|
Well of course we're never free from ideology, or even the tyranny of a certain perspective, but that's okay, because that perspective can shift. Nothing is ever written in stone, or at least, even stone carvings fade. And my point with identity was not that it cannot or should not be introspected, but that it's never intrinsic or essential. Looking at it from the inside, or from the outside at a distance makes no difference. Lying to yourself is bad, but this kind of oppressive melancholy you're aiming for is hardly better. rudatron fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Feb 12, 2016 |
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:No, and, I assue, no Ok, so you're willing to explain yourself, except you actually won't. So why pretend you were willing to do so in the first place and waste your and our time? Also, what the gently caress is this sentence of yours? Are you having a stroke?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:You're fundamentally within the same moral coordinate system as Aurini. You're on different positions, but it's the same axis. For example, consider property. Now IIRC you're some kind of socialist, Aurini is some kind of fascist who probably believes private property is a natural kind. I'd be annoyed if you took away my personal property because personal property isn't objectionable to socialists. Thought I guess if you really need it I would probably let you have it. You should probably share it if possible but the objection is to private property which isn't the same thing. I don't think I own any private property and I hope I never will, unless I used it to set up some sort of communal housing co-operative or something. We're on the same axis in the sense that neither I nor he are an alien with completely different concepts of reality. And no I'm not a perfect person nor is he Literally Hitler, but like, that does not preclude there being a wild and stark difference between us. It simply means that the full potential range of human ethics and behaviour from the first caveman to the last transhuman watching the heat death of the universe, is probably beyond the ability of any single human or society to comprehend. I don't see the point in trying to look at things in that context. It's like refusing to use graphs with upper axial limits, an exercise in tedium that serves no useful purpose. He is me but a lot worse. He is that way because he's a product of his environment as are all people, but the difference is rather large. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ok, so you're willing to explain yourself, except you actually won't. So why pretend you were willing to do so in the first place and waste your and our time? Who What Now posted:Also, what the gently caress is this sentence of yours? Are you having a stroke? rudatron posted:Well of course we're never free from ideology, or even the tyranny of a certain perspective, but that's okay, because that perspective can shift. Nothing is ever written in stone, or at least, even stone carvings fade. For example, I realized a few years ago that I'm a huuuuuuuuge mansplainer (and I once explained racism to a Black friend. Oh my ). Now I'm, I hope I can say in good conscious, at least a good bit less so. But for that, I had to be open to the possibility that maybe, it's me, I'm the sexist. I guess I'm 'typical mind'ing here. I claim it works for me, possibly doesn't work for you. OwlFancier posted:I'd be annoyed if you took away my personal property because personal property isn't objectionable to socialists OwlFancier posted:He is me but a lot worse. He is that way because he's a product of his environment as are all people, but the difference is rather large.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I asked you a question, you didn't respond, we argue a bit, I ask it again, you don't respond, it's okay. No answers will be had then. Communication doesn't happen. There are worse things going on in the world right now. The only conceivable reason you require my answer is to catch me in a rhetorical trap. If this isn't the case then you don't require my answer and can explain yourself without it, or explain what your response would have been for either or both answers. quote:You presented two propositions, both of which I consider doubtful. That I don't base my self-worth on my masculinity isn't a proposition. It's a statement of fact. So what are my two propositions?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:
well, that shirt isnt wrong. lol Tesseraction posted:I believe his point was "you'd like to believe you're special, but in the end you're statistically likely to be guilty of the thing you claim to not be affected by, as proven by Milgram's experiment." it always seemed to me, that you dont know if your that kind of person until your put into that position. its easy to say you wouldnt do awful poo poo. idk. i read Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland again for a class and it makes me question alot of thing about how i would react. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
But see, I'm not so sure that kind of guilt it's actually redemptive. So full disclosure, I have a lot of problems with the kind of mentality that you encountered, which accused you of being a mansplainer. And it's not even that the accusation is necessarily without merit, but that the act of that callout serves a double purpose, to boost the ego of the person making the accusation as much, if not more than, it fulfills any desire to improve society. But that's probably getting a little too political, suffice to say that misery loves company, and ~ edgy hot takes~ aren't true just because they sound cynical, they're just as likely to be emotionally biased as any other beliefs. