Yep...as can be seen above and below, they're pushing the "Support Groomer Gangs" button
h/t - Woodsterman“In the Third Reich evil lost its distinctive characteristic by which most people had until then recognized it. The Nazis redefined it as a civil norm.”― Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil
8 comments:
Hey Dervish, when you stop by, which button would you push?
The choice isn't binary -- White Supremacy and racism or support groomer gangs. I push the button that says "disagree with Musk AND oppose groomer gangs".
...ah, so you push the imaginary button.
I make the logical anti-Turd choice. There are no buttons. They are all imaginary.
They're all "choices"... ala Isaiah Berlin's 'Tragedy of Choice'...
Isaiah Berlin’s idea of value pluralism has been extensively discussed in recent decades. However, there is still much controversy about the actual meaning and implication of the terms “incompatibility” and “incommensurability” when applied to values. This article analyses the Berlinian concept of value pluralism from a theoretical point of view and argues that, following Berlin’s work, incompatibility should be defined as the impossibility of two ends being combined at a maximum level―though it is possible to find compromises between them when not pursued to their maximum―whereas incommensurability refers to the existence of more than one valid, rational solution to a conflict of ends. After commenting on the arguments advanced by other scholars, the presence of a certain idea of rationality in Berlin’s notion of value pluralism is advanced. Finally, it is demonstrated that incompatibility and incommensurability provide Berlin’s pluralism with its characteristic tragic feature which differentiates it from monism.
Not one GRAND PROGRESSIVE woke narrative... but many meta-narratives. So choose your 'goods' wisely.
And stop pretending that "alternative facts" are "lies". They're only "lies" if you believe that progressive liberalism is the s the only path to achieving the one "true" good.
Classical liberalism was a MUCH stronger and more sustainable path.
Minus: And stop pretending that "alternative facts" are "lies".
That's impossible for two reasons. The first being that I never started pretending. The second is that it's not possible to "pretend" that something is true when it IS true. It would be like you telling me I should stop pretending that the Earth orbits the Sun.
Minus: Classical liberalism was a MUCH stronger and more sustainable path.
For who? What are you looking to sustain? If you're talking about sustaining the wealth of those at the top, then I say "maybe". Just call those at the bottom "parasites" who are responsible for their own misfortune and deserve to die. The result will be a Randian utopia.
Minus: And stop pretending that "alternative facts" are "lies". They're only "lies" if you believe that progressive liberalism is the the only path to achieving the one "true" good.
I do. Though that has nothing to do with the "alternate fact" that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election. Or that tRump didn't collude with Russia. Or that Ivermectin is a miracle wonder drug. Those "alternate facts" would still be lies even if I was a republican.
Post a Comment