HELP!

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Goddamn, am I glad I went into STEM…

The KKK is as much a terrorist group as the IRA is.

This person is using a very Jewish argument. That the holocaust is an 'end of history' event. Very kikecentric. Also a fallacious and deterministic outlook on history. There's a lot of audacity in thinking that this 'grand historical narrative' ultimately lead to the holocaust. Force him to clearly define how how modernism lead to the holocaust. Don't let him worm out of that one by merely implying it.

I think he's trying to assert that there was an assembly line like process of gassing people then incinerating them.

But what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Why is "preventing the Holocaust" something that even comes up when discussing the apparent benefits of postmodernism?

If I had to hazard a guess? It's because he's a Marxist who also hates capitalism. Fordism in particular.

...

...

this
why the fuck was the holocaust relevant
genocides happened thousands of times before the holohaux.

ever heard of carthage? they did that with dicks and steel, no zyklon b needed

also challenge his linear view of history. His denial of "grand sweeping narratives"

human nature doesnt change, human societies will repeat patterns on a broad scale of the course of hundreds of years.

stephenhicks.org/publications/explaining-postmodernism/

stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/hicks-ep-full.pdf

lol have fun working at starcucks to pay off your 80k debt

If the discussion is whether or not the Senate holds a confirmation hearing, therefore the Belgians?

Attack the ego by asking loaded questions.

A hundred times this. His line about not wanting to engage in middle-school levels of debate reveals to me that he is one of those Dunning–Kruger tools who has 110 IQ, but thinks learning Frankfurt school nonsense makes him smarter than he really is.

You only have to trap them with the 'winners write the history books' with any tangential topic involving white nations, which liberals love to shit on. Then circle back to allies winning ww2 are the ones who wrote about the Holocaust happening and being bad or some shit. They don't get to pick and choose which historical accounts they deny and accept.

I am a retard. When you say attack his ego, do you mean question the validity of his degrees?

for the record this is what I ended up replying with.

When someone says I have multiple degrees in this shit, what is really being said? If it was me, I'd respond with something along the lines of this:
And then from that point just keep asking for moar proof.

Dear fuck, learn what ego is.

What do you want to argue? btw, postmodernism was in large part a reaction to orthodox communism, not nazism at all. they don't know what they're fucking talking about

Thanks man

I don't know why you're saying that post-modernism predates WWII. I think that's, mostly, wrong, though I'm sure there are theorists who you could say were precursors.

Post-modernism is usually associated with lyotard

Well, postmodernism forms the philosophical backbone of communist regimes, and communist regimes are responsible for mass murder an order of magnitude higher than the holocaust. Google Holodomor. Flip his argument upside-down.

don't listen to this faggot. they're retarded.

yeah, also we already debated the holodomor earlier.

His retort was basically that after Stalin communist russia was less bad.

Also, utter garbage. Hey Chaim.

Don't forget Pol Pot, and the Korean Kims

You could point him to Eric Voegelin, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Ludwig von Mises and tell him that the eschatological millennialist grand narrative particular to Nazism and communism was born from an admixture of protestant mysticism gnostic and Judaism and that the post-modern diagnosis of the grand narrative essentially poorly conflated all mass-scale teleology without understanding the elements that were particular to those that lead to slaughter.

He'll deny it, being an educated normie, but they always do.

*gnosticism

lol

Have you read Voeglin's "Hegel, a study in sorcery"?

OP IS EITHER A FAGGOT WHO NEEDS THE HELP OF TWO WEBSITES TO WIN A FIGHT OR YOU ARE BEING BOT SPAMMED

boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/74818114/help

No I haven't, I do remember him mentioning Hegel and gnosticism being a form "system magic" in a book of his I read though.

Science, Politics and Gnosticism was it.

interesting. I'll give it a look. the article is pretty good. and, fucking hilarious. he fucking pwns the shit out of hegel and his followers - he gets pretty salty at times.

OP IS A SUPREME FAGLORD WHO VISITS CUCKCHAN

HAVE THESE DUBS FOR PROOF

Lord Kek is with me today. Thanks Kek.

...

PRAISE KEK

I mean I think that's kind of what I said. I posited that Germany's unique political situation led to the holocaust rather than modernism in general.

I figured I'd post on both because I thought on 4chan I wouldn't get many replies and figured the ones on here would be of higher quality.

I'm pleasantly surprised to get good responses in both.

not a bot

is 4chan really that bad, didn't the mods here ban a discussion of that youtube chick anyway?

so aren't they both cucked?

What holocaust?

OP CONFIRMED HE IS A CUCK

SAGEBOMB

she was a degenerate Jew you cunt

also they still had 1000 threads about her with uninterrupted discussion. what are you talking about?

I wasn't really following that whole story. I just knew there was some far right qt on youtube that youtube shut down and there was lots of dicussion on the chans about her.

And I saw people posting here complaining that threads got closed or whatever.

should have just made 1 fucking thread for that jewish bitch

This guy is attacking sweeping historical narratives with his own. Claiming that postmodern thought negates your argument to the contrary contradicts itself.

Your opponent also follows that line of thought by claiming that his way of thinking refutes yours. That's an absolute statement.

The separation of moral and technical progress is another great point of contention. Within a subjective analysis of events claiming value on an event once again is a contradiction.

Artistic development is also a fracture point in his argument for all the same reasons.

Scrutiny said it best: 'if someone is claiming nothing is true, they've already shown they have no answer.'

REMINDER WE ARE BEING RAIDED AGAIN

MODS BANHAMMERED THEIR THREAD SO NOW THEY'LL GO INTO THREADS AND DERAIL

DO NOT INTERACT: REPORT REPORT REPORT

holy shit you are a jew

Agreed user.

LOW ENERGY SCHLOMO

thanks for the explanation user

It used to be that you could just make your own board. So,why don't the shills just make their own board so they can jerk each other off?

Because they don't actually care about what they preach. They just want to burn Holla Forums to the ground.

They are afraid of what we produce and how we are able to influence others across the spectrum.

You obviously know what you're doing. How about you go ahead and give this guy a run for his money and hop on facebook? I have no doubt that you're grounded enough in your disposition to at the very least force a truce. I recommend that the OP here (assuming that he is willing to engage in a serious debate with his opponent) take note of the methods of attack listed in this post.

WHY ARE YOU NOT SAGING YOU CUNTS

KILL THIS JEWISH SHILL THREAD

we can kill the thread but I'm not a shill.

if I were a shill what am I even shilling for? I'm not trying to promote any certain idea or product here.

PRAISE KEK
HEIL KEK
ALL GLORY TO KEK
KEK HAS SPOKEN

Ignore that faggotry, it's just Holla Forums or freech or goons or whoever the fuck is responsible for the latest coordinated shitposting attack. They're triggered as fuck and trying to use evalion and mod drama as a fracture point. Don't engage them.

btw not doing a bad job with the discussion, but just remember don't assume your opponent is going to give you the benefit of arguing fairly. Just as they will inevitably challenge your generalizations, you must too challenge theirs and not let them get away with spraying buckshot of incomplete and unsubstantiated claims. Especially when the greater scope of the argument hangs on those claims and they're of an illustrative or emotional nature. If they fumble it saps the power of the statement and undermines their ultimate position in the eyes of onlookers. Don't forget, that's exactly what they're trying to do to you as demonstrated with their dismissive smug closing.

Thanks, friend.

I don't have a Facebook though.

This doesn't seem like a shill thread. Sharpening our wits against leftists is good even if the op should be figuring this out himself. Learning about their intellectual basis is how to win. Building on a rotten foundation makes it easy to wreck the whole structure.

He assumes that grand narratives are purely artificial social constructs that are invented rather than discovered.

Grand narratives must be constructed with a telos, but that telos need not be mass genocide. I can construct a grand narrative about all the forces of nature, using all possible knowledge accessible to mankind, that coalesced to create the Coca Cola company. This grand narrative could then be used to make a profit.

The ultimate purpose for grand narratives, though, is self-knowledge. To know how you came to be, why, and how you think and act. Its divine self-knowledge, something the kikes fear.

Cont.

Grand narratives that involve the self are tricky because the self both is something that exists objectively, and thus something to be discovered a and objectively described, as well as subjectively, I.e. the self constructs itself (Bildung) through its learning experience of interacting with its environment.

