Fascists and Rakes (2014)(reasonableapproximation.net)
reasonableapproximation.net
Fascists and Rakes (2014)
http://reasonableapproximation.net/2014/01/04/facists-and-rakes.html
70 comments
The article "pinned" two opposite categories, and built a hypothetical world where everyone falls into a category but is ignorant of the categories' existence.
You could just as easily "pin" the categories:
- people who believe disagreements are based on firm moral underpinnings
- people who take advantage of the first group
and be no less wrong
You could just as easily "pin" the categories:
- people who believe disagreements are based on firm moral underpinnings
- people who take advantage of the first group
and be no less wrong
I think the glaring omission in the article is “are the tic tacs sentient?” Because that ultimately does decide the question, whether our hypothetical fascist accepts the answer or not. If indeed as that other commenter stated, tic tacs are a stand in for fetuses, then they are categorically not sentient. The vast, vast, vast majority of abortions occur before the fetus is even large enough to constitute a notable amount of tissue death, in comparison to something like biting a piece of your lip off. Brain activity is a null issue, there’s no brain yet.
But of course a core tenet of fascism is the rejection of intellectualism, so this will be unappealing. However fascists frequently have that niggling problem where reality keeps proving their bullshit to be… well, bullshit. Which is why to the majority of properly thinking people it’s a ridiculous system of thought and governance.
But of course a core tenet of fascism is the rejection of intellectualism, so this will be unappealing. However fascists frequently have that niggling problem where reality keeps proving their bullshit to be… well, bullshit. Which is why to the majority of properly thinking people it’s a ridiculous system of thought and governance.
I think that reduction works for tic tacs but perhaps not for fetuses/embryos/fertilized eggs. I can say that I agree with the statement, "embryos are not sentient", but I cannot speak to whether the "fascist" believes that the sentience of the embryo is the important part. Even if it were, our concept of sentience will probably be self-serving, based on our stake in the discussion. The 13-week compromise was unsatisfying for many people. A 20-week compromise would satisfy some people more and others less. At some point the fetus must acquire sentience, if you believe it didn't have it at one point and you believe that a baby does, so the discussion may be a matter of what point you define it. To say that it is imbued with sentience at birth is merely to choose a convenient point that is unlikely to be true in fact. In which case, to not set a limit on abortion means that you do not really care about sentient beings at all, if you were saying that sentience was the important thing to you.
Oops, now it will become a discussion of the rights of one being over the rights of another, and we are all fascists now.
Oops, now it will become a discussion of the rights of one being over the rights of another, and we are all fascists now.
> But maybe it is better to try to agree on what is really going on in real discussions, rather than hypotheticals about candies.
I don't think this is going to blow your mind or anything, but the candy discussion in this essay wasn't actually hypothetical at all. The tic tacs are fetuses and the "fascists" are forced birther conservatives. You might disagree that it's reasonable to call a forced birther a fascist - to call them that certainly seems a bit imprecise to me - but I'm not sure what you're driving at beyond that (valid) semantic point. Begging what question?
I don't think this is going to blow your mind or anything, but the candy discussion in this essay wasn't actually hypothetical at all. The tic tacs are fetuses and the "fascists" are forced birther conservatives. You might disagree that it's reasonable to call a forced birther a fascist - to call them that certainly seems a bit imprecise to me - but I'm not sure what you're driving at beyond that (valid) semantic point. Begging what question?
I have never heard of a fetus being called a tic-tac, but maybe that is the slang in your area.
ITT missing the forest for the trees and focusing on
- The incorrect definition of "fascist". The article is just using the word as a label for "people who don't let others do things that don't hurt anyone". Yeah it should've used another label like "authoritarian" or "wall", but the ultimate message is the same.
- Over-analyzing the rules: "you should let people do what they want, unless they're hurting other people" but what if "hurt" is something stupid like "going outside hurts me because you're ugly"? This is the first half of the ultimate message, the article agrees that people assign stupid meanings to "hurt" and that is the source of many disagreements.
- The article suggesting you try logic and morals to persuade someone who isn't following logic and morals. The second half of the ultimate message is that sometimes you think someone isn't acting logically or morally (ex: the person trying to stop you from eating tictacs because they're on a power-trip) when they are (ex: said person is really tying to stop you because they believe tic-tacs are sentient, which if true, would justify intervention). And yes, some people are on power-trips or otherwise acting in bad faith. But most people simultaneously believe they use logic and morals, and most other people don't; because people don't act as rationally and morally as they think, and (the article's message) they mis-judge others as bad-intentioned when they're good-intentioned but have bad assumptions.
