-10

I have an idea

Submitted by Hyolobrika in meta (edited )

What discourse needs is not a place where irrationality is allowed and it's possible to moderate based on opinion (even if you are not supposed to). What we need is a place moderated to make rationality/quality mandatory. All fallacies and incendiary speech banned. What do you say?

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

8

yaaqov wrote (edited )

Honestly? Fuck that shit. This "reason" here is a colonial weapon. "(Ir)rationality" is often, oxymoronically though it may seem, molded to fit whatever political ends those who have a monopoly on the production of knowledge need it for, wielded to discredit knowledges which are subversive of or unassimilated into the narrow band of thought validated by the West or Science or whatever (an ever shifting span, mind you).

Of course, the analytical tools in this tradition can be helpful at times. But they are not the only valid ways of producing knowledge. To suggest that they are (which goes along with your conflation of rationality with "quality") only abets global white supremacy's continued erasure of all realities that could challenge it.

1

Hyolobrika wrote

| Of course, the analytical tools in this tradition can be helpful at times. But they are not the only valid ways of producing knowledge.

I believe something similar: reason is very useful in spaces of intellectual discourse but not always in others such as poetry, art etc.

|To suggest that they are (which goes along with your conflation of rationality with "quality") only abets global white supremacy's continued erasure of all realities that could challenge it.

Maybe in certain circumstances, but I think in this circumstance disregarding reason only serves to privilege the perspectives of the neurotypical majority at the expense of those who are less able to express themselves within a non-rational discourse.

0

Hyolobrika wrote (edited )

| This "reason" here is a colonial weapon. "(Ir)rationality" is often, oxymoronically though it may seem, molded to fit whatever political ends those who have a monopoly on the production of knowledge need it for, wielded to discredit knowledges which are subversive of or unassimilated into the narrow band of thought validated by the West or Science or whatever (an ever shifting span, mind you).
Doesn't that also mean that it can be used by those not in power to subvert the lies of those in power?
And actually unreason is more useful molded as propaganda to the irrational since a greater variety of beliefs can be promoted using it, not just ones that hold water. The best way to be immune to such propaganda is to be more rational so that you can see the flaws.

| To suggest that [the analytical tools [of reason]] are [the only valid ways of producing knowledge](which goes along with your conflation of rationality with "quality") only abets global white supremacy's continued erasure of all realities that could challenge it.
I wouldn't say that on it's own it is the only way of producing knowledge but it is necessary in conjunction with the right premises. ( I'm assuming by 'the analytical tools of reason' you simply mean 'reason', 'analytical tools' sounds to me like how you would interpret someone else's argument not make one of your own which is what 'producing knowledge' would come under). Also it's not just used to derive knowledge but also to derive ideology from ideology (so if you someone's (i.e. yours or someone else's) view leads to another they haven't considered then that would add to their/your thought and you can persuade them that way) and discover inconsistancy in both beliefs of knowledge and beliefs of ideology.
And most importantly, there is absolutely nothing about reason per se that makes it best suited for supremacist or any other problematic ideology.

-1

Hyolobrika wrote

Nothing there refutes my points. Also, it uses 'rationalism' to mean 'moderation'. Which is not what I meant AT ALL. Well, if it isn't then it's not making the slightest bit of sense.

But seriously though, how are we supposed to do discourse at all if we don't accept the most basic foundations of thought?

4

ziq wrote

points

Smug dogwhistles, ableism, suicide goading and doublespeak aren't 'points'. You can leave now Captain Rationalism. Take your creepy pseudo-intellectual superiority complex with you.

0

Hyolobrika wrote

| Smug dogwhistles, ableism, and doublespeak

Where? Dogwhistles to what?

| suicide goading

You mean the one in response to the 'rope to hang myself' comment?
I don't really understand why I started getting attacked after I responded to that. Did I misunderstand somehow?

3

bloodrose wrote

I don't really understand why I started getting attacked after I responded to that. Did I misunderstand somehow?

