EDIT - I am going to add evidence that I do eventually find where applicable. Turns out I have pretty good intuition about things. Cool.
1. We tend to think of problems in our society as primarily matters of individual morality when in reality they are the natural, purposeful outcome of systemic oppression. If there is one thing to base your worldview on, it is this.
1b. "Free will" as you probably conceive of it is a lie designed to convince you of the opposite of this.
2. Most outwardly directed hatred is re-packaged self-loathing.
1. We tend to think of problems in our society as primarily matters of individual morality when in reality they are the natural, purposeful outcome of systemic oppression. If there is one thing to base your worldview on, it is this.
1b. "Free will" as you probably conceive of it is a lie designed to convince you of the opposite of this.
2. Most outwardly directed hatred is re-packaged self-loathing.
"It helps to remember that everyone hates themselves, at least a little bit, and the more you can refrain from projecting that hatred onto the world the less annoying you’ll be." https://www.gawker.com/culture/dont-be-so-attached-to-attachment-theory
3. Most depression and anxiety is the natural expression of our human revulsion towards the inhumanity of our society. Anyone who tells you it's a matter of chemicals or whatever is probably lying to you.
4. Deontology is dumb because human reason cannot conceive of a truly universal law. Consequentialism is dumb because human reason cannot comprehend the full set of outcomes necessary to make truly ethical judgments. Virtue ethics is even dumber, primarily because of the implications of the previous two sentences.
(lol: https://twitter.com/erikhinton/status/1319684628140183553?s=20)
5. A significant percentage of TV shows (and other commercial art, but it's most noticeable in TV) espouse unmistakably lefty themes while employing unmistakably liberal writers. This actually gives me hope, because it suggests the gap between the two is more permeable than deterministic class analysis would suggest.
5. A significant percentage of TV shows (and other commercial art, but it's most noticeable in TV) espouse unmistakably lefty themes while employing unmistakably liberal writers. This actually gives me hope, because it suggests the gap between the two is more permeable than deterministic class analysis would suggest.
Evidence: This basic argument is one of the central discussion items of Struggle Session: https://soundcloud.com/strugglesesh
6. Humans are organic beings and as such are not capable of holding inherently moral designation. They are not capable of being judged as "good" or "bad".
7. Yes, much of what appears to be malice can be more accurately described as incompetence. But much of that is a form of learned incompetence that is not materially different from malice.
7b. There's also a third category of "things are too complex for humans to make consistently perfect sense of them" which might explain even more than malice/incompetence. Perhaps this third category could be "inherent incompetence." If we're unable to build a computer large enough to explain the universe, perhaps our existing cognition is insufficient to make enough sense of the world to bend it to our will.
8. For practical purposes, there are three fundamental classes of people. The first are those with no wealth and no power. The second are those with enough wealth to assert power over themselves. And the third are those with enough wealth to assert power over others. The solidarity within the first and third groups and the allegiance of the second group are what determines a nation's politics.
8. For practical purposes, there are three fundamental classes of people. The first are those with no wealth and no power. The second are those with enough wealth to assert power over themselves. And the third are those with enough wealth to assert power over others. The solidarity within the first and third groups and the allegiance of the second group are what determines a nation's politics.
Evidence: Looks like I subconsciously cribbed from Trotsky lmao:
"Further, it is of course true that the growth of political consciousness depends upon the growth of the numbers of the proletariat, and proletarian dictatorship presupposes that the numbers of the proletariat will be sufficiently large to overcome the resistance of the bourgeois counter-revolution. But this does not at all mean that the ‘overwhelming majority’ of the population must be proletarians and the ‘overwhelming majority’ of the proletariat conscious socialists. It is clear, of course, that the conscious revolutionary army of the proletariat must be stronger than the counter-revolutionary army of capital, while the intermediate, doubtful or indifferent strata of the population must be in such a position that the regime of proletarian dictatorship will attract them to the side of the revolution and not repel them to the side of its enemies. Naturally, proletarian policy must consciously take this into consideration."
9. Our government and constitution is bad but "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a great sentiment. Specifically because the passage operates around the words "we," "all," and "they."
10. The "I collect experiences not things" mindset appears wise on the surface. But ultimately it's just traditional consumerism adapting to the realities of our globalized/financialized/service economy.
11. Contrary to what fallacy scolds say, ad hominins are often fine when evaluating pundits. It is true that many pundits make both good and bad arguments, but even then, why would you want to get your good arguments from someone who often exhibits questionable judgment?
9. Our government and constitution is bad but "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a great sentiment. Specifically because the passage operates around the words "we," "all," and "they."
10. The "I collect experiences not things" mindset appears wise on the surface. But ultimately it's just traditional consumerism adapting to the realities of our globalized/financialized/service economy.
11. Contrary to what fallacy scolds say, ad hominins are often fine when evaluating pundits. It is true that many pundits make both good and bad arguments, but even then, why would you want to get your good arguments from someone who often exhibits questionable judgment?
12. Counterarguments framed as "it's actually simple" or "it's actually more nuanced" are generally bs. It's not that misunderstandings aren't often a matter of oversimplifying or overthinking something - it's just that if you frame your argument that way, you're probably privileging your sense of superiority over the merits of the argument itself.
13. The majority of people who find themselves materially advantaged in some way often deal with the contradictions inherent to that by constructing a reality where they are the victim, actually.
14. Many Americans hold essentially Manichean views of the world, but those views are mostly a direct consequence of our hegemony and our political system. Our two party system leads to a red team/blue team mentality where people who identify with one team view anyone who doesn't adhere to all perceived tenets of that team with suspicion. Similarly, people who view American hegemony to be "good" tend to be suspicious of those who voice concerns to the contrary (and vice versa).
Evidence: I talked about an example of this here, but man hard to find a clearer instance of this type of thinking than this:
Evidence 2: lol
15. A stunning number of disagreements result from misunderstandings between one party who is arguing about how things *are* and another party who is arguing about how things *should be*. One really common example of this is on issues of speech where some will cite first amendment while others discuss the broader concept of free speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment