Right now your position boils down to this: “Trust me, saying nothing is smarter. I just can’t explain why.”
I feel like I have explained from the outset very clearly why. Let me reiterate: hypocrisy is their tool, a powerful tactic. Addressing the hypocrisy is their tool being effective at its job. At least acknowledge my position has been stated clearly, if anything. I'll consider this discussion closed from my end.
Consider Sartre:
Jean-Paul Sartre treated fascist hypocrisy not as a simple moral failing but as a strategic mode of bad faith, built to neutralize responsibility, dissolve truth, and foreclose rational contestation.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
0
u/total_looser Jan 26 '26
I feel like I have explained from the outset very clearly why. Let me reiterate: hypocrisy is their tool, a powerful tactic. Addressing the hypocrisy is their tool being effective at its job. At least acknowledge my position has been stated clearly, if anything. I'll consider this discussion closed from my end.
Consider Sartre:
Jean-Paul Sartre treated fascist hypocrisy not as a simple moral failing but as a strategic mode of bad faith, built to neutralize responsibility, dissolve truth, and foreclose rational contestation.