Debate on my Illiberalism article

Disclaimer Debates

Original Article

Source

Comment (1)

You're not talking about liberalism. You're talking, at best, about a kind of squishy technocratic leftism. But tbh, I think a lot of this reads as progressivism, which is actually illiberal itself. You need to figure out what you believe and defend that, not call whatever isn't right-wing "liberal" as if that's coherent.

My response (1)

I get that I don't clearly define liberalism here, but it's also not necessarily the point, I'm more focused on combating a destructive political movement I see in Europe, which I describe as illiberal.

If you think I'm illiberal, or that the movement I'm critiquing is not, I'm open to hearing the reasoning behind that though.

Comment (2)

I think you're confused. And you're exchanging in objectively sloppy rhetoric to service a narrative that's self-flattering but ultimately iffy at best, false at worst.

I'll only really do the emotional and intellectual labor of laying out "the reasoning" if you offer me something like an actual show of best (not just good) faith, like affirming factualism and granting that what we're even talking about is a matter of objective truth, with one of us provably right or wrong. Not open to "agree to disagree" nihilism at the end. No harm if not, but I hate wasting my own time.

Also, even here, you're doing something slippery that should be called out:

"If you think I'm illiberal" - I can confirm at least s few aspects of your proposal are. I have no idea what you qua you or you en too are, except, like I said, confused.

"that the movement I'm critiquing is not" - this is actually beside the point and not at all what I said. You can't make yourself liberal simply by opposing, for example, theocrats or Marxists. So whether MAGA or Reform or the AfD or whatever are illiberal or not isn't edifying or exculpatory here.

My Response (2)

Ok, I am confused. What even is your critique?

To give you my perspective:

  1. I write about the iliberal movement in Europe.

  2. I publish an article with some suggestions on combating that movement.

  3. You tell me that I'm not talking about liberalism.

  4. I clarify the point of my article and ask you to elaborate on your criticism.

  5. You tell me I'm confused and that I am being slippery.

Comment (3)

This reply tells me, and anyone reading properly, pretty much everything about whether we'd have an honest and productive convo (we wouldn't). You've strawmanned my critique, stripping out the actual substance. I will REPEAT: your proposals contain structurally illiberal elements, and defining liberalism as whatever opposes the illiberal movement is incoherent. That's not a misunderstanding either. You've ignored things, deliberately. I respect your intelligence enough not to assume you can't read, so distortion and evasion are the only plausible options for contextualizing this reply.

You said you were open to reasoning; I set a low bar for what that would require, including a basic request to grant that there are objective facts grounding our understanding (something you didn't even TRY to address); you declined to do the bare minimum, and instead served up this "perspective" that muddies the water even further. That's the answer to whether a fact-based discussion is possible here.

My Response (3)

If you think I'm bad faith, i guess I can't change that.

I can still try though. My purpose in this exchange was to find out what exactly about my article you disapprove of, not more, not less. As I said in my first response, my definition of liberalism is not necessarily important when discussing my suggestions to defeat iliberalism, which I defined in previous articles. If you think my definition of liberalism is faulty, I am very open to being convinced, the same goes for your opinion on my proposals. But I won't just concede that my definition is incoherent without you offering any explanation of that. I wasn't trying to strawman you, I was just trying to make you understand my perspective because I was genuinely confused about your critique.

Comment (4)

I did not demand you concede to being wrong by default. I have no idea how you're misunderstanding what's been said this badly. I may need to revise the previous assessment about what's driving your behavior in this exchange. Perhaps Hanlon's razor does apply, and I just overestimated you.

Regardless, I appreciate you at least being honest about the cross-purposes we're working at. You want a capsule critique of your article, without a challenge to your faulty definitions. But the definitions tie back to faulty epistemics and iffy politics. So what you ask is not possible. It'd be like saying I can only criticize creationism if I promise not to say anything a creationist would consider blasphemous. Or without challenging the factual basis for its claims. Impossible and illogical.

I will just add, for the last time and for clarity, that submitting to factualism doesn't preclude or prejudge rightness or wrongness. It literally just means you can't say "there's no truth of the matter" when PROVEN right or wrong to get out of the epistemic reality. It's a submission to a basic ruleset, not a summary judgement. I find it crazy that needed to be explained.

My Response (4)

Ok, if you're so much more intelligent, then walk me through why I'm wrong. I put up very specific criteria for what qualifies as illiberalism in previous articles I link back to. In those articles, I also explain why I think it's dangerous. In what way is it then unconscionable for me to write a follow-up that talks about an appropriate response? I get that you don't like my definition of "liberalism", but it's irrelevant as far as I can tell. If liberalism isn't appropriate as a term for the counter-position to iliberalism, I will "submit to factuality" and change the term to something more appropriate.

Comment (5)

Tell me, in as many or as few words as you need, what you think I've said. Not how it made you feel. Not how you want to respond to it. What I actually said. Be as accurate and complete as possible. Take your time. Tryna see sumthin.

My Response (5)

You're saying that my definition of liberalism is faulty, and that my prescriptions themselves are illiberal. From my responses, you infer that I'm trying to put myself onto a moral pedestal above certain positions, and that I'm operating on more fragile ground that I think I am.

Comment (6)

Is this even 50% complete relative to everything I said? (I did ask you, "Be as accurate and complete as possible. " Are you complete?

My Response (6)

I guess you're also saying that in order to engage with you, I must agree that there are conditions under which I accept that you are correct, which is obviously correct.

#Debate