History is a complex aggregate of selves acting towards larger goals. They are both discovered and invented. History, as far as I can tell, involves a collection of selves acting each in their own self interest. The self interest of every self is to externalize and make knowable its inner hidden nature, i.e. to be recognized for what it is in and for itself. History, being the aggregate of many selves seeking to make knowable their inner nature, is the collective attempt of humanity to unviel its innermost nature to itself.

To make it even more difficult, the act of discovering the innermost nature of the self is an act of invention. The product invented is a being that fully knows itself as a being fully integrated with the cosmos, I.e. a necessary being - another one of the attributes of a divine being.

Two divine attributes are found so far:
Omniscient self-knowledge
Necessity

There may be more that man is yet to discover.

This is a very difficult topic. Your friend clearly memorized something he learned in a college course without fully thinking it through. It seems that whoever he learned it from was afraid of something or someone, and it was not the Holocaust.

Postmodernism is giving up the search for self-knowledge.

wow, what a faggot, he has degrees in made up "art" direction used to compete with USSR, life must be pretty meaningless for him

independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

Honestly, the thing about postmodernism is, they're 100% correct when they state that there isn't any objective narrative or morality. Even if there is a creater with an intent it doesn't make his intent any more objective.

Postmodernism is itself entire worthless as in the end, the answers are exactly what they are without it. Your faggot friend fights genocide and there is no objective meaning, he subjectively values whatever gay shit he values, Adolf H subjectively valued his 14 words, and he fought the world for them. The idea that we should throw away our instincts, and leave ourselves permanently distressed in a world we feel is wrong, just because it isn't objectively wrong, is bizarre. There's no more grounds in postmodernism for tossing tradionalism out the window than there is for keeping it. These people started out with a valid premise, and then took it down a fucking idiotic sidepath that defies logic.

But the Holocaust didn't happen so his argument is invalid.

Well that's quite a claim. If you are not postmodernist you think genocide is ok. She has to prove this before moving any further. She should also consider that postmodernism was created before this alleged holocaust of hers. I would also remind her that feminist theory is created by postmodernists a theory that in the modern world only makes false claims of an invisible oppressive patriarchy. And let's not forget that the followers of this theory would love to see white men killed… So much for postmodernism preventing genocide.

Finally I would like to ask her why postmodernism cannot survive in stem subjects. Why is stem dominated by realism. And isn't it funny that stem predicts real life things with an accuracy unlike any postmodernist theory. Wouldn't you say that postmodernism is false if it is not a reliable predictor unlike realism.

And finish her off by showing her how much of a narcissist she is so postmodernism didn't make her a better person.

And I forgot the most obvious. Post modernists claim there is no absolute truth meaning they can never be right so in her own world view she has no point in arguing with you since you are both not right. In a way a postmodernist is apathetic because somebody who truly believes in post modernism will not go out and look for knowledge because according to his or her own philosophy real knowledge does not exist.

thanks for all the responses, even the ones calling me a shill spambot.

here's an update on the situation. Posting all of his replies as well as my tentative response.

dubs decide what I post next

bump plz

1. Realities of paradigm

“Society is unattainable,” says Bataille. The premise of subcultural
dematerialism implies that sexuality is part of the economy of art. Therefore,
the primary theme of Hamburger’s[1] analysis of dialectic
theory is the futility, and eventually the absurdity, of precapitalist
consciousness.

Marx promotes the use of subcultural dematerialism to challenge outmoded
perceptions of class. In a sense, Baudrillard uses the term ‘modern
neodialectic theory’ to denote a self-justifying paradox.

Geoffrey[2] states that the works of Gaiman are
reminiscent of Gibson. However, the characteristic theme of the works of Joyce
is the role of the participant as reader.
2. Joyce and dialectic objectivism

In the works of Joyce, a predominant concept is the concept of
deconstructivist reality. The subject is interpolated into a subtextual
paradigm of reality that includes truth as a reality. Thus, if cultural
predialectic theory holds, we have to choose between subcultural dematerialism
and Debordist situation.

