11 Comments
Mar 27Liked by Adrian Vermeule

You made me laugh out loud: “I suspect this is the future of liberalism”, hilarious.

“As for forms of governance let fools contest : whatever’s best administered is best.”

Alexander Pope

We are lost, imploding.

Expand full comment

"like a glove" indeed. Synchronicity doesn't come any better.

Expand full comment
Mar 28Liked by Adrian Vermeule

It brings to mind Marcuse's "repressive tolerance". It's gotten to the point where they are just inventing theories to convince themselves that there is still a difference between them and the far left.

Expand full comment
Mar 28Liked by Adrian Vermeule

Anti-Liberal Liberals obviously exist and have some conceptual confusion to sort out, but it seems they are more likely to continue making the label Liberalism meaningless.

Expand full comment
Mar 28·edited Mar 28Liked by Adrian Vermeule

So funny! You brightened my day!

"...forces that all subscribe to fundamental liberal premises, yet interpret them differently."

I take "fundamental liberal premises" at this point are all "id". The more id the more progressive. Extra id assists extra interpretation.

Expand full comment
Mar 30Liked by Adrian Vermeule

"It is a conflict between free speech and free speech.” Somewhere Orwell is smiling.

Expand full comment

Per Karl Popper: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

Expand full comment

So incoherence is now considered a natural concomitant of rational dialogue.

Expand full comment
RemovedMar 28·edited Mar 28
Comment removed
Expand full comment