This thread is more entertaining than the game itself.

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. 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). 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. 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.

Sigh. Rejecting empiricism isn't rejecting empirical evidence, ist's rejecting naive belief that your own personal experience is impartial and objective knowing subject. . It's not problem with facts, it's how you interpret them.
And Rationalism was much better anyway.
Science became religion once it moved away from it's study of natural world into the proscribing (specific) metaphysics and into the field of political philosophy - when it became ideology.
God doesn't guarantee morality, especially if you take classic definition of morality as oposed to ethics, and you could easily base secular morality on something like evolution and survival of human species, but I won't do that.
I have no problems with calling leftist hypocrites leftist hypocrites, don't see why American Right winger (or should I say American Right-er winger, since US doesn't have Left?) should have.

Uuh, boy are you wrong about Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and Marxism. Postmodernism came from certain French poststructural philosophers of 60's I believe; Frankfurt Schools were Marxists, and as such they are ultimately Modernists. "Objective morality" is an oxymoron because morality (classically) refers to someone's inner sense of right and wrong. And that must be subjective. You are speaking about belief in objective moral values I presume? If so, Marxism does have a set of values and beliefs which they consider objective, as well as their own philosophy of history etc. Postmodernism might lack belief of objective moral values, but that isn't neceassary a problem, as Nietzche demonstrates. Oh, and by the way, he is far greater influence on postmodernism than Marx. Shall we assume Jordan Peterson is Postmodernist then?

I'll be back on you with problem of infinite regression in couple of of months since I am studying epistomology at the moment, but I don't have a bloody clue where do you get to the idea that critical theory doesn't criticize itself. Every fucking philosopher must question their own position, that's the point of philosophy. Left SJW-s don't see their own hypocrisy, because they are fucking ideologists.
Everybody ultimately acts acording to their own whims, but some are acctually aware of that, as well as from where their whims come from. As well as give better arguements for ther whims.
And what the hell does empiricism (and I presume science) has to do with problems of ethics? Since David Hume (an empiricist) we have thing called Is-Ought fallacy, so empirical science can't really do much for saying how we should or not act, unless it wants to become philosophy.
If I remember my history correctly: fascists, Nazis and every other Right wing revolutionary group also killed the members of their own during political struggles. It's a matter of revolution, not Left or Right.