4 ms·

I can't speak for the other party, but there are people who promote their ideology on the premise that any disagreement simply must, necessarily, be predicated

I can't speak for the other party, but there are people who promote their ideology on the premise that any disagreement simply must, necessarily, be predicated on an immoral worldview. They explicitly state that indulging such people in an exchange of words is not "a conversation." It seems to have something to do with establishing themselves as gatekeepers of valid and invalid exchanges of words.

reitanqild 9y ago
there are people who promote their ideology on the premise that any disagreement simply must, necessarily, be predicated on an immoral worldview. I think you are right and it is a general human thing. I believe it is a side effect of the feeling of being in majority. I think old Catholics behaved this way back when they were mainstream all over Europe and persecuted all kinds of wrongthink including other Christians. I belive other religions does the same. Communists did the same. I might even have been guilty of the same myself half a life ago and -looking back - I think I can see a pattern: When we belong to the majority view then we feel strong and infallible. In this position (infallible and with strong support) it feels like doing anything that acknowledge the other sides point is just counterproductive. I also think it is interesting - maybe even a bit deserved given what I think I said as a young man - that this is happening now and I'm on the receiving end of it as atheists and sjw are going mainstream and are starting to act like any other cult: punishing and supressing wrongthink.