@mattsheffield Yarvin is a dimwit, but what he's doing here is a classic fascist rhetorical tactic. He's shifted the conversation from focusing on his original idiotic take to now arguing about the definition of civil disobedience. He's trying to control the discourse.

It's stupid, but effective.

@mattsheffield

There were a pretty good number of illustrations of civil disobedience in the Good Book. You know, the one these mooks were supposed to read? Disobedience and the like committed by that one guy, can't remember his name but it starts with a J?

But these assholes think that if it didn't have a name, it didn't exist -- and that if they can erase its name then they can erase the thing.

@theogrin @mattsheffield
Beat me to it. Examples are right there in the Gospel. Jesus never tells ANYONE to meekly accept abuse. He encourages civil disobedience in response to personal and communal affronts.

Christofascists don't even want to understand this stuff.

What Jesus Meant By “Turn the Other Cheek” in Matthew 5:39

The biblical principle of “turn the other cheek” is often misunderstood. Learn what it means and how it can reestablish right relationships with others.

(bibleproject.com)

The far right's smartest people are deeply ignorant. This is why their policy ideas always end in disaster or corruption.

Here's Curtis Yarvin showing he knows nothing about the history of civil disobedience.

Henry David Thoreau invented the term in 1849, to describe practices that had existed long before that, such as in the work of Augustine who declared that unjust laws were not laws at all.

The far right's smartest people are deeply ignorant. This is why their policy ideas always end in disaster or corruption.

Here's Curtis Yarvin showing he knows nothing about the history of civil disobedience.

Henry David Thoreau invented the term in 1849, to describe practices that had existed long before that, such as in the work of Augustine who declared that unjust laws were not laws at all.

@MaryAustinBooks @theogrin They do not.

However, it is the case that Yarvin is of Jewish ancestry. I suspect that he would be just as ignorant on this point, even if he had been raised as a Christian.

@mattsheffield @theogrin
Oh, the only other time I heard of him was laughing my ass off at this article. Guess he is one of the relatively smart Nazis if he realizes they're going to lose. I didn't know he was of Jewish descent, but as you say, this is clearly not a guy who adheres to the humanistic principles of any religion.

Good News: JD Vance‘s Favorite Blogger Plans Escape from USA

Curtis Yarvin, the anti-democratic ideologue behind JD Vance, now believes Trump will fail and plans to flee before Democrats return to power.

FrameLab (www.theframelab.org)

@MaryAustinBooks @theogrin Yes, he is a Jewish Nazi. It's disturbing how many of them there are nowadays. They learned nothing from what happened to their ancestors at the hands of the far right.

@mattsheffield @MaryAustinBooks

Entirely fair! Then I point instead at Exodus 1:19. Pharaoh goes, "Okay, all Hebrew boys should be drowned at birth," and the midwives go, "Oh, sorry. Those Hebrew women are so celeritous that by the time we get there the babies have already been born."

@Legit_Spaghetti That is a common technique, but having read his work extensively, I can tell you that he genuinely is astonishingly ignorant about history and about the philosophical arguments of non-reactionaries.

The far right's smartest people are deeply ignorant. This is why their policy ideas always end in disaster or corruption.

Here's Curtis Yarvin showing he knows nothing about the history of civil disobedience.

Henry David Thoreau invented the term in 1849, to describe practices that had existed long before that, such as in the work of Augustine who declared that unjust laws were not laws at all.

@mattsheffield Yikes. That's an insane response. That's like saying the concept of human rights didn't start until 1948 when the United Nations produced a document about it.

@mattsheffield Yarvin is a dimwit, but what he's doing here is a classic fascist rhetorical tactic. He's shifted the conversation from focusing on his original idiotic take to now arguing about the definition of civil disobedience. He's trying to control the discourse.

It's stupid, but effective.

@Legit_Spaghetti @mattsheffield I wouldn't even call what he did here an "argument". He just spat out a couple baseless, nonsense claims. One is demonstrably false ("civil disobedience" is a made up term, but that's not what it was made up to mean).

We could probably improve the level of conversation in the world by many orders of magnitude if we first just stopped calling bullshit like this "arguing". It's not. All he did was assert opinion.

The far right's smartest people are deeply ignorant. This is why their policy ideas always end in disaster or corruption.

Here's Curtis Yarvin showing he knows nothing about the history of civil disobedience.

Henry David Thoreau invented the term in 1849, to describe practices that had existed long before that, such as in the work of Augustine who declared that unjust laws were not laws at all.

@mattsheffield in high school, we specifically read Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” alongside Plato’s dialogues about Socrates’ trial and execution. it’s even more ridiculous given how much these losers drone on and on about “western civilization” without having read fucking Plato of all things. Blargh