Thanks for taking the time to say this Adde. If you feel this way, then I've obviously failed at living up to the standards I've set or what I am preaching. I'd love your advice on how I can refine my thoughts and beliefs. Open to sharing more with me?
The term "oppressor" is ideological in nature. So is "destructive ideologies." It might even be called sensationalism to allege that there is a "tyranny" that "threaten[s] our nations and people." How? Who does the oppressing?
In the same breath you call individual freedom a misguided notion, which fundamentally contradicts your point. Inexplicably, you use the same term about racism as about freedom.
I would posit that "progress" necessarily means change, the destruction of existing systems and structures, even regardless of merit; this can legitimately be viewed as oppression by those affected by it. There are two sides to everything, and we should be open to both. Instead you make a case against it, besmirching those who value diversity of opinion by comparing it to advocacy of slavery. But then you criticize people who "[look] down upon those with different perspectives as somehow lesser."
You don't find truth by declaring that A is a priori virtuous and divine and B is malevolent and must be destroyed. That classifies as indoctrination and manipulation in my book.
When you use the word "misinformation" in defense of trust in institutions, you adopt a talking point of those who want to silence (cancel) dissenting individuals. One might reasonably view that position as oppression. Institutions can act badly and must be challenged.
Then we have the tendentious vilification of nations like China and Iran, contrasted with "peaceful liberal democracies" as if that were a thing today. And you say you don't like it when others pass judgment.
You don't pass moral judgment at Cicero? The entire piece did, in my view, nothing but divide things into good and bad. It makes me doubt the veracity of your claim that you carefully evaluate the quality of the thinkers you select.
In conclusion the inconsistencies I detected damaged the message and image you want to convey.
You didn't have to take the time to write this and address what I said, but I thank you for doing that.
This is very helpful. I obviously have a lot to learn about how I communicate my ideas and what they imply. The intent was not to vilify notions like individual freedom or besmirch those with differing views. You rightly point out the contradiction in criticizing others' judgments while making strong assertions. I see how parts came across as judgmental or inconsistent.
You raise fair critiques about some of the ideological terminology used, like "oppressor" and "destructive ideologies", and how they betray a subjective bias. I agree that using charged language often obscures more than illuminates. There's wisdom in your caution about making blanket judgments of good versus bad, as reality tends to be far more nuanced.
Thank you again for being kind and patient with me. I'm constantly learning and working to become better. I just wish I had more people like you who can so effectively communicate their thoughts to help me change and improve.
What a joke. You're opposed to tribalism and misinformation and write this? Who do you think you're fooling.
Thanks for taking the time to say this Adde. If you feel this way, then I've obviously failed at living up to the standards I've set or what I am preaching. I'd love your advice on how I can refine my thoughts and beliefs. Open to sharing more with me?
Sure.
The term "oppressor" is ideological in nature. So is "destructive ideologies." It might even be called sensationalism to allege that there is a "tyranny" that "threaten[s] our nations and people." How? Who does the oppressing?
In the same breath you call individual freedom a misguided notion, which fundamentally contradicts your point. Inexplicably, you use the same term about racism as about freedom.
I would posit that "progress" necessarily means change, the destruction of existing systems and structures, even regardless of merit; this can legitimately be viewed as oppression by those affected by it. There are two sides to everything, and we should be open to both. Instead you make a case against it, besmirching those who value diversity of opinion by comparing it to advocacy of slavery. But then you criticize people who "[look] down upon those with different perspectives as somehow lesser."
You don't find truth by declaring that A is a priori virtuous and divine and B is malevolent and must be destroyed. That classifies as indoctrination and manipulation in my book.
When you use the word "misinformation" in defense of trust in institutions, you adopt a talking point of those who want to silence (cancel) dissenting individuals. One might reasonably view that position as oppression. Institutions can act badly and must be challenged.
Then we have the tendentious vilification of nations like China and Iran, contrasted with "peaceful liberal democracies" as if that were a thing today. And you say you don't like it when others pass judgment.
You don't pass moral judgment at Cicero? The entire piece did, in my view, nothing but divide things into good and bad. It makes me doubt the veracity of your claim that you carefully evaluate the quality of the thinkers you select.
In conclusion the inconsistencies I detected damaged the message and image you want to convey.
You didn't have to take the time to write this and address what I said, but I thank you for doing that.
This is very helpful. I obviously have a lot to learn about how I communicate my ideas and what they imply. The intent was not to vilify notions like individual freedom or besmirch those with differing views. You rightly point out the contradiction in criticizing others' judgments while making strong assertions. I see how parts came across as judgmental or inconsistent.
You raise fair critiques about some of the ideological terminology used, like "oppressor" and "destructive ideologies", and how they betray a subjective bias. I agree that using charged language often obscures more than illuminates. There's wisdom in your caution about making blanket judgments of good versus bad, as reality tends to be far more nuanced.
Thank you again for being kind and patient with me. I'm constantly learning and working to become better. I just wish I had more people like you who can so effectively communicate their thoughts to help me change and improve.
No, thank you. It's an interesting and valuable discussion.