Instead, your position will be defined away as invalid.
And your very talking about it will be restricted through control of permissible language.
Here is a simple example of defining away all dissent. It would be silly for its infantilism if it weren't so deadly and serious in its consequences.
Exhibit A is the "chickenhawk" argument. Anyone who supports the war is maligned as not having a valid opinion unless they themselves are on the front line.
My quick psychological profile of this bizarre argument: It is a case of Projection. They seem to say, "if you aren't fighting yourself, you shouldn't make someone else do it." Ignoring it's a volunteer force! It's illogical. So it must be a psychological defense, since it's such a common knee-jerk response. What they are really saying is, I presume, "since I'm not willing to fight, I don't want anyone else doing it for me." That may seem noble, but on closer inspection it negates the free will of those willing to fight. Instead, it's really a sign of deep shame at their own cowardice. They find it too painful to be shown to be unwilling to fight for anything, even for their own miserable lives, that the others who aren't literally physically fighting -- but wish to resist -- are attacked as the true cowards! Thus saving face for the morally superior anti-war person who is above it all! It's a diversion and an inversion to avoid facing reality.
I got such a comment recently, and here is my reply:
True Patriot said...Gotta love the moniker "True Patriot."
So you are a war mongering conservative?
And do you have a distinguished combat career like our Pres and Vice Pres.?
RDS said...
True Patriot -- and have you stopped beating your wife and kids yet?
So, you fundamentally reject our democratic form of government, do you?
Are you a physician? If not, then how can you have an opinion on health care issues?
Are you a policeman or a judge? If not, then how can you have an opinion on crime issues?
You really want only military people deciding foreign policy?
You're the stupidest worm ever to leave a comment here! I laugh at your idiocy!
A variant is when one of the moonbat California Senators suggested Condi Rice couldn't have a valid opinion on the war, because she had no "child" who could be in harms way (a favorite subtype of this "argument", claiming only people who have "sent" their own "child" can be pro-war) -- ignoring that nobody "sends children" to war, but rather adults who volunteered.
Obviously that line of argument is inherently fascist. It throws out the whole notion of republican democracy and equal access to the voting franchise.
But never mind that!
But wait -- it gets worse!
So apparently only the opinion of non-fighting anti-war people is valid, because that's somehow "consistent" in some retarded childish way, as well as, it would seem, the opinion of the fighting soldiers who might be pro war.
But no!
They don't count either!
Witness the recent rant in the Washington Post of unqualified "military analyst" William Arkin, a little weasely worm I recall seeing on cable news a few years ago.
He, to the delight and affirmation of the lefty blogosphere, dismissed the opinions of our Armed Forces members as the blood-tainted desires of an evil, money-hungry mercenary force, when finding out that gosh, these non-chickenhawks might not agree with the anti-war people! The horror! Time to put them in their place, too!
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?And voila, nobody is left who can "legitimately" disagree with the anti-war position!
...
But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force
So they have abandoned the notion of soldier-as-victim, which they really could only do if there was a draft (which is why some Democrats like the disgusting Rangel kept trying to demand one), and moved officially on to soldier-as-baby-killing-mercenary.
Never mind that being a "paid", such as it is, volunteer, actually makes one simply a professional, not a mercenary.
It is a deliberate misuse of language to control your thought on the issue.
Mercenaries, by definition, have the characteristic not simply that they are paid, but that payment is their only motivation; they fight for the highest bidder, regardless of ideology or nationality.
To imply the U.S. Armed Forces are mercenaries who would fight for anybody is patently ludicrous and insane.
No, scratch that, it's deliberately evil.
These left-wingers are dangerous, unpatriotic, parasitical monsters that must be exposed, expelled, and expunged.
