Also this post has the classic logical error of assuming that because something is a certain way, it should be that way.
> Reality doesn't care about good or bad
Likewise: What you call "social truths" are real in that they shape behavior and consequences, but they’re conventions, not objective moral facts, and they can be unjust or oppressive.
That's a modern dellusion.
Sociology (and common wisdom) tells us that judgment "that shames, excludes, or hurts" is necessary for the development of morality, social cohesion, and cooperation.
Note: not any random judgment "that shames, excludes, or hurts" has this possitive role, but plenty of judgements that "shame, exclude, or hurt", meaning that judgement that "shames, excludes, or hurts" is a useful social tool.
Refusing to be an asshole to someone being an asshole just enables them being an asshole.
Refusing to judge if someone is being an asshole, ensures that someone being an asshole will see no consequences for being an asshole.
But to be fair I'm mostly criticizing useless HN post-hoc rationalization.
> Refusing to be an asshole to someone being an asshole just enables them being an asshole.
I have nothing to do with this.
> Refusing to judge if someone is being an asshole, ensures that someone being an asshole will see no consequences for being an asshole.
I also have nothing to do with this.
On the contrary, since many (if not most) people do it, they're on the social side.
>Once again: rationalizations don't make something true
When it comes to social truths, what most people do make them so.
If most people think X bad, X is bad is a social truth. Doens't matter if you think X is "not bad in reality". Reality doesn't care about good or bad anyway, it doesn't have a morality.