Touché.
Sorry about the replies earlier, I wasn't in the best mood and I can only look back in embarrassment. You have your convictions and I have mine, and it'll take a lot more than a comment thread to change our respective courses. The least we can do is be civil, and I failed that standard with my juvenile first reply. I should have just said that I think that the concept of "unjust" is somewhat relative and left it at that.
Of course an unjust man would be unjust. Truly a profound statement. One for the ages.
Good job on the inference. Now I'm just left wondering if you're being purposefully obtuse or just can't help it.
All right, I'll put it in as simple terms as possible, as you seem to need it.
I disagreed with that quote so intensely that I couldn't even bring myself to explain why. I just needed you to know that the act of sharing that quote, let alone coming up with it, was pure cringe. Seriously "in this moment I am euphoric"-tier. I mean "the unjust man"... just cmon. It's basically just telling you to be unyielding. Nothing but banal, vapid propaganda that could just as easily adorn the walls of the NSDAP as the NAACP.
"I simply asked if you have value." All right, let me "simply ask" you if colored people have value. Infer anything from that?
"Disagree with me!? Life devoid of value!"
Typical heckin wholesome leftist.
The right has done nothing but contract for the past 150 years. "Conservatives" have continually met leftists in the middle and conserved nothing. In my country even the state church allows gay and female clergy now. I'm not a christian, but that's the perfect example of the Right relenting even in their supposedly most sacred institution (though I suppose the bank has taken over that role for conservatives of the past century). Meanwhile, the Left has expanded at such a rate that the revolutionaries of two generations ago sound like today's reactionaries.
Are you quoting someone or did that pure cringe emanate from your own being?
At least that wouldn't carry the pretext of objectivity.
"Misinformers" "Bad actors"
Do people actually take these terms seriously?
I just toggle based on time of day / lightness of environment.
I find my eyes are more strained when using light text on dark backgrounds in a light environment (and of course dark text on light backgrounds are a no-go at night). The only exception to this is my phone, where the battery gains from oled makes dark mode the only option for me. I hope Kbin gets a nice light mode toggle that can follow the system theme in the future.
The main crit lit course was undergrad and at a European uni (with an American professor) so it was all pretty superficial, but the prof didn't exactly volunteer the ugly sides of these thinkers (as he most certainly would have done with a Carl Schmitt or a Heidegger). The other course (also undergrad) was even less rigorous, just a quick once-over of the basics of oppression and yada yada, namedropping Marcuse/Foucault/Derrida but never dissecting them.
The point of mentioning this wasn't to say that I'm some kind of particular expert on these thinkers (I am not) but rather that my experience with their presentation is that they are left as likeable as possible (there were years between me hearing of Foucault and realizing he was a nonce, whereas people usually learn that someone like Heidegger was a nazi before they even know how his name is pronounced).
I 100% agree on the uselessness of the left/right-dichotomy as it stands, particularly because the radical right gets lumped in with liberal individualists like Adam Smith/Ayn Rand/Ronald Reagan etc., which makes no sense at all.
Still, there are some essential axioms that can be used to distinguish the left and the right, those being equality+liberalism vs. disparity+illiberalism. There is a natural reason that the pedophiles aren't garnering support among the ranks of the far right and that white nationalists won't find much love among the far left.
Copyleft should be mandatory once a game passes 20 years old.