- The incorrect definition of "fascist". The article is just using the word as a label for "people who don't let others do things that don't hurt anyone". Yeah it should've used another label like "authoritarian" or "wall", but the ultimate message is the same.
- Over-analyzing the rules: "you should let people do what they want, unless they're hurting other people" but what if "hurt" is something stupid like "going outside hurts me because you're ugly"? This is the first half of the ultimate message, the article agrees that people assign stupid meanings to "hurt" and that is the source of many disagreements.
- The article suggesting you try logic and morals to persuade someone who isn't following logic and morals. The second half of the ultimate message is that sometimes you think someone isn't acting logically or morally (ex: the person trying to stop you from eating tictacs because they're on a power-trip) when they are (ex: said person is really tying to stop you because they believe tic-tacs are sentient, which if true, would justify intervention). And yes, some people are on power-trips or otherwise acting in bad faith. But most people simultaneously believe they use logic and morals, and most other people don't; because people don't act as rationally and morally as they think, and (the article's message) they mis-judge others as bad-intentioned when they're good-intentioned but have bad assumptions.
If only fascists had a consistent system of ethics. But fascism requires irrationality [1]. You can't sway them with facts. A real fascist doesn't believe in the golden rule, even though they might claim they do. Their primary objective is to harm the out-group at all costs.
[1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...
[1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...
Great essay, but it doesn't really support your point. Umberto is saying that the inconsistency doesn't matter.
Also all human systems are inconsistent and none are perfectly rational. Your point is illogical.
From essay:
Also all human systems are inconsistent and none are perfectly rational. Your point is illogical.
From essay:
But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical [of Fascism]
These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each otherI think that's what I meant? I probably didn't convey it well enough, I'm not a native speaker.
Indeed, no human is perfectly rational, we are not vulcans. But fascists have to believe in pretty big lies that directly oppose material reality, in a way that I don't see often elsewhere.
Indeed, no human is perfectly rational, we are not vulcans. But fascists have to believe in pretty big lies that directly oppose material reality, in a way that I don't see often elsewhere.
[deleted]
Just because someone has a consistent set of guiding principles doesn't mean that "bad" behavior is somehow more justifiable.
I'd actually argue its worse if their guiding principles guide them to bad behavior, because they have a ready made defense and social insulation around their bad behavior.
That's really at the heart of the evil of the Holocaust. It did not happen because good people were possessed by an evil spirit or tricked by propaganda or whatever, these aren't people acting out of character or at odds with their moral senses. It happened because people allowed themselves to be convinced that an evil was a good, because the propaganda they encountered reinforced their preexisting biases and inclinations.
To the point above, its not the case that fascists lack any set of guiding principles, its that their priorities are perverted from the normal. It's not they don't perceive e.g. murdering members of the designated out-group as evil, its just that their principles either recast those people as less human (making the murder ethically neutral at worse), or that allowing said people to survive will result in far worse outcomes for society at large (making the murder ethically commendable).
That's really at the heart of the evil of the Holocaust. It did not happen because good people were possessed by an evil spirit or tricked by propaganda or whatever, these aren't people acting out of character or at odds with their moral senses. It happened because people allowed themselves to be convinced that an evil was a good, because the propaganda they encountered reinforced their preexisting biases and inclinations.
To the point above, its not the case that fascists lack any set of guiding principles, its that their priorities are perverted from the normal. It's not they don't perceive e.g. murdering members of the designated out-group as evil, its just that their principles either recast those people as less human (making the murder ethically neutral at worse), or that allowing said people to survive will result in far worse outcomes for society at large (making the murder ethically commendable).
That's true, but I still wouldn't call the average (neo)nazi's world view "consistent". They believe(d) jews owned the world, that white men came from the lost continent of Hyperborea, that communists were allied to the jews in an international plot to undermine the "white race".
There are many reasons one would fall for such falsehoods, but I don't think reasoning your way into a twisted ethical paradigm is one of them. In other words, I think you have to reject rationality and reasoning altogether to get to this point.
I do believe fascists lack a proper set of guiding principle. They act purely out of a desire to fit into the in-group.
And you are right that there was no inherent predisposition to nazism, anyone can, under the wrong circumstances, fall into that.
There are many reasons one would fall for such falsehoods, but I don't think reasoning your way into a twisted ethical paradigm is one of them. In other words, I think you have to reject rationality and reasoning altogether to get to this point.
I do believe fascists lack a proper set of guiding principle. They act purely out of a desire to fit into the in-group.
And you are right that there was no inherent predisposition to nazism, anyone can, under the wrong circumstances, fall into that.
> That's true, but I still wouldn't call the average (neo)nazi's world view "consistent". They believe(d) jews owned the world, that white men came from the lost continent of Hyperborea, that communists were allied to the jews in an international plot to undermine the "white race".
