3 ms·
The point you are missing is that he presented what he knew to be norms and used language to indicate that they are norms (should vs must) and you are somehow c
by BlackFly 2y ago
The point you are missing is that he presented what he knew to be norms and used language to indicate that they are norms (should vs must) and you are somehow confused into thinking that he presented them as inalienable facts. Commenters thought that if they pointed out the nuance of normative assertion vs enforcement you would see the distinction but you continue to fail to distinguish a normative assertion from a factual one.
I also disagree with you that widespread agreement on norms is some problematic slippery slope. Failure to distinguish between norms and objectivity as you are doing is what leads to widespread norms being enforced absurdly by a tyranny of the majority.
- isaacremuant 2y agoI understand your point and if that were the case I'd accept it as valid but I'm not the only one in my interpretation, judging by other comments affirming the points of things that "should happen". >I also disagree with you that widespread agreement on norms is some problematic slippery slope. Failure to distinguish between norms and objectivity as you are doing is what leads to widespread norms being enforced absurdly by a tyranny of the majority. Objectivity huh? Tyranny of the majority huh? Why do I have the feeling you're generalizing some specific partisan/personal problem and you'd rather not discuss the specific because it's then less defensible? I'll call and raise a self-centered tyranny of the anglosphere.