Yes, you did. There is an idiom of "giving someone enough rope to hang themselves with" which means to "give a person enough freedom of action to bring about their own downfall." The fuller form of this expression is the proverb give a man enough rope and he will hang himself , which has been in use in various forms since the mid 17th century. It has, for centuries, been an expression that does not include a will for violence but instead is more along the lines of "wait and see". Responding as harshly as you did is out of step with the understanding of this idiom. Which is why I asked if you were young - or maybe not a native english speaker?

7

jadedctrl wrote

What we need is a place moderated to make rationality/quality mandatory. All fallacies and incendiary speech banned.

So basically, a place where only pedantic assholes with massive amounts of free time to write essays for comments can post? That sounds horrible.

0

Hyolobrika wrote (edited )

Are you trying to hurt people?
Does it give you a sadistic kick when you denigrate the 'other'? The minority within your community?

2

jadedctrl wrote

… what?

0

Hyolobrika wrote (edited )

Where does this hatred come from? Are people who choose to engage in rational discourse necessarily assholes? Why do you feel the need to call them such? My theory is that your comment comes from a place of fear and denigration of the other, those people who have different perspectives and value judgements and therefore that you don't understand and feel disgusted by. I was not hostile towards those who choose not to use reason for not using reason, I merely a promoted the idea of a place that is for reason.

2

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

Ohhhh, no, that's not it.

It's just that the type of person who is rigid about avoiding fallacies etc. tends to also be the kind of person that's absolutely unbearable and with too much free-time. AKA /r/iamverysmart

Reason is important, yea, but mandating it essentially limits those who can post to the type of person I mentioned before. Stick-up-ass, too much free time. I should know, I definitely used to be that kind of person obsessed with “reason” and “empiricism”. I was total asshole, and so were most of the people in communities that scream about how much they care about those two things.

I don't hate those kinds of people… I just avoid them IRL.

And please stop the armchair psychology, it's about as accurate as palm-reading.

1

Hyolobrika wrote (edited )

Well I suppose that since black people "tend to" use violence (due to poverty) therefore it's perfectly reasonable to insult and denigrate them. Isn't it?

4

ziq wrote

-1

Hyolobrika wrote (edited )

If I am a 'right'-winger for doing that then I must also be a 'left'-winger for posting it here.

-2

Hyolobrika wrote

I want to bring people together to work out their differences. Seriously, what's wrong with that?
And I'm not sure it can be considered a far-'right' site, see i.e https://notabug.io/t/anarchy/comments/63aa5938b63f6c1f8d8864066906e5431e86e790/are-anarcho-capitalists-really-anarchists (it had 7 upvotes). At any rate, it certainly is not a site that promotes in it's own principles far-'right' ideologies, just happens to have people there who follow such ideologies. Ditto for here and 'left'

4

ziq wrote

Who have you seen moderating based on opinion? And would you define someone calling out a racist 'incendiary'?

-4

Hyolobrika wrote

Do you think the racist would be rational enough to stay?

6

ziq wrote

How can a racist be rational..?

-1

Hyolobrika wrote

That was my point. Would you need to call one out?

3

ziq wrote

I don't follow. Are you saying a racist wouldn't use the internet?

5

Splinglebot wrote

I think they're trying to say that if things were banned based on "irrationality" then racists would already be covered. The problem is what is "rational" isn't as objective as supposed "rationalists" like to pretend

-1

Hyolobrika wrote (edited )

| I think they're trying to say that if things were banned based on "irrationality" then racists would already be covered

That was EXACTLY my point. Racism is covered under the guilt by association fallacy.

4

zzuum wrote

Do you have reference posts? Not sure what you are referring to, most things on here are articles

3

bloodrose wrote

Your word choice worries me. What do you mean by rational and irrational? Can you give examples?

8

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Rational is anything they agree with, irrational is anything they don't. Duh.

5

bloodrose wrote (edited )

I mean, I kinda figured that's what they meant. I've only heard rational/irrational used as a descriptor by oppressors. I was just giving them some rope to hang themselves with. :)

-4

Hyolobrika wrote (edited )

| I've only heard X associated with Y therefore you can't believe X without being Y in some way

If you had only heard the language of virtue ethics used by sexists such as Aristotle would you consider virtue ethics and feminism incompatible? Just untill Simone de Beauvoir came along? What was she supposed to think?

