Originally Posted by Throndor
(Post 2834551)
That may well be true, but you have to take into account that the average person is a moron, and does not have the mental capacity to delineate between the "generalization" and the "intent" of the generalization.
The average person sees a rhetorical sleight towards "white men" and regardless of the fact that the statement is directed at "rich white men" they associate with the term regardless because they see it as an attack on RICH people, WHITE People, and MEN (and rightly so with all of the vitriolic racist, and sexist shit being spewwed by the left in addition to their root qualms with the economic system).
As such, because they associate with 1 out of 3, or 2 out of 3, they are simply too stupid to delineate between all three adjectives, 2 out of 3 adjectives, and 1 out of 3 adjectives.
Considering the left is the party of "Hijacking and redefining language", you would assume them smart enough to rebrand it as an attack on ULTRA RICH "PEOPLE" and stop throwing sexist and racist qualifiers in with that description, but then we devolve the conflict back to its marxist roots, so i think the argument really needs to be depersonalized altogether and called for what it truly is: an argument against CORPORATOCRACY. (But then you wouldn't be a leftist, because leftists, by and large, refuse to address the root issue and insist on merely replacing some of the Hydra's heads, with browner more feminine heads).
The reason I say this is simple: If we replaced all of the executive staff of corporations throughout the country to Brown women tomorrow, the self-serving nature of corporate culture would remain the same. Stop being a fucking sexist racist and address the root issue: Citizen's United, and Corporo-fascism.
|
