I fully agree, but it is disingenuous if we knowingly disseminate something with a redacted portion which can, as we see, provide for an argument about if it's satire or a real manifesto. Let its fruit be obvious. Whether this was a real plan or just him tapping into his fantasy, he still was working with a mind against all things good. That much is obvious. Ergo, the association of wrongness and an obvious truth unfolding with the words of a homosexual over 10 years ago just meshes.
If you search this manifesto, you see that the act of redacting the original BS caveat has led to indifference and the 100% acceptances of the 90/10 split you describe.
Those who will condemn themselves announce it with the idiocy of pride of self. Let us not present them as more humble and victimized than they aren't.
Agreed; however, I still say that to be truly 'disingenuous', one would leave the disclaimer out. Leaving it in and then to assess the changes in society since the publication of this 'Manifesto' truly indicate the clear intent was not fictional. Like their life style, deflection is paramount to concealment of the truth. With these folks, truth is the first and frequent casualty of their lifestyle and mindset. It is a 'quid pro quo'; if you fully accept the lie, your life becomes one great lie.
You just said the exact same thing as me in different words. To put something out with a redacted portion means the portion is redacted to be disseminated. When the CIA releases a redacted document, they release it without the important parts to understand everything as is. When we release or spread this without the caveat, we disseminate a redacted document. But just as the CIA might redact something that on the surface seems unimportant (since the rest of the document flows), we need that portion to see the big picture. The big picture here is that with the caveat, we see that "fiction" has taken life into fact. And what fiction is totally fiction? None. And what fiction is written without a spurring of fact? None. So what must we conclude? While presented by the author as fiction, we in fact see all this in front of our faces, which means it's not so fictional as the caveat would have us believe. And without that caveat, we hurt our position and make the opposition look stronger in their eternally weak position.
We agree, on all points, just using a different way of saying it.
At this point, I can't see anything as necessary to continue but maybe a high five and trip to a smoothie shop to cut the heat of the day.
