Against Ironic Detachment
from the why-moral-seriousness-matters dept
I’m going to say something that will make many of you deeply uncomfortable: our culture has confused ironic detachment with intelligence. We’ve mistaken cynicism for sophistication, distance for depth, and the refusal to commit to anything for wisdom itself.
This is killing us.
Not metaphorically. Not in some abstract cultural sense. It is literally destroying our capacity to respond to the crises that define our moment. Because while we perfect our poses of detached cleverness, people with deadly serious intentions are reshaping the world according to their vision.
Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And ironic detachment is moral cowardice dressed up as intellectual superiority.
Let me be clear about what I mean. Ironic detachment isn’t genuine critique—it’s defensive armor. It’s the reflex that allows you to comment on everything while committing to nothing. It’s the stance that lets you mock both sides of every conflict while accepting responsibility for none of its outcomes.
You see it everywhere. The journalist who treats democratic collapse like entertainment, crafting clever observations about the “theater” of authoritarianism without ever stating plainly that democracy is worth defending. The intellectual who responds to moral clarity with knowing smirks, as if the ability to see complexity were the same as wisdom. The friend who greets every urgent concern with “well, it’s complicated” or “both sides have valid points” or “this is all just politics anyway.”
These people have convinced themselves that their detachment signals sophistication. That their refusal to take moral stands demonstrates superior understanding. That their immunity to “naive” concerns about right and wrong proves their intellectual maturity.
They’re wrong.
What it actually demonstrates is a profound failure of moral imagination. An inability to conceive of situations where clarity matters more than cleverness. A retreat from the responsibilities that come with living in a world where our choices have consequences.
Because here’s what ironic detachment really offers: the comfortable illusion that you’re above the fray while remaining safely within it. It lets you feel superior to those who “fall for” caring about things while never having to defend anything yourself. It’s the perfect stance for people who want to seem engaged without actually risking anything.
Moral seriousness is different. Moral seriousness forces you to face consequences. To choose clearly. To stake out positions that require genuine courage rather than performative intelligence. It demands that you say what you believe even when saying it costs you something.
And yes, this makes people uncomfortable. Because moral seriousness isn’t simplistic—it’s demanding. It isn’t arrogant—it’s responsible. It requires you to act as if your judgments matter, as if your choices have weight, as if the world depends on people like you making decisions about what’s worth defending and what isn’t.
The ironically detached hate this. They prefer the safety of eternal meta-commentary, the endless deferral of commitment, the pose that says “I’m too smart to be fooled by caring about anything.”
But here’s what they miss: intelligence without moral commitment is just sophisticated paralysis. Nuance without the capacity for judgment is just elaborate confusion. The ability to see complexity in everything is worthless if it never leads to clarity about anything.
So let me ask you directly: if moral seriousness bothers you—if you find yourself recoiling from people who speak with clarity about right and wrong—what does that say about you?
Does it say you’re sophisticated? Or does it say you’ve trained yourself to avoid the discomfort that comes with taking responsibility for your own moral judgments?
Does it say you understand nuance? Or does it say you’ve become so committed to seeing all sides that you’ve lost the capacity to choose any side?
Does it say you’re intellectually mature? Or does it say you’re using intelligence as a shield against the demands of living in a world where things actually matter?
I know this is uncomfortable. Good. It should be.
Because while you’ve been perfecting your ironic distance, people with no such hesitations have been busy. They don’t waste time wondering whether their convictions are sophisticated enough. They don’t apologize for moral clarity. They don’t treat their own beliefs as just another position in an endless debate.
They understand something the ironically detached have forgotten: that power goes to people who believe in something. That the world belongs to those willing to commit fully to their vision of what it should become. That democracy doesn’t survive on clever commentary but on citizens willing to say plainly what matters, what is true, and what is at stake.
The authoritarians aren’t ironic. They’re deadly serious about their goals. They don’t hedge their commitments or apologize for their clarity. They don’t treat their own power grabs as just another interesting development in the ongoing political show.
They understand that ironic detachment is the perfect ideology for people who want to feel important without actually mattering. For people who want to seem engaged without risking anything. For people who prefer the comfort of eternal spectatorship to the responsibility of actual participation.
This is why a culture built on irony will crumble in crisis. Because when everything is equally interesting, nothing is truly important. When all positions are equally valid subjects for commentary, no position becomes worth defending. When commitment itself becomes naive, only the uncommitted remain to watch the committed reshape the world.
