Andrew Wilson

They'll admit, clearly, he doesn't meet that.

but he meets certain tenets which we can say have overlap with fascism enough that they reach like a fascist minimum.

Well, what the hell does that mean?

Well, it just means that interpretively, from their kind of stance-dependent view, right, which means I made it up, this arbitrary metric, he meets it, therefore he is it.

Now, unless you have some grounding which is objective, how do you argue with that?

Well, you really can't because what most political debating is is it's taking a fact and then it's arguing about your feelings over that fact.

That's 90% of what a political debate is.

Here's a fact, and now let's argue our vibes.

So unless there's some objective grounding that you have to tell them that they're wrong, right, it's actually very difficult to get the upper hand in a vibes debate, isn't it?

So you really have to bring it back to not just facts but foundation.

They don't have any.

This is why I hate them, because they're morally corrupt, ambiguous, no morality having scumbags.

And that's what they want to do.

They want to take a fact and argue their vibes about the fact.

But when you get to their foundations, what is their foundation?

They don't have any.

Their entire foundation is there are no moral facts.

So that's the case.

How can you do anything immoral if there's no moral facts?

How?