What's so interesting to me about Mr. Lawyer's comment is what's unstated: that there is a real moral/ethical requirement for the 'alt-right' (whatever that might be today) to shift in values.
From the internal perspective of Mr. Lawyer's highly conventional map of moral space, surely it looks as if there's something pathologically wrong with anyone who disagrees with him. Disagreement is symptomatic of a flaw in one's reasoning and attitudes.
Which is true, but there's another layer to this dispute, since that difference between Mr. Lawyer and his adversary -- and the corresponding value judgments that the distinction makes possible -- appears internally to his own perspective.
One thing that has struck me about today's loud and proud Leftists is a complete inability to step out into a higher-order moral perspective.
They are so certain that they are right, that their beliefs and values are universal, objective, and fundamentally correct, that they can't even grok that there exists a plurality of such perspectives.
Asking this sort to understand that this "flaw" of pluralism is a feature, rather than a bug, of human experience is a bridge too far.
Which is strange given the constant demands for "inclusion! diversity! tolerance!"
Maximum tolerance quickly and neatly decays into a demand for bland homogeneity.
It would be strange, at least, if there were any consistency behind their beliefs and values. The problem is, as you highlight in this article, these beliefs were never rational, considered, products of deliberation or careful logic.
They've been adopted wholesale and without criticism thanks to an endless propaganda blitz.
Found this in particular to be a really good point ... "The medicalization of "impure" values/impulses/intentions is particularly disturbing." --> It's funny, because I see the opposite happening quite a bit as well, medicalization has been so deeply weaponized in the Discourse
One example I see with weird frequency is a person with psychosis who comes off as or is in actuality racist being harangued for that racism, when really we shouldn't be focusing on the content of their statements but the fact they have psychosis.
Another great article Apex. I enjoy your takes.
What's so interesting to me about Mr. Lawyer's comment is what's unstated: that there is a real moral/ethical requirement for the 'alt-right' (whatever that might be today) to shift in values.
From the internal perspective of Mr. Lawyer's highly conventional map of moral space, surely it looks as if there's something pathologically wrong with anyone who disagrees with him. Disagreement is symptomatic of a flaw in one's reasoning and attitudes.
Which is true, but there's another layer to this dispute, since that difference between Mr. Lawyer and his adversary -- and the corresponding value judgments that the distinction makes possible -- appears internally to his own perspective.
One thing that has struck me about today's loud and proud Leftists is a complete inability to step out into a higher-order moral perspective.
They are so certain that they are right, that their beliefs and values are universal, objective, and fundamentally correct, that they can't even grok that there exists a plurality of such perspectives.
Asking this sort to understand that this "flaw" of pluralism is a feature, rather than a bug, of human experience is a bridge too far.
Which is strange given the constant demands for "inclusion! diversity! tolerance!"
Maximum tolerance quickly and neatly decays into a demand for bland homogeneity.
It would be strange, at least, if there were any consistency behind their beliefs and values. The problem is, as you highlight in this article, these beliefs were never rational, considered, products of deliberation or careful logic.
They've been adopted wholesale and without criticism thanks to an endless propaganda blitz.
Great piece as always!
Found this in particular to be a really good point ... "The medicalization of "impure" values/impulses/intentions is particularly disturbing." --> It's funny, because I see the opposite happening quite a bit as well, medicalization has been so deeply weaponized in the Discourse
One example I see with weird frequency is a person with psychosis who comes off as or is in actuality racist being harangued for that racism, when really we shouldn't be focusing on the content of their statements but the fact they have psychosis.
I hadn't heard the term, "ethno-narcissism" before, I quite like it.