> There are many reasons one would fall for such falsehoods, but I don't think reasoning your way into a twisted ethical paradigm is one of them. In other words, I think you have to reject rationality and reasoning altogether to get to this point.
I think you're conflating fringe myths with the actual core ideology. The leadership's principles were coherent, even if built on lies. People don't need to reject rationality to fall for it, they just need to rationalize cruelty within a warped framework.
> They act purely out of a desire to fit into the in-group.
That's pretty reductive don't you think? Though warped and morally indefensible, they definitely have defining principles. It's unwise to treat your ideological enemies introspect and intellect as inherently inferior to what you perceive as your own.
> [...] there was no inherent predisposition to nazism, anyone can, under the wrong circumstances, fall into that.
I get the point, but I don’t buy the 'anyone' angle. Some people just aren't predisposed to that kind of thinking or behavior, no matter the environment.
> There are many reasons one would fall for such falsehoods, but I don't think reasoning your way into a twisted ethical paradigm is one of them. In other words, I think you have to reject rationality and reasoning altogether to get to this point.
I think you're conflating fringe myths with the actual core ideology. The leadership's principles were coherent, even if built on lies. People don't need to reject rationality to fall for it, they just need to rationalize cruelty within a warped framework.
> They act purely out of a desire to fit into the in-group.
That's pretty reductive don't you think? Though warped and morally indefensible, they definitely have defining principles. It's unwise to treat your ideological enemies introspect and intellect as inherently inferior to what you perceive as your own.
> [...] there was no inherent predisposition to nazism, anyone can, under the wrong circumstances, fall into that.
I get the point, but I don’t buy the 'anyone' angle. Some people just aren't predisposed to that kind of thinking or behavior, no matter the environment.
> The leadership's principles were coherent, even if built on lies. People don't need to reject rationality to fall for it, they just need to rationalize cruelty within a warped framework.
I wouldn't call fascist leadership coherent either, it's what eventually leads to the downfall of any fascistic regime. The leaders end up believing their own lies, the nazis thought the aryan race was undefeatable, and engaged in too much warring. I do still think you have to reject rationality to believe the lies and internalize the rhetoric. You can't be rational and believe in the lies.
> Though warped and morally indefensible, they definitely have defining principles.
I mean, yes, technically. My understanding of "defining principle" may be slightly different from yours. To me, you don't really have principles if you're able to align your opinion with the party's new line on a whim.
> It's unwise to treat your ideological enemies introspect and intellect as inherently inferior to what you perceive as your own.
You are very right on that.
> Some people just aren't predisposed to that kind of thinking or behavior, no matter the environment.
You're right, that was a slight hyperbole. Here, I wanted to refer to the psychological studies done on nazis after the war, that found nothing out of the ordinary with those men.
I wouldn't call fascist leadership coherent either, it's what eventually leads to the downfall of any fascistic regime. The leaders end up believing their own lies, the nazis thought the aryan race was undefeatable, and engaged in too much warring. I do still think you have to reject rationality to believe the lies and internalize the rhetoric. You can't be rational and believe in the lies.
> Though warped and morally indefensible, they definitely have defining principles.
I mean, yes, technically. My understanding of "defining principle" may be slightly different from yours. To me, you don't really have principles if you're able to align your opinion with the party's new line on a whim.
> It's unwise to treat your ideological enemies introspect and intellect as inherently inferior to what you perceive as your own.
You are very right on that.
> Some people just aren't predisposed to that kind of thinking or behavior, no matter the environment.
You're right, that was a slight hyperbole. Here, I wanted to refer to the psychological studies done on nazis after the war, that found nothing out of the ordinary with those men.
[deleted]
> you don't really have principles if you're able to align your opinion with the party's new line on a whim
That's really most people though. Look at the clear but arbitrary alignment of leftists and rightists on whatever popular issue appears. They somehow never manage to agree and it's not always clear which side they're take in advance. Leftists used to oppose illegal immigration and implemented tough drug sentences, now they're the opposite. They hated globalization until Trump also worked against it and then they loved it. Did I mention Trump worked against globalization and suddenly rightists turned against it too, even though it seems like a pretty fundamental part of right wing's preference for the free market? Free speech went from left to right. Anti-semitism went from right to left. Don't mask then do mask and demonize anyone who does the wrong thing at the wrong time. Gloat about unvaccinated people dying of covid and wanting them to be denied medical care is barely a step removed from supporting the use of gas chambers on them. There's a Nazi in most people. Not everyone, but enough to commit a genocide in the right conditions.
