And because they are using it, you are saying that we should not talk about how some topics are becoming more and more taboo. You are making a meta-taboo, and that’s self defeating.
I’m not talking about some silly/dangerous “debate the fascists on the topics they choose” strategy of course. We don’t debate fascists, period.
I’m talking about the fact that the fascists always use a kernel of truth to spin their house of lies from. And that kernel of truth is that indeed the liberal mainstream doesn’t talk about certain things, with the brain-dead German mainstream consensus on denying the Gaza Genocide being a prime case study.
Otherwise nefarious people will use the statements to push their own agenda.
Yes, and the presence (or absence) of said ambiguity is exactly what makes or breaks a good article imo. Because all information has a "goal rationale " ( as in Zweckrationalität, Max Weber).
And because they are using it, you are saying that we should not talk about how some topics are becoming more and more taboo. You are making a meta-taboo, and that’s self defeating.
I’m not talking about some silly/dangerous “debate the fascists on the topics they choose” strategy of course. We don’t debate fascists, period.
I’m talking about the fact that the fascists always use a kernel of truth to spin their house of lies from. And that kernel of truth is that indeed the liberal mainstream doesn’t talk about certain things, with the brain-dead German mainstream consensus on denying the Gaza Genocide being a prime case study.
That’s not what I said.
Please do so, point out topics that are not covered enough, but be specific and not so ambiguous as Ai Weiwei here.
Otherwise nefarious people will use the statements to push their own agenda.
Yes, and the presence (or absence) of said ambiguity is exactly what makes or breaks a good article imo. Because all information has a "goal rationale " ( as in Zweckrationalität, Max Weber).
They did not say that.