Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dowwie | Hacker News Reader

What about fanatical liberalism, though? How things have changed since this article was written. What is this "calm search for truth" they spoke of? :)

relevant to this topic is a new, controversial book called, "Why Liberalism Failed": https://www.amazon.com/Why-Liberalism-Failed-Politics-Cultur...

the author spoke with Russ Roberts on EconTalk this week:http://www.econtalk.org/patrick-deneen-on-why-liberalism-fai...

View on HN

Given that fanatical liberalism is a subset of fanaticism, the best answer to fanatical liberalism would also be liberalism.

I believe the decalogue by Bertrand Russell supports this premise, since what it describes would be contrary to fanaticism of any particular stripe.

Progressive supremacism is a far more accurate term, denoting the outright hostility towards even tacit opposition or signs of hesitation.

First, I recognize we're painting with a broad brush here. I wouldn't call it supremacism. But too often I find "progressives" see themselves a moral high ground. Often dismissing nuanced conversation for a "winner" due to morals.

I don't care for discussing actual policies since I'm no law expert. I do like drilling down into first principles with "either side" and seeing what their ideal treatment of individuals in situations would be. It's just... difficult to discuss such things without being seen as insensitive or even prejudicial.

This being said, this article has nothing to do with technology :). And subscribing to view the full article... gross.

> But too often I find "progressives" see themselves a moral high ground. Often dismissing nuanced conversation for a "winner" due to morals.

This isn't a trait specific to progressives alone, given how often conservatives insist their views are morally superior because they represent the will of God or the founding fathers.

See: every argument about abortion or gun control ever.

Libertarians, too. I consider myself an extreme libertarian, for what it’s worth.

Why even make an argument if you don’t believe it is the “moral high ground”?

>Why even make an argument if you don’t believe it is the “moral high ground”?

Everyone, at the very least, believes their arguments to be correct (unless they're doing some Devil's Advocate/false-flagging/Socratic thing,) but the problem with believing one view to be morally superior is the tendency to then believe other views are immoral, and therefore invalid, rather than see those views as being held from alternate moral perspectives.

Both sides of the abortion debate, for instance, believe with absolute and unshakeable conviction that theirs is the moral high ground.

> Both sides of the abortion debate, for instance, believe with absolute and unshakeable conviction that theirs is the moral high ground.

I know people who preface an explanation of their support for pro-choice policy with something like "I would never have an abortion myself, but..." That's the opposite of "absolute and unshakeable conviction that theirs is the moral high ground." Most of the time it's the words of someone who recognizes a compromise needs to be made.

Then again, the reason "pro life" exists as a term is to imply that the other side is "anti life" or "pro death."

I may have engaged in hyperbole but this particular issue is still legendary for the intransigence on both sides.

Everyone, at the very least, believes their arguments to be correct

No. Some people want their conclusion and really don't care about the argument and how it gets there. It sounds impolite but some people lie.

Absolutely. It's a thing among most ideologies. But I see the term "progressive" itself as positioned where opposing views aren't progressing society. Which is a sort of moral high ground. But, that's looking too far into it I'm sure. Not what most would intend and is a matter of perspective.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com