Yes, I am pointing out the inevitable product of applying our philosophy of not judging people based on the way they present themselves. I am not projecting my morality onto the situation, I am allowing people to project their morality on the situations they find themselves in. I am saying people should be allowed to judge on mutable characteristics, that is an inherently neutral position. You are saying that people shouldn't be able to judge, except in these situations where I think you should be able to judge. Today you find yourself in the moral majority, but what if tomorrow you don't? What if tomorrow there is some common social judgement against a group you think is undeserving? Defending individual liberty is heavy moral and emotional burden. But what other option is there?
Your opinion is wrong though, 1798 is a huge break in Egyptian history. Napoleon largely broke the power of the Mamluks and allowed for the rise of Mehmed Ali, who shaped the course of Egypt for over a century, which would've never happened had Napoleon not invaded given the fact that Mehmed Ali was a part of the Ottoman contingent that arrived in Egypt to expel the French.
Sure but that doesn't contradict anything I said. Napoleon's army still marched through Arab countries, not Turkish territory.
The ghettoization of French Muslims and the ills that result from that are an increasingly important social issue in France which is itself a highly relevant country in the War on Terror. Maybe in execution its just virtue signaling but its not entirely irrelevant.
I'm not asking if you'd judge the person negatively, I'm asking if you'd make assumptions about the person whether positive, negative, or neutral. Would or would you not make some assumptions about a person wearing a MAGA hat?
That would cause some off the charts autistic screeching from the right wing butthurt brigade.
Native Americans are the only other group in America whose plight is arguably as egregious as that of the blacks but even then it was qualitatively very different.
The conversation isn't especially well done but it goes something like this.
That is your opinion. Neither of us is infallible, and society certainly isn't. So no, I do not trust society to police these issues. If you had told me 10 years ago that SJWs had become a major threat to western civilization I wouldn't have believed you. So I don't think we will agree on which groups society should censor.
Do you honestly feel SJW's are a major threat to western civilization?
I think they are currently THE threat to western civilization. Groups with Utopian dreams have committed the greatest atrocities in human history. There is no price to high to pay to usher in Utopia and the when the out group is marked for death there is no price to high to remain in the in group.
That's something I see talked about a lot, the exclusivity of the French identity. You're either not French enough to be French or if you somehow manage to pass that threshold you cannot claim any other identity. Not a huge fan of Trevor Noah but he touched upon this in one of his segments. He joked that since most of the French team in the World Cup were of African background that it was actually Africa that won the World Cup and he got a critical letter from the French Ambassador for it.
