Every liberal does it too, from center right radlibs to far-right "conservatives": the most extreme right fringe liberals hate the mainstream liberals for not being bigoted enough, the mainstream libs hate the radlibs for not being cruel enough, and the radlibs hate the left for not being chauvinist enough.

Denouncing chauvinism in particular is like a liberal moral event horizon, a cardinal sin against their self-interested belief in the righteousness of the imperial hegemon that keeps the treats flowing at gunpoint.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] silent_water@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

which is why debate doesn't work. no one can fit an entire description of the way they view the world into a forum post.

[–] a_blanqui_slate@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

That's why I insist on fitting my entire Quinian web of belief into 90 comment long argument chains. It still doesn't work of course but no one ever doubts that I ate my wheaties after reading one of those bad boys.

[–] kristina@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

This is why I fit my worldview into a series of pictographic depictions sicko-fem trans-hammer-sickle

[–] dinklesplein@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

i still think analytical philosophers were right to focus so much on clarity of language, the average disagreement with a liberal is entirely as you said - a fundamental disagreement on premise acceptability.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago

expert-shapiro -style debate doesn't work, but rhetoric (or dunks, in the parlance of our times) can.