Careful with that quote, it’s 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.
I’m 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.
Is it? I haven’t 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 it’s not true though?
The way I see it, the statement can be construed as:
I’m not allowed to criticize X -> X rules over me
But, perhaps because “allowed” and “criticize” 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 can’t 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 that’s probably exactly what the quote was originally meant to imply). If anything, the truism would be the ‘opposite’ implication:
X rules over me -> I’m not allowed to criticize X
Yet even this isn’t categorically true, like in democracies (which I guess brings in the interpretation of “rule”, as well).
Careful with that quote, it’s 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.
I’m 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.
It’s an axiomatic truism. It’s logic is self contained.
Is it? I haven’t 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 it’s not true though?
The way I see it, the statement can be construed as:
I’m not allowed to criticize X -> X rules over me
But, perhaps because “allowed” and “criticize” 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 can’t 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 that’s probably exactly what the quote was originally meant to imply). If anything, the truism would be the ‘opposite’ implication:
X rules over me -> I’m not allowed to criticize X
Yet even this isn’t categorically true, like in democracies (which I guess brings in the interpretation of “rule”, as well).
Well, that just means he has experience ruling over people, and not allowing them to criticize him.
That means it’s valid.