Splinglebot

Reply to comment by /u/ziq in I have an idea by /u/Hyolobrika

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

9

Splinglebot wrote

What they seem to conveniently ignore is the fact that you can still be practical/pragmatic in how you try to achieve your ideals

Pragmatism and idealism are not diametrically opposed, and in fact compliment eachother. After all, how can you be "pragmatic" when you have no ideals, no goal to achieve? You can't. If you're not aiming for something then there cannot be any pragmatic steps to achieve your goal, because there is no goal. A rational choice cannot exist without a goal in mind. You can't make logical deductions without axioms. Even something that might seem so obviously "logical" like making sure you have enough food to eat is only "logical" because you have some sort of goal. The only reason it's rational to make sure you have food is because you don't want to starve, the reason you don't want to starve is because you want to survive - which is in itself a goal, or an ideal. It's not based in reasoning. No matter what "logical", "pragmatic", "rational" or "practical" action someone takes, if you trace the reasoning back far enough you'll ultimately reach a goal they have, or an ideal - one that isn't in itself based in reason or pragmatism.

When liberals/conservatives say they're being "pragmatic" they're usually just making an excuse to uphold the status quo. Abolitionists were considered "unpractical" for demanding the immediate emancipation of the slaves, they were "idealists" who "didn't understand how the world works", yet slavery was abolished and the world still worked. They may well be "pragmatic", but only if your ideal is to let the rich get richer and screw over everyone else.

Related: Kropotkin's "Are we good enough?"

1

Splinglebot wrote

because the world is black and white, every rapist/murderer is an irredeemable evil person, rehabilitation doesn't exist and punitive "justice" solves everything

11

Splinglebot wrote

recently got downvoted on r/politics for suggesting that voting was not the most effective way of causing meaningful change

I tried to give examples of rights and privileges that were not earned because people voted for slightly better rulers such as the abolition of slavery, the eight hour work day, minimum wage, the civil rights movement, but apparently "all of these things required politicians to do something who people voted for". Seriously people, politicians don't give a fuck about you or your vote. They'll only ever budge when the system's power is put under threat.

2

Splinglebot wrote

Were you not a liberal once? I don't think appeals to them are completely hopeless. We may only be able to nudge them a little at a time, but I think propaganda of the deed runs the risk of nudging them in the wrong direction - and getting them to support action against the movement.

I think there is a time and a place for it but we should be careful about how it's applied

4

Splinglebot wrote

your chances are only likely if you present them with an idea that is very similar and only slightly different than their own.

I guess this is what I was thinking, the fascist mentioned in the OP made some complaint about the "corporate media" - which had an element of truth to it in that the media is run by large corporations - but they seem to think it's all "leftists" and that they have an "agenda of diversity". This seems to be quite common among the far right on the internet actually. I wondered if it would be possible to use that idea to steer them in the right direction.

I guess the problem is, you simply can't tell if they actually believe in what they're saying about the corporate media, or if it's nothing but an attempt to appeal to a certain type of person to drag them in.

3

Splinglebot wrote (edited )

In a similar vein, growing up I always used to get visibly upset or even angry whenever anyone on TV got killed. I often seriously wanted to punch whatever caused it. I seem to recall this one time when I was watching a scene in which someone was murdered on my pc, and I nearly broke my monitor because I actually punched the image of the murderer.

Come to think of it, I still have this reaction to extreme violence, although it's a bit more controlled now.