If one examines the conceptualist paradigm of expression, one is faced with
a choice: either accept cultural predialectic theory or conclude that the law
is capable of social comment. Foucault suggests the use of dialectic
objectivism to modify society. Therefore, Marx uses the term ‘subcultural
dematerialism’ to denote the genre, and thus the economy, of precultural
sexuality.

Hanfkopf[3] holds that we have to choose between
dialectic objectivism and Lacanist obscurity. However, Foucault uses the term
‘subcultural dematerialism’ to denote a mythopoetical paradox.

Sontag promotes the use of cultural predialectic theory to deconstruct
sexism. In a sense, subcultural dematerialism states that society has intrinsic
meaning, given that the premise of posttextual dialectic theory is invalid.

The primary theme of Geoffrey’s[4] critique of
subcultural dematerialism is the futility, and subsequent collapse, of cultural
class. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a subtextual sublimation
that includes narrativity as a whole.

If cultural predialectic theory holds, we have to choose between subcultural
dematerialism and Marxist class. However, Debord’s essay on the structural
paradigm of discourse implies that culture is capable of significance.
3. Contexts of genre

“Society is impossible,” says Baudrillard. Lyotard uses the term ‘dialectic
objectivism’ to denote the role of the poet as reader. Thus, in Ulysses,
Joyce examines subcultural dematerialism; in A Portrait of the Artist As a
Young Man, however, he analyses dialectic objectivism.

Tilton[5] holds that we have to choose between cultural
predialectic theory and neodialectic discourse. It could be said that the
characteristic theme of the works of Joyce is the common ground between class
and society.

If subcultural dematerialism holds, the works of Joyce are not postmodern.
Thus, the main theme of Buxton’s[6] model of dialectic
objectivism is the absurdity, and therefore the fatal flaw, of postcultural
consciousness.

I think after my next comment I'm just going to spam with this postmodern essay generator, it is truly great

There is barely any political discussion on 4/pol/. You pretty much have X btfo threads and it's a picture of an occupy democrats meme or something. Shit pretty much Holla Forums 2.0

Lmao he ran out of intellectual steam pretty fucking fast.

Well what are you going to do?

any follow up?

Make sure to call out any bullshit, like what he said about you bringing no substance, while also bringing forth no arguement

I've learned the quickest way to trigger an "educate yourself omg" liberal, is to follow up with something like "In that case it should be a breeze to correct me with your McDonalds degree yet you can't even do that. What DID you learn in exchange for a life of debt?"

To elaborate, you have to question the value of their education. If you try to use an inquiry, they'll throw out a canned response of "it's not my job to educate you". Instead, question their degree's value and ignal your own knowledge's value. because they see this as a threat to their personal value, due to putting so much weight on their degree, that they feel forced to respond with shit that'll further discredit themselves. They absolutely fucking dread being seen as inferior and you have to manipulate them into a frenzy they can't back out of. They will realize they are in a frenzy and just dig themselves deeper and deeper. Stab their amygdala for all it's worth.

Learn more before you engane in a discussion again.
It's people like you that embarrass us, being labelled as inapt and ignorant.

Here's what I posted, will definitely report back here if he replies.

will probably use this image:

...

OP Please listen to this.

Call out his disregard of the concept of proportions and population demographics.

Who fucking cares that "muh white christians" killed MAYBE 2000 more people than Muslims, maximum, in 5 times as long a span? That's not something to be outraged about. Something to be outraged about is that

1 PERCENT OF THE US POP IS MUSLIM

99 PERCENT IS NOT

Multiply all numbers and figures related to Jihad in the US by a factor of 100 and multiply the numbers for everyone else by 0.99. Now you will have numbers that accurately reflect Muslim vs. Non-muslim per capita participation in terror

...

This is where we're at now. Bystander comes in, says he does not agree with my opponent but thinks he won the debate.

faggot doesn't even know what a debate is. Appealing to authority over and over again and pointing to "muh degrees" without actual points that you can defend isn't debating, it's leftist circlejerking.

I have an engineering degree from a great school and I guarantee I could have a better grasp on postmodernism and all that crap in 2 hours of wikipedia and google. Doing anything besides STEM in college is a complete waste of time and money.

Go ahead and link him to a list of logical fallacies, perhaps list all of the ones he is guilty of committing. I normally do this when the normie is just too unreasonable or unwilling to have a discussion in good faith.

How did he even get so heated-up in this format that he has to insult you once at least every second paragraph?

Perhaps you were right, and he's way too invested in his degree.
Kaczinsky said something to that extent, that people will always emotionally defend their profession. and specialization, as wrong it may be.

update:

Here was his post after the other guy commented (I had yet to respond).

At this point I'm just kind of saying fuck it and going full tilt.

Enjoy!

continued:

continued:

looks like I won

she fed you memes subtle marxist memes and you gave here religious banter than slap her in the face with the greater meaning of spirtuality and transcendent qualities of self such as tradition.

Evola looks down upon you user, thou art a faggot!

lol I love how you keep referring to him as her, makes me kek.

I wasn't trying to argue for any greater spirituality. It all started by me arguing that Congress has the right not to hold hearings on Obama's SC nominee.

If there's something else you think I should say just post it.

I was going to basically copy paste these:

But I didn't think it was ultimately necessary

Hey Matt, you're not being aggressive enough, call him out on being a pussy faggot trying to appeal to authority, call him out on being a pussy faggot hypocrite screetching about morality when he's a postmodernist and thus doesn't believe in it, you've already called him out on not answering the Canada or Mexico question, but he'll just keep ignoring that unless you call him a pussy faggot hypocrite questiondodging bitch. Also, what's the whole geography shit about? Is the faggot calling you stupid for refering to the USA as America? Call him out on that too.

His style of argument is one where he says as little concrete stuff as possible, he juggles vague concepts that don't really fit together while calling you a racist and waving his degrees about. When the guy you're arguing with isn't talking straight, and when you're just quoting random people from a chan instead of arguing from one coherent stream, the entire argument in itself is incoherent, read the argument back yourself, nothing really fits 100% together, from either of you, people will assume he won even though they can't really judge the content of the discussion because he sounds smug and waves his degrees, turning it into raw shitflinging instead of the shitflning while feeling smug takes his advantage with onlookers away.

Matt my friend, don't pull that shit, you have to get the last word, don't let someone say "Okay I quit but I clearly won.", responding with "Haha then I guess I won cause I stuck around." doesn't work, toss a turd at him while his head is turned, it'll draw him back in, then maul his ass. Unfortunately, you can't hit him on his weakest point, he's being vague, inspecific, and incoherent, because he'll call you stupid and people who're pretending they're smarter than they are will back him.

what kind of turd should I toss him?

I was thinking about just posting this:

"Word, when you don't have an argument you just say "yeah whatever" that does not mean you won. "

This is what I'd call the ideal, be sure to keep the insults in some form or shape:
" call him out on being a pussy faggot trying to appeal to authority, call him out on being a pussy faggot hypocrite screetching about morality when he's a postmodernist and thus doesn't believe in it, you've already called him out on not answering the Canada or Mexico question, but he'll just keep ignoring that unless you call him a pussy faggot hypocrite questiondodging bitch. Also, what's the whole geography shit about? Is the faggot calling you stupid for refering to the USA as America? Call him out on that too."
Then state that he's only running off saaying "Uhh guys I guess i won but I'll let you feel like you did" because he knows damn we'll he's been drawn into so many corners and that despite him succesfully changing the subject each time, whichever direction you go from here, he can't keep up his pathetic phasade. Hit him hard enough, he will respond, we'll take it from there. Matt I promise you we'll see this through to the real end, despite your failings.

lol I found his tumblr and twitter

cameronlsummers.tumblr.com/AboutMe

"My name is Cameron L. Summers. I am an author who currently lives in Kansas City, Missouri. I have self-published one novel, and have prior publication credits with the Rockhurst University Literary Magazine, Infectus. My previous editing credits are with the same, as well as Picayune (associated with New Mexico Highlands University) and The Fortnightly Review.
I am 28 years old, smoke too much, enjoy whiskey and science fiction, and pay the bills by working as a delivery driver for a local pizzeria. I have been trying to work as a professional writer for almost a decade now, and am beginning to see results.
My personal (as in, non-professional) Tumblr can be found here."