We don’t need more cleverness. We need more clarity. We don’t need more sophisticated commentary on the complexity of our challenges. We need more people willing to name what threatens us and act accordingly.
We need citizens who understand that moral seriousness isn’t just stylistic—it’s existential. That democracy survives not on ironic detachment but on people willing to say what they believe and defend what they value.
The center cannot be held by people who refuse to acknowledge there’s a center worth holding. The flood cannot be pushed back by people who treat every rising tide as just another fascinating phenomenon. The wire cannot be walked by people who prefer watching others fall to taking the risk themselves.
Ironic detachment promises you safety through distance. But there is no safe distance from the collapse of the systems that make your detachment possible in the first place. There is no commentary booth elevated enough to escape the consequences of living in a world where serious people with serious intentions are making serious choices about the future.
The pose of sophisticated neutrality is itself a choice. The stance of ironic distance is itself a commitment. The refusal to take sides is itself taking a side—the side that benefits from your passivity, from your paralysis, from your conversion of moral clarity into epistemological complexity.
So choose. Not between simple answers to complex questions, but between engagement and evasion. Between responsibility and performance. Between the hard work of moral judgment and the easy comfort of ironic observation.
Choose to speak plainly about what matters. Choose to commit to what you believe. Choose to risk the discomfort of being wrong rather than the cowardice of never being anything.
Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And the world belongs to people who take these simple truths seriously enough to build something real upon them.
The revolution is moral seriousness. The rebellion is choosing clarity over cleverness. The resistance is saying what you mean and meaning what you say.
Every minute of every day.
Remember what’s real.
Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.
Filed Under: ironic detachment, irony, morality, reality, truth, view from nowhere




Comments on “Against Ironic Detachment”
This is truth, there’s nothing to say against this.
We’ve let cynicism and “oh it doesn’t matter lmao” control culture and mindsets too much.
No more.
Good post. These are the reasons I stopped walking today and gave some guy with a trump/vance sticker on his f250 a double bird for a solid 15 seconds at a red light.
He shouted out the window as he drove by : “He’s still your president!”
I shouted back : “But not my king, you fucking fascist!”
It’s terrible. Just like it was when it was called “The Confederate States of America.”
If I’m “detached,” it’s because I don’t know what to do with 77 million Americans embracing open fascism. It’s the same type of people who were Tories in the 1770s. Confederates in the 1860s. MAGA now.
400+ years and American conservatives are still the god-awful garbage they’ve been since the Mayflower landed.
Evil is winning, and half of the population loves it.
Re:
So what the fuck are you going to do about it besides complain? And no, “murder those motherfuckers” isn’t an option.
Re: Re:
Call me when it is an option.
Re: Re:
The commenter you replied to already admitted that they don’t know what to do. So what’s the point in you asking them what they’re gonna do?
Complaining is the obvious option. It’s what’s being done by protesters all over the country, and effectively what’s being suggested (and done) here by Mike Brock, but apparently isn’t good enough. You’ve ruled out murder. It’ll be a while before people can be voted out. What’s a good idea that might actually work, preferably quickly?
Lawsuits are a possibility currently being explored. But they’re difficult for the average person to participate in, because the system is set up against them; the law is so complex that only a small group of elites can understand it. Secession is surprisingly popular in polls, but history has shown it to be problematic. It seems unlikely for two-thirds of state legislatures to rise up against Trump, as would be required for a Constitutional amendment. If you’ve got better ideas, please tell us.
Re: Re: Re:
The point is that people can do plenty of things to help one another that don’t involve electoral politics, especially in years where there are no major elections. You can sit at your computer and lament the ongoing rise of fascism in the U.S. or you can, y’know, get out into your community and volunteer your time and energy to help people who need it. Protests are good; mutual aid is better. Ain’t no one gonna save us but us.
And before you toss it back into my face: I don’t have the resources to do anything like that myself, but I would do such things if I did. Being able to elect a Democrat to the White House is another three years away. Being able to help your neighbor afford food or volunteer at a homeless shelter can be done in the here and now. Keep an eye on the long term and the national, yes—but think more about the short term and the local.
