>Instead, it was "You need to follow the truth I agree with!" which is just more post-modernism in the name of something else. Are you advocating for a world w

>Instead, it was "You need to follow the truth I agree with!" which is just more post-modernism in the name of something else. Are you advocating for a world where no one is allowed to be opinionated, hold contrasting views or even have some cognitive dissonance? If one won't entertain other ideas or include additional facts/data into their world view, discussion about the universe, our place in it and compromise become impossible. But that's not to say there's no such thing as objective facts (note I said "facts" not truth). There absolutely are. Truth is (often) something else altogether. But many ideas aren't fact-based. Rather they are based on religious/philosophical/social doctrines which are often reduced to a sentence or a soundbite. Which is a ridiculous thing to do as most ideas are more nuanced and complicated than a single statement can elucidate. E.g., "BLM members are Marxists" or "all Republicans are racists", etc. are all just tropes used to signal membership in a tribe. But reality is much more nuanced. I wish more folks would look at the world through the lens that a variety of view are critical to the human condition -- as long as those views can be investigated/discussed/addressed in a reasoned way. Holding beliefs that differ from that of others is the human condition. That you disagree with the author's stance doesn't mean that they need to change their stance, rather it means that there are discussions to be had to arrive at both understanding (which doesn't imply agreement) and, hopefully, the ability to either agree or agree to disagree. That's not always possible, but the humanity is in making the effort to do so. If one is unwilling to modify their beliefs based on new information and synthesis of that information with their own knowledge/understanding, that's sad.