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.

  • silent_water [she/her]
    ·
    1 year ago

    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 [none/use name, any]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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 [she/her]
        ·
        1 year ago

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

      • dinklesplein [any, he/him]
        ·
        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 [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

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