I've heard this kind of argument far too often and I find it laughably ridiculous and kind of irritating.

Also if you feel oppressed by reason then you need to seek some kind of help. And if that doesn't work then there's always that rope :|)

6

bloodrose wrote

How old are you? Are you young enough to not understand the idiom I used? Or are you just that fucking aggressive? Did you just come to our town and say violent shit?

If you had only heard the language of virtue ethics used by sexists such as Aristotle would you consider virtue ethics and feminism incompatible? Just until Simone de Beauvoir came along?

Oh fuck, are you a philosophy major? No wonder you feel so entitled to argue with everyone.

if you feel oppressed by reason

Did I say that? Did I fucking say that? No. I did not. You are arguing in bad faith. Fuck off.

1

Hyolobrika wrote

| [Did you] not understand the idiom I used?

Huh, I must have forgot about that idiom. My bad.
I thought I was being attacked, so I attacked. But now that we all realise that it was all a misunderstanding we can calm down now.

|You are arguing in bad faith

Yes I was and I'm sorry, see above. But also so are you by continuing the aggression after discovering that I misunderstood and thought I was being attacked.

1

bloodrose wrote

But also so are you by continuing the aggression after discovering that I misunderstood and thought I was being attacked.

These posts have timestamps. No, I did not realize you had misunderstood when I wrote the comment you are replying to. Please see the timestamps.

-1

Hyolobrika wrote (edited )

You said "Are you young enough to not understand the idiom I used?" in the selfsame post. Therefore you knew it didn't have to be malice but you assumed it was anyway. I wasn't referring to the other post.

2

bloodrose wrote

Please understand, the other comments were in response to other things you said.

  1. Pulling in philosophers to a simple ask of "what do you mean when you ask for x" is a red flag to me that just want to argue, feel like everyone should argue with you, and thing that everyone should know all of the arguments you are making without background information. I hate when people feel entitled to an argument.

  2. Also, you said I feel oppressed by reason. I said no such thing. I said when I see people use rational/irrational, it's usually people who are oppressing others. Usually people being upset by being oppressed are told they are behaving irrationally. Like when a cop shoots a black person for acting scared while a gun is waved in their face will say they were behaving irrationally.

Or are you saying all of those things you said meant nothing because they were irrational attacks based on the false belief you were attacked?

-1

Hyolobrika wrote

By arguing I don't mean fighting you understand, I mean debate and discussion.

| Please understand, the other comments were in response to other things you said.

What other comments? The comments other than what?

| I hate when people feel entitled to an argument.

Does this mean you don't feel that everyone is responsible for considering other's points and has the right to have their points considered?

| Also, you said I feel oppressed by reason

I actually already admitted that was wrong, so why are you bringing that up again?

| Like when a cop shoots a black person for acting scared while a gun is waved in their face will say they were behaving irrationally.

Has that really happened? Jeez. Can you post a link pls?

| Pulling in philosophers to a simple ask of "what do you mean when you ask for x" is a red flag to me that just want to argue

I don't understand your syntax. Please explain.

| attacks based on the false belief you were attacked

Yes, this is another thing that I already said

1

bloodrose wrote

Seriously? Can you not read your own fucking writing. You said

But also so are you by continuing the aggression after discovering that I misunderstood and thought I was being attacked.

So I addressed what you called "continuing the aggression" which were the other comments in which I used expletives. Now you are coming and asking "what other comments?" The other comments you labeled aggression.

How do you not understand what you fucking wrote? You are tiresome and I am done with you. You are just trolling and wasting my time.

0

Hyolobrika wrote

| So I addressed what you called "continuing the aggression" which were the other comments in which I used expletives. Now you are coming and asking "what other comments?" The other comments you labeled aggression. Actually it's your fucking self who was incapable of understanding what I wrote. I didn't label any other comments aggression, I labeled the comment I replied to aggression.

| Seriously? Can you not read your own fucking writing

| How do you not understand what you fucking wrote?

