Surprisingly often, I get criticisms that my arguments about what we should do fail because people aren't doing them. eg Me: We (liberal lefties) should apply liberal principles consistently. OP: You're wrong because evidence of this not happening. Me: ????
-
-
Could be that the first conclusion is the same. => feminism has a problem Second conclusion is probably different => This need fixing (you), This needs to be abandoned (him/her).
-
I see this sometimes when criticizing certain ideas in "religion". That leads to "but Islam is bad". Yes, I know. Seems a logical conclusion when you say "religion" & that religion holds that idea.
-
Difference is, many others do too. And sometimes that religion is the one your debater holds. So the question is: Do they oppose the idea itself? Or the one holding the idea?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It could be, as a you describe, a desire to keep a group of enemies in order to exercise their righteous mind. Or possibly, a pessimistic judgment of societal sympathy toward the opposition. A defeatist attitude due to an overestimation of the existential threat.
-
One of the biggest take aways from my brief but active time on twitter is...we are really, REALLY bad at determining the scale of our threats. We are evolutionarily built to over react to threats.
-
But this over reaction tends to lead to fight, flight or freeze rather than problem solve.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.