The How to use Hostile Platforms Article did result in some objections that one should not patronize that which seeks to destroy you. I don't traffic in "should." This is a pious and well-respected position in martyr circles. I do not seek martyrdom and encourage no one else to do so.
The person that asked me this question has spent decades on various platforms, all of which began as friendly or neutral to his content and now he is being threatened and even some of his viewers are being deleted. He did not begin on or seek out a hostile platform. The platforms were colonized. Now he wondered should he flush 15 years of work down the indignation toilet, abandon these platforms and disappear into the ether?
I was adamant that he should use these predatory platforms from which he gains much more than they do, as he is a small fish, to drive content to his temporarily non-hostile platforms.
Use of any platforms should be made with the understanding that they will either become colonized or be eliminated because they resist.
If you are a religious stalwart, or an ideologue and or have a poor sense of humor, limited to joyous laughter and divorced from the boon of sardonic endsight, then you should be prepared to hop from platform to platform like some have done. However, unless you are as popular as Andrew Anglin, don't expect to bring any readers or viewers with you when you burn that bridge.
For those of us equipped with a dark sense of humor, I suggest playing the game of humor, as a lack of humor is a key characteristic of Leviathan, a drab, humorless beast attended by dour hate-seekers and thought-eaters at its soul feast.
I am posting this article in Modern Combat because there is no such thing as rights, least of all the right to cast an unsanctioned opinion into the collective "discussion."
A stellar example of such elastic and humor-laced diction has been provided by a less uptight reader than I deserve for plucking forever at the high-minded nerve.
Mike_C commented on ‘How Do I Use Hostile Platforms?’ Dec-8-2020 5:18 PM UTC
I wrote this elsewhere in a different context, but it fits here too. Re #7, not only should one strive to avoid words that are hurtful, one must eschew words that *might* be misinterpreted as hurtful. Therefore,
New speech and writing guidelines:
1. Instead of "bigger" say "larger".
2. Instead of "Digger" say "Australian military personnel".
3. Instead of "rigger" say "parachute-packing expert" or "sailing-ship line and shroud technician"
4. Instead of "chigger" say "Trombiculidae mite".
5. Instead of "Tigger" say "The bouncy Tiger-American character by A.A. Milne" ("Win—e the P—h" is forbidden [political comment redacted to conform to Rule 10])
6. "Trigger warning" is still allowed. Because there are hierarchies of social justice.
Short of a comet or war of untold horror, the dissenting voice of reality can only be preserved in a guerilla struggle to keep Truth alive in its various small bottles bobbing in the vast Sea of Lies by not being crushed in a political fight and then misrepresented as the boogie men of some future iteration of the Lie. The best way to avoid the head-on battle is to entertain the enemy. Failing that, you can at least keep the truth alive—or at least aspects of Reality—as the subtext of chuckling actuality covering his apish mouth in the gas lit shadow of his blaring Master Delusion.
