It’s amazing how quickly liberals – and especially Social Justice Warriors – descend into rage, into foaming at the mouth, screaming, insults, violence – whenever they suffer the least jot of cognitive dissonance at the hands of a based Reactionary interlocutor. How come?
Well, when the First Principle of your moral system is that there is no objective moral reality – that there is no moral system to begin with – any hint of a suggestion that there is in fact a moral reality is going to seem to you utterly arbitrary, illegitimate, selfish, tyrannical and … unjust. It is going to seem delusional, and so – being mad, ergo immune to reasoning – extremely dangerous. Quite naturally, then, you will react to any such suggestion with outrage. For, any such suggestion will constitute a radical, mortal challenge to your entire moral calculus, your whole schedule of preferences and desires. Such a suggestion cannot but be interpreted as an implicit attack upon your own personal existence – as a bid to name you the scapegoat, fit only for ejection beyond the pale, banishment, bewilderment, solitude, death. And because any such suggestion must (under the terms of your moral understanding) be taken as entirely unjustified by any possible appeal to reality, it cannot but seem deeply wrong.
This, despite your professed avowals that there is no such thing either as absolute right or absolute wrong.
When there is no inarguably given moral order to reality, there can be no such thing as a moral safe haven. Because there is no moral reality so far as he can see, so there can for the moral nominalist be no way to talk rationally and dispassionately about moral questions. He has no way of controverting any challenges to his righteousness, and so to his fitness to continue a member of the polis. The only options open to a moral nominalist under challenge, then, are fight, or flight.