kohlrak: Why not let the people themselves define it?
I'm low on time at the moment, so i'll keep it short. It's application of critical theory (questioning everything that isn't spawned from certain assumptions made by critical theory while rejecting empiricism), with special emphasis on questioning objective reality (empiricism), moral universality (the christian concept that morality applies to everyone, regardless race, religion, etc), and objective truth (the philosophical application of empiricism).
--Well, looks like something got canceled, so i have more time.
It really just boils down to, most identifiably, everyone focusing on their own worldviews while rejecting the notion that their own worldviews could be wrong, while accepting that other worldviews may also be right, since there is no objective reality. Mysticism, essentially: "I believe that the world is a certain way, and the more i believe that, the more that it's true. People who disagree with me are trying to destroy my reality and, in it's place, install their own." Notice the idea that the world can be a certain way (worldview), and that that certain way is automatically assumed to be true, even other ideas that could be in conflict.
This is why we saw huge amounts of cults and public acceptance of cults in the 80s and 90s with people like Osho (aka Rajneesh)
, Shoko Asahara
, Branch Davidians (to be fair, what happened to them totally asn't their fault)
, Jonestown and their famous cool-aide
, and everyone's favorite whipping boy
. Notice how everyone was proud that "God is dead" and yet all these cults (and many, many more) suddenly were cool and hip? This is why some smart atheists are questioning if simply getting rid of mainstream religion was the right thing: anything acceptable in post-modernism (basically any hipster religion or cult, but not anything mainstream) is A-OK and now totally the right thing that we're not allowed to criticize.
And all this is totlaly ignoring the effects of the wonderful hedonism-nihilism combo seen in my generation (millenials). But, hey, we got a hell of alot more scientific, objective, and unbiased, haven't we?
And, while I am religious, myself, i'm not arguing pascal's gambit, or anything similar, but just trying to put the practical application of all these ideas into perspective, since my religion doesn't reject science, despite what people may say of it.
My argument: empiricism leads to solipsism, and it's precisely why do you have every idiot believing himself absolute authority on everything. Science as a worldview is a religion (ideology more precisely, but if you ask me, those are the same thing), science as a tool for gathering knowledge is useful. Both nihilism and hedonism can be positive things, but that's other story.
Slippery slope fallacy. The absence of empiricism will manifest as religion, as well. I belive the pattern you picked up on that science (i would argue not science, but certain theories such as quantum physics) has become religion is where the conservative atheists are coming from when they say that maybe it was a bad idea going after God, after all: people are going to be religious, anyway, so when philosophers failed to establish secular arguments for morality prior to "killing God," we only made room for people to make morality whatever they wanted it to be, and it doesn't even have to be universal. This ends up being the very problem we're dealing with, right now: everyone has their own rules, and often times these rules don't apply to themselves (not that hypocrisy wasn't a problem before, but when we had more standardized morality we knew what to call them out on).
As for hedonism and nihilisim having positive potential, so does genocide. If you have a particularly evil group, wiping them out could be a good thing. however, we usually believe that things that usually don't end well are not things we should engage in.
Other arguments are typical bashing of Left wing SJW-s that I don't have time for them, Right wing SJW-s like to put every single thing they despise under single umbrella of Marxism and/or postmodernism, and separating each philosophy is something I don't have time for. But hey, Nietzsche bashed everything bad as Christian morality, so they at least have great role model there!
This is so inspecific i think you're just pulling it out of your bottom. Regardless, the reason for this is because Marxism and Postmodernism simply make room for them. I don't think it's necessarily correct to say that furries are a form of Marxism or Postmodernism, but it is safe to say that the rejection of empiricism leads to no objective morality (therefore we can't reject anything) which ultimately makes room for furries. And, that's just using furries. Postmodernism came from Critical Theory which is a spawn of the Frankfurt School which was a bunch of Marxists who fled Nazi Germany (who gained their power via working for the US military during WWII making propaganda).
Questions for you: why should I care if some *insert insult here gets offended for me criticizing his/her position, since I am going to do it regardless?
I'm the wrong person to ask that: I believe one should take offense if offense was intended. If someone has a question because they don't understand something, then why should i be offended by that, when it is, in theory, my fault they didn't understand in the first place? If the question is dishonest, then they're trying to us subversion, which is a whole other game. Still, no reason to assume offense. And, if i'm wrong, I can't improve my position without being shown that i'm wrong, so i shouldn't take offense to that, either. So, really, i don't think you should care about whether or not they're offended.
And why somebody shouldn't question everything, regardless if it's mainstream or not?
Infinite regression. The thing with critical theory, however, is that it's beyond actually just questioning everything, and more about establishing alternatives without questioning the alternatives (because critical theory doesn't question itself, and includes a bit more than simply "critical thinking"). And, top that off with the rejection of empiricism in the process (thus everything you question, inevitably must be wrong, since there's no way to verify that it could be right): which ultimately comes down to questioning things from a lens solely of your whims (which seems to be why we have this constant inquisition on the left where they eat their own, because if people don't share the same or similar whims, it all falls apart). At some point you're going to need an axiom.