You think this framework would be easy to follow but I keep running into people who believe if you say something is bad that means you're trying to say that the person is bad, where if you say something is good then that means you're trying to say the person is good.

And, obviously, all moral criticism is then directed at the immutable essence of the human soul which we all know is either good or bad ontologically. And anyone you like is a reflection of your own soul, which is ontologically and inherently good or bad.

That's not everyone obviously but it's enough people to be too many and it drives me nuts imo.

[–] jack@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's also how people view states!

[–] DogThatWentGorp@hexbear.net 3 points 1 week ago

Yeah the constant conversation about DPRK of the USSR devolving into people using vague hypotheticals to try and essentially say "did you consider that human nature makes the soul of the country rotten?" is like the permanent, protestant-fatalism-brained argument that drives me up a wall.

Or certain people saying "well states are bad" like, no these are methods of organization and constructs that exist between the actions millions of people, you can't essentialize those things. It's like the same vibe as when Americans monolith foreign countries because they're somehow unable to imagine they have political parties.