Nicely demonstrated by comedian Ryan Long showing confusion about which side to take on a new issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Pw_TxBe7w
That's really most people though. Look at the clear but arbitrary alignment of leftists and rightists on whatever popular issue appears. They somehow never manage to agree and it's not always clear which side they're take in advance. Leftists used to oppose illegal immigration and implemented tough drug sentences, now they're the opposite. They hated globalization until Trump also worked against it and then they loved it. Did I mention Trump worked against globalization and suddenly rightists turned against it too, even though it seems like a pretty fundamental part of right wing's preference for the free market? Free speech went from left to right. Anti-semitism went from right to left. Don't mask then do mask and demonize anyone who does the wrong thing at the wrong time. Gloat about unvaccinated people dying of covid and wanting them to be denied medical care is barely a step removed from supporting the use of gas chambers on them. There's a Nazi in most people. Not everyone, but enough to commit a genocide in the right conditions.
Nicely demonstrated by comedian Ryan Long showing confusion about which side to take on a new issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Pw_TxBe7w
I think its a bit reductive to describe them as "arbitrary". But I think more importantly, a lot of this jockeying is exactly what's described in the article. Leftists oppose globalism for good reasons based in their ideology, rightist oppose globalism for good reasons based in their ideology, but each side assumes that the other is holding similar views disingenuously.
There's actual nuance if you care to look for it. Really interrogate your perspective that free speech went from left to right, for instance (its the least likely of the bunch to drive a flame war from either side, so that's why I'm picking on it).
Is it the case that leftist don't want people to say what they believe in the public square? Or are they instead concerned about how social media enables highly targeted disinformation campaigns, because its much much easier to flood a person's feed with dozens of seemingly-unique-and-distinct voices pushing the intended narrative? Similarly, are rightist voices actually concerned about the deafening impact of widespread disinformation campaigns on social media? Or just at being muzzled?
There's actual nuance if you care to look for it. Really interrogate your perspective that free speech went from left to right, for instance (its the least likely of the bunch to drive a flame war from either side, so that's why I'm picking on it).
Is it the case that leftist don't want people to say what they believe in the public square? Or are they instead concerned about how social media enables highly targeted disinformation campaigns, because its much much easier to flood a person's feed with dozens of seemingly-unique-and-distinct voices pushing the intended narrative? Similarly, are rightist voices actually concerned about the deafening impact of widespread disinformation campaigns on social media? Or just at being muzzled?
Antisemitism went to the left? Do you really think a neonazi would vote for the democrats? Don't you remember Charlottesville?
And free speech went to the right? Have you not seen the recent wave of censorship since Trump won the presidency? Just today, a cartoonist from the Washington Post resigned after her cartoon mocking Bezos grovelling at Trump's feet was barred from publication.
You are right that the democratic party often switches sides, like they did on immigration. That's because the democratic party is primarily an economically liberal party that holds some progressive values only when it may help win the white house, and doesn't clash with the liberalist line.
Socialists on the other hand have consistently been:
- Internationalists
- For welfare and social programs
- For high taxes and large public services
- For nationalization of critical infrastructure
- For unions, workers rights and corporate regulations
The one thing they gained since the 40s is all the social justice stuff, which is old too by now.
And free speech went to the right? Have you not seen the recent wave of censorship since Trump won the presidency? Just today, a cartoonist from the Washington Post resigned after her cartoon mocking Bezos grovelling at Trump's feet was barred from publication.
You are right that the democratic party often switches sides, like they did on immigration. That's because the democratic party is primarily an economically liberal party that holds some progressive values only when it may help win the white house, and doesn't clash with the liberalist line.
Socialists on the other hand have consistently been:
- Internationalists
- For welfare and social programs
- For high taxes and large public services
- For nationalization of critical infrastructure
- For unions, workers rights and corporate regulations
The one thing they gained since the 40s is all the social justice stuff, which is old too by now.
You don't have to be a neo-nazi to be antisemitic. You can also get carried away with the free Palestine stuff and blame all Jews instead of just Zionists. That's what leftists sometimes do.
> Just today, a cartoonist from the Washington Post resigned after her cartoon mocking Bezos grovelling at Trump's feet was barred from publication.
Yea maybe that's the start of free speech going back to the left, but for the past few years, it's been clearly a right wing thing.
You might be right about idealists who have actual principles maintaining them (as you listed) but that's not normal people. Normal people's opinions blow with the wind of their tribe.
> Just today, a cartoonist from the Washington Post resigned after her cartoon mocking Bezos grovelling at Trump's feet was barred from publication.
Yea maybe that's the start of free speech going back to the left, but for the past few years, it's been clearly a right wing thing.
