Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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