Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

15

amongstclouds wrote

Not so much about WHO is left out but I am very skeptical of the 'leftists' who try and hide behind rationality and cold logic. People like me, who FEEL more than I rationalize often get pushed aside as not making sound arguments. When the arguments are perfectly sound they just want people with degrees or 'proof' of their 'knowledge'.

Why else do you think leftist academia hasn't changed anything? Because they benefit from the hierarchy that knowledge creates.

17

red_pepper wrote

I very much agree, and add to this that leftists sometimes confuse an inability to articulate with irrationality (and, conversely, articulation with rationality). Just because someone can't defend one of their beliefs doesn't mean it's indefensible. It just means they haven't had practice defending it. And just because someone can defend their beliefs doesn't mean it's good. It just means they're good at defending.

14

Dumai wrote

hidden secret: rationality is the most bourgeois of bourgeois values

13

deadaluspark wrote (edited )

extra hidden secret: rationality is informed by emotion, and people who cannot experience emotion are unable to rationalize.

to pretend you are "above" emotion and only look at things "rationally" is missing the fucking point.

also, if you're an atheist and you pull that shit, it's even more infuriating, because guess what fuckstick, you're an irrational animal just like anyone else!! putting yourself and other humans on a fucking pedestal is the same shit religious people do.

by rejecting people who are "not smart" we are rejecting the people most likely to be exploited in the world because they lack the educational capacity to know they are being exploited. to reject them and dismiss them is to be dismissing people's real lives and emotions, which still really matter, even if they aren't smart/can't communicate well.

I spent my youth reading all the academics, and I'll spend my adulthood thinking fuck-none-of-them speak for me or understand my life and situations. I'm looking at you Noam Chomsky, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, Slavoj Zizek, etc, etc. sometimes it feels like the only academic I can read without wanting to scream anymore is Cornel West.

5

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Rationality was just an attempt at replacing the 'gods of old' with something 'new' and 'fresh' based on 'experiential methods' while not quite taking into account the flaws and pitfalls of cognition. They sought to place themselves as the great thinkers of a totally new religion where any sort of dissent gets you pinned as a whole assortment of ableist slurs.

Now that I think about it this is kind of hilarious; separation of church and state also arose around this same time, but it seems like the separation was in name alone. Rationality is like a colonial attempt at enforcing certain academic normalcy -- separating the educated from the uneducated -- and the uneducated BETTER listen to the educated OR ELSE.

5

Dumai wrote (edited )

the genealogy of rationality is incredibly misogynist, classist, and racist - it sometimes stuns me that there are radicals who apparently do not know this.

anyway! if you're and atheist an your opinion of religion is that it is "irrational" then you are almost certainly an islamophobe. and speaking of separation of church and state, isn't it interesting that france's state secularism, which is among the most strongly established in the western world, is often weaponised against the country's muslim minority, hmmm

7

amongstclouds wrote

It's almost as if nothing ever changed following the Enlightenment. Oppression and exploitation just became more 'rational' and therefore in the sights of 'rashenul deescoors'.

Kind of like TERFS who expect me to remain civil while they debate the validity of my entire existence and when I choose to tell them to kindly go love themselves they return with 'LOL AD HOMINEM LOL'.

8

Tequila_Wolf wrote

also, "rationality" became oppressive itself. colonised peoples were depicted/portrayed/understood as less rational and this was part and parcel of the justification for the 'civilising' process.

7

Dumai wrote

and this is why it's not a coincidence that many important liberal theorists (j.s. mill springs to mind here) produced a lot of imperialist ideology!

6

zorblax wrote (edited )

anyway! if you're and atheist an your opinion of religion is that it is "irrational" then you are almost certainly an islamophobe.

Such an atheist would say that Islam is a religion and therefore hating/fearing it makes perfect sense.

4

Dumai wrote

and they'd be dumb to do that, especially if they're going to deny islamophobia has any racist content

6

zorblax wrote (edited )

Why? I think it's dumb to favor Islam in particular because or some misguided fear of being racist.

Islam is the ideological bedrock of oppression and heirarchy just like almost every other religion. It's racist to focus on that, sure, but ignoring it is just as ignorant.

