But then they'll criticise feminism/capitalism/liberalism/humanism etc rather than just not ascribing to them. 2/2
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Probably because they see that it has an effect on their life. They can't ignore it. And they feel more independent from religion.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
Yes, probably. This is a reasonable reason to give. 'Because criticising sets of ideas is bad' is not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
When they say it, it must be implicitly scoped to such sets of ideas that they find not worth criticizing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
Yes. That is what I am pointing out. You are saying this but you actually mean these are sets of ideas you don't think worth criticising.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @fronxer
Then we can discuss why and I might well agree with you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Sounds like you want them to adopt your meta-ideology so that they see an inconsistency they didn't see before.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
I want them to see that they have a problem with the ideas I am criticising, not with the action of criticising ideas.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
That's fair. They still might disagree even after accepting that and find a way to adjust and find a new rationalizing classification.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer @HPluckrose
E.g. they could focus on the scope of influence individuals have or should have, on the ethics of the desired outcome, on the risks…
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Exactly. And they might be the genuine objection.
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.