Yeah sure whatever, let’s pretend your question wasn’t rhetorical. What you’re doing here is called weaponised standpoint epistemology. Starting from a very valid base, namely “some aspects of things you can’t know without having experienced them” you extend to “you can’t know anything unless you were there”, which is not valid. You don’t want to talk about how Americans are flushing their democracy down the toilet and doing nothing to prevent it? Fine. But I’m not going to pretend that this is anything other than you putting your head in the sand.
Are you familiar with the terms “hard sciences” and “soft sciences”?
Are you familiar with the term “thought terminating cliché”?
Yes. Are you familiar with answering a simple question?
Yeah sure whatever, let’s pretend your question wasn’t rhetorical. What you’re doing here is called weaponised standpoint epistemology. Starting from a very valid base, namely “some aspects of things you can’t know without having experienced them” you extend to “you can’t know anything unless you were there”, which is not valid. You don’t want to talk about how Americans are flushing their democracy down the toilet and doing nothing to prevent it? Fine. But I’m not going to pretend that this is anything other than you putting your head in the sand.
You sure know a lot about what I’m not talking about.
Which, in a manner of speaking, was my point.
Good job, everyone! Lunch break!