“But I want the Nazis gone now!” And I’d like a lot of things that are never going to happen. Maybe getting Trump out of office isn’t a fight you can win. Maybe the best you can do is, say, help a trans person in your community feel a little less shitty. Which path would you rather take: committing acts of radical kindness to help people or waiting for a white knight to ride in and save everyone? Because one is entirely possible and the other is a pipe dream, and I hope I don’t have to tell you which is which.
Re: Re: Re:2
Thanks. Those are some good and practical ideas.
I’m not sure they’re entirely related to the problem Mike’s talking about. That is, I don’t know that people are “ironically detached” about being unable to help hungry people. But such things could fulfill the stated target of “Choose to commit to what you believe.” They won’t fight authorianism per se, but they can make people’s lives under authorianism a little bit better.
Fuck that. A good idea’s a good idea even if the person proposing it can’t implement it; even if they’re a total hypocritical asshole (which I’m not saying about anyone here). Acting out of spite and partisanship is how we got into this mess.
Don’t forget about the mid-terms, though. Getting a simple majority in both the (federal) house and the senate would make impeachment practical, including for those who’d otherwise replace Trump in the line of succession. Getting two-thirds of state legislatures would be a tall order, but could make a lot of things possible quickly (such as Constitutional amendments; anyone with good ideas for those should start proposing them now).
Re: Re: Re:3
I wasn’t even really trying to address “ironic detachment”. My point was that Being Online™ doesn’t really solve shit. But if I had to tie this back into that point, I’d say that any “ironic detachment” is about community outside of the Internet—which is to say, a lot of people don’t really believe in the idea of community, especially if someone lives in a place where, say, their “community” would basically lynch them for being queer.
And this isn’t to say we need to find common cause with bigots and let their bigotry slide. Fuck that idea. But we should be more open to people who might not be bigoted, but merely ignorant of other cultures or groups. We should welcome people to make mistakes, correct themselves, and do better. And yes, we should be more open to opposing viewpoints on political issues—provided that “political issues” isn’t code for “I don’t think this certain group of people should exist”. Only by finding common cause will we find a way out of this whole shitty situation, and to do that, we must be willing to put aside some of our differences for the greater good. (And if the greater good leaves bigots in the dust? All the better.)
I tend to catch shit for saying “hey, there’s things you can do to help others, go do it” and not backing it up by doing the things I suggest. If I could, I would. But I’ve got more issues than National Geographic (and none of them need exploring at this juncture), so the best I can do is take the best ideas I’ve seen and suggest them here whenever someone is all “we’re all doomed and there’s nothing we can do, please sit in the doom pit with me”.
I’m not. But even if one or both chambers of Congress flip to the Dems, they won’t have nearly the kind of brass balls required to take on Trump. Over 100 of them voted against a recent attempt to impeach Trump for a third time; they won’t be any braver about voting “yes” if they have a majority in the House. The presidency is what matters now, and yes, that sucks ass.
But at least we saw a message sent to the Dems last night. Zohran Mamdani’s win in the Dem primary for the NYC mayoral race was a slap in the face to the establishment Dems who want to do the usual centrist bullshit and think nothing needs to change about how the party campaigns. (Also, it fucked up Andrew Cuomo’s political comeback, which was a nice side bonus.) Mamdani proved someone can stand up to the DNC’s “we need to be Diet Republicans to win elections” bullshit. Every Democrat who was merely worried about being primaried in 2026 should now be fucking frightened by the prospect.
Re: Re: Re:4
A lot of these “groups” are bullshit in the first place. Americans have mostly been convinced that humanity is made up of discrete races, for example—a view with no scientific basis (as should be obvious when the entire population of a diverse continent is grouped together).
Even if we take your example of “queer”, I’m wondering to what extent that’s a useful group. Sometimes it seems that the people seen as “non-queer” are more closed-minded than actually very different (as seen in the standard comedic trope of someone male being uncomfortable to identify another male as good-looking). That is, the idea of people being strictly heterosexual, and always thinking in ways those of their sex are expected to think, may be kind of bullshit—and harmful.
Political parties seem a lot like that. People are expected to pick one side, and stick with that side no matter what. There’s probably never been a single American who’s agreed with every position of any party, but it’s now almost unthinkable to support anything proposed by “the others”.
Defeatism isn’t much better than detachment. We don’t even know who these candidates are going to be yet.
I’m not quite sure what this statement means. “Community” can mean a lot of things, and I’ve never heard of anyone rejecting all such concepts entirely. You seem to maybe be using the word to mean “people who live nearby”—but one who fears being lynched by such people isn’t really part of their community, in my opinion.
