It's Fascinating · 3:27am Jan 12th, 2021
...How I'm typically blocked due to my least controversial statements. So here's my final response: https://www.fimfiction.net/blog/933104/into-the-sewers
>>5434264
1. That you think I didn't argue the points made is evidence that you, like he, refuse to actually read what other people write. And it's highly ironic that instead of addressing the points I've made in that blog, you've decided to be "butthurt" that I made it at all.
2. I always make a blog when somebody blocks me in the middle of an argument, because I still have something to say.
3. "Look, that guy is upset that something happened that typically upsets people" is among the most idiotic of taunts. Congrats, I have normal human psychology. I suspect you do, to.
So, post-mortem of the argument: There are people on this site that consider "don't do extrajudicial violence" to be a "radical" position, and will mindlessly smear anybody who holds that position. And these people claim to be the moral ones. There's something I mentioned earlier in that thread that I think is pretty important to remember: A lot of these radical leftists admit to once being radical rightists. And now they use the same tactics on different targets, with the justification that "they do it, so we should, too". It's worth asking: Have they really changed ideology at all? Or have they just switched around the labels a little? Are they driven by "principles", or are those supposed principles interchangeable fuel for their true drive of hatred of the "other"?
Edit 3: Really? Trying to continue to hold a conversation with somebody who's been blocked from a page... on the page they've been blocked from? Yeah, no. Especially when it consists solely of vague, baseless mockery.
Edit: It occurs to me that SweetBanana not only parroted Aragon's baseless claim that Titanium Dragon was a Nazi, but even used the same silly phraseology (calling me a 'stan'). Aragon and Mr. Numbers have some serious sway in this community, including, apparently, mindless mimicry of their radical political stances. Cults of personality are bad, yo.
Edit 2: Banana's attempt to allege that "white privilege" would keep any serious consequences from falling on the insurrectionists included the somewhat odd claim that Dylan Roof, upon arrest for the massacre, was "taken to Burger King" by the cops. If something sounds ridiculous, it probably is. It disgusted me when people like Banana took up the cry "facts matter", because facts actually do matter to me... but they demonstrably don't to extremists.
5434279
Extremism as an attempt to avoid the unknown and uncertain is an interesting take that I think has some serious merit. I know that, personally, my lack of any group that I can just fall back on and say "I'm with them, regardless of what they say or do" takes a psychological toll. Having a place where I can pretend everybody agrees with me sounds nice; but I can't lie to myself like that. It saddens me how many appear willing to fall on the other side of that weighing, and trade self-honesty for comfort. How can truth ever prevail, when psychology itself runs counter to it?
Method isn’t ideology, you can change ideology but keep believing in the same methods to achieve different ideologies. I don’t think it’s fair to look at someone who has changed their position but still employ the same tactics and decide that it’s evidence that they are lying.
Also, not doing extrajudicial violence can be radical in certain contexts. Law isn’t necessarily moral and even you agree that violence has its place in some contexts. I think upholding the law before your own security and health would be pretty extreme.
5434364
Only in the context of it being illegal to practice self-defense.
Except method is shaped by which actions people believe to be fair and moral and which ones they do not. What people believe to be fair and moral is dictated by ideology; hence, method is bound to ideology.
Lying? No. I'm putting forth the view that the essential components of an ideology are the moral guides that in turn define method of implementation, and whatever is ultimately implemented by those methods is ephemeral. Their views have changed, sure. But not the views that are important.
5434368
Do you think that an ideology that peacefully advocate for slavery is the same as an ideology that peacefully advocate for freedom for all?
5434376
Do you think that slavery is peaceful?
5434377
Why are you asking me about what is ultimately implemented? Isn’t it ephemeral? Shouldn’t we focus on what is important?
5434379
I am focusing on what's important. At the moment, what's important is that you attempted to provide a counterexample to my position, and I have pointed out that the proposed counterexample is incoherent, and therefore does not work.
