Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fool wrote

All you're displaying is that prescribing morality categorisation to filing of texts is a ill conceived method for sorting.

3

TheLUL OP wrote

Potentially so, I just figured if I was looking at a list of revolutionary groups espousing various political philosophies, and I didn't know who any of them were, my main motive for deciding which to pick first would be whether I was in a mood to read about groups who had a roughly positive effect on the world or a roughly negative one.

Do you have a themed sub-categorisation you'd suggest? Or would you sub-categorise them by date? Or leave them as one big list sorted alphabetically?

−4

Fool wrote

Maybe just Suggested vs Not Endorsed or Controversial. It's essentially the same but softer, and less prescriptive.

It's definitely tricky to categorise without passing judgement.

3

onlineterminally wrote

groups who had a roughly positive effect on the world or a roughly negative one

it's telling that you think YOU, and YOU alone, are the judge of what is GOOD and what is BAD, what is POSITIVE and what is NEGATIVE, for the whole wide world.

get yourself to church and leave us alone.

1

TheLUL OP wrote

So, you get annoyed seeing discussion around and rational for projects you don't like, in a space you otherwise like spending time in. But, rather than channelling that annoyance into giving your best long arguments against the rational for the projects existence (which could sharpen your philosophy and critiquing abilities), instead you'd rather just give short insulting straw-mans.

All of that to me just reads as a petulant person trying to preserve the dogmatic aspects to a space they enjoy.

−1