There is an obscene term that I love from 4chan culture: "moralfag." It is a term of sublime beauty which precisely encapsulates the tendency of some people to place morality above reality in the classic Gnostic tradition. It is that peculiar thing, that asinine je ne sais quoi that only deontologists can do — the insufferable Kantian (pronounced cunt-ee-an) moral faggotry of virtue signaling which says, "fuck the world, all I care about is feeling good about myself."
Morally, I believe in my own invention that I call nested morality. It's a kind of system where those genetically and socially closest to you get priority over those more distant. Nick Land has misrepresented this as deontology. It's not, and the refusal to recognize it as a third moral code, is both a false dichotomy and a straw man argument. But whatever. Everyone wants to fit third moral codes into either the consequentialist or deontological box. That is not appropriate, and the two moralities of western civilization are insane and should be destroyed. Consequentialism leads to wire heading, while deontology lets the world burn. The dichotomy itself is the problem.
Anyway, I came across an article that illustrates perfectly this type of Kantian douchebaggery. Human primates always obsessively convert everything into a virtue signaling moral argument so they can posture and express their mating worth to one another. Morality is often just a lot of signaling for neurotypical primates. Watch them posture and chest thumb. Watch them show off their shiny coats and their moral virtue;
“The right-wing nationalism of the Trumps,” Barber said, “will become not so much toxic obstacles to history, but an increasingly obsolete expression.”"Muh right side of history. Muh moral superiority."
Of course it never occurs to them that the countryside might need to be governed differently than the cities, and that compromise itself is wholly inappropriate between city and country — that even the act of compromise between the two is fundamentally bad management.
No. Tribal humans gonna tribe, and that means they will inappropriately govern like they are at Dunbar scales when they are several orders of magnitude above that. Every argument will be a moral argument is situations where only technical description is appropriate.
The whole article is about how "cities are a bulwark against the tide of right-wing nationalism." It is standard virtue signaling journo-vomit. Like all other articles by all journalists everywhere it completely misses technical details. It's actual content is irrelevant. This could be about any article written by any normie leftist and the commentary I provide would be exactly the same.
Since people need points, I will provide one. The point is that this is always what humans do. Neurotypicals are not interested in truth, in solutions that work, or in factors common to different problems. We could talk endlessly about HBD and immigration, or about how xenophobic impulses undermine all multicultural societies. We could talk about how diversity undermines community trust since humans are not genetically programmed to get along with those who look different than themselves. We could talk about how it simply won't work well in the short-term, or work at all in the long-term. We could talk about the need to provide all human monkeys with a sense of tribe in order to increase their eudemonia, and how a patchwork is best for accomplishing that because of Dunbar scale limitations. We could describe the technical realities of how to "properly manage your human farm," (wonderful term) to maximize flourishing. And we could talk about how identity politics and leftist party tribalism are a piss-poor substitute for a location based tribal polity (patch). And we could talk about how human information processing limitations make central control of large-scale system beyond the capacity of our species, and about how only local governance works.
But they simply don't care.
The tendency of human beings to prefer monkey games like virtue signaling over flourishing, (or even their own survival!), is the essence of everything that is wrong with the species.
The normie brain says, "how can I use this to impress my friends?" Knowledge has no value in its own right to these people. It is currency for looking good, and if it cannot be used to posture it is forgettable. They will never learn. They can never learn anything they cannot use. All other knowledge is memorized only for the test. Let that sink in. Normies don't ever learn information purely for the sake of knowing it beyond Trivial Pursuit levels of factoid memorization for small talk. Their heads actually don't store complex, rich, and detailed knowledge. Everything they know must have a purpose; to impress friends, to have a career, to make small talk, to virtue signal. It is never for its own sake. They don't do that. They forget everything they cannot use for personal gain. And they only believe what they are told. Arguments that make the normie look good by agreeing with them will be accepted over those that don't. Arguments that sound good will be accepted over other, better ones. Arguments that feel good will be accepted over reality. In a way they are all children / Gnostics who believe whatever they want. What them to agree?
Make it sound good.
Construct the argument so agreement with you makes them look good.
Make it feel good to agree, then they will agree.
If an argument could persuade them to end the world while fulfilling all of these criteria it would be adopted immediately and without protest. They would push the button.