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I believe most of your, at least early, response would not be guided by your consciously available political position, but by a much deeper instinct of stuff being "yours". That's the basis for the political position, humans have something of a need for personal space, being as we aren't eusocial animals, so socialism, being often concerned with human wellbeing, works around that. Broadly because it's not really necessary to ban personal property, there's enough to give everyone personal property. So the two will align quite well, as they're supposed to. Cingulate posted:I think in many contexts, such as trying to understand what he's about, it's helpful to conceptualize the difference pessimistically. But the pessimism is arbitrary, because you can't really comprehend the complete range of human morality, you're just assuming it will be incalculably vast and then using that to draw equivalence between what are, frankly, rather extremely opposed viewpoints. That is not at all necessary for understanding, and in fact I would suggest is rather contrary to a good understanding of others, if you truly understand someone, you don't need to rely on a belief in an impossibly huge gulf of distance between the both of you and some undefined alien morality, you just understand them in the ways they actually are like you, as well as where you diverge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:You're fundamentally within the same moral coordinate system as Aurini. You're on different positions, but it's the same axis. For example, consider property. Now IIRC you're some kind of socialist, Aurini is some kind of fascist who probably believes private property is a natural kind. And the vast majority of horrible people aren't neoreactionaries, even secretly, so it's clearly not just that people do this because they're like us, but worse. Rather, the people who get into NRx do it because NRx offers something very specific to a certain group of people -- usually high-IQ, poor, white, and male -- who feel disenfranchised by society to the extent that they will fall into this destructive anti-social set of beliefs that tell them people like them are great and the rest of the world is evil. Yes, our experiences are all coloured by our perspectives, but you can identify trends in neoreactionaries' material conditions that lead them to benefit from holding these particular perspectives. Leftism is self-interested, too, but what makes it better than NRx is that it's at least trying to help everyone, whereas the neo-fascists just don't care for the well-being of anyone outside their þhedes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
I don't know what's worse: the Pvt. Pyle stare, ice in the (assuming) whisky, the ugly as sin couch, or the fact that he has what look like cell phone clips attached to his belt. He looks like the kind of guy who makes "two black eyes" jokes about women, but runs for his life the moment he's threatened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
I'm tired of this argument. Was this the thread where this poll's results were posted? Even if so, I think it's worth discussing more. Essentially, some guy surveyed a bunch of Republican voters across gender/religion/race/age, discovering that their degree of authoritarianism (and fear, specifically of terrorism) was the biggest predictor of whether or not they supported Donald Trump. Now, we can argue the extent to which Trump overlaps perfectly with the thread topic, but he's clearly the favoured candidate of the big names and places like /pol/. It might seem like a no-brainer to say "it's been discovered that fascists are authoritarians", but what I'm interested in is how someone becomes an authoritarian, which is essentially just a person who scores highly on the "deference to authority" personality scale. The authoritarian himself would say it was in his genes. A Freudian would talk about the person's childhood development and relationship with their parents. I'm not sure. Anyroad, it brings up the psychological rather than the sociological reasons behind the development of authoritarian movements. Everyone is affected by living in a society with patriarchal and racist mores lurking beneath the surface, but not all of them go on to become obsessively engaged in promoting it like these people. At some point the movement gathers momentum and attracts people who aren't as extreme, but at the moment it seems like HBD and Dark Enlightenment are stuck in the beer hall putsch stage so we can assume most of the people in it are these obsessives.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:well, that shirt isnt wrong. lol Isn't it though? I mean, people go libertarian or for this Dark Enlightenment nonsense because they have no power whatsoever and blame women, gays, minorities, and lately 400 years of the political theory and reasoning that has made modern Western society feasible as is for why they're such loving losers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'd be annoyed if you took away my personal property because personal property isn't objectionable to socialists. Thought I guess if you really need it I would probably let you have it. You should probably share it if possible but the objection is to private property which isn't the same thing. I don't think I own any private property and I hope I never will, unless I used it to set up some sort of communal housing co-operative or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Polybius91 posted:Can someone enlighten me on the difference between personal and private property? I was under the impression they were synonyms. This is a terrible explanation and you may want to ask that question in this thread, but your personal property is your relationship with things. Stuff like furniture, books, whatever that you own that doesn't effect your relations with other people. Private property is the physical form of accumulated capital that allows you to exploit labor (pay workers $10 to make $20 worth of product in a factory you own) or extract rent (intellectual property, deeds to land). IIRC its the ownership of private property that changes your relationship with non-owners from something between equals to that of a superior and inferior.