You might be right about idealists who have actual principles maintaining them (as you listed) but that's not normal people. Normal people's opinions blow with the wind of their tribe.
> Yea maybe that's the start of free speech going back to the left, but for the past few years, it's been clearly a right wing thing.
I just don't buy this. The main way that the left has "suppressed" free speech has been to enforce the social more that if you say shitty things, you can expect shitty responses.
"I can't call black people the n-word without people getting angry with me" has been a criticism since we collectively decided that the n-word was a slur, and it was never a freedom-of-speech issue, just a polite society thing. I do have clear memories of people ranting about free-speech vis a vis "political correctness" during the Clinton years, and it was just as specious.
Literally the only difference is that, unlike the 1940s, the subject of slurs actually have some power to socially punish those who use them.
I just don't buy this. The main way that the left has "suppressed" free speech has been to enforce the social more that if you say shitty things, you can expect shitty responses.
"I can't call black people the n-word without people getting angry with me" has been a criticism since we collectively decided that the n-word was a slur, and it was never a freedom-of-speech issue, just a polite society thing. I do have clear memories of people ranting about free-speech vis a vis "political correctness" during the Clinton years, and it was just as specious.
Literally the only difference is that, unlike the 1940s, the subject of slurs actually have some power to socially punish those who use them.
Nobody's trying to ban people from getting angry when you offend them and it would obviously be anti-free speech to do so. Leftists want hate speech to be a crime. Rightists protest against those laws in countries that have them.
Sartre said some things about how the opinions expressed externally by antisemites need not be internally consistent. I'm inclined to believe it applies to all fascists more broadly.
I think something that people fail to realize is that fascism is frequently a big-tent sort of movement. Like, the Nazis had everybody from the anti-Christian Thule society types all the way down to the purely self-interested who are literally only in it for the access to money and power (like Oskar Schindler, incidentally). Fascism is sort of remarkable for its permissiveness of heterodoxy in certain spheres, given how ideologically driven it is. But this can be understood by how personality driven it is. Insofar as there is a coherent philosophy at the heart of any fascist movement, it basically devolves down to "what does the person in charge believe?".
All of that said, I'm reminded frequently of the Wehrmacht soldiers who wept while committing genocide in Ukraine and Belarus. They wept for how awful and evil an act they were doing, but they kept doing it because they believed in the supremacy of Germany and Aryanism. That's really what I mean when I say a person with a consistent world view is more dangerous than a person without, because they can use it to convince themselves to do things they know to be evil.
I think something that people fail to realize is that fascism is frequently a big-tent sort of movement. Like, the Nazis had everybody from the anti-Christian Thule society types all the way down to the purely self-interested who are literally only in it for the access to money and power (like Oskar Schindler, incidentally). Fascism is sort of remarkable for its permissiveness of heterodoxy in certain spheres, given how ideologically driven it is. But this can be understood by how personality driven it is. Insofar as there is a coherent philosophy at the heart of any fascist movement, it basically devolves down to "what does the person in charge believe?".
All of that said, I'm reminded frequently of the Wehrmacht soldiers who wept while committing genocide in Ukraine and Belarus. They wept for how awful and evil an act they were doing, but they kept doing it because they believed in the supremacy of Germany and Aryanism. That's really what I mean when I say a person with a consistent world view is more dangerous than a person without, because they can use it to convince themselves to do things they know to be evil.
For those non-native speakers confused by this usage of the word “rake” like me, it’s, apparently, the meaning under “Etymology 6” on Wiktionary: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/rake
If both sides agree on a standard definition of harm, maybe some of the debate could be solved. For example, is the feeling of potential harm, harm?
I saw a local government debate recently about a local policy that would require significant costs to remedy. Proponents of the change say that harm is coming soon, because it has happened elsewhere. Is that enough reason to redirect funds from important services, especially when there’s no evidence that the proposed remedies are effective?
Worse, it’s almost impossible to participate in the discussion without being given a derogatory and inaccurate label by one side or the other. Pragmatism seems to be dead.
I saw a local government debate recently about a local policy that would require significant costs to remedy. Proponents of the change say that harm is coming soon, because it has happened elsewhere. Is that enough reason to redirect funds from important services, especially when there’s no evidence that the proposed remedies are effective?
Worse, it’s almost impossible to participate in the discussion without being given a derogatory and inaccurate label by one side or the other. Pragmatism seems to be dead.
<< Worse, it’s almost impossible to participate in the discussion without being given a derogatory label.
Yep. I have mostly withdrawn from most conversations on the subject given the level of irrationality and, on both sides mind, layers of unstated assumptions that are almost never explored openly or in good faith.
<< For example, is the feeling of potential harm, harm?
