I completely agree with your idea, but if you look at my history on Reddit you'll see how much difficulty I've had getting certain people to respond and engage with points that they just don't want to think about.

Sad but true.

And even if they do engage they don't necessarily understand.

Even if beauty can never be prior to whiteness again, I do think it can be subversive of it, and extend beyond it.

Beauty is a subjective thing, there's no such thing as objective beauty. So while the latter is definitely true what do you mean by the former?

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?

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.

| 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.

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

And yet I don't see how reason is specific to any ideology.

I don't understand how it's so palatable to you that they are warping the meaning of the word anarchism but not the word reason.

Words like 'reason' appeal to them because it allows them to frame their reactionary politics as being somehow scientific and authoritative, and they can use that mask to frame anyone that sees through their doublespeak as being emotional and unintelligent.

Well then, why don't you just show why they're wrong to do that?

I wish people who flail violently and yell incoherently instead of making an actual point would leave the internet go to somewhere more their speed to argue, a playground for instance.

You really ought to read and understand the opposition before you make generalising non-arguments like that. What does https://raddle.me/f/meta/44575/comment/64939 get wrong?

| Inb4 incoherent anarchist screeching about how this won't end capitalism but spray-painting and smashing bank windows totally will

Not an argument

Please explain why

I probably don't know as much about tech but why would you need a salt? I'm curious.

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

| 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.

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.

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.

No, you are the one with issues. I come in here intrigued and wanting to possibly learn about socialism, curious about why this place was made and when I calmly ask for evidence, I get attacked for being 'entitled'. If the claimer had just explained that it was too much effort sorry I would have been perfectly OK with that.

| You wanted to know why and you got your answer

It's not enough to have the belief available, what's necessary towards accepting that belief is some good sound reason to accept it. If it's too much work to prove it but you still have proof in your head then fine but I can't accept the belief under those circumstances.

Fine. But seriously do you think you can talk?

| 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

| 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.

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

But there are examples (which is another thing you asked for)

You are arguing in bad faith by making incendiary and unjustified presumptions. Stop it.

| They came here from far right 'free speech' site notabug

Actually I found out about this place and notabug when I wanted to see deleted Reddit posts, searched for one of those sites and found http://snew.guthub.io/ (see top bar)

| tell a raddler to kill themselves for recognizing their fashy dogwhistles

Read this thread and educate yourself. It was all a misunderstanding.

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.

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?