6

Dumai wrote

you don't have to favour it but presenting it as a monolithic backwards culture or ideology is very racist yes

there's a huge difference between "islam has historically been used to legitimate oppression" and "islam is an inherently oppressive other that must be secularised (read: westernised) into passivity"

5

zorblax wrote

Okay, so does a hatred of all religions including Islam necessarily mean that someone believes the second?

5

NeoliberalismKills wrote

Religion is like any other tool. It can be wielded for good or bad. Islam inspired Malcom X. Christianity inspired King and many of the abolitionists.

6

zorblax wrote

I don't think that makes it neutral. Money, war, state power, they're all tools, and they've all been put to good use at one point or another, but they're still bad.

5

Dumai wrote

you're right that religion is never politically neutral but you're wrong that religion is always inherently oppressive

6

Dumai wrote

what i find interesting is that there has never been a clear-cut correlation between atheism and left-leaning politics in most places in america, but it's really common nowadays in american politics to assume there is

am i to believe now that catholic socialism wasn't one of the most vibrant left-wing movements in the us? or that the civil rights movement wasn't by and large a religious movement? jewish socialism? like really

7

shanoxilt wrote

I seriously disagree.

The whole world privileges neurotypical emotional inconsistency under the guise of "human nature". There has to be a way to hold neurotypicals accountable that can be demonstrated and replicated by others.

To do otherwise is to be at the mercy of [PDF WARNING] white women's tears.

4

amongstclouds wrote

I'm confused as to what exactly you disagree with?

9

shanoxilt wrote

Emotions are always privileged.

In practice, very few people actually use the cognitive and epistemic tools that have been developed to fight biases. Instead, we get fallacious appeals to "common sense" and "just believing".

People on the left have a huge problem keeping their emotional toxicity and scientific ignorance in check. I'm not looking to be bombarded by a new flavor of "secularized" (note the sarcasm quotes) dogma.

5

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

I'm not trying to be an ass, but it feels like you reiterated my point and I don't see the disagreement. Rationality is literally secularized dogma that tries to present itself as the only purpose for its own existence.

The problem is leftists taking up 'a rational standpoint' and using it to posture themselves as more 'in-the-know' and 'woke' than those who don't think just like them. This reinforces the colonial mindset and civilized/savage dichotomy.

3

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Ah, sure, make these assumptions if you feel like it.

Re-read what I wrote if you get the time and think about what you think I'm trying to say.

3

amongstclouds wrote

Though, I don't disagree with your last point.

So like, really, I'm curious as to what you think I meant?

7

selver wrote

Yeah this one is definitely up there. Not much is more authoritarian than not accepting people's feelings and emotions as valid when it can't be conveyed in theoretical proofs, from the academic elite to the emotionally abusive husband.

6

amongstclouds wrote

It's a problem DEEPLY ingrained in our civilization at this point too. :(

6

selver wrote (edited )

It is, but I also think it's something where improvement is genuinely being made. Even the most liberal feminism & identity politics been pushing ideas about accepting the experiences of others as valid. Unfortunately the rationalist brigade constantly tries to drag them back down to their pathetic legalism & objectivity.

5

ziq wrote (edited )

Adding to this, there are a lot of leftists that diminish any politic that doesn't provide clear answers. For example, Marxists insist anarchism doesn't offer a template for attaining full communism - so that invalidates anarchism in their eyes as 'impractical', 'utopian' (for ancoms) or 'lifestylist' (for anarchists).

Meanwhile, no Marxist has ever achieved full communism, so their expectation for impossible promises is nonsensical. We're not going to promise them perfect lives if they join our special club, because that's not how anarchy (or reality) works.

3

Catsforfun wrote (edited )

feelings do have logic behind them, we just aren't immediately aware of the logic all the time. Sometime you have to think about why you feel a certain something is right or wrong, but doesn't mean you don't have a thought process. The thought process of very often subconscious.

this is why listening to your feelings is important, but also analyzing them too.

1

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

It's the other way around. Logic is informed by emotions and feelings -- only logic is an attempt at normalizing behavior. "Don't feel this way, because that is illogical, and therefore bad."

I wish I could experience things as easily as you all seem to want to portray it. I spend most of my time feeling rather manic and borderline on the verge of tears like 24/7. I certainly do analyze my thought process, but that's not going to stop the fact that I'm impulsive.