[ratrace]

> Also I think you meant "capitalists" rather than "anti-capitalists".

No, I'm very much talking about talibanized socialists/communists/whatever they want to particularly call themselves. "Eat the rich" has become "The rich eat babies" because it doesn't matter what you try and get people to believe as long as they align themselves with your side and against the people you don't like. The Big Lie of our times, perhaps?

[pixelatedindex]

> No, I'm very much talking about talibanized socialists/communists/whatever they want to particularly call themselves.

Ad hominem attacks for me but not for thee?

[mindslight]

> I'm very much talking about talibanized socialists/communists/whatever they want to particularly call themselves.

So you're just bashing a strawman that you've pigeonholed all opposition into? Okay then...

We had a previous exchange that I ended up dropping. I was a bit sorry about that because I thought it would have been interesting to critique "universalism" on its own merits, rather than the term generally only being mentioned by its detractors.

(For context here I was reading Moldbug while he was writing, and spent a bunch of time internalizing other reactionary writings. I actually credit Moldbug with my transition from a right-Libertarian to an unaligned libertarian that sees left vs right as mere modes of thinking, each with their own merits)

But after seeing how quickly this conversation went downhill, I'm not sure that conversation would have been terribly productive either!

[ratrace]

> So you're just bashing a strawman that you've pigeonholed all opposition into?

If you think radicalized left-wingers are a strawman, you live in a separate universe from mine. Unfortunately, I live in the one where I have to wake up and see flyers around my town unironically claiming Trump ate kids.

Can we swap?