I would argue that it is, but its impact should be minimal. It is effectively impossible to argue away someone's feelings. If they feel harmed, threatened, fearful, sad, angry, depressed, saying "don't" won't help and that is regardless of whether those feelings are justified or not. There is a reason for it. Feelings are by their very nature not quite open to logic.
But then.. I have a general problem with reorganizing the world based on 'good vibes'. Actual freedom is only freedom if other people can do things that can make people uncomfortable. In other words, perception of harm to one person is a good time to another.
<< Pragmatism seems to be dead.
I hesitate on that front a little. If I were to guess, I would argue that the pragmatism is very strong now, but it is wielded in the name of a specific cause. In other words, any means necessary are used to get to the desired point ( again, both sides -- if we accept US political framework ).
Yep. I have mostly withdrawn from most conversations on the subject given the level of irrationality and, on both sides mind, layers of unstated assumptions that are almost never explored openly or in good faith.
<< For example, is the feeling of potential harm, harm?
I would argue that it is, but its impact should be minimal. It is effectively impossible to argue away someone's feelings. If they feel harmed, threatened, fearful, sad, angry, depressed, saying "don't" won't help and that is regardless of whether those feelings are justified or not. There is a reason for it. Feelings are by their very nature not quite open to logic.
But then.. I have a general problem with reorganizing the world based on 'good vibes'. Actual freedom is only freedom if other people can do things that can make people uncomfortable. In other words, perception of harm to one person is a good time to another.
<< Pragmatism seems to be dead.
I hesitate on that front a little. If I were to guess, I would argue that the pragmatism is very strong now, but it is wielded in the name of a specific cause. In other words, any means necessary are used to get to the desired point ( again, both sides -- if we accept US political framework ).
Potential harm can definitely be actual harm. Some folks use intimidation to control others behavior. Intimidation can be seen as potential harm, but if people are intimidated into changing their behavior because of fear of violence, them that is actual harm.
I'm thinking of the January 6 2017 riot at the Capitol. The vice president could very well have caved to those chanting "hang Mike Pence" out of fear.
I'm thinking of the January 6 2017 riot at the Capitol. The vice president could very well have caved to those chanting "hang Mike Pence" out of fear.
Not going to lie, this is mildly fascinating, but I am not sure if enough time has passed to allow detached analysis of the event just yet. Still, if all it takes is fear, woulnd't it almost automatically remove all responsibility from the person claiming this? I am not sure this is a valid excuse for government officials with 24/7 protection and multiple agencies looking after their well-being.
The issue with taking feelings too seriously in leadership or civic discussion, is that anyone can feel anything for any reason. Or pretend to.
And since they don’t need to be based on anything factual, then what?
For example if we can’t say ‘stop’ or ‘suck it up’, then those with the most unreasonable or unaddressable feelings end up driving everything, eh?
And since they don’t need to be based on anything factual, then what?
For example if we can’t say ‘stop’ or ‘suck it up’, then those with the most unreasonable or unaddressable feelings end up driving everything, eh?
[deleted]
Significantly smoothening the definition of fascist.
Yep. Looks like it officially means "authoritarian", with any relation to any specific kind of authoritarianism.
But then, I've seen people using worse definitions. It would be nice if people would stop frivolously accusing people of the worst crimes we have in recent history almost unanimously acceptable to be punishable by death just because they disagree on some mild detail in social policy... but I've given-up on any hope to achieve that.
But then, I've seen people using worse definitions. It would be nice if people would stop frivolously accusing people of the worst crimes we have in recent history almost unanimously acceptable to be punishable by death just because they disagree on some mild detail in social policy... but I've given-up on any hope to achieve that.
yeah, this applies to any authoritarian, whether Communistic, Fascisms, or new age healer crystal worshipers
I'm not sure how pervasive the permissiveness principle is.
I'd guess instead that one of the reasons why Russell called love of power the strongest unquenchable desire is that power gives a person the ability to get people to behave in ways the person wants.
Plus, some people just like to meddle, to stir things up and watch the pain.
I'd guess instead that one of the reasons why Russell called love of power the strongest unquenchable desire is that power gives a person the ability to get people to behave in ways the person wants.
Plus, some people just like to meddle, to stir things up and watch the pain.
It really isn't. The "tic tacs" example is deliberately absurd, but here in California it is illegal to eat horses as a result of a ballot initiative, but it's fine to eat cows and pigs, and most people do. You can argue that it's all okay, you can argue that neither is okay, but there is not an argument to be made that eating pigs is okay and eating horses isn't. At least, no argument that doesn't boil down to "ha ha we got the majority of the vote".
