That right there is some funny shit!
I'm kind of torn here - it's amusing that black Americans think they have an exclusive stranglehold on the subject of slavery, especially considering that no living black American has ever experienced slavery, but a number of current populations throughout the world DO have current experience of slavery - mostly, as throughout history, NOT black at all, much less black and American. It's just sort of funny that black Americans think they have a clue here, and would exclude actual slaves from the topic. On the other hand, the author expressly said that she wrote the book as a statement on "social justice", so maybe she got what she had coming to her in the matter.
This part amuses me:
Now, that is the expressed anguish of a weak-willed person. There is no such thing as "social power" when brought to bear against a strong-willed person. One's freedom is ONLY diminished to the extent that he or she allows it to be trodden upon by angry mobs of idjits. In other words, if they CAN "coerce" one through "social power", then that individual HAS NO freedom, and has willingly entered a slave-masters relationship on their own accord.
I don't know if I can say it any plainer than that, and am fully prepared and braced for any "social power" onslaught they can sling at me regarding my thoughts on the matter...
... they can kiss my ass when they are done assaulting.
.
I'm kind of torn here - it's amusing that black Americans think they have an exclusive stranglehold on the subject of slavery, especially considering that no living black American has ever experienced slavery, but a number of current populations throughout the world DO have current experience of slavery - mostly, as throughout history, NOT black at all, much less black and American. It's just sort of funny that black Americans think they have a clue here, and would exclude actual slaves from the topic. On the other hand, the author expressly said that she wrote the book as a statement on "social justice", so maybe she got what she had coming to her in the matter.
This part amuses me:
Quote:“The online mobs, unlike actual mobs in Mao’s China, can’t beat and maim people or trash their possessions,” she said.
“But when they have the social power to coerce self-censorship and groveling apologies, our freedom is diminished.”
Now, that is the expressed anguish of a weak-willed person. There is no such thing as "social power" when brought to bear against a strong-willed person. One's freedom is ONLY diminished to the extent that he or she allows it to be trodden upon by angry mobs of idjits. In other words, if they CAN "coerce" one through "social power", then that individual HAS NO freedom, and has willingly entered a slave-masters relationship on their own accord.
I don't know if I can say it any plainer than that, and am fully prepared and braced for any "social power" onslaught they can sling at me regarding my thoughts on the matter...
... they can kiss my ass when they are done assaulting.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’