It is more a joke than seething. You have treated me fine personally. I don't think you are actually pleased by an environment of stress or paranoia or sabotaging people.
Idk if you remember our last convo but I was pressing you about the identity attacks rule and I found your rationale to be something like pure leftism smushed through a pasta grinder hole shaped like free speech. I will always hold that against you a bit, even though I understand that you are right about what would happen without the rule- I want that. And that would be a more stressful and paranoid environment for everyone to be in, so I shouldn't accuse you of enjoying that bc it is actually closer to something I want and something you 'd rather avoid.
I found your rationale to be something like pure leftism smushed through a pasta grinder hole shaped like free speech.
I think that's a good simplification.
Going from a Schmittian Frend-Enemy Distinction, enemy action is fundamentally never to be tolerated, when it WOULD be tolerated if done by a friend. Explicitly because it's enemy action. Liberalism assumes universality among all men, but Leftism is explicitly illiberal, and uses that universalism as it's primary weapon. Liberalism assumes that a Friend-Enemy Distinction is never necessary, and so is vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy by people who are explicit enemies of Liberalism, who seek to destroy it, and are operating by a Friend-Enemy Distinction.
The Communist never accepts an accusation of hypocrisy for shooting the child of a Liberal in the head. He sees it as a moral imperative against an enemy, someone outside and antithetical to the Communist's moral universe; and such barbarism is an absolute moral good; a categorical imperative. The Liberal would never shoot the child of a Communist in the head because the child and the Communist are both considered 'friends', and members of a moral universe. This is why the Liberal's children die, and there is no rebuttal. This, to the Communist, is considered a sign of the enemy's weakness, and an invitation for further attack.
And while I can understand the value of a kind of no-holds-barred arena of discussion, I think that there are so many subversives and agitators seeking to act in bad faith to destroy both the arena and those participants, that it must be considered enemy action, and it requires a defensive response.
But yeah, I think you get my point anyway, so I'm just being verbose.
dom and antonio salivating
Actually, this is one of the primary reasons I tell people not to post glowie shit.
The reason they didn't get arrested for saying crazy shit is because they are glowies; everybody else gets hunted, and the platforms targeted.
It is more a joke than seething. You have treated me fine personally. I don't think you are actually pleased by an environment of stress or paranoia or sabotaging people.
Idk if you remember our last convo but I was pressing you about the identity attacks rule and I found your rationale to be something like pure leftism smushed through a pasta grinder hole shaped like free speech. I will always hold that against you a bit, even though I understand that you are right about what would happen without the rule- I want that. And that would be a more stressful and paranoid environment for everyone to be in, so I shouldn't accuse you of enjoying that bc it is actually closer to something I want and something you 'd rather avoid.
I think that's a good simplification.
Going from a Schmittian Frend-Enemy Distinction, enemy action is fundamentally never to be tolerated, when it WOULD be tolerated if done by a friend. Explicitly because it's enemy action. Liberalism assumes universality among all men, but Leftism is explicitly illiberal, and uses that universalism as it's primary weapon. Liberalism assumes that a Friend-Enemy Distinction is never necessary, and so is vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy by people who are explicit enemies of Liberalism, who seek to destroy it, and are operating by a Friend-Enemy Distinction.
The Communist never accepts an accusation of hypocrisy for shooting the child of a Liberal in the head. He sees it as a moral imperative against an enemy, someone outside and antithetical to the Communist's moral universe; and such barbarism is an absolute moral good; a categorical imperative. The Liberal would never shoot the child of a Communist in the head because the child and the Communist are both considered 'friends', and members of a moral universe. This is why the Liberal's children die, and there is no rebuttal. This, to the Communist, is considered a sign of the enemy's weakness, and an invitation for further attack.
And while I can understand the value of a kind of no-holds-barred arena of discussion, I think that there are so many subversives and agitators seeking to act in bad faith to destroy both the arena and those participants, that it must be considered enemy action, and it requires a defensive response.
But yeah, I think you get my point anyway, so I'm just being verbose.