It is scary because they're clearly well-intentioned & sincere & so impervious to any other argument that they can't even take it in. https://twitter.com/MMads/status/857715999667359749 …
-
-
Plus, who gets to decide and moralise what ideas are good and bad.
-
We agree that fascism is bad. The difference is not ethical disagreement & that's what I'm trying to get them to see.
-
I'm with your sentiment but not your semantic. ;-)
-
The sentiment. That one should be shown better ideas. The semantic. “We agree that” insert thought/ideology/idea here is “bad”.
-
That's not a semantic. I am addressing people with whom I am in agreement ethically.
-
Even with those that one agrees with ethically, one has to be careful of the "we agree" mantra. Lest the mind be closed to newer and better.
-
Don't make it a mantra. Its just what you say when you want someone to know you agree with them. Don't say it to ppl you don't agree with.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
There are also those theories on how language itself can cause harm. So a better paraphrase might be: "How can you not see the harm?"
-
That's a completely different point. Language itself does harm. You don't understand why racism etc is bad.
-
Ppl say both to me but the first we can talk abt coz its an idea we differ on. The second is a fundamental misunderstanding of my views
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What does that guy do in the university? What capacity?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.