Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

lol

This text is perhaps the best repository of the worst themes and claims in the field of demagogue, anti-intellectual, wrong-headed -and of course irrational- Regressive Left ideology I've seen in years. So if your intent was to provoke and awaken criticism as response, well, honestly you got my congrats, coz this works. And I'm at the moment writing a more elaborate text as response that will be posted in this same sub, soon. Seriously this stands as a RICH reference for everything wrong with the ID pols and other social media-driven Left discourse these days.

But before hand, I just wanna make sure...

Rather than separating ourselves based on our differences, we, the enlightened, have learned to tolerate what divides us by ignoring everything that does not make us the same! Of course, we have nothing in common with them. They are not like us: they are inhuman, they are insane, they are irrational, they are evil, they are filled with sin, they are self-righteous; they are idiots, WE are intelligent!

This is a play on the "separate, but equal" implication of a Western world where overt racism is taboo, but racial categories still exist and paint perceptions in how people are grouped). In the end, "we, the human" refers to "former non-humans" as "equals", not because of any acceptance of differences, but through relating to what is the same. In the end, liberals can only see "other human beings" as their equals and can only treat those equal to them with any sort of empathy or acceptance; so long as the outsider is "human enough", they are deserving of respect; if the differences can be ignored/tolerated/endured, the outsider "can be human"

What is it, in here, that keeps you from being supportive of these irrational views that separate humans among each other, like, say, racism or nationalism? If universal humanism is a problem to you, then how is segregating people, based on entirely irrational arbitrary notions of race or nationality, or faith is lesser a problem to you?

Doesn't look like the world you seek, even for yourself and your buddies, is a world ridden of these enclosures. More like one where they are reinforced...

−1

OdiousOutlaw OP wrote

This text is perhaps the best repository of the worst themes and claims in the field of demagogue, anti-intellectual, wrong-headed -and of course irrational- Regressive Left ideology I've seen in years. So if your intent was to provoke and awaken criticism as response, well, honestly you got my congrats, coz this works. And I'm at the moment writing a more elaborate text as response that will be posted in this same sub, soon. Seriously this stands as a RICH reference for everything wrong with the ID pols and other social media-driven Left discourse these days.

Have fun! Hope it isn't a boring read.

What is it, in here, that keeps you from being supportive of these irrational views that separate humans among each other, like, say, racism or nationalism? If universal humanism is a problem to you, then how is segregating people, based on entirely irrational arbitrary notions of race or nationality, or faith is lesser a problem to you?

Why does me mocking one religion mean that I have to fit into another? They're both repellent.

Doesn't look like the world you seek, even for yourself and your buddies, is a world ridden of these enclosures. More like one where they are reinforced...

There's no "world that I seek"; my "ideals" aren't present on this text. I'm just mocking liberals by pointing out that they're terrible at actually following their ideals; if that's wrongthink, I'll just haul myself off to the loony bin so that they can fix me to think more like you.

5

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

Ok well, regardless of the world you don't seek... I'm just wondering from what position you are writing this, as I ain't seeing much in these claims that is going after some retrograde patterns like cultism, racism and nationalism. If you're against humanism, then what are you opposing it... same old convictions recycled from the past?

Like Laborit said, only a stance for diversity, knowledge and conscience can have an edge against those liberal values you're criticizing, without falling into the ultra-conservatism that liberals grew in opposition to. Reason still stands as a human quality or strength which can prevent from obscurantism, religious fanaticism and other "barbarisms". It's not enough in itself, but a measure of protection against following gurus and despots, and all the (indeed) irrational bullshit they're pulling.

Take things tendencies like Qanon for instance... Is this really the irrational savagery you cling to? And why reject intelligence when this is the thing that allowed humans to overcome their problems through history, and grow more OUT of things like shitty despotic rules, rather than in accordance WITH?

This at least appears demented to me....

The so-called "savages" have never rejected reason, It's simply that the imperialists let their own brutal convictions in the way of understanding their rationality. Spaniard and British-Americans especially were notorious for their bigoted brutality, partly based on very irrational Christian beliefs.

1

OdiousOutlaw OP wrote

Ok well, regardless of the world you don't seek... I'm just wondering from what position you are writing this

It's not obvious? I'm pretty open about being an egoist.

, as I ain't seeing much in these claims that is going after some retrograde patterns like cultism, racism and nationalism.

Look, if you think the whole "the savage" portion doesn't mock the perspectives of racists well enough, I get it (things got a bit rushed there); but accusing me (someone who can legitimately play "the race card") of supporting nationalist racism (or thinking that it's a lesser evil than humanism) is kinda jumping the gun a little. Come on now.

If you're against humanism, then what are you opposing it... same old convictions recycled from the past?

Egoist nihilism so, in a way, yeah.

Like Laborit said, only a stance for diversity, knowledge and conscience can have an edge against those liberal values you're criticizing, without falling into the ultra-conservatism that liberals grew in opposition to. Reason still stands as a human quality or strength which can prevent from obscurantism, religious fanaticism and other "barbarisms". It's not enough in itself, but a measure of protection against following gurus and despots, and all the (indeed) irrational bullshit they're pulling.

I'm not against "reason", but sacred reason. If you've never heard anyone crying for reason in defense of the status quo, I guess I could see where the confusion is; everyone else here seemed to get the point.

Take things tendencies like Qanon for instance... Is this really the irrational savagery you cling to? And why reject intelligence when this is the thing that allowed humans to overcome their problems through history, and grow more OUT of things like shitty despotic rules, rather than in accordance WITH?

Where did I "reject" intelligence or problem solving? If you're referring to:

they are idiots, WE are intelligent!

That's referring to one of the many methods of "othering" displayed by the people that this piece is mocking; again, I'm not rejecting problem solving; I'm mocking those that fervently worship it as the primary element of a person's "worth".

The so-called "savages" have never rejected reason, It's simply that the imperialists let their own brutal convictions in the way of understanding their rationality. Spaniard and British-Americans especially were notorious for their bigoted brutality, partly based on very irrational Christian beliefs.

You mean the imperialists that the "we" portion mocks? Yeah, I know.

Parodying their obsession with enlightenment values while undercutting them with their contradictory acts is kind of the fucking point. This also extends to the "nu-atheist" cultural christian.

I don't really get how I could have made it more clear.

4