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Basically nobody in the socialist revolution gives a poo poo about your shoes, but they would give a poo poo about your shoe factory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Dr. Killjoy posted:Isn't it though? I mean, people go libertarian or for this Dark Enlightenment nonsense because they have no power whatsoever and blame women, gays, minorities, and lately 400 years of the political theory and reasoning that has made modern Western society feasible as is for why they're such loving losers. The difference between the civil rights leader or the socialist who criticizes the 'ideals of liberalism' and the neo-reactionary is that one wants to go forwards and the other wants to return to an idealized feudal state as found in Aurini's numerous OwlFancier posted:We're on the same axis in the sense that neither I nor he are an alien with completely different concepts of reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Speaking of Hitler, Not enough people on any side of any political debate have actually read Mein Kampf and that's a crying shame. I'm really interested in the annotated version coming out in Germany, though I'll probably have to wait for it to be translated. It's a lot of really boring, poorly-written anecdotes (and I know from a native reader that the poorly-written-ness of the translation is accurate), punctuated with chillingly relevant advice for how to get ahead in politics, and the fact it's still good advice says more about how modern politics continues to function than it does about Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Now you remind me I did start Mein Kampf but kinda dropped it Well maybe I'll mentally replace 'Jews' with 'Mexicans' and pretend it IS about the ongoing election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
That loving utility belt. I see three pouches. I can never get over that part. Also he tucked in his t-shirt like he's on the 5th grade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Saeku posted:If (like me) you aren't white (On the other and, if you happen to think you're a huge racist, you probably are!) Weldon Pemberton posted:I'm tired of this argument. quote:Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter. "more significant" is meaningless to begin with, but even if what he means is that the p value is lower, this is stupid and dumb. What he should care about is the effect size, not the noise level. Most importantly, while he claims he can predict X based on Y, he never truly shows how well X does at predicting Y. "statistically significant" could (although in this case, doesn't) mean 51% of group 1 has trait X and 49% of group 2. (There is this bit: "In my survey, 52 percent of those voters expressing the most fear that another terrorist attack will occur in the United States in the next 12 months were non-authoritarians—ripe targets for Trump’s message." But looking at just one of your response brackets does not actually tell you how good your predictions would be.) The article's informativity is less than zero. OwlFancier posted:That's the basis for the political position, humans have something of a need for personal space, being as we aren't eusocial animals, so socialism, being often concerned with human wellbeing, works around that. Broadly because it's not really necessary to ban personal property, there's enough to give everyone personal property.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't think we typically act based on political positions, at least not what our immediate responses are concerned. It's a thinking, fast and slow thing. Erm, no I don't imagine people do. My point is that the reason the politics and your instinctive position correlate is because the instinctive desire is considered a somewhat necessary part of being human, so the political theory works around that, being that there is no need to abolish personal property, whereas private property is a significant cause of problems in the world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Now you remind me I did start Mein Kampf but kinda dropped it I must now admit I didn't really finish it all either, I skipped some parts. It's really not great, but I still recommend it and Anne Frank's diary as hugely relevant texts to humanist thought, for opposite reasons of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:, what I said mostly doesn't apply to you. It's really a "check your privilege" kind of thing; if you're white straight and male, and you think you're politically, for lack of a good word let me choose a dumb one, pure, you're, statistically speaking, probably not. Statistics don't work that way on an individual basis. You can't use statistics to dictate what people actually believe to them, no matter how hard you try. quote:That's some horrible use of statistics. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I must now admit I didn't really finish it all either, I skipped some parts. It's really not great, but I still recommend it and Anne Frank's diary as hugely relevant texts to humanist thought, for opposite reasons of course. One of these days I'll merge the two in Adolf Frank's diary. But I'll try and slog through Kampf so I can at least read Atlas Shrugged without it being the worst read of my life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Statistics don't work that way on an individual basis. You can't use statistics to dictate what people actually believe to them, no matter how hard you try. ~42% of US Americans believe God created Humans in present form, easy as that. You're probably trying to say something like "you can't use statistics to determine what specific individuals believe without error" (and failing, because you're not educated enough to be able to word this precisely enough to not be hogwash), though. OwlFancier posted:Erm, no I don't imagine people do. My point is that the reason the politics and your instinctive position correlate is because the instinctive desire is considered a somewhat necessary part of being human, so the political theory works around that, being that there is no need to abolish personal property, whereas private property is a significant cause of problems in the world. Look, my point was simply: your immediate responses will be coming from a framework that is much more similar to your general surroundings than your political discoveries. Your brain believes your iPhone is yours, including that you somehow deserve it, that it's not evil that you deserve it, and that somebody taking it from you is doing you great, personal injustice. Your