to have been subjected to a feeling of ill will or uneasiness by someone who refuses your absolute dominance or the dominance of your religion/ideology/historical re-imagining.
“his father was persecuted by those who exhibited free will, by exhibiting free will”
this definition was lifted from a dictionary that fell through a hole in time, presumably after the revolution wherein the rest of you were the first against the wall.
Agreed. But here is another issue. A great story is not enough. Also you need different stories for different audiences.
Finally one thing I’ve found is that the liberals who have a story that resonates with “the base” are confronted with a group that can negate that story with their own story.
Example. Say that you rev but the base on an issue, like tainted food killing people in America. You bring sick and dying kids to the media. You get them all hopped up focusing on one company or issue, but after that the elite groups goes back to work keeping the system weak.
So you need a different story for that group, that someone who defended the “right to make kids sick” because of his pay offs to the industry. But the story isn’t really about taking the pay offs, it’s about getting caught. It’s a cautionary tail to other elites to be more careful. They will use this person as a scapegoat and make some changes to look good, then back to the grift.
Ahhh yes, once again the old paradox of “you are intolerant, because you don’t tolerate my own intolerance!”
Criticizing someone for saying something you disagree with isn’t infringing on your 1st amendment rights (and if it were, then what about my 1st amendment right to criticize you? It goes both ways.)
The budgets and production value for The Onion keep improving. Perhaps we might even see this as a real feature film and not just a trailer before too long. This one had me going, until I realized how preposterous it was.
Laugh all you want to folks but this shit is dangerous because it plays to the emotions of the young. It uses the tried and true formula of good guys/bad guys guns and violence. All the crap that makes most of the boring thriller movies that feeds the minds of people who won’t/don’t think for themselves. How powerful and righteous will I be if I die for the right cause. This garbage works well with Jihadists all over the world.
As a kid in a small Catholic grade school the nuns fed us a non-stop diet of the martyrs for the faith. We were all supposed to be named after various saints and it reflected poorly on our parents if we weren’t named after a saint or martyr. Wouldn’t it be great to get tortured for jesus! Our poor little dumb asses ate that shit up like candy-coated communion wafers! When I got old enough to think critically I bailed out but those young formative years sure can get warped by this propaganda.
Iquitos46, you are absolutely correct. All that has to be done is to make the claim. Any opposing speech comes off as special pleading and defensive wheedling. Also, arguing with it strengthens it because it validates the premise.
My dad’s family had to flee a Certain Country because their powerful, ideologically motivated majority were in the throes of a narrative that combined delusions of persecution and grandiosity, just like this one. It is a particularly toxic combination… to the real persecuted minorities, of course, not to the delusional majority.
Because they want everyone to live in a theocracy under their religion. I think it really is that simple. So, having that attitude, they correctly see a secular society, being a separation of church and state, as being a foil to that agenda. To not be allowed to inflict their religion on everyone else via a theocratic state is seen as a repression of their religious freedom. Of course, they also see everyone else as having identical agendas to inflict their worldview upon everyone else.
While looking for an unrelated thing, I found a friend’s review of D’nesh D’Souza’s (not going to bother spellchecking) Obama 2016 movie. One thing that struck him was how over-the-hill the audience was. He’s in his fifties, and he was a youngun.
What I’m saying is, if this film is going to reach its target market, they need to get it out the door fast.
We’re already talking about a group whose notion of “the Good Ol’ Days” is a completely ahistorical fantasy, so not having anyone around from that time doesn’t make much of an impact. (Although I think to a large degree people look to their own childhoods, if they were happy, as existing during a magical golden age, because they were ignorant of what was actually going on in the world. So for many people, the period of time that constitutes the “Good Ol’ Days” will just shift to whatever the childhood period was for the current demographic.)
Any criticism of the film itself is proof of the alleged persecution that the target audience is suppose to believe is real. It’s a form of logical immunity which is built into the title of the movie.