Fucking lol

twitter.com/cameronsummers

Should I call him out on being a 28 year old delivery driver with multiple graduate degrees?

or is that too much of a low blow.

okay thanks I'll do that but will not call him a pussy faggot

That whole educated faggot pro debator Ted Cruz tone you've been running with also has to go, you won't win with it. He's got the advantage when you're playing around with liquids.

Keep that in your back pocket for if he tries to attack your character first. If you open with that he'll just take the high ground and make you look like a dick. Bait him and if he loses his shit and insults you directly and personally first that's when you take the opportunity to drop that info as smugly and snarkily as your body will allow.

he already has insulted me directly, he called me stupid and said my opinion was that of a "rancid chicken nugget"

he is saying absolutely nothing. You are just being caught into an spiderweb of obscure and meaningless terms.

Shit my friend, pussy faggot in itself isn't necesarry, it doesn't even matter, as long as you convey the essence of it.

Not yet, that my friend, could knock his teeth out if applied at the right time, you wanna goad him into a position where he's attacking your life choices, then directly respond with that short snippet without a bunch of longwinded debateshit. It's excellent, and I'm guesing he doesn't know you know it, there is a better time to use it. If you use it before it's a direct counterpoint to something he's saying you'll also look like some weird internet stalker.

You posted this yesterday too on that 'other site'

Send him to deliver pizzas to the hood, if you're lucky someone will strap a bomb collar on him and force him to rob a bank.

yes

here is what I replied with. Will update if he continues the conversation.

You need at least a little insult to bait him into replying, if you're lucky he'll do it anyway, but he won't feel obligated to do so. BTW: Matt, you gotta be consistent when you're cutting out names, if you wanna cut out Felipe Arenacresta, you gotta cut him out every time his name is mentioned.

Post-modernism is subjectivism with the force of law, if the society in which we live is not governed by principles with the human faculties can attain there is no limit to the sort of tyranny that can be imposed in the name of muh postmodernism. Also, to assert postmodernism is some post-war phenomena in response to the horrors of fascism is an abject lie. The origins of postmodernism have their roots in the Marxist theorists trying to explain the failure of mass revolution in the industrialized west after WWI. Their conclusions were the working people had internalized the subjective values of their oppressors and declared them as objective. The only solution to these early PoMos was to deconstruct the objective values, expose them as the subjective values of the oppressors and then implement their own subjective, but totes not oppressive values. This is all documented in the Abolition of Man, a critique of the British schools written by CS Lewis in 1943. Also the pseudo-hagiography, focus on associating itself with anti-nazism, ignores that the Allied powers worked with two "grand Narratives". The anglo-American allies with the struggle of freedom against tyranny; the USSR with the struggle of labor against capital.

if i'm interpreting her argument correctly, she's saying that hammers shouldn't exist because they can be used to kill someone.

so much appeal to authority.
it doesn't make for a good argument. it's meant for you to just trust what she's saying for the purpose of efficiency, but it's misused here.

you got yourself into this shit you fucking pseudo-intellectual faggot get yourself out. read some fucking kojeve and figure it the fuck out, read some martin heidegger and nietzsche, read some alfred rosenberg and figure it the fuck out. everyone derides the liberal arts students on Holla Forums until they need to win a debate.

also this lady is a pseudo-intellectual as well, she is parroting the typical lib arts dept. "socialist" interpretation of history, they start with the british railroad in india and talk about how the western man uses industrialization and it leads to genocide. she is paraphrasing the jewish line, all "essentialism leads to auschwitz" aka all types of metaphysics are nil and we should progress from nietzsches line that god is dead and reject any higher world and interpret the world solely in terms of materialism-→ dialectical materialism, we then take dialectical materialism and we now come to the cookie cutter liberal arts worldview where the "grand narrative" aka western civilization is the oppressor and "being-in-itself" and the shitskins societies are the slaves and "given-being" and then the liberals assume that the shitskins will dialectically overcome the west and destroy it leading to the nigger jew utopia of post-scarcity zogtard goy-slaves stewing in hive cities while the jews live forever as AI or whatever.

she is a pseudo-intellectual but she is a better one than you

she seems like she wants people to go back to living in mud huts and exchange our guns for sharp twigs.
i bet she's antigun and believes that the west is a rape culture and africans are noble and pure.

