Bringing Shame Back

While I expected two general types of pushback against my recent post that was (only tangentially) related to “This Is me”, the volume and lockstep uniformity of those knee-jerk responses surprised me.

To recap, first we have the pop culture copper tops who’ve been plugged into the mass media Matrix for so long they’ll reflexively lash out at anyone who even questions the system.

Here’s another example from Twitter.


And from another branch of the same thread:

Conscience 1

Let’s hit the highlights.

  • Admits the song denies the concept of sin.
  • Proposes a moral calculus that divorces ends from means, i.e. consequentialism.
  • Overlooks the fact that morality is central to the discussion.
  • Correctly identifies the song’s “You were born this way!” Narrative and cites it in the song’s defense!
  • Completely misses the underlying point that the “Fly your freak flag” ethos he just mentioned IS the current, Left-imposed cultural norm I advocate defying.
  • Blatantly misrepresents my clearly stated position not once, but twice.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Because Andrew thought he was employing logical disputation when in fact his cognitive dissonance over my defiance of the Narrative was spurring him to blurt emotive pseudo-dialectic. His head hamster then spun its wheel overtime to retroactively rationalize his incoherent emoting.

At least one commenter took me to task for not engaging Val with logic and not clarifying my position. As I pointed out, cat-lady (and now Andrew) weren’t using logic. They were deploying emotional arguments under a thin veneer of rational-sounding jargon.

You can tell they weren’t really using dialectic because both of them

  1. Either didn’t read the original posts or read them until the onset of CogDis, at which point they were reduced to skimming till offended.
  2. Flagrantly distorted my position, as a result of 1. above.
  3. Made incoherent arguments.
And in Val’s case, we have the red flag of 
      4. Swiftly dropped the pretense of reason and went straight to personal attacks.
For those keeping score, nonsense rebuttals, jokeless laughs (cat-lady’s emoticons), and personal attacks are all CogDis tells.
To reiterate, you don’t respond to emotion with reason. Note that I tried dialectic with Andrew and just got a nonsense rebuttal for my efforts.
My responses to cat-lady proved far more effective, demonstrating once again that the only way to unplug the copper tops is with consistent and relentless shaming. Contra Andrew, it is past time we brought shame back.
Next up, Alex Jeffries endeavors to fact-check a post I never wrote about how Leftists unanimously loved The Greatest Showman.

Fact Check 1
In case there was any ambiguity in the title of my “What We’re Really Up Against” post, I didn’t mean the Leftist death cult. The threat they pose is obvious. I was referring to the unwitting sleeper agents who either a) unconsciously accept the Leftist Narrative as a default, b) can’t see the forest for the trees well enough to grasp the vital point that ENTERTAINMENT IS THE MAIN FRONT IN THE CULTURE WAR AND WE MUST FIGHT BACK WITH THE ENEMY’S PROVEN WEAPONS, or c) both.

Fact Check 2

Fact Check 3

Whether the snobbish critics in the East and West Coast bubbles loved or hated a particular entertainment product has exactly zero bearing on that product’s effectiveness at pushing the Left’s Narrative. Who cares what bubble-dwellers like? In fact, movies embraced by Progs–e.g. The Last Jedi–are LESS useful vectors since normies are getting wise to overt propaganda. The Greatest Showman is a more effective arrow in the Left’s quiver precisely because it’s so palatable to normies.

As for the implied accusation of hypocrisy, Knock it off. It doesn’t make you look morally superior. It makes you look catty and butthurt. Conservatives have been impotently accusing Leftists of hypocrisy for generations. Pro tip: That trick only works on Conservatives because only Conservatives base their identities on “I am a million times more principled than thou art!” posturing.

An explanation of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions is in order. A story must place entertainment before message (if it has one) and, if it does have a message, it must promote heroism, virtue, and truth.

In short, the moral of the story must be moral.

Denying the reality of sin is the diametric opposite of morality. It is anti-morality. The Greatest Showman promotes that anti-morality, however cunningly the message is hidden. A story that upholds evil instead of good is not a story. It is propaganda. And error has no rights.

If you’re a fan of mind-bending fiction, epic tales spun out over centuries, of heroic heroes you can love, check this out.

The Ophian Rising - Brian Niemeier

Powered by WPeMatico