To: Anon who wrote here on Friday:
"I still hold my convictions in that you shouldn't "always think the opposite", this will just create a blood bath. Avoid the temptation to just say the diametric opposite"
This communicated conviction IS ITSELF A CREATION OF AN 'OPPOSITES' CONCEPTUALIZATION.
I do not consider my convictions nor Anon's convictions as 'opposites'.
If a see writing from Anon that tells Anons to stop 'speaking opposites' all the time 'or else there will be bloodshed', that statement contradicts itself because the act in stating it is itself an introduction of 'opposites' where none was before.
If that Anon accuses other Anons of 'speaking opposites', then that Anon is themselves 'speaking opposites', for by its own definition it is describing itself as an opposite to other Anons who are being accused of speaking opposites.
If the solution to avoid bloodshed is to eliminate 'speaking opposites', then why won't that Anon refrain from 'speaking opposites' to me and repeat in agreement what I write?
Why should I have to repeat in agreement with what that other Anon wrote in order to eliminate 'speaking opposites'?
The more the other Anon refuses to repeat in agreement with that I write, the more that other Anon is failing to abide by their own professed standard and professed solution to the 'conflict' they are claiming is 'sourced' by other Anons.
If that other Anon claims their own convictions are being 'fettered' with allegedly 'externally sourced opposites', that is caused by that other Anon starting with the presumption that 'opposites' is the sole legitimate logic in the first place.
I do not share that view, therefore accusations against me that I am 'speaking opposites' IS ITSELF a declaration from that other Anon that THEY are declaring THEIR OWN convictions as 'opposite' to other Anons.
Projection of a destructive ideology that is used as an accusation of 'belligerent' Anons to destroy dissent.