Can't be doing with lefties and all that detail argument. My fuckin brain hurts just thinking about people I don't agree with. How the fuck am I supposed to decide wether the argument is relevant and based on sound principles, or is merely one of the myriad of emotionally motivated effort that narrowly misses the epistemological mark? As if that didn't then confuse my feelings further by provoking an empathetic leap to experience their anguish. How the hell should I know if that is to be resisted or not? And how does that inner turmoil help me make a clear-headed, common sense judgement as to the proportionality of this hypothetical emotional state of theirs when considered with the ethical judgements and psychological realities that arise from whatever state of affairs they find themselves? You're asking us to literally imagine a world in which we know half of what's happening to other people because it's the same as our world, but then you're saying there's individuals in it who might be experiencing different emotions and thoughts because we're all individual beings with separate consciousness? Who, when confronted with this, does not experience some subliminal awful moment of startling terror, provoked by the silent cognitition that this indeed confirms that the contents of our heads are no bigger than another persons, thus implying that we rarely amount to any more than a tiny slice of recognition in someone else's mind, and the fragility implied by our knowledge that when engaged with that recognition of another, they literally cease to exist in our mind, can you think of anything more horrific than the fragility this implies? And somehow, the experience of their emotion is even worse, because we literally feel it! Like they are now in our mind! And you might then consider how fucking often emotions transmit from one to another and how something we experience came out of a part of our mind that was tuned to watch for displays of emotion in others and that could provoke the same emotion in us and without our say so or even our recognising it? Who now, when confronted by this assault on the solidity of our self image, would instinctively feel they should provide the mental space within their own faculty such as neccessary to 'understand' and 'consider' a competing point of view proposed by someone else?
It's a fucking joke! Someone needs to shut them up! As if they didn't learn from the referendum!