5434382
No you haven’t. If the implementation is what’s important the morality of slavery isn’t. A candidate can run a pro slavery platform, win and legalize slavery.
5434387
What I actually said. The difference to what you are claiming I said (that the essential component is implementation itself) is subtle, but very important.
Again, slavery can't be implemented peacefully. Your example fails, because it proposes a flatly contradictory situation.
5434391
5434392
"By those methods", as in, consistent with the methods that are consistent with the moral standpoints. As in, if the moral standpoints are the same, that implies the methods are the same, which implies that there is no difference between what is implemented by those methods that is worth mentioning. Your attempt to form a contradiction fails because it posits an implementation that is not consistent with the methods and therefore not consistent with the moral standpoints.
5434395
Ideologies can not be consistent.
5434396
Now that is a bold claim. One which would, if true, tend to invalidate any other systematic claim of ideological function. Are you planning to defend it, or just assert it as a presupposition?
5434402
Isn’t fascism full of inconsistencies and contradictions in example?
5434434
"No numbers are primes: After all, 4 is not a prime."
This is the argument you just made. Assuming 4 is actually not a prime, of course; you didn't even get as far as demonstrating that; but the point is that it wouldn't prove your initial claim regardless.
5434519
Ideologies can be inconsistent, fascism is an ideology, fascism is inconsistent. What is the problem?
5434539
And
are fundamentally different claims.
The problem, at this point, is that you seem to think you're a lot more clever than you actually are.Edit: Well, I suppose the original claim is a little grammatically ambiguous; the standard way to read it would be "ideologies [can not] [be consistent]", but English grammar does allow "ideologies [can] [not be consistent]", as awkward as that is.
So, if we're just talking about the possibility that certain individual ideologies can fail to be consistent, that's much less impactful than the claim as I originally interpreted it. Still an interesting claim, if it can be backed up, but the impact against my prior claim is less clear.
5434542
Isn’t something that is not consistent inconsistent?
5434542
Ok i think i get it, it seems i expressed myself badly. I didn’t mean « cannot be » but « can be not ». English is not my first language.
5434556
Yeah, I caught that while I was re-reading. Still, how is fascism inconsistent?
5434557
The example i heard the most is that fascists adopt that the « enemy » group is weak, pathetic and inferior while simultaneously believing that they control everything and are the roots of the problems. The enemy is both infinitely strong and completely powerless and they will shift between the two.
5434569
That's not really a belief of the ideology; it's more of a rhetorical tactic.
5434572
Fascism blend rhetorics and beliefs. Fascism doesn’t try to be consistent in its beliefs. It is disinterested in addressing logical fallacies and contradictions. In a way it’s an ideology that exploit cognitive dissonance to exist.
5434582
I'm getting that this is less an attempt to argue that there are inconsistent ideologies and more a gripe about fascism that you're attempting to shoehorn into the topic of my blog. May I ask why?
5434586
I mean, not really? It’s just that fascism is probably the most inconsistent ideology so it makes a good example. I guess I could also talk about how liberalism is against the inheritance of power but will let people inherit large sums of money that can translate into power.
5434597
I think we may be understanding "inconsistency" differently. I'm not really sure how to approach clarifying that. I guess... I see there being two kinds of contradictions in regards to ideology: Those that make the ideology hypocritical, and those that make the ideology fundamentally inconsistent. In the latter case, when the ideology is inconsistent, it cannot exist; but in the former case, when it is merely hypocritical, the ideology can exist and be described in a consistent manner that accounts for the hypocrisy.
I feel like I'm too tired to make heads or tails of this right now.
5434610
No problem, we began arguing at 1 am in my time zone so I’m tired too.
I saw your blog. I get the stress thing too. I like to argue/discuss those things because I feel like it challenges my preconceptions and makes me think outside of my comfort zone.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t think you were trying to push an agenda even if i disagree with some of the things you say.