I think it's simpler than that. They just say whatever is convenient to them at the time. If the exception is going to get them the results they want, the exception is the rule. If the (perceived) generality favors them, they'll side with that and write off the exceptions as irrelevant.
You have to remember that if you don't have any ideological or moral foundation for your beliefs, then it really doesn't matter why you believe it. All that matters is how it makes you feel at any given moment. And if something causes you any kind of cognitive dissonance, it's much easier to throw it out entirely than to sit down and work through the painful, conflicting data.
TLDR: Could be stupid. Could be lazy. After a certain point, it stops mattering.
My most useful epiphany about the world was understanding that to at least half the population, language isn't language. It's just combinations of mouth sounds, squawks, and barks to generate a desired behavior or compliance from others. Most people are stimulus response devices.
Transactional communication versus informational communication. Language as a collection of passwords and magic spells, deployed in order to extract your preferred outcome from any person or situation, versus language as a shared means to discover and promote a Darwinian objective truth.
The illegal immigrant crosses the border to escape justice for his crimes at home. He tells the authorities in this new country that he is a refugee. Not because it is true, but because he has been told that this password will get him what he wants.
When you object to this dynamic, because it permits anyone to illegally enter your country so long as they know the password, a leftist will call you a racist. Not because you have said anything racist, but because the accusation of racism will function as a magic spell that compels others to oppose you.
At some point, evil people succeed in perverting communication so completely that good people are left with no more good choices. You can’t use reason to convince a systematically dishonest person of anything.
A particular perversion of language that I noticed is expanding a word's denotation while keeping the connotation, as in the example of racist that you mention.
I'd argue it's far more than half, closer to 85%. And for human history it's been 95% .
The blips of rationalism are just that, blips. Depends who you ask, but personally I'd say we've had less than 60 years of rationalism being the dominate force of thinking. And I mean that cumulatively.
I think it's simpler than that. They just say whatever is convenient to them at the time. If the exception is going to get them the results they want, the exception is the rule. If the (perceived) generality favors them, they'll side with that and write off the exceptions as irrelevant.
You have to remember that if you don't have any ideological or moral foundation for your beliefs, then it really doesn't matter why you believe it. All that matters is how it makes you feel at any given moment. And if something causes you any kind of cognitive dissonance, it's much easier to throw it out entirely than to sit down and work through the painful, conflicting data.
TLDR: Could be stupid. Could be lazy. After a certain point, it stops mattering.
Words are magic spells.
That's a literal tenet of neo-marxist fuckery.
Watch me turn this diverse, peaceful group into an angry mob with a magic word!
My most useful epiphany about the world was understanding that to at least half the population, language isn't language. It's just combinations of mouth sounds, squawks, and barks to generate a desired behavior or compliance from others. Most people are stimulus response devices.
Transactional communication versus informational communication. Language as a collection of passwords and magic spells, deployed in order to extract your preferred outcome from any person or situation, versus language as a shared means to discover and promote a Darwinian objective truth.
The illegal immigrant crosses the border to escape justice for his crimes at home. He tells the authorities in this new country that he is a refugee. Not because it is true, but because he has been told that this password will get him what he wants.
When you object to this dynamic, because it permits anyone to illegally enter your country so long as they know the password, a leftist will call you a racist. Not because you have said anything racist, but because the accusation of racism will function as a magic spell that compels others to oppose you.
At some point, evil people succeed in perverting communication so completely that good people are left with no more good choices. You can’t use reason to convince a systematically dishonest person of anything.
A particular perversion of language that I noticed is expanding a word's denotation while keeping the connotation, as in the example of racist that you mention.
I'd argue it's far more than half, closer to 85%. And for human history it's been 95% .
The blips of rationalism are just that, blips. Depends who you ask, but personally I'd say we've had less than 60 years of rationalism being the dominate force of thinking. And I mean that cumulatively.
I summarize it as using language it to communicate information vs. using mouth noises to get a desired outcome.
So true.
Moral relativism is anchored on not being a pariah.
That basically sums up how most people engage.