Do you think Francis ever turns towards the past only to be caught by a storm blowing from paradise, and suddenly sees before him one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage?

For instance, is this how some advocates of restorative justice approach the subject? Presumably so! But, is this what reflective and serious advocates for the position, Pettit and Braithwaite for example, argue for? No, of course not!

bsky.app/profile/pogt...

Relatedly, some of the arguments were just kinda bad! It might be a more fruitful approach, for instance, to deny the pessimistic induction anarchists make re: the possibility of good government, rather than attempting to show that *historically* most states have done more good than bad.

It's important to develop such intellectual virtues in a similar sense that it is important to develop & exercise civic virtues— they're necessary to maintain a well-functioning intellectual community.

One of those epistemic duties is to, when possible, consider the most robust version of your opponent's arguments. Even social anarchists & 'left communitarians' have an intellectual tradition that can offer stronger arguments than what the average online proponent may be able to provide.

They've reduced themselves to animalistic freaks in their pursuit of the endless catharsis of hate. There is no stable or prosperous society that can exist as long as these people are allowed to walk around pretending they're like the rest of us, exercising authority

Their politics really can be reduced to the stupid racist memes and videos they post. "Look at this person! Don't you hate them? Let's hurt them for fun." They don't even really care who they're hurting, the drug for them is getting to inflict pain on their perceived inferiors

Something I don't understand about this sort of analysis, common among people who broadly agree with Stancil, is how it is supposed to work rhetorically or on an ideological/spiritual level. Even if they're right (and I am not claiming they aren't).