Re: Re: Re:5
And yet, they exist—even when we acknowledge that they’re only social constructs. We have to work with the reality that we’re in.
I’m no fan of the DNC—it really needs to get the old people out of Congress—but considering how the GOP keeps proposing things that are increasingly vile, I’ll be a “vote blue no matter who” motherfucker until we get ranked choice voting nationwide. I held my nose for Clinton, Biden, and Harris; if the next Dem candidate is worse than those three, I’ll still vote for them because at least they won’t be as shitty as as Trumpist Republican.
That’s why I try to avoid being defeatist.
Re: Re: Re:6
It’s debatable whether “exist” is accurate. Does group X exist, is there just a group of people believing themselves to be in group X (which does not “exist” per se), and are these two possibilities even distinguishable?
But my point is that society harms itself by “constructing” these things. People focus on differences; believing themselves to be more different than they actually are, and arguing about group membership. Quasi-fictional grouping doesn’t quite seem like “working with reality” to me. That doesn’t mean we should ignore perceptions, but I don’t think we should be treating such perceptions as being based in fact.
Re: Re: Re:7
Those groupings, despite being mere social constructs, exist in people’s heads. Telling them to ignore those constructs isn’t “working with reality” because everyone’s heads are wired for some form of tribalism. Whether it’s the tribe of a close-knit neighborhood or a tribe of people who aren’t cisgender and/or heterosexual, human beings will find a tribe to which they belong—even if they have to make one up out of thin air (e.g., fandoms). That is reality, regardless of how you feel about it.
And yes, it sucks. Tribalistic thinking taken to its extremes is how we get religious zealots and political extremists, with all the negatives that come with such extremism. But you’re not going to dismantle tribalistic thinking with “it’s just a social construct that we can stop at any time”. White supremacists aren’t going to be swayed by the notion that race isn’t a real thing—if anything, they’d be more likely to hurt you for suggesting they should give up being “the superior race”. That’s what I mean when I say “we have to work with the reality that we’re in”: You do the best you can to dismantle tribalistic thinking while acknowledging, even if only to yourself, that tribalistic thinking is hardwired into humanity and preaching against it will have less of an effect than finding a way to lean into/work around it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I don’t know if it’s quite “ironic detachment”—maybe just undue defeatism—but this Red vs. Blue thing is something else to push back against, and quite relevant to Mike’s essay.
This isn’t a game of Risk, where units of a color are all interchangeable, the colors themselves mean nothing, and it all comes down to numbers. “Reasonable Republican” shouldn’t be an oxymoron, which means kicking people out of office shouldn’t be the only available option. Trump doesn’t even have the power to kick people out of the party for “disloyalty”, as leaders can do in Parliamentary systems.
Some of the country’s founders were strongly against political parties, and maybe you had some idea of their reasoning even before Trump first entered the leadership race. But if you didn’t, you sure as shit know now.
Re: Re: Re:3
Ever since the DNC and RNC switched alignments in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement, Republicans have only ever gotten less reasonable about…well, everything, really. Trump laid bare how unreasonable the so-called Party of Lincoln had become because he allowed the party to abandon any principle besides “Trump is our God, His will be done”. If they call themselves “conservative”, you should be asking what they’re trying to conserve—because from where I sit, they’re trying to conserve the last gasp of power for old white bigots before they all die off and a younger, less bigoted generation takes power.
Re: Re: Re:2
I can do those things and also point out that 77+ million Americans embraced open Nazism.
President Trump isn’t the problem. President Trump is a symptom of tens of millions of Americans being soulless garbage.
Re: Re: Re:3
So what? You can’t snap your fingers and make them all either change their minds or disappear. Whining about the problem won’t make it go away, either. Unless you’re prepared to get out into the world and help people and show them a better way exists that doesn’t rely on the Trumpist ideology of hatred and hyperindividualism, complaining about the problem ain’t gonna get anything done.
You know what the problem is. You know you can’t solve it through angry posts on the Internet. And violence, tempting though it may be, also won’t get the job done. So the real question, in the end, is this: What are you going to do about the problem?
Re: Re:
You know how so many sexual predators get off with their crimes? Each survivor believes they’re the only one the individual did it to or the predator is too powerful, so for both those reasons, no one speaks up and nothing gets done until one individual is brave enough to speak up against the odds and all the others feel emboldened enough to join in (remember #metoo?). This is how protestors find each other: one person complains and others are inspired enough by their courage to join in, and then elections get called and the electorate is given the power to change things.
