Platitudes, Mansplaining, Rant & Discussion Thread

censorship protest

censorship protest

censorship protest

censorship protest

censorship protest

censorship protest

What new strategy thing approach? Where do I find this?


Bah doesn’t seem to let me include pics in the quote. :frowning:

Logistics… Elections are lots of that. Between election logistics… Hmm, we need a Propaganda Ministry!

1 Like

A post was merged into an existing topic: Congress 2016 Strategy Paper

I’m unclear about the difference between tactics and logistics. Wouldn’t 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 tactics…Big long term vs small short term…I know that logistics can mean “the detailed organisation and implementation of a complex operation” but even myself I had to look up the correct context for this discussion…

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 :stuck_out_tongue:

edit: Be prepared for my profanity rant :joy:

Puny God …

1 Like

Well, it’s late on election eve and I’ve 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.

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 “7 words you can’t say on tv”.

Of course as a young adult I thought George was fucking hilarious. And I got it, mostly. But, it wasn’t until I stumbled across a bunch of anal retentive rationalists that the worth of swearing was driven home. With eye watering vengeance. I won’t bore you with my half-arsed explanation but will quote masters of Goldenmane’s 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 coward’s retreat from debate under the banner of ‘my opponent swears’ 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 it’s 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 “flouncing”, 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 ‘bad’ properties is, to be blunt, bullshit. Most such words from around the world’s 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 ‘bad’ words I’m not going to debate here. Suffice it to say that from a rational modern perspective, it’s a little bizarre.

Fuck that shit. Now say it with me, words are not magic!. Finally, Goldenmane’s 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, I’m going to explain something.

Something very. Fucking. Simple.

Something that should not need a gods-damned explanation, because it’s as obvious as an elephant-turd on the kitchen table.

Goldenmane’s Third Rule of Public Discourse – often known as Rule # fucking 3 – is swear a lot, not call people names. There’s a fundamental motherfucking difference, and an inability to grasp this is a singular demonstration that you don’t 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 ‘swearing = bad’ is an idea, and a bloody silly one. Rule #3 doesn’t 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 can’t use a tool which highlights shitty thinking to excuse shitty thinking. That’s fucktardery of the first degree.

Be warned. I swear.

edit: ps. #VotePirate


please don’t 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 it’s censorship to be told ‘hey don’t post swastikas on a political party’s official forum’? Come on.

This was kinda the exact point of the post. So bravo.

Anyway, back to your regular programming.