Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
It's not even, though, despite the parade of statistics that are aimed at exactly that sort of equality of outcome (the "we need 43 straight female presidents before it's equal" is basically a self-parody). It's about, for that author and those who think like him, casting themselves as the heroes in an epic struggle against the forces of evil.
Anyone who sees himself like that is an utter horror show of authoritarianism in waiting. The worst sorts of despotic regimes are the ones that are utterly certain of their righteousness. The road to hell is paved with good intentions... reminds me of this.
The whole premise of the article appears to be "all positions aren't equal, all choices aren't equally moral" - which is clearly right, but then follows with "and the progressive doctrine I espouse is unquestionably the correct and moral one in every case, while all conservatives have to offer is backwards narrow-mindedness", which is a disastrous failure of reasoning. It's manicheaism run amok.
EDIT: I took a quick look at the comments. This one sums it up pretty amazingly.
Aside from erroneously describing her dogmatic ideology as "liberal", couldn't have said it better myself. |
Yeah, I thought he had some good points, but he is mixing up "equal" with "equality". This is the point where I often start disagreeing with a lot of other liberals. Things don't need to be historically equal before you have equality. If you are waiting for that, you will either be waiting a long time or are going to have to put up with some form of authoritarianism (which of course, tends to lead to eventual repulsion and people like Trump gaining power).