more complex thoughts may then kick in and go over stuff like: my iPhone is the result of exploitation, the robber is determined by material circumstances, and so on (maybe, if you have a religious or philosophical bone in you: this is, fundamentally, just atoms shifting place; nothing substantial has happened). But the immediate response is going to be: that dick touched my iPhone! You can sub in ownership over some means of production here if you have any, and it would work the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Well, no, not really. The things I own are things I sort of need, and most of them I paid for by working. So I would be annoyed if someone stole them because then I wouldn't be able to replace them without doing a bunch more work, or more accurately, I'd have to spend the money I'm trying to save for maybe someday owning a house in the future, which makes it increasingly likelihood that I'll end up dying of exposure or something when I can't work any more. Which is entirely different from me extracting a tax from work other people do, which is what private property is for. There is no way I could ethically defend that. It's not 'mine' in any remotely sensible use of the word. I mean legally it might be but the idea that I can own something that I never use, just so that I can take money from people who do use it, and they need to use it in order to live, that's abhorrent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
I understand my example is ... poorly chosen. I'll see if I can come up with something to recover it. E: I admit to being defeated, but not yet that I am wrong!! Cingulate fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Oh, I can certainly use statistics to "dictate" what "people" believe, if dictate = understand and people = shares of populations. In fact, there is nothing else I could use for this purpose. No, you're telling specific posters that they are, "statistically speaking", not "pure". You tried to do the exact same thing with my yesterday, which failed because I wouldn't fall for your blatant rhetorical trap and then you got pissy and left the thread for a little bit. Now you're doing it again, just as badly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, you're telling specific posters that they are, "statistically speaking", not "pure". You tried to do the exact same thing with my yesterday, which failed because I wouldn't fall for your blatant rhetorical trap and then you got pissy and left the thread for a little bit. Now you're doing it again, just as badly. Though: if you (Who What Now) happen to be a straight white male, you're probably not completely free of sexism, homophobia or racism*. Also, you probably like chocolate. * E: even if you really believe you are
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
There is a difference between believing you're completely free of ingrained thoughts of those things and seeking to counter them in your own thought processes and within society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Also chocolate is really rich and I can't stomach it much at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Speaking of Hitler, Not enough people on any side of any political debate have actually read Mein Kampf and that's a crying shame. I'm really interested in the annotated version coming out in Germany, though I'll probably have to wait for it to be translated. Advice for how to get ahead politically in ancient Rome is frequently still relevant. I've never read Mein Kampf but I've heard that the advice it gives are eerily similar to stuff written by ancient Roman senators for how to get ahead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Given that I seem to recall military service was required for political office in Rome, it's not overly surprising that a fascist how-to book written by a former soldier would also be applicable to a society of deranged murder-crazy italians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Also chocolate is really rich and I can't stomach it much at all. Vanilla and caramel > chocolate. That's just an objective fact.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:There is a difference between believing you're completely free of ingrained thoughts of those things and seeking to counter them in your own thought processes and within society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Also chocolate is really rich and I can't stomach it much at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Vanilla and caramel > chocolate. That's just an objective fact.  Cingulate posted:Obviously..? But if you agree then you've been arguing against yourself up until now. Cingulate posted:I'm so sorry for you, I hope you at least like ... orgasms! I'm a little bored of that too, really. But this isn't the thread to discuss this! For the sanity of the other posters at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Side observation: it's funny how defensive people get when you insinuate they're possibly not fully free of sexism.Tesseraction posted:But if you agree then you've been arguing against yourself up until now. Tesseraction posted:I'm a little bored of that too, really. But this isn't the thread to discuss this! For the sanity of the other posters at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:How so? It's a mixture. I wasn't talking about wanking though. Back to the topic. I agree that people can be defensive when you suggest they aren't free of Xism. But the thing is that a lot of the argument you've been involved in is people saying "I'm trying to fight against Xism" and you saying "but you can never truly be free of Xism" but in a way that comes across as "but you're still an Xist" I mean you're not wrong, but because of the way you're arguing it, you're talking across people who are talking across you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:Side observation: it's funny how defensive people get when you insinuate they're possibly not fully free of sexism. I thought it was similar to Marx and class consciousness under capitalism, you can be aware of class but not free of it without changing the underlying structure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:14
|
|