- Practices of toleration that used to be seen as essential to freedom are being deconstructed and dismissed as structures of repression, and any ideas or beliefs that stand in the way of this process banned from public discourse. Judged by old-fashioned standards, this is the opposite of what liberals have stood for. But what has happened in higher education is not that liberalism has been supplanted by some other ruling philosÂophy. Instead, a hyper-liberal ideology has developed that aims to purge society of any trace of other views of the world.
This is just horseshoe theory, right? As a liberal, my world view isn't wrong. It isn't really even being challenged. The regressive left is simply over zealous in their application of my world view. They don't know it, and actually disagree with the premise, but we're coming from the same place and therefore in-depth revaluation of my political philosophy is unnecessary. The difference is more quantitative than qualitative. ____ Edit: Ok, if you don't know much about John Gray, and believe in the concept of social progress, this is just horseshoe theory, right?
I think what you said here is right to the point. The radical left is not being called out. The problem is, when they are, they recede right into buzzwords like racist, xenophobe, etc... It's not that those blanket name callings are accurate or legitimate, but sections of the media, universities, and some activist groups harness and praise this destructive behavior. Interestingly, the destructive tension and elimination ideologies of the far left and right mirror that of the political atmosphere pre-World War I and II. It will be intriguing to see how the next 20-50 years unfold.
And now calling out someone is a death wish. Peoples are discovering the power of having lots of opinions about everything and being able to Gish Gallop on any subject. The more they talk, the less you can answer. Maybe in this age of communication we are using to much words and no enought actions. Maybe we should focus a bit more on actions, errors and statistics about what works and what does not. I feel like the more we talk, the further we get from the real world. I had someone making me a very long argument about what programming languages are the best to start with but didn't do more then a couple of weeks of programming and never tried teaching it. It's not that thinking is bad but thinking more then trying is not optimal. If your goal is to find and reproduce something that is true having lots of data point will help.
One of the very last interactions I had on Reddit was someone talking about "otherkin." This was, 5-6 years ago now. I said that this sounds like a cry for help and mental illness manifesting itself, something along those lines, and that parents should step in and correct this behavior. The comment was not in anyway abusive or attacking an individual, yet SRS linked my post and started trolling me. The stated posting personal dox on me, threatened to talk to my boss (who would have loved to hear I pissed off a bunch of liberals to be honest) and stated to follow me on other forums. I then realized I don't need this shit, began deleting everything I had contributed to Reddit, said fuck the internet and nuked a ton of forum assets, and walked away. I joined Reddit and created an account in the first two-three months that they allowed logins (2007?), from a Fark link I believe. The guys in r/space and r/astronomy had already moved out by the time I was done, so nothing of real value was lost to me. Want to see the pure toxic fuckery of the Left? Go to ShitRedditSays. Hell, if you feel like hating yourself for an hour or so go browse TumblrInAction. On the Right? TheDonald. The Gish Gallop, done by a master of the craft, is a work of pure art. I'm talking a form of bullshittery that few can master and none can beat. Sam Harris debated William Lane Craig and won him by ignoring him on his gallops and stuck to the core arguments link to the debate if interested.
I think William Lane won that debate. Not that I think he is right and not that I believe in any god but Sam talked a lot about why he think god does not exist even if that was not what the debate was about. William was good at making clear arguments and following logical steps and trying to answer to Sam. I disagree with William basic arguments and I think he is missing some insights on the subject but he was way better then Sam. As an aside note, I think that there is no absolute moral objectivity in the world. There only is a moral that is relative to the human condition. So William is right, god is a solution to the "absolute objective" moral of the world but only because starting with something that is false (god) you can come up with something else that is false (an absolute moral ground blablabla...).
Anything taken to the extreme is probably going to break down, but that doesn't mean a less-extreme version is per se incorrect or bad. As with all things, it's about balance.
But as they are taken to the extreme, they have to change to reflect that shift and remain coherent. As the snowflakes move to the left, for example, they have to jettison the traditional liberal views on free speech. Even if they didn't mix with non-liberal traditions as they grow closer to them, they still end up disconnected from liberalism. They stop being simply an extreme, and become a discrete new thing to contend with. It is a challenge, they aren't coming from the same place anymore, and reevaluation would help to understand how to effectively tackle those differences.
I took what you said to mean that you were criticizing the author of the story for being unwilling to re-evaluate his own liberalism?
So, uh, speaking of re-evaluation: I was day drinking, and Post Naptime me is very sorry for wasting your time. That is was what I was saying, but in this new post nap world I don't really think that corresponds to what the author was saying. :( sorry