letter to an ideologue

you correctly identify that people equivocate and conflate terms to ply them for purpose, and often their cunning will try to dodge criticism and critique confusing their ideology’s identity with their own. and so they defend their ideology as though they were defending themselves because in many ways they are.


if only you were willing to do basic fact checking and cared about the veracity- the truthiness- of the opinion you spout. if you were willing to be better than those you denigrate by not contradicting yourself. there would be respect.neuroscience is shit?don’t reference it. not all human reasoning “makes sense”. just because if you held an opinion it would be grounded in x environmental stimula doesn’t mean those environmental stimula were actually present, don’t project- it is dishonesty.


“gravitating to marxism like flies to shit”… here is a shitty neuroscience finding you’ll find value in. people don’t argue without hope, they just go. so generally if someone says they are unsubscribing, they feel alienated at the moment but will return because they are still emotionally invested in the relationship. in general people who argue the most emotionally with vivid metaphors, care the most, and will compromise and rationalize most of their convictions for peace.  you took 51 min…




and so i just went without actively saying i was going to un-subscribe because frankly i know i wont be missed, i was merely a viewer.

but i wonder how he can reconcile the obvious irony of the mental gymnastics of saying all the social sciences are shit, then contracting himself and making an argument presuming their authority. all the while after talking about “double think” and “newspeak”. which are fancy re-branding for semantic equivocation and conflation. and he criticises people for rebranding words and speaking unnaturally when he and his references are literally talking Orwellian; borrowing orwellian rebranding.

it is just such complete ‘newspeak’ and i’m flabbergast- i’m astonished. his reference argues that people consider him and his ilk “rubes” and that those who dissent use antiquated and out of use terminology obfuscate their meanings…. as he uses the word ‘rubes’- a word not even found by spell check. also it doesn’t really have accessible meaning beyond it’s simplistic definition. if you are going to dress up your language, which is great, use words which require more than two words to define them. think of expanding vocabulary as being there for geometric expansion, use as few words as possible, but don’t drop words into nonsense. cause it is ironic that someone who is criticising others for using exclusive words which are meaningless outside of their paradigm is simultaneously being guilty of that same err.

morons of every conceivable pejorative, and every conceivable pejorative in him. what finally got to me was the repeated use of the metaphor “like flies to shit” whilst i was trying to think of him as not a piece of shit by his repeated failures to be suffecient for personhood by his own damn definition.

1 comment
  1. lenybob said:

    i’m kinda amazed how emotional that made me. i’m just *sigh* (just an author comment after the fact)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: