On purity of argument in purity arguments
So, if ya know me, I say fuck purity arguments.
You know the kind: you can’t be a real blank if you do this.
Like you can’t be a real liberal if you support capitalism.
Or you can’t be a real leftist if you use racial slurs.
Or you can’t be a real gay if you weren’t born a man.
That kind of shit. It always fails the no true Scotsman logic test. It is a fallacy, which is just the logical way to call you a liar in polite society.
But, surprisingly, there are some things that are pure.
Which is why you can say it is immoral to oppose human rights. Why you can say it is unethical to oppose human rights. Why it is unchristian to do so.
It is why all forms of oppression in action are violence. It is why you can call people who engage in any form of oppression violent.
It is why one can say that to be a liberal, you must support human rights. It is literally the foundation of what the term and concept means.
You can be a Dem and oppose human rights. Dem is not a synonym for liberal.
Remember this the next time a Democrat describes themselves as liberal.
They might be lying.