They wrote "ANTI" on it.

I wanted to play with my new tablet a little bit because I won't get a chance for a while, so this is rough. Still, it's something that I've been thinking about a lot and trying to figure out how to say in a way that is the most clear.

Creating a label of "ANTI" and applying it to something is meaningless. How often does someone say, "Antifa can't be fascist, it's right in the name?"

So? And?

I can call myself the Queen and it won't make me Harry's grandmother now will it.

Along with the ridiculousness of "antifa" is the notion of "anti-racism", which if you examine it differs from "equality" in that it requires and demands a retaliatory racism. There's nothing "anti" about it in any sense other than a mirror image.

Which would work too, I suppose. Anti-fa is a mirror image of fascism. Anti-racism is a mirror image of racism.

In any case, here's my messy drawing of something that is certainly not a cattle car, impossible. After all, someone wrote "ANTI" on it.

Comments

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it. This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice. If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

What Cancel Culture is NOT

Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott. It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...

Synova

Search This Blog