pull down to refresh

I often wonder, how useful is it really to call out peoples' logical and moral inconsistencies? There surely are principled people out there, but it seems to me that most are not, and when the principled people call out the unprincipled people for their hypocrisy, it's like speaking into the wind.

And, my suspicion is that the principled people know this. So why do it? What do you think?

I'm usually with you. I finally caved today and engaged with a bunch of bad anti-libertarian takes on this stuff. Probably won't amount to much, but I also find it annoying seeing this stuff go unchallenged.

I do think there's utility in making the counterpoint visible. In that sense calling out the inconsistencies is not for the sake of the hypocrite. It's for the onlooker trying to make sense of an issue.

reply

Makes sense that it's mostly for onlookers

I think personally I'm just exhausted by it. Been preferring more to withdraw from arguments rather than engage

reply
56 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 5h

I feel that too.

I think my (our) drive to logical consistency is an innate characteristic. And as such it can be used to control me. The vast majority of people I have encountered only have logic when it benefits them.

Only reason I engage here is that usually the disagreement is educational.

reply

I've mostly chosen withdrawal, lately. Finally got triggered today.

reply

Principles are determined by the victors

The only principle that matters is winning

reply
11 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 6h

Yeah... that's not a good path.

reply

It's also false

reply
80 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 6h

For one thing it is anti-Christ. Which matters more than anything else to me.

reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 6h

Yeah... I resemble this remark.

reply