The apparent inconceivability (in this thread) of the notion that someone might disagree on a deep level with local memes without being insane is quite amazing. [...] If you’re serious about working for all of humanity, it may conceivably be useful to seriously listen to some who don’t already agree with you.
I don’t think that’s the case. If people would find that notion inconceivability I doubt that the thread would be upvoted to 19 at the point of this writing.
I would also point out that the kind of ideology that expressed in the linked post comes from the Bay Area. As far as core differences in ideologies goes pitting one Bay Area ideology against another Bay Area ideology isn’t real diversity of opinion.
I would also point out that the kind of ideology that expressed in the linked post comes from the Bay Area. As far as core differences in ideologies goes pitting one Bay Area ideology against another Bay Area ideology isn’t real diversity of opinion.
There are various countries in Africa where a majority of the population thinks that it’s a good idea to punish homosexuality with death.
If you want diversity in moral opinions than you should create an environment where someone from such a country can freely talk about his morality.
I have a much better understanding of the moral position of a third wave feminist than I have and understanding of the position of someone with mainstream Ugandian morality.
I think I understand the third wave feminist even better than someone from China.
If you would want to someone represent the majority of humanity it makes much more sense to specifically write post arguing conversative positions that appeal to the majority of the world population than to try to be more accommodating to social justice warriors as there aren’t that many social justice warriors in the world.
But I wouldn’t advocate going down that road but instead advocate that people focus on the quality of arguments.
I don’t think that’s the case. If people would find that notion inconceivability I doubt that the thread would be upvoted to 19 at the point of this writing.
I would also point out that the kind of ideology that expressed in the linked post comes from the Bay Area. As far as core differences in ideologies goes pitting one Bay Area ideology against another Bay Area ideology isn’t real diversity of opinion.
True, but evidently it’s still a stretch locally.
There are various countries in Africa where a majority of the population thinks that it’s a good idea to punish homosexuality with death.
If you want diversity in moral opinions than you should create an environment where someone from such a country can freely talk about his morality.
I have a much better understanding of the moral position of a third wave feminist than I have and understanding of the position of someone with mainstream Ugandian morality.
I think I understand the third wave feminist even better than someone from China.
If you would want to someone represent the majority of humanity it makes much more sense to specifically write post arguing conversative positions that appeal to the majority of the world population than to try to be more accommodating to social justice warriors as there aren’t that many social justice warriors in the world.
But I wouldn’t advocate going down that road but instead advocate that people focus on the quality of arguments.