๐ง๐ผ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฟ *๐ฃ๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ข๐ โ๐๐ ๐๐๐ค๐NBC Interview abruptly ends after New Yorker blames private equity and landlords for the city's issues
UnderpantsWeevilTo learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
LupusCareful with that quote, itโs by Kevin Alfred Strom a Neo-Nazi from an 1993 essay in the national Vanguard, a white nationalist publication and it refers to the antisemitic trope of world Judaism.
Iโm not criticizing you, just want to contextualize it because it could be misconstrued to be a antisemitic dog-whistle, especially in the context of the linked article.
Itโs an axiomatic truism. Itโs logic is self contained.
To learn who is wet, simply find out who is in the water.
Is it? I havenโt studied philosophy (but I have studied math) - it seems to me that the Wikipedia article on Truism demands the statement to be true for it to be a truism. But itโs not true though?
The way I see it, the statement can be construed as:
Iโm not allowed to criticize X -> X rules over me
But, perhaps because โallowedโ and โcriticizeโ are subject to interpretation, there are plenty of groups you will be socially penalized for criticizing (see jokes about kids with cancer below the comment with the quote - I canโt figure out how to link to them). Many countries also protect minorities by making hate speech illegal, and yet those minorities are not ruling the country (though thatโs probably exactly what the quote was originally meant to imply). If anything, the truism would be the opposite implication:
X rules over me -> Iโm not allowed to criticize X
Yet even this isnโt categorically true, like in democracies (which I guess brings in the interpretation of โruleโ, as well).