To be honest OP, maybe I'm just stupid, but I'm not even sure I understand what he is saying

Is he saying we should reject traditional narratives because the holocaust happened? She then says something that, if I'm right, means roughly that the rejection of tradition makes a bunch of art, with no value statement as to the quality of the art.

I don't really get it OP. Personally, this is why I don't like to debate college educated leftists, they ensnare you with a bunch of meaningless garbage fluffed up into 3 paragraphs of namedrops and mystic nonsense. If I'm right, the entire argument is "you're wrong because the holocaust happened", and I'm not really sure that IS an argument.

I'd jump ship if I was you OP.

she is essentially a nihilist (she only believes in her point of view because she is a academic sycophant). her point of view is literally grad-school 101. she has no actual end game, but the end game of the ideology is the extermination of the white skinned european peoples of the world. they have established a crude dialectic wherein the white man represents what must be dialectically overcome.

thats the whole point, you just need to know their words and then restructure the argument in your language and force them to come out of their comfort zone. that pseudo-hegelian crap is supposed to intimidate you, in reality she has no actual worldview, she is an academic synchophant

So, Matt, what have we learned here?
1. You suck at arguing
and
2. You can't win with a 'worldview' of subjective morality, which will conform and deform like putty in your hands.

fair enough, the original argument got way way skewed. I would post the entire thing but it's far too long for it to be worthwhile for anyone to look at.

I wasn't really prepared for an extreme argument. I was just arguing that Congress has the right not to hold hearings for a SC nominee if they choose to, as per the Constitution which does not specify exactly how the process should go.

And then he shit on my argument and said the Constitution didn't matter because it is a "classist" document written by wealthy landowning slave owner elites.

That was when the argument took a turn for the worst. I argued that I would rather have a document written by landowning elites rather than some colonial bumpkin who couldn't read, and he said I was a classist because of that.

Then he said I was defending genocide because I was defending the Constitution, and that we should give all land back to Native Americans. And I said no, it sucks that they lost it but they lost.

He was arguing for socialism and I said Stalin, Mao etc had genocides against THEIR OWN PEOPLE far worse than Hitler in WWII or whatever happened to Native Americans, and that even though those things were bad, at least they benefited some people rather than benefiting no one like the socialist genocides and famines.

Then he said I was "supporting genocide". We talked about Rwanda, I said it was the fault of Rwandans, because they were the ones who killed each other, he said it was the result of Belgian colonialism. I called him racist (well after he said the same of me) because he was presupposing the Rwandans were too stupid to overcome this more than 30 years after Belgium left.

And on and on and on. It wasn't until the post in the OP that I really felt like I was losing the argument, which is why I posted here.

I haven't been in college in over 3 years. I don't regularly debate people over political matters. In general I just work and live my life. So forgive me if I'm not a master debater

You did fine. Welcome to the team *grabs your hand and pulls you to the summit*

Are you an edgy neonazi trying to promote neonazism or the original version of it? If yes then that's your problem.

You shouldn't follow any ideology. Being ideological is just stupid. The only ideas worth paying attention to and worth imposing are basic practical ideas that prevent disasters or produce good results.

For example there's no rational arguments that can be made in favor of mass immigration to Western countries from very foreign cultures, especially arabic and islamic cultures. What France and the UK and Sweden did is dangerous and irrational and it's already a disaster. Not even a faggot who uses the word 'postmodernism' can justify that nonsense.

Is it in our interests to open our borders to a ton of arabs and muslims? No. So it should be stopped. It's not complicated.

Now, why would you want to complicate the argument by injecting ideological concepts into this debate?

Ideologues are idiots.

And yet for some reason the academics of Europe had to wait until after WW2 to come up with 'postmodernism'.

Millions of dead europeans killed in WW1, the first industrial war and the most pointless war ever? Who cares.

One Million dead armenians killed by the turks in 1916? Doesn't matter.

The Holodomor – Six Million dead ukrainians killed by Stalin in the 1930s? Meh whatever.

Millions of russians killed by Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin/etc.? Well, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

SIX MILLION DEAD JEWS?!?! OMG THIS IS THE END OF THE WORLD! EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED! NEVER AGAIN!

'Postmodernism' – whatever that is – sounds like judeocentrism to me. So into the trash it goes.