According to recent reports, a gay Spanish politician who belongs to the country’s left-wing governing party has been forced to resign after pictures surfaced of the municipal councilor eating his own excrement.
I used to think out of the IDW ‘triad’ (Lindsay, Pluckrose, and Boghossian), Boghossian was by far the best. He just seemed very measured and reasonable, compared to Lindsay’s liberal fundamentalism and Pluckrose being literally just Woke.
Your problem is with postmodernism and moral relativism, not classical liberalism, which is perfectly consistent with social shaming and enforcing cultural norms against behavior that triggers our disgust response - especially for those who hold public office.
It is the inevitable consequence of Reason and philosophical thought which questions conventional law (nomos) being equative to natural law (phusis) with variables that help it grow like technology/art (techne), a corrupt aristocracy, foreign ideals introduced etc.
Liberal thought has an essence and the form it takes is determined by different factors. Postmodern (Progressive) Liberals and Classical Liberals share the same essence, but are adapted to survive in different environments.
Using greek verbiage to confuse respondents is kinda douchey, fyi. Most of these "failures" simply arise that any "ought" statement is subjective, which includes almost everything of value, or value itself.
most hacks like the above usually interject their appeals to religiosity here -
Auren - Just listened to you on Timcast IRL today. I believe you had LaBonte a bit flustered and he didn’t know how to come at you. I’ve long argued that “classical liberals” are far more tolerant of their communist cousins than they are from the right because on some level, they buy into the “right wing bad” dogma.
Most libs will be more fearful of the so-called right up to the point that a revolutionary is handing them the blindfold.
Im often a few steps ahead my fellows in my disgust for newly "based" crypto-woke "classical liberals". I have a 6th sense. I was never on board with Dawkins and Hitchens, even when I was an actual centrist classical liberal, and the adjacent crop of "antiwoke" rub me the wrong way still; Haidt, Schellenberger, Taibbi., but most of all Boghossian.
What gets me about them is their continued fall back on "defending LGB(T)", when in fact they often edge right up to defending "queerness". Im in the "LGB community" and their verbal depictions of poor helpless, fragile people disgusts me.
All I wanted was decrim and maybe "domestic partnerships" (we dont need to call it marriage, thats a Christian term), as a tool for personal responsibility for consenting adults to dispose of their estates and secure very durable power of attorney; i.e. not a victimology but a measure of personal responsibility.
Granted, this is a more male perspective, vs the female perspective of the lesbian queer contigent in the movement, that endlessly sseeks more and varied victim status(es).
I did not want "hate crime laws", no set asides. Just leave me alone.
And I certainly didnt want coprophagia to be equated with my goals, and made worthy of "tolerance".
Boghossian recently stated, out of nowhere, that he thought there were far too many people on the planet. Perhaps he isn’t what he appears to be.
I used to think out of the IDW ‘triad’ (Lindsay, Pluckrose, and Boghossian), Boghossian was by far the best. He just seemed very measured and reasonable, compared to Lindsay’s liberal fundamentalism and Pluckrose being literally just Woke.
Boy, do I take that back now.
Yea but Auron, have you tried it?
On a progressive website I read that deep fried is the most popular variety.
Your problem is with postmodernism and moral relativism, not classical liberalism, which is perfectly consistent with social shaming and enforcing cultural norms against behavior that triggers our disgust response - especially for those who hold public office.
Postmodernism is an inevitable consequence of modernity’s failures. Progressives/Communists are the inevitable consequence of Liberalism’s failures.
In the same way that liberalism is an inevitable consequence of the failures of conservative absolute monarchy, I guess?
I still wouldn’t blame absolute monarchy for the liberal reaction.
Indeed, but there's more emotion in such reactions than there is reason. Most people are far more prone to the former than the latter.
Replacing a flawed system, for example, with a worse one, based on sloppy thinking and seething resentment.
It is the inevitable consequence of Reason and philosophical thought which questions conventional law (nomos) being equative to natural law (phusis) with variables that help it grow like technology/art (techne), a corrupt aristocracy, foreign ideals introduced etc.
Liberal thought has an essence and the form it takes is determined by different factors. Postmodern (Progressive) Liberals and Classical Liberals share the same essence, but are adapted to survive in different environments.
Using greek verbiage to confuse respondents is kinda douchey, fyi. Most of these "failures" simply arise that any "ought" statement is subjective, which includes almost everything of value, or value itself.
most hacks like the above usually interject their appeals to religiosity here -
I’m referencing how old this conversation is. Religion is a part of human nature. Failure is as well.
Then Boghossian is not a classical liberal, whatever he pretends to himself.
100% Agree
Hey. Go with your strong suit:
"...Boghossian reflexively strikes out at Christianity, which he still perceives as his true enemy."
Auren - Just listened to you on Timcast IRL today. I believe you had LaBonte a bit flustered and he didn’t know how to come at you. I’ve long argued that “classical liberals” are far more tolerant of their communist cousins than they are from the right because on some level, they buy into the “right wing bad” dogma.
Most libs will be more fearful of the so-called right up to the point that a revolutionary is handing them the blindfold.
Im often a few steps ahead my fellows in my disgust for newly "based" crypto-woke "classical liberals". I have a 6th sense. I was never on board with Dawkins and Hitchens, even when I was an actual centrist classical liberal, and the adjacent crop of "antiwoke" rub me the wrong way still; Haidt, Schellenberger, Taibbi., but most of all Boghossian.
What gets me about them is their continued fall back on "defending LGB(T)", when in fact they often edge right up to defending "queerness". Im in the "LGB community" and their verbal depictions of poor helpless, fragile people disgusts me.
All I wanted was decrim and maybe "domestic partnerships" (we dont need to call it marriage, thats a Christian term), as a tool for personal responsibility for consenting adults to dispose of their estates and secure very durable power of attorney; i.e. not a victimology but a measure of personal responsibility.
Granted, this is a more male perspective, vs the female perspective of the lesbian queer contigent in the movement, that endlessly sseeks more and varied victim status(es).
I did not want "hate crime laws", no set asides. Just leave me alone.
And I certainly didnt want coprophagia to be equated with my goals, and made worthy of "tolerance".
Boghossian disgusts me.
Decriminalizing sodomy was a big step down the slippery slope to where we are now.
You can’t just wish to go back to a more pleasant (for you) place further up the slope.
Heteromonogamy with social/legal enforcements, or a bottomless pit of sexual perversion are our only two real options
Yes.