2+2=4 does not=2+2=4
Inter-subjectively
Hym "I really don't think that's the issue. I think when I say 'God is Evil' you hear 2+2=5. So, 2+2=4 does not=2+2=4. Unless... Do you think whether or not God is good is subjective? Either subjective or objective. If it's objective, it's either objectively good or it's objectively evil. If so, which is it? O'Connor let's it. And that's the problem with the online discourse. You're allowed to say 2+2=5 all you want but you aren't allowed to BE Nick Fuentes or 👉 Let me ask you this: How is what Nick Fuentes believes any different from someone who believes in Sharia law? He's a theocract. So he believes the state should be controlled by the religion (which is what Shraria). Whay else? The women have a role? Anti-Lgbt? Your protestations about him (and me) being in public entirely validates their 'Islamophobia.' The can just transpose his beliefs onto the believes of the Muslims and say 'This guy believes what they believe and even THEY don't want them here!'
Hym "I really don't think that's the issue. I think when I say 'God is Evil' you hear 2+2=5. So, 2+2=4 does not=2+2=4. Unless... Do you think whether or not God is good is subjective? Either subjective or objective. If it's objective, it's either objectively good or it's objectively evil. If so, which is it? O'Connor let's it. And that's the problem with the online discourse. You're allowed to say 2+2=5 all you want but you aren't allowed to BE Nick Fuentes or 👉 Let me ask you this: How is what Nick Fuentes believes any different from someone who believes in Sharia law? He's a theocract. So he believes the state should be controlled by the religion (which is what Shraria). Whay else? The women have a role? Anti-Lgbt? Your protestations about him (and me) being in public entirely validates their 'Islamophobia.' The can just transpose his beliefs onto the believes of the Muslims and say 'This guy believes what they believe and even THEY don't want them here!'
And you give them an excuse to be dismissive and ignore you on the topic. Which is what they're doing. And you can probably broaden that and say they can transpose THAT onto the the Palestinians and THAT justifies them being dismissive about the protests! And THAT is where the 'If those protesters when to Gaza... (They would get thrown off a roof for being gay or something being the insinuation)' rhetoric comes from. All justified by you without you realizing it. That's why they use the plants. That's the point of doing it. They set you up to approve of 'Islamophobia' by boosting a guy with a Quasi-Sharia interpretation of the religion. they watch you justify excising him from society, you say 'It's not the religion it's the fundamentalism', and then they can internalize that and say 'The fundamentalism is why I'm doing this!' I mean, you're like God's bipolar girlfriend. 'StoOoOop! You're hurting him!' But the bombs keep falling. They'll ignore you and just keep doing whatever they're doing all justified by your own manufactured consent. It's the conservative rhetoric not dismissive? But I digress... The idea that 2+2=4 does not=2+2=4 (inter-subjectively) speaks to a broader point about how people justify behavior or decision and what people accept as true. I could even go further and say it speaks to how people justify 'Evil.' But I'll have to get into that later."
2+2=4 does not=2+2=4 by Hym Iam May 31, 2024