Ads Top

“What if You’re Wrong”: How To ‘Out’ A Wannabe Tyrant


Written by John (the other John).

If you ever debated a person and wondered if they had tyrannical traits, wait until they state their position on an issue and their chosen policy regarding it, and then you ask them, “…what if you’re wrong…” or “…is there another reason for that…” Then wait for their response from one of the below options:

A. Good point, let me analyze the alternate argument.
B. No need to, I do not believe that I am wrong.
C. F’k you, I am never wrong.
D. F’k you, you racist scumbag, I am never wrong.
E. F’k you you racist scumbag, I will dox you, so then you will lose your job, then BLM, Antifa, and trans-fascists will protest in your neighborhood and burn down your house.

So get on your knees, acknowledge your white privilege, beg for forgiveness, and celebrate my political positions, and we’ll still violently kick your @$$ gangland-style.

Options C and D “out” a person as an @$$hole, but option E “outs” the person as a wannabee tyrant who can never be wrong, under penalty of violence for the doubter. [1]

A major sub-cause for this is that these people were never taught “how to think” for themselves, but only “what to think”; so when these people are faced with a view that they are not accustomed to, they throw a violent tantrum. Another sub-cause is narcissism by these people, in that they can never be proven wrong by sub-humans like us (i.e., a diva complex); we are below them, and thus it is not worth their time to even address our statement. But if I were to pinpoint the modern day cause of these problems that I mention, is that these people’s complex of being the “eternal child” is a by-product of the matriarchal-State; there is no reason to think or work, momma will take care of everything.

When people/groups need to apply coercion to get their point across, then not only is it not a good point that they have, but in fact, it is a bad point which they have because it cannot survive proper scrutiny. But because sunlight (scrutiny) is the best disinfectant to their bs, it is thus wokeists’ mission to eliminate the sunlight by preventing people from even asking questions.

So the point of this article is that the problem in our Western societies is not that there are questions that are unable to be answered, but rather that there are questions that are forbidden to being asked.

***

1. The modus operandi of these “true believers” is not to offer counterarguments and contrary evidence. In fact, they never even state that the challenger’s facts are wrong or that his/her position is false. Rather, they:
  • start by categorically rejecting any critique or counter-argument to their political/legal positions (please
  • note, this is not rejecting the specific argument, but rather rejecting the mere ability to being critiqued by others);
  • Second, they reject the counter opinion based solely on the identity of the challenger (ex. straight white male), by them instantly use hateful rhetoric (i.e., “…isms…” or “…phobe…”) to anyone challenging their views;
  • Third, the “true believer” spews that the motive of the challenger is to deny the “true believers’” very existence as people (when in fact they deny our very existence and/or our right to even speak or to have an opinion being that we are straight white males);
  • Fourth, this challenge makes them feel unsafe;
  • Fifth, they claim that our challenge denies the truth of their sacred gospel;
  • And finally, the challenger is a heretic who must be grievously punished and canceled.
Stated differently, they go bat-$hit crazy.

As a rule-of-thumb, the person calling for censorship is generally the person that is lying, because people who tell the truth can deal with dissent and critique; in fact, truth tellers welcome debate.
Powered by Blogger.