Hang on, this one in the corner needs fuckin' help.
If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal
Yes, we call them communists. Truth is, they just don't believe in Free Speech
If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you're a fundamentalist
Err, no. Fundamentalism is asserting some base premise, typically within a religion as a doctrine of faith. Evidence may not even be applicable to that assumption. Not being swayed by evidence isn't "Fundamentalism", it's just not an -ism.
If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian.
Again, that's not Totalitarianism. That's just another variant of Illiberalism. Totalitarianism is when the state is given absolute jurisdiction over all things.
If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you're a terrorist
Me not being swayed by other people's evidence isn't an -ism, I agree. It just means the evidence isn't strong enough. So many people think their evidence is so strong it's irrefutable, but obviously it isn't. Cherry-picking is another issue too: take 3-4 bits of evidence as proof but ignore these other 3-4 bits that suggest something else. Aka: Climate Alarmists!
True enough! But mostly it's a case of "My evidence is golden, your evidence is poo-poo" eh? In fact many folks just glance at the source & reject it. I find that leftists love to judge books by the cover. :/
Hang on, this one in the corner needs fuckin' help.
Yes, we call them communists. Truth is, they just don't believe in Free Speech
Err, no. Fundamentalism is asserting some base premise, typically within a religion as a doctrine of faith. Evidence may not even be applicable to that assumption. Not being swayed by evidence isn't "Fundamentalism", it's just not an -ism.
Again, that's not Totalitarianism. That's just another variant of Illiberalism. Totalitarianism is when the state is given absolute jurisdiction over all things.
Okay, yes, probably. We got there eventually.
All 4 of them are just "liberalism" really.
Me not being swayed by other people's evidence isn't an -ism, I agree. It just means the evidence isn't strong enough. So many people think their evidence is so strong it's irrefutable, but obviously it isn't. Cherry-picking is another issue too: take 3-4 bits of evidence as proof but ignore these other 3-4 bits that suggest something else. Aka: Climate Alarmists!
There's a difference between not being persuaded by evidence, and rejecting contradictory evidence outright, though.
True enough! But mostly it's a case of "My evidence is golden, your evidence is poo-poo" eh? In fact many folks just glance at the source & reject it. I find that leftists love to judge books by the cover. :/