this exchange is fascinating bc neither side cares about abstract principles; the left about decency or precaution, the right about liberty or the role of morality. they're engaged in a purely political battle, seeking to use the legal system to advocate for object-level goals
---
RT @realJohnDouglas
Yes. You have founded us. The secret is out.
https://twitter.com/realJohnDouglas/status/1467917703155441665
can those on the left truly not understand why many would find this repugnant, how their impulse is rooted in concern for children's health and future?
do those on the right not realize how finding something morally abhorrent does not justify preventing others from doing it?
unfortunately it seems that it's impossible for public discourse to be nuanced today (if it ever even was), so these discussions are relegated to be had on twitter or behind closed doors
the ~left sees any hesitancy as bigotry, the ~right sees caution as degeneracy
alas
don't think I don't see yall not liking that one tweet
if anyone is brave enough to publicly comment, I'd love to know why, even if it entails criticizing me
@pee_zombie however, in what way does the right see *caution* as degeneracy? I don't think that's the right word
@pee_zombie I was pretty disappointed by my (and other's) reaction to the SSC NYT affair last year, I definitely didn't have my tribal instinct under control there (I was able to prevent myself from posting about it online, though)
Gray tribe is better, sure, but tsuyoku naritai
@pee_zombie hm, at the limit I would want to prevent others from committing moral atrocities, e.g preventing people who don't know any better from eating a Carolina reaper
But I reckon this judgment should come after some derliberation
this sort of unprincipled tribalist conflict mode is what drove me originally to rationalism and the "gray tribe"; they both have their flaws, but are full of people willing to suspend their base emotions in search of the Truth, to think thru the N-ary consequences of bad policy