- Joined
- Apr 1, 2022
Just because they gatekeep the gigatards and disavow them doesn't mean they aren't challenging and fighting the left.
For some of these, I'm just gonna repost my old responses and bold them to help you with reading comprehension.
How hard is it to read more than 7 words into a response? I thought you wanted to hone your debate skills.
This doesn't disprove it being a post hoc fallacy. You're oversimplifying the issue and attributing the entire trend to one single thing. Was there an element of what you're talking about in there? Yeah, maybe. But these types of things have always been deeper than surface level identity politics. If you want to debate on specific points, I'm open to it.
First of all, "democracy" wasn't considered evil. Democracy was considered a threat to the monarchical system, but classical education was dominant in Europe for a literal millennium after the region stabilized itself. Latin was the dominant language of scholarship for a very long time after the fall of Rome and with Latin philosophy comes the idea of republicanism, especially when you start looking at sources from the time of the Late Republic. You can't read Cicero, or even some of the leading figures during the time of the Roman Principate, without getting a healthy dose of Republican ideas. Greek philosophy was rediscovered much later in the West, but even that was before the United States existed.
Republicanism was assumed to be inherently unstable (which is pretty true, especially in continental Europe when you're surrounded by states with a lot of centralization), and that was the main justification for why Republicanism is a bad idea.
The US was probably the first true modern Republic, but Republics and Confederations existed in Europe before the Americas were even discovered by Columbus. Not all of these were representative democracies, sure, but some level of popular representation still existed. Feel free to read up on the northern Italian states (Genoa, Venice, Florence, etc.), the Swiss Confederation, the United Provinces, the Novgorod Republic, the Zaporozhian Cossack Host, and the boatload of Imperial Free Cities that existed within the HRE. I'm sure I'm missing plenty, but those are the ones that come to mind pre-colonization. Autocratic, monarchical rule wasn't a monolith in Europe.
Parties didn't exist, but the idea has existed for a very long time. The general factions of liberal and conservative have existed since forever. The Optimates and Populares of the Late Roman Republic are really well documented, and there's references to liberal/conservative factions in Greek literature.
I'm assuming you meant "why isn't it okay to discriminate based on race or sex".
By the way, we actually do, and it's the entire rationale for women's sports - to give women a league of their own where they can compete against other women on equal footing.
Their entire argument falls apart when you consider that what's being presented as "equal rights for trans people" isn't actually equal rights for trans people, it's about infringing on spaces which exist for a reason.
The existence of WN crazies who advocate for an ethnostate and other nonsense draws attention away from these bad arguments and towards how big bad and le ebil the WNs are. If there wasn't a WN boogeyman to draw attention, this shit wouldn't be ignored and given a pass.
Every time you say something like this it just makes you look more insecure. Keep mentioning intelligence bud, every time you do people get even more convinced that you're a 150 IQ visionary who is definitely successful in life.
Also, I'm gonna ask you to engage with this point:
This isn't a strawman until you prove that it is. Show me one major leader on the Far Right who fits their own standards. Emphasis on major. If people who are actually representative of the movement are on the sidelines and not at the front, and people who aren't are, that's a massive problem and I stand by the fact that its probably half the reason nobody takes WNs seriously.