I remember that not long ago you were advocating against laws to suppress violent speech by making the argument that the only counter to bad speech is lots of good speech, and now you want people to shut up entirely. Why can’t you make up your mind?
Re: Re: Re:
You seem to think I’m against this. I’m not. What I’m against is pointless, narcissistic, “let me give you despair” whining where the point isn’t to build a coalition of people to accomplish a goal, but to make oneself the center of attention at a pity party no one would otherwise attend. Yes, people have problems. Yes, it would be nice to put aside our differences and do something about them together. But if all someone wants to do is endlessly complain and act like all hope is lost, that isn’t helping anyone solve a problem.
Tell me: Did I advocate for revoking the right of free speech from people who do nothing but complain? Because I haven’t ever done that.
If all you want to do is wallow in the Swamps of Sadness, you can go sink like Artax for all I care. Maybe you can’t do much to stop the rise of American fascism other than help your neighbors—and I understand how that could make you feel like shit. But the time will pass anyway. How would you prefer to spend it: being Chicken Little by trying to convince everyone that the world will end sooner than they think or helping someone’s life suck a little less by committing radical acts of kindness?
Re: Re: Re:2
TIL: Telling people to “shut up whining” is supporting their right to speak out against bad things.
Re: Re: Re:3
Let me make this clearer for you, since you seem determined to put words in my mouth that didn’t first come from it.
If someone wants to be a whiny-ass doomer, they have every right to do that. Nothing in the law can, will, or should stop them from doing their Chicken Little act. I have never said otherwise and I will never say otherwise.
When I tell someone to “stop whining” on this site, it’s both a refutation of their doomerism and a call for them to examine their own personal bullshit. But yes, it is also a call for them to shut the hell up with all their whining—and that’s because their whining adds nothing to a conversation. “The world is fucked, guess I’ll wait to die” isn’t giving anyone useful advice or providing insight into what’s going on in the world. Nobody needs to keep doing that shit, and nobody really wants to deal with people who keep doing that shit long-term. And when enough people in a given community get tired of someone doing that shit, those people will tell the pity-seeking asshole to either shut up or leave.
I understand feeling like shit in today’s world. I’m not exactly smiles and sunshine about the state of U.S. politics right now. But endlessly whining and complaining about the major issues of the day won’t solve shit. Anyone can say “but that’s how people find one another and start organizing”. The real trick is whether all that whining really does lead to organizing and direct action. People doing the doomer schtick just to drag other people into a quagmire of depression and self-loathing and negative nihilism aren’t helping anyone, including themselves.
Doomers have every right to be whiny-ass pity-seeking narcissistic assholes. They don’t have the right to make other people listen or take them seriously. And they sure as shit don’t have the right to make people who don’t want to listen stop saying “I don’t want to hear your bullshit, so fuck off”. If you think I’m saying anything to contradict that stance, prove it; if you can’t, stop trying to assign to me an argument that I never made.
Re: Re: Re:4
You’ve just shown everyone else here you have no valid argument by doubling down, so thanks for that I guess.
Re: Re: Re:5
“Doubling down” on what—that I don’t like seeing negative nihilists trying to drag everyone into Hell with them? Dude, telling those assholes to shut up and go away is not the same thing as trying to revoke their right to free speech. If it were, people being banned from Twitter for any reason would be a violation of the First Amendment, because a Twitter ban is effectively telling the banned party “we don’t do that here, go somewhere else”.
Show me where telling people to fuck off is against the law or concede that your “point” is you trying to shove words in my mouth so you can act like you have a “gotcha” against me. I’ll wait.
Re: Re: Re:6
And now tripling down. Wow, you really have gone full MAGAt, haven’t you?
Re: Re: Re:7
When I ask for someone posting here to take their defeatist bullshit somewhere else, I’m not trying to infringe on their First Amendment rights. I’m effectively telling them “your bullshit isn’t welcome here and I’d prefer you post it on some other site where I don’t have to see it”. Nothing about that stance so much as implies that I believe their bullshit should be illegal to post here (or anywhere else). If you want to believe in the imagined right of “free reach”, you go ahead and delude yourself like that—but you won’t get me to believe it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Pat On The Head
Moral seriousness is code for “You MUST agree with me”. However, it turns out that being a political scold is a big turn off. So if you strangely encounter a lot of people that are “ironically detached”, then it means that folks have you figured out, and they disagree with you, but they aren’t interested in arguing with you. Seeming detached is a defense mechanism so that you can politely defuse the situation. If “moral seriousness” bothers you, then it says that you doubt that the other person is rational, so you would rather not engage.
