this commonality stems from a belief in a knowable moral absolute, motivated by the perceived impossibility of a physical one
if there is no physical truth, social construction must be the root of all knowledge
if ur faction has a monopoly on the truth, you must educate others
---
RT @kevin_bowen
Weird how closely correlated people's opinions on the factual question of cryptocurrency's environmental impact are with their ideological …
https://twitter.com/kevin_bowen/status/1399410504699834383
when one believes there are no natural truths waiting to be discovered, but rather a dearth of meaning, a nihlistic vacuum, one comes to believe they have a divine mandate to spread their moral system, to save the poor sinners
they mustn't be allowed to hide from the truth!
how can we know that these poor souls aren't engaging in wrongthink, behind our backs? they dont have access to our correct truths!
if a connection to truth can only be established socially, then we need an epistemic Protestant Reformation; let each have a personal relationship!
this, ofc, is anathema to the woke crowd, which broadly believes in the obvious correctness of certain high-level axioms (you know which). they do not see a need to start from physical evidence and build up; they're playing an entirely different ballgame.
---
RT @pee_zombie
this means that the starting point for each ideology is not experiential evidence, which is then used to construct an explanatory system, but rather a desired concl…
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1395522819119882245
in their worldview, reasoning is merely a tool to be used to advance the correct agenda, that of social justice; as all else, it is subject to bias & power relations, and can't be applied in a vacuum. as such, it must be tightly bound to its purpose.
---
RT @pee_zombie
like Stalin's USSR, the American woke, the baizou, started from a set of political goals (reparations, full equity, abolishment of extant power structures), influenced b…
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1395522822458548229
there are certainly valid criticisms to be made about the contemporary scientific establishment, and the flaws in its processes; but their distrust goes deeper, down to the very epistemics themselves; in their eyes, the nature of knowledge is to be socially-constructed, together.
when you believe this, its wholly justifiable to mistrust such abstractions as "privacy" or "independence"; what are you hiding? who are you to hold yourself apart?
in such a world, trustless, uncensorable systems are inherently suspect, which is what underpins these arguments.
if others are allowed to arrive at their own truths independent of social consensus, they might get it wrong; & since moral goodness is mediated through correct memetic provenance, you must protect them by censoring thought, speech, & commerce
its for their own good, after all