>>823437>there is no need for "anti-civilization" to support "unpleasant freaks" or vice-versa.Nobody said is there was a “need.” I said IF it supports the “anti-civilization” label, then the label is being used normatively
>is it moralfagging to say that coca cola is both disgusting and unhealthy?This has been answered to you twice now. You are being tautological.
>if identity descriptors can be normatively loaded, and who is or is not anti-civilization can be normatively loaded, then it follows that far from being "completely different things" as you said previously, my earlier point that morality is just an arbitrary personal trait which we can draw correlations from - like scottishness - holds.That only shows they share one property, not that they’re the same kind of thing. You can operationalize “anti-civilization” descriptively and then correlate it. But that only shows moral commitments can be treated as traits for statistical purposes; it doesn’t show they are arbitrary. If instead you treat “anti-civilization” as a normative verdict, which is what you did, then using it as a variable risks circularity: you’re correlating your evaluation with itself.
>otherwise and elsewhere: you are attempting a sleight of hand where the analyst being non-neutral means their analysis must be non-neutral, and thus normative, and thus moralising.I never said an analyst’s non-neutrality makes the analysis normative. You can be a non-neutral analyst and still produce a neutral analysis, so long as your framing remains neutral. You didn’t do that.