@Hoss Like I said, I don't think it's merely liberalism at play there. In fact I don't even think they qualify. I saw them downvote claims that Clarence Thomas has a conflict of interest because there's no official proceeding saying as much. All debates there immediately get reduced to who can cite the most official source.

It's not that they fundamentally can't comprehend a weighing of different perspectives and arriving at a conclusion. It's that they think there must be a unified adjudication system for this. If you have the right credentials you get to play the song and dance of rubbing your chin and wondering and considering all of the details, and then you get to make a determination, and that determination counts for everyone else. They are bound by this. Only people in a designated club get to think things are nuanced or complicated.

There can be no two competing versions of events. They can be no competing explanations for why things the way they are. There could be no two competing versions of what is taking place. It all must be unified.

The fact that these ostensibly progressive users are so readily willing to completely transform their worldview based on what amounts to a judicial/academic blog post speak to something much more mentally ill than just having a wacky political ideology. Odd as it might seem, my experience there lately is that these users are what's left of the true believer class in The Cathedral.

@Vril_Oreilly @narada @ChristopherBRobin @Owl