This feels very close to a scene from Pulp Fiction:
[VINCENT] You want some bacon?
[JULES] No, man, I don't eat pork.
[VINCENT] Are you Jewish?
[JULES] No, I ain't Jewish, I just don't dig on swine, that's all.
[VINCENT] Why not?
[JULES] Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals.
[VINCENT] But bacon tastes good, pork chops taste good...
[JULES] Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfuckers. Pigs sleep and root in shit, that's a filthy animal. I don't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces.
[VINCENT] How about a dog? A dog eats its own feces.
[JULES] I don't eat dog either.
https://genius.com/John-travolta-and-samuel-l-jackson-person...
[VINCENT] You want some bacon?
[JULES] No, man, I don't eat pork.
[VINCENT] Are you Jewish?
[JULES] No, I ain't Jewish, I just don't dig on swine, that's all.
[VINCENT] Why not?
[JULES] Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals.
[VINCENT] But bacon tastes good, pork chops taste good...
[JULES] Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfuckers. Pigs sleep and root in shit, that's a filthy animal. I don't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces.
[VINCENT] How about a dog? A dog eats its own feces.
[JULES] I don't eat dog either.
https://genius.com/John-travolta-and-samuel-l-jackson-person...
What the article seems to be highlighting is _affirming the consequent_ fallacy whereby people deem you as evil when they observe you doing something they deem as wrong. Instead they should actually confirm that you too deem the act as wrong before they label you as evil.
It is an extreme case of realism. I have no issue deeming you evil for performing human sacrifice even though several religions throughout history have done this.
By the measure, you propose no one could be considered evil if they were a psychopath.
By the measure, you propose no one could be considered evil if they were a psychopath.
I don't know man? Kind of depends on what you're doing.
Going to the extreme cases..
You may be a person from one religion who doesn't feel it is evil to off people en masse if they believe in any religion not your own. I don't really care that you don't think it's evil, I'm still pretty comfy calling you evil.
Obviously no one's talking about things like killing people, (I hope?), but I think the example shows what I'm talking about.
Going to the extreme cases..
You may be a person from one religion who doesn't feel it is evil to off people en masse if they believe in any religion not your own. I don't really care that you don't think it's evil, I'm still pretty comfy calling you evil.
Obviously no one's talking about things like killing people, (I hope?), but I think the example shows what I'm talking about.
I don't think the moral intuition of "you should let people do what they want, unless they're hurting other people" is real in the first place. I often see people try and make the claim work, but in even the most basic scenarios, it requires transparently motivated reasoning to dismiss some kinds of hurt as fabricated or illegitimate. "My mother says it genuinely pains her that I've gotten a tattoo, but that can't be true, since I have a right to get a tattoo if I want."
well, if you count emotional harm as harm, and anyone can be emotionally harmed by anything, then the rule becomes meaningless.
And if you don't count emotional harm as harm, you'll let insistent stalking, threatening, and all kinds of moral abuses pass. So yeah, the definition is completely useless.
I don't think you need to treat emotional harm as harm when you can criminalize credible threats or harassment (repeated unwanted personal contact after being told to stop).
There is the tort of outrage or "Intentional infliction of emotional distress" which does treat emotional harm as harm that can be recovered against in a civil case, but it's controversial, hard to prove and limited in scope.
There is the tort of outrage or "Intentional infliction of emotional distress" which does treat emotional harm as harm that can be recovered against in a civil case, but it's controversial, hard to prove and limited in scope.
I don't understand the distinction you're drawing. What kind of harm do credible threats or harassment cause if not emotional harm?
Rational fear of a crime being committed? I'd struggle to call that emotional harm. I might not be upset about a threat, but still respond to it by changing my behavior or actions, and for various reasons society wants to discourage people from using the threat of initiated force in most situations.
This assumes that people arrive at stated preferences rationally (i.e. "I have observed the behavior of Tic Tacs and read some papers on the topic and believe them to not be sentient"). Instead, my intuition is that most of these opinions are a result of emotions ("I find Tic Tacs disgusting and therefore think that I am justified in harming them, but because I'm a good person, this also necessitates that they are not sentient because good people don't harm sentient beings.")
So disagreement is not over whether Tic Tacs are sentient, it's that one person finds them disgusting and the other does not. For the person who finds them disgusting, the person who wants Tic Tacs to not be harmed is not just somebody with a different opinion, it's somebody who is now also disgusting because they are arguing for and defending something disgusting. This then justifies negative emotions and negative behavior towards that person (and vice-versa).
