censorship protest
censorship protest
censorship protest
censorship protest
censorship protest
censorship protest
censorship protest
censorship protest
censorship protest
censorship protest
censorship protest
censorship protest
What new strategy thing approach? Where do I find this?
Here:
Bah doesnât seem to let me include pics in the quote.
Logistics⌠Elections are lots of that. Between election logistics⌠Hmm, we need a Propaganda Ministry!
Iâm unclear about the difference between tactics and logistics. Wouldnât you need both to be successful @edeity?
Perhaps logistics (originally a military term for supply lines to an army in the field of operations) is not the best descriptive. Strategy I understand when comparing to tacticsâŚBig long term vs small short termâŚI know that logistics can mean âthe detailed organisation and implementation of a complex operationâ but even myself I had to look up the correct context for this discussionâŚ
Napoleon was of course a military man.
It seems obvious to me that logistics in a party context is about procuring and delivering electoral materiel: funds, design, printing, delivery, boots on ground.
Ha! And I love watching you talk to yourself
edit: Be prepared for my profanity rant
Puny God âŚ
Well, itâs late on election eve and Iâve had a few sherbets while I stoked socmed. So, as promised, my rant on profanity. *Warning, some of this post and links are not safe for work.
[rant]
Now, none of my current attitude to swearing is original, but if I was to identify a single, memorable, starting point it would be George Carlin and his â7 words you canât say on tvâ.
Of course as a young adult I thought George was fucking hilarious. And I got it, mostly. But, it wasnât until I stumbled across a bunch of anal retentive rationalists that the worth of swearing was driven home. With eye watering vengeance. I wonât bore you with my half-arsed explanation but will quote masters of Goldenmaneâs Third Rule of Public Discourse, commonly referred to as Rule # fucking 3, or, swear a lot.
Bad Ideas.
Bad ideas exist to be destroyed. The notion that words can inherently be bad is a bad idea. It springs from primitive beliefs about words being magical. Similarly, the intellectual cowardâs retreat from debate under the banner of âmy opponent swearsâ is rooted in the same notion.
Words are not magic.
Rule #3 was formulated initially as a joke, the point being that it serves as a way of distinguishing between those conversational opponents who were capable of addressing an argument intellectually, rationally, and logically, and those who were governed entirely by emotion. The key here is to realise that those governed by emotion would be those who would be offended (and loudly) by the use of words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, arsehole, and sundry others. Such people would tend to leave a debate or conversation in high dudgeon, complaining loudly about the language their interlocutors were using. So much the better. There is little worth in continuing a discussion with someone who bases their entire position on emotion, and itâs all to the good if they can be induced to chuck the shits and storm out, since it starkly highlights the intellectual vacuity of their entire approach.
My bold. I understand this is also know as âflouncingâ, and often occurs when superstition and/or logical arse-water is exposed and fucking destroyed.
The idea that certain combinations of sounds (always culturally determined) can have inherent magically âbadâ properties is, to be blunt, bullshit. Most such words from around the worldâs different cultures are related to one of two things: fucking and shitting. Why these two essential processes for a complex sexually-reliant species that needs to eat should become the âbadâ words Iâm not going to debate here. Suffice it to say that from a rational modern perspective, itâs a little bizarre.
Fuck that shit. Now say it with me, words are not magic!. Finally, Goldenmaneâs exposition on Rule # fucking 3.
Because apparently there are some out there who insist on playing monkey-fuck with very simple concepts, in order to pursue some rather incoherent and plainly idiotic agendas, Iâm going to explain something.
Something very. Fucking. Simple.
Something that should not need a gods-damned explanation, because itâs as obvious as an elephant-turd on the kitchen table.
Goldenmaneâs Third Rule of Public Discourse â often known as Rule # fucking 3 â is swear a lot, not call people names. Thereâs a fundamental motherfucking difference, and an inability to grasp this is a singular demonstration that you donât understand the essential point to Rule #3.
Rule #3 is intended to be an example of highlighting intellectual laziness and magical thinking. Swearing, or rather the very fact that it is possible for people to think certain words are magically bad in and of themselves, is irrational bullshit, and no basis for people getting all fucking huffy.
This is completely different to actually attacking someone, rather than ideas. The notion of âswearing = badâ is an idea, and a bloody silly one. Rule #3 doesnât even speak to personal attacks and calling people names, although personal attacks and calling people names are both in themselves examples of shitty thinking.
You canât use a tool which highlights shitty thinking to excuse shitty thinking. Thatâs fucktardery of the first degree.
Be warned. I swear.
[/rant]
edit: ps. #VotePirate
please donât do that
Im interested in justification of censorship of obvious parody.
Because this is a public platform on election day and swastikas (even as a parody) reflect poorly on the party.
You think itâs censorship to be told âhey donât post swastikas on a political partyâs official forumâ? Come on.
This was kinda the exact point of the post. So bravo.
Anyway, back to your regular programming.