|
-- a frontal assault against conservative masculine identity which they are honor-bound to defend. -- If anything, pederasty is even more reprehensible to the conservative than slavery is. Cool. Arguments. You raise some good points here worth discussing and debating. I have pondered this sort of stuff. Today's situation is so nightmarish, I'm not sure it matters that much. A little fantasising about what might be possible in a world that has a smidgeon of sanity isn't completely pointless. As I've stated before—this being an ongoing conversational environment—my conservative theories and thoughts are primarily directed at a purported "path not taken" in the 70s. I don't have any belief in activism being possible today—but discussion about possible strategies for a future time is reasonable. But you applying these arguments to my very brief, modest post only works if, like now, you clearly put forward the arguments. To simply cry "Slavery! Slavery!" and follow up by insisting that it has all this meaning bound up in it is crap. As an analogy, it's a failure. This post has content that one can engage with, but getting to such a point with you is peculiarly difficult. And of course, it's still all a game, isn't it? You're putting forward conservative arguments. You maintain complete ironic distance, I guess. Should I engage with you as a pretend conservative? What's your relationship with the arguments you are putting forward? I know that you hate masculinity, or the ideology that masquerades as a "masculinity" that doesn't exist—so arguing against you as a conservative would be weird. And I think you prefer it that way. I've had back and forth disagreements with Laudate Agno, Diogenes, and others, and I benefited hugely. My rickety ideas get battered around and I see huge room for improvement and refinement. With you, it's the opposite. I feel like I'm fighting a battle against a thickening fog of obfuscation and misdirection. Maybe that's on me. I do have a problem of engaging when I shouldn't. |