. The unreconstructed bigots of the right are rarely well-schooled in such terminology, and at this point will usually just give up.

But perhaps the best way to win an argument is to simply refuse to talk to your opponent in the first place. Why should those with the wrong opinions be free to express themselves? “Free speech” is an extremist ideology. It was invented by the ancient Greeks, a bunch of dead white males who also invented slavery, pederasty and pornographic pottery.

So next time you’re confronted with a right-wing reactionary who is keen to bully you with their thoughts, try some of the techniques I’ve outlined here. Brand them a “Nazi”, bludgeon them with intersectional jargon or, better still, pretend they don’t exist.

Game, set and match.

Titania McGrath (lovechild of Mothra Theresa and FutureTheLeftWankTo)

Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
FutureTheLeftWant
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6625
Gender: male
Re: Right wing sources
Reply #18 - Oct 6th, 2022 at 3:36pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 6th, 2022 at 3:35pm:
Down with the cis-axial patriarchy
How to debate an evil right-winger (if you must)


Debate is a form of violence. This is why I support the policy of universities “de-platforming” speakers with problematic opinions. After all, impressionable students are hardly likely to be persuaded if there’s no one there to do the persuading.

Conservatives will often try to blindside their opponents with “facts”

Conservatives will often try to blindside their opponents with “facts” and “logic”, slippery manoeuvres that end up making it look as though social justice activists like me don’t know what we are talking about. But for those of you who insist on engaging with these cretins, here are some foolproof techniques.

Firstly, one needs to consider carefully one’s choice of words. “Fascist” and “Nazi” are excellent examples of terms which never fail to undermine the confidence of the unenlightened or the working class. I routinely use them to describe anyone who voted for the Tories, or who supports the monarchy, and the fact that people tend to act so defensively when you compare them to Hitler only goes to show that the analogy is sound.

The other surefire strategy is to convey one’s point of view through the language of intersectional feminist theory. For instance, instead of using the phrase “all straight white men are evil”, you might say “I refuse to redact my positionality in deference to hegemonic cis-axial neopatriarchy normalised through oppressive structural discourses of heteropestilential violence enacted on bodies of colour”. The unreconstructed bigots of the right are rarely well-schooled in such terminology, and at this point will usually just give up.

But perhaps the best way to win an argument is to simply refuse to talk to your opponent in the first place. Why should those with the wrong opinions be free to express themselves? “Free speech” is an extremist ideology. It was invented by the ancient Greeks, a bunch of dead white males who also invented slavery, pederasty and pornographic pottery.

So next time you’re confronted with a right-wing reactionary who is keen to bully you with their thoughts, try some of the techniques I’ve outlined here. Brand them a “Nazi”, bludgeon them with intersectional jargon or, better still, pretend they don’t exist.

Game, set and match.

Titania McGrath (lovechild of Mothra Theresa and FutureTheLeftWankTo)



This is fan fiction.  The right HATE facts and logic LOL
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Deep State Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 85148
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male
Re: Right wing sources
Reply #19 - Oct 6th, 2022 at 4:15pm
 
FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Oct 6th, 2022 at 3:36pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 6th, 2022 at 3:35pm:
Down with the cis-axial patriarchy
How to debate an evil right-winger (if you must)


Debate is a form of violence. This is why I support the policy of universities “de-platforming” speakers with problematic opinions. After all, impressionable students are hardly likely to be persuaded if there’s no one there to do the persuading.

Conservatives will often try to blindside their opponents with “facts”

Conservatives will often try to blindside their opponents with “facts” and “logic”, slippery manoeuvres that end up making it look as though social justice activists like me don’t know what we are talking about. But for those of you who insist on engaging with these cretins, here are some foolproof techniques.

Firstly, one needs to consider carefully one’s choice of words. “Fascist” and “Nazi” are excellent examples of terms which never fail to undermine the confidence of the unenlightened or the working class. I routinely use them to describe anyone who voted for the Tories, or who supports the monarchy, and the fact that people tend to act so defensively when you compare them to Hitler only goes to show that the analogy is sound.

The other surefire strategy is to convey one’s point of view through the language of intersectional feminist theory. For instance, instead of using the phrase “all straight white men are evil”, you might say “I refuse to redact my positionality in deference to hegemonic cis-axial neopatriarchy normalised through oppressive structural discourses of heteropestilential violence enacted on bodies of colour”. The unreconstructed bigots of the right are rarely well-schooled in such terminology, and at this point will usually just give up.

But perhaps the best way to win an argument is to simply refuse to talk to your opponent in the first place. Why should those with the wrong opinions be free to express themselves? “Free speech” is an extremist ideology. It was invented by the ancient Greeks, a bunch of dead white males who also invented slavery, pederasty and pornographic pottery.

So next time you’re confronted with a right-wing reactionary who is keen to bully you with their thoughts, try some of the techniques I’ve outlined here. Brand them a “Nazi”, bludgeon them with intersectional jargon or, better still, pretend they don’t exist.

Game, set and match.

Titania McGrath (lovechild of Mothra Theresa and FutureTheLeftWankTo)



This is fan fiction.  The right HATE facts and logic LOL



How would you know - you've never presented either!   Grin  Grin  Grin  Grin  Grin  Grin  Grin  Grin  Grin  Grin
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print