I smell an ableist undertone here.

-2

Hyolobrika wrote (edited )

| I said when I see people use rational/irrational, it's usually people who are oppressing others.

Right I see, on that note, my experience of irrationality is in often-racist bullies who attack and insult people to get them to agree with them instead of pointing out why they should agree. People like ziq, people like Neo-nazi chantards and if you don't call them out for arguing in bad faith but those who only respond like that in defense you will be enabling them.

2

ziq wrote

go back to voat now.

-6

Hyolobrika wrote

Not an argument. Go back to being split between your parents. Also, do you realise that the best way a person can convince their opponents is through reason?

5

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Pretty funny that you've been flailing around playing the reasoned scholar and then you go for the throat of someone like that. Holy shit, that's some level of cowardice.

-2

Hyolobrika wrote

As much as I believe that reason is a good thing, non-reason is still neccesary for use with people who don't believe in reason.

Also, how on earth is it cowardice?

4

GaldraChevaliere wrote

I dunno about 'rational skeptics', but in most circles that have emotional and social depth exceeding a teacup, talking shit about someone's past and traumas when it's not relevant to the conversation is what in the jargon we call 'a low fucking blow'. If your 'reasoned' argument can't stand on its own and you have to resort to something like that, maybe you're just a craven who needs to try to hurt people to feel big.

Also, like, that's my other point I wanted to get to but didn't have time for. You've got this cultish devotion to Reason as an ideal, one that necessarily requires leaps of faith and proselytism to maintain. I don't believe in Reason, because anyone with a familiarity with game theory knows there's no such thing as a rational actor, one who will take the most beneficial known action every time or accept the most functional argument. People are flawed and their experiences are subjective, and the majority of things you've likely come to view as ineffable truth are in fact social constructs with no material reality. That, friend, is called being Spooked.

You can't escape ideology and you can't escape your subjective experiences, only modify them with new experiences applied, and there's no way to be an impartial and objective observer of any phenomena, whether social or material. What most people do is learn to live with that and just run off of what they've experienced and collaborate with others for mutual understanding. What people like you do is force, usually violently, your beliefs on others and insist yours is the one true way of viewing things and all else is irrational, as if a world where we toil for 12-16 hours a day for not enough food to pay rent and eat at the same time is a rational one in the first place.

-1

Hyolobrika wrote (edited )

| I dunno about 'rational skeptics', but in most circles that have emotional and social depth exceeding a teacup, talking shit about someone's past and traumas when it's not relevant to the conversation is what in the jargon we call 'a low fucking blow'. If your 'reasoned' argument can't stand on its own and you have to resort to something like that, maybe you're just a craven who needs to try to hurt people to feel big.

https://raddle.me/f/meta/44650/comment/65125

3

zzuum wrote

Yeah Hitler was defeated by rational debate

1

Hyolobrika wrote

Well, ok, yeah it woudn't have worked. I admit it. Hitler had the wrong premises. Reason is the connection between premise and conclusion not a property of opinions. Also, the point is not always to try to convince people (you can't do that with reason if their views are already consistant) but to make sure that people's viewpoints are coherent. You can however use these principles to convince people by reasoning from opinions they already hold to one's you want them to hold.

0

Hyolobrika wrote

https://rationalwiki.org/ has some good examples IIRC

1

bloodrose wrote

I asked what YOU meant. You are the one making a proposal here. Define your proposal. If you can't use concrete examples and define what you are requesting in a way others can understand, you are not arguing in good faith. In fact, I would say expecting others to understand you without explaining yourself is awfully irrational.

0

Hyolobrika wrote

But it IS what I meant. What I meant is there. I don't understand why I need to write something new when there is already something written about it. Why reinvent the wheel?

1

bloodrose wrote

I did a ctrl-f on that page for rational. I came up with 13 hits. Not one of them is a definition.

1

Hyolobrika wrote

None of what I originally posted was intended as an attack, nor did I have any idea that it would be taken as an attack.

If I said something offensive in the posts that weren't in response to unjustified attacks please point it out and explain why it was offensive and I will apologise.