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?
| 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.
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?
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.
| 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?
| 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.
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.
Are you trying to hurt people?
Does it give you a sadistic kick when you denigrate the 'other'? The minority within your community?
… what?
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.
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.
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?
What the hell are you talking about 😂
Stop being so anal jajaja
you're still here? wtf lol
You're stupid and smell like a fart, egghead.
Here's some discourse: no.
Do you have reference posts? Not sure what you are referring to, most things on here are articles
Who have you seen moderating based on opinion? And would you define someone calling out a racist 'incendiary'?
Do you think the racist would be rational enough to stay?
How can a racist be rational..?
That was my point. Would you need to call one out?
I don't follow. Are you saying a racist wouldn't use the internet?
| 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.
This idea is irrational and lacks quality ;)
Please explain why
This user posted the same thing to a far right site:
https://notabug.io/t/notabug/comments/5754ee2f693cbfdaf06c966ff6d5549da7897e4f/a-different-view
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'
If I am a 'right'-winger for doing that then I must also be a 'left'-winger for posting it here.
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.
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.