Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Do you know what the word means?
|
This is a hilarious question coming from you--the classic morpher of meaning--the shifty shifter of context--the master of squishy words--the euphemistic apologist for "wrong doing"--the relentless deconstructer of logic--the pooh-pooher of history--the ultimate Progressive tool of Orwellian double-speak.
Do you actually care about meaning, or care only if it can be twisted to further a Progressive ideology or support a Progressive politician?
Here, you switch from "narcissist" to "narcissistic personality disorder," which are not the same. Just as you replace principles with values when you want to destroy the distinction and create a simplistic field of discussion which gives your preferred notions or your selected candidates a narrower possibility of being damaged.
You happily glom on to idiotic Progressive definitions of "racism" as in the U.N. definition which makes a list of words, ethnicity, national origin, descent, race, and others, implying a cognate relationship, which would be true if they were grouped under a separate heading with, possibly, its own adjectival form or cognate noun form. Instead, it makes them false cognates by applying the adjectival form of race to all the others in the list. So the adjectival form for ethnicity (ethnic), national origin (nationality), race (racist), etc., would, for all of them be "racist," and by extension the cognate noun form "racism." An analogy of a correct way of tying together a group of words such as red, blue, yellow, green, brown, for example, as true cognates would be under the heading "color." Instead, the Orwellian, Progressive, Spencist method of eliminating the inconvenient divergence of colors (meanings) into a more useful rhetorical tool to control behavior, let's say, to attribute the inflammatory characteristic of "blueness" to all "colors," one merely defines the adjectival form of all the "colors" as "bluish." Then red, yellow, green, brown all will be "bluish," so instead of having their own characteristics, they will all have its undesirable, destructive, highly inflammatory connotations.
This all, of course, is part of Progressive rule by whim, by "interpretation," by rhetorical manipulation. Control not by lessons of historical precedent, not by rule of law, not with language whose words have steadfast, distinct, meanings.
For it all to "work," the regulators must be "experts." They must be as "smart" and shifty as Spence. And let us not call them liars. They most assuredly will have a euphemism which absolves them of that kind of "wrong doing."
And one of the most popular Presidents, Bill Clinton, was a narcissist. He may have even had a narcissistic personality disorder. And, yeah, Hilary has narcissistic traits, as do most politicians. Especially in this day and age when they have far more power over the rest of us than the Constitution, which they routinely ignore, allows them to have.
So y'all got to get over the narcissism thing. They all do it.
And Trump, like Bill Clinton, has an open flare for living, an overt lust for life (as we know it in the U.S.A) which makes him a more emotionally attractive being to regular folks than the ideologically driven, bloodless moral narcissism (except when she gets angry) of Hilary.
If you allow yourself to step away from anti-trump spin, which is mostly hearsay and concocted denigration, you might actually see that he is less likely to damage the country than Hilary especially in nominating Judges--if you care about that. But, we seem to care more about personality. And we have bought into the Progressive desire to centralize power in the hands of the President. We tend to idolize and adore our candidates. In truth, they are not smarter, or better, than most of us.
We just allow them to be all that. Maybe we are dumber.