Submitted by Hyolobrika in meta (edited )
Hyolobrika OP wrote (edited )
Reply to comment by yaaqov in I have an idea by Hyolobrika
| 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.
Hyolobrika OP 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?
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.
Hyolobrika OP 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?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments