pull down to refresh
The hardening or softening is circumstancial and depends on a lot of factors, a lot of which are based on your reaction and are within in your control.
Understand the stakes here. We're going to war with Canada because they're a PRC proxy. People with Canadian ancestry like Gavin Newsom supported the corona lockdowns, and we don't want to / can't share a society with those people. Them and others are civilizational enemies of 1776 and we're under no moral or strategic obligation to allow them to occupy our coastlines. But they already do, so we're baiting them into a communist revolution that will give us a pretext to remove them. They've already started it with their rent strikes and other such threats, so whatever happens to them now is their fault for treading.
“I also think your claims of government interference in Black private wealth building are exaggerated.”
That is the soft part. I’d call it minimizing what is actually happening.
I’ve laid out the evidence across countless posts, so I’m not going to relitigate it here. But don’t soften that piece while owning everything else.
Especially when, in the same argument, you say:
“I don’t want to bomb Iran, or deport anyone, or arrest anyone, ever.”
Own the whole position, including what government power is actually being used to do.
You're misunderstanding. I don't want to kill communists. I want everyone to not choose communism so that no one has to be killed.
The problem is that, in the name of fighting communism, you’ve already said you’re willing to use the state to disrupt voluntary private organizing and capital formation.
They forced my hand. They censored Dead or Alive Xtreme 3.
Yet to fight “communism,” you adopted communism’s group-over-individual logic yourself.
You treated Black organizing as “communism,” even when it was private, voluntary self-help: churches, businesses, scholarships, HBCUs, mutual aid, corporate diversity initiatives, and educational diversity programs.
That wasn’t communism. It was Black people building for themselves.
Collateral damage.
Sounds like your stated worldview becomes
collateral damage
too.
That was interesting. You started soft and ended hard. The contradiction is obvious. Why soften it? I think that upset me more.
That’s where you’re wrong. I’ve tried to lay out the case over thousands of posts and comments, so I won’t reiterate or repost it here.
I assume denying that premise is necessary for you to justify the rest.