Comment by m1el
6 years ago
This line of reasoning is utterly ruined for me by people who equate the mildest form of criticism with "people are saying insert group shouldn't exist".
6 years ago
This line of reasoning is utterly ruined for me by people who equate the mildest form of criticism with "people are saying insert group shouldn't exist".
How can you "mildly criticize" what people are? By definition debating about people's identity implies there's a possibility said identity doesn't exist/can't exist. There's no rational argument that's going to change a person's gender or sexuality for example.
Once we're there it's an impossible juncture. There's no answer to the sceptic's demand "how do you know?" without some how sharing our subjective experience. Might as well spend your days asking a bat what it means to be a bat.
I see you haven't spent any time in the 'rationalist' community.
"people are saying insert group shouldn't exist" is a good-faith and sober characterization of much of that group. Human Bio-Diversity (HBD, i.e. 'scientific' racism) is a very popular topic in the community.
Scott doesn't go there, obviously, but somehow the rhetoric wends it's way there over and over and over and over and over again in the 'community'.