So disagreement is not over whether Tic Tacs are sentient, it's that one person finds them disgusting and the other does not. For the person who finds them disgusting, the person who wants Tic Tacs to not be harmed is not just somebody with a different opinion, it's somebody who is now also disgusting because they are arguing for and defending something disgusting. This then justifies negative emotions and negative behavior towards that person (and vice-versa).
I agree that, generally, accusations of fascism come down to a disagreement over some lower-level belief about what is a "harm" and what harms should be tolerated.
My issue with the article is its analogy to sentient tic-tacs.
The vast majority of disagreements are about human beings, who counts as a human being, and to what extent that human being should be allowed to live as they want.
My issue with the article is its analogy to sentient tic-tacs.
The vast majority of disagreements are about human beings, who counts as a human being, and to what extent that human being should be allowed to live as they want.
Title needs 2014.
[deleted]
Sub tic-tacs for jews... le epic
[deleted]
I disagree with the premises outright. I have no intention of causing no harm to anyone. Just by living, we cause harm to others and other beings.
I am going to say things to other people and that is going to make them upset, that is ok. They are going to say things that make me upset, that is ok.
Someone is going to give me a cold, flu, etc. and that is ok. They didn't have to do it, they could have stayed inside for weeks until they were sure they were not sick, but who wants to live that way?
There is a level of harm in anything that that a living thing does.
I am going to say things to other people and that is going to make them upset, that is ok. They are going to say things that make me upset, that is ok.
Someone is going to give me a cold, flu, etc. and that is ok. They didn't have to do it, they could have stayed inside for weeks until they were sure they were not sick, but who wants to live that way?
There is a level of harm in anything that that a living thing does.
> who wants to live that way?
Some of us. I only go outside when I can't avoid it.
Some of us. I only go outside when I can't avoid it.
I wasn't being literal when I said 'who wants to live that way' as in to mean every single person with no exceptions. yes, Locked-in syndrome is a thing. its not healthy but hey, you do you.
I can exercise at home, I moved outside the city and I have a large patio so I get sun and fresh air, I just only leave the house less than once a week when there's something I can't do from home. My friends all moved to different countries years ago so I only see them online anyway. I do yearly check ups, I'm actually in much better health than when I lived in the city and went outside several times a day.
It's not a question of 'stay inside for weeks' or 'go out' though is it? It's a spectrum and there are a lot of basic precautions like masking possible that people refuse to do.
Personally I live my life but will continue wearing a KN95 until Covid stops being in active circulation. You can call this paranoia but I haven't caught anything since I started doing this and taking other basic precautions like distancing - no covid, no flu, no colds. So I'm benefiting from it and by doing this I'm less likely to spread a disease to someone immunocompromised.
Earlier during covid I saw a lot of people doing the same, which I appreciated. Now I'm the only person doing this and it makes me a little sad, because if I spread a cold or flu or covid to somebody's grandma, they might die even if the virus is no problem for my younger immune system.
In other countries it's conventional to wear a mask any time you're remotely sick or have symptoms that might indicate illness, but we don't do it here. Instead, people go to work while sick and make their coworkers sick.
Personally I live my life but will continue wearing a KN95 until Covid stops being in active circulation. You can call this paranoia but I haven't caught anything since I started doing this and taking other basic precautions like distancing - no covid, no flu, no colds. So I'm benefiting from it and by doing this I'm less likely to spread a disease to someone immunocompromised.
Earlier during covid I saw a lot of people doing the same, which I appreciated. Now I'm the only person doing this and it makes me a little sad, because if I spread a cold or flu or covid to somebody's grandma, they might die even if the virus is no problem for my younger immune system.
In other countries it's conventional to wear a mask any time you're remotely sick or have symptoms that might indicate illness, but we don't do it here. Instead, people go to work while sick and make their coworkers sick.
the point was not to get into a mask debate but "In other countries it's conventional to wear a mask any time you're remotely sick" should ring as BS to you, because those countries have flu and cold just like any other country.
AND if you ask them, they don't do it to prevent others from getting sick (not that that works unless you are gasping air through an n95), but they do it to protect themselves. This is especially true in China where there is also air pollution to consider.
AND if you ask them, they don't do it to prevent others from getting sick (not that that works unless you are gasping air through an n95), but they do it to protect themselves. This is especially true in China where there is also air pollution to consider.
The dilution of the word Fascist to mean someone who would censor you for some reason, has been bad for discussions of Fascism and its ilk. Now the word seems to include the person who asks you to show them respect by using their correct name or pronouncing it correctly, as well as the person who would execute you for writing "sick" literature that contradicts a fascist belief system, somehow equating the two.
Are there rakes in the world? Do some people think they are not rakes, while other people think they are? Probably. But maybe it is better to try to agree on what is really going on in real discussions, rather than hypotheticals about candies.