Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Why someone becomes a Marxist?

  1. #1
    Cryogenic Sleep: Goodbye! Tommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    SLI-0 D sx/sp
    Posts
    3,146
    Mentioned
    374 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default Why someone becomes a Marxist?

    Discuss.

    Also do you think it can be related to quadra values and/or quadral complexes?
    Last edited by Tommy; 06-17-2020 at 07:50 PM.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    TIM
    INTp (Te)
    Posts
    613
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Often:
    a) they've read Marx's theory, books and find its observations valuable (especially if it does align with their personal experience; bonus points if they study philosophy or alike)
    b) they've been influenced by Marxist thought, usually via some websites and groups (if you are more liberal socially, