"Arbitrary" is precisely the problem. Nick thinks it's all arbitrary. It's not. He even goes as far as to equate atheists and religious fundamentalists. I'm not trying to go all Second World War on your ass and start sending you quotes from Hannah Arendt and the banality of evil but it's true. Ideology is impossible to escape. What I'm ordering at Subway is an ideology. Rather it's more apt to make deliberate choices we can justify than opt out of thinking altogether. This essay would just be wrong but when you start equating Nazis with the opposition that crosses the line. Yes I'm dogmatic. I think racism is bad. Where you see enlightenment I see cowardice.
Again, though, you're assuming he's saying a lot more than (it seems to me) that he is. He's not saying "don't believe in anything," he's saying "be open to the possibility that what you believe in may prove to be wrong." On the subject of WW2 quotes, here's Edward Teller:I believe in evil. It is the property of all those who are certain of truth. Despair and fanaticism are only differing manifestations of evil.
Edward Teller was the bad guy! Hannah Arendt: Her analysis is closer to reality. I remain suspicious of objective truth but the reason I want to nail him to the cross is because of his characterization of Nazis/Antifa and New Atheists/Fundamentalists as being the same. If he had just said "be suspicious of ideology" I'd be okay with that. But as soon as you make statements about the overall political climate and act like you're somehow distant from it in a way that is cliche and been beaten to death by 100 other media personalities it's blatantly obvious your analysis hasn't come from any type of broader epistemological inquiry. It's come from media. It's come from the most simplistic and base refusal of the system. Followed by stroking your chin for the next 79 minutes while the rest of the civilized community sighs in the background.The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.
This is the problem. Saying that they're equivalent in one way doesn't mean he's saying they're equivalent in all ways. What you're saying is that once you're a member of a certain group (that you happen to agree with), you become immune from self-reflection. You also seem to be saying that the ends justify the means; that it's okay to be shitty to someone provided that it's for the right cause.but the reason I want to nail him to the cross is because of his characterization of Nazis/Antifa and New Atheists/Fundamentalists as being the same.