Deciding that my “thinking very hard” is better than yours either requires more specific (externally observable) criteria, or an arrogant assumption that I am smarter. Any argument that depends on the objective superiority of one person’s subjective internal processes over another’s, is arrogant. I claim that arrogant arguments should be avoided, on both ethical and epistemological grounds – and any framework that can only be justified with arrogance, should be discarded. Where there are multiple narratives that are equally “true” (in predictive value and inter-subjective evaluation), I propose we break ties by looking at what is more useful instead of resorting to arrogance in a quest for Truth.
Nozick’s Libertarianism had a Principle of Rectification that sounds a lot like reparations. Most of his fans ignore this, and many turn to fascism or white supremacy rather than accept that liberation can’t be capitalist.
It’s a classic thought problem in philosophy: An out-of-control trolly is headed down a track where it will hit and kill five people. You are in control of a lever which, if pulled, will divert the trolly to a track where it will only kill one person. Should you pull the lever?
My identity and others’ distaste for who I am are not two equally valid opinions. There is no both/and on this subject. If you tolerate homophobia in your church, you are not queer-affirming.
Just once I’d like to see a Christian space treat homophobia the same way so many well-meaning homophobes treat my capacity to love: If someone asks if their homophobic views will be tolerated, a queer-friendly Christian space should say we welcome everyone and we’re all sinners, so even though they are sinning in believing the homophobic view, God still loves them and they as individuals are welcome in our space.