Velvet Silmeria!Mánibranðr @FreyaManibrandr@awoo.space

I dunno where I'm going with this, it just wigs me out how effective it is.

After a certain point, you don't *really* personally know that, say, the earth is round. You're trusting what you're told on some level.

And if someone gets to that core, it reduces you to someone saying "Well Bill says it, so it must be true."

We so easily forget what proof even is. But it's about fitting plausibly among the larger contexts of everything else you know.

I feel like this rhetoric has a way of seeping in that goes unappreciated.

It's so common to see someone take offense to the accusation that they're virtue signaling, but taking offense in the first place means they've successfully made this personal. We know that issues go beyond us, so it doesn't matter what WE say this truth, the point is that it's a truth.

But this is an ad hominem that intends to force you to legitimize your argument

This is obviously bad faith arguing, but it's an especially unnerving tactic to me. It's abnormally open about the idea that motive outweighs action - that you need to be pure of heart to do good.

But as living creatures, everything is motivated, you can find a cynical reason for everything.

Questioning your intentions is good, but this gatekeeping only allows those who are 100% certain about anything, and that necessarily means narrow-mindedness