Unfortunately arguing isn’t the way to get through to people, it’s better to use I statements
Like “I really don’t like how the US debt traps underdeveloped countries and takes advantage of their situation by exploiting them”
Well, recently I have been feeling deeply discredited. The thing that makes me mad is that whenever a discussion pops up, even with a friend, I give my best reasoning with a dialectical approach, only to hear back: nothing or some rationalisation, often very counter-revolutionary. Lately, the subject that disturbs me the most is that to me it is as clear as water that the Capitalists are taking advantage of a ‘pseudo-left’ that could not get rid of its Christian, petit-bourgeois view of the world, using the legitimate topic of minority visibility. My point is always the same, and it is straightforward: some roles are to be destroyed, not occupied by others under the ‘visibility’ rationale. It is very harsh to see people who self-claim they are leftists who attach an inherent virtue to minorities in the sense that if they join the bourgeois status quo, they will make a difference because they have suffered in their lives. Well, this is not backed up by reality. Indeed, the Capitalists already noticed that promoting this agenda is a win-win: they ‘wash’ their image while ditching class consciousness. But needless to say, I am labelled as an oppressor who does not want to see minorities occupying places. They totally ignore the fact that I am clearly saying: these places should not exist. And please note, I am not talking about social rights, equity, or visibility —anything that can promote higher self-esteem for those who feel invisible or worthless. I mean, Churchill could have been a woman. Indeed, much of his legacy was alive, personified by a woman whose funeral was well… a spectacle, as if the world was losing someone who deserved nothing but disdain from a communist.
