A lot of the modern American progressive argument presupposes the validity of its own assumptions. It's entirely circular logic.
> oppose a policy which intends to decrease [inequality]
Of course, there is very little discussion on whether said policies do actually end up decreasing inequality; much like how the Great Society "War On Poverty" arguably increased poverty.
>Few people actually have desires like "I want more inequality
It's dressed up differently. They talk about cutting "bloated" public sector budgets or the necessity of austerity.
Nobody calls themselves anti choice or pro death or pro war either but lots of people are.
Re:Harrison Bergeron (1961)
by Wolfenstein98k on Saturday October 01, 2022 @08:29AM
(#33046117)
You can believe in those things for reasons other than "wanting more inequality".
Your political opponents believe what they say, not some nefarious strawman you think they're secretly thinking.
That smacks of "good people support Policy X, even if it achieves the opposite of its goals in the long run. To acknowledge that and oppose Policy X, even on its own merits, makes you evil in intent."
Few people actually have desires like "I want more inequality", even if they oppose a policy which intends to decrease it.