Re:
No, that’s just what your brain hears because it’s incapable of anything but black-and-white thinking.
Re: Re:
It’s not even black and white thinking for him, haven’t you noticed that he never actually has an argument based on factual reality? Koby is a troll, nothing more, and everything he says is non-factual contrarian or made up strawmen.
Re: Re: Re:
Re:
Fuck off, you Nazi bitch.
Re:
We all saw your president try to intimidate a reporter into pretending an obvious photoshop was a real tattoo.
Re:
Son you don’t have to go home.
But you can’t stay here.
Re:
I don’t think you can talk at anyone about “moral seriousness,” since you are neither.
We were Taught, Nothing in school
it ended with Just RRR.
They Started Cutting politics and its differences, and Explanations of the words, When I was in school.
There is NO indepth Anything in school, except reading, writing,and Math.
History has so many things left out, that you cant even write a book about Any of the 200 years of American history.
The Classes DONT give a sample of ANYTHING in Tech from cars, Carpentry, computers, Anything anymore.
As an old diplomat(not his name) said. There is no Choice in a 2 party system. We barely learn about HOW the system works, But they dont tell us that WE’ are the ones to Control it. This really started before the 1900’s, THEY DONT NEED SMART people. They Need Drones. And the Corps can control Much of everything with Enough money. 1 solution is NOT to print any more money. Its a game they play.
Many Colleges Used to be Free, Why did they goto needing to Charge? its another restriction.
When the Tax rate was high, and Required that Corps CREATE work, as a Write off and to get more money, the Gov. had No problems Except it had to much money.
In recent history we Find that about 1/2 of the Major gov. Agencies have not been Updated or Upgraded in 20-30-50 years.. Amd now the job of Watching over this nation, has been handed over to Politicians that GET PAID A SALERY, insted of being an HONOR JOB.
How much confusing do you want?
Favor and control has been Lost, and there arnt many ways to get most of it back. Unless we can get the RULE BOOKS and REWRITE THEM BACK to our favor.
Between changes in/to Congress since the 70’s and the Changes and Control in the STOCJ EXCHANGE. I wont even mention a few others.
Re:
You’ll do absolutely nothing except maybe chant a few times, walk around with a sign for a bit, and then go home. And they know it.
Can we start mocking people who say “Ah yes, the party of small government” when the GOP pulls some despicable crap? That reeks of ironic detachment to me. Please at least respond with something of actual worth to the discussion and why this or that particular thing by the GOP hurt tons of people.
Re:
You can, but the line about the GOP being the party of small government isn’t an ironic bit. Republicans have long called themselves such; it’s not ironic or detached to remind people that a party now willing to treat the president as a king would be demanding a rollback of presidential power were a Democrat in office. That the GOP demands further government intrusion into people’s private lives (e.g., anti-trans attacks) while scaling back government agencies/programs designed to actually help people’s lives (e.g., food stamps) is always worth noting. The disconnect isn’t in the GOP being “the party of small government”—it’s in the GOP deciding that “small government” should only apply to the rich and well-connected at the expense of the poor.
Re: Re:
“Government small enough to fit in your bedroom” is how I once heard it described.
Re: Re: Re:
Small enough to fit in your washroom, these days.
An examole:
Dawkins said that religion was a delusion, and people then thought he was smart because on that he was absolutely correct.
Now Dawkins claims being trans is a delusion, and everyone with a brain sees him as a demented contrarian crank because he’s completely denying all of biological science to hold that belief.
The ability to speak “I don’t follow the ‘mainstream'” does not make one intelligent.
Centrism is death and the reason we are where we are
There is no “lesser evil” only evil. Fascists do not engage in debate in good faith EVER. The opinion in this was good up to the point of “The center cannot be held by people who refuse to acknowledge there’s a center worth holding” there is no center. There is no agreeing to disagree or seeking the middle ground with people who deny other people’s humanity, inane human rights or right to exist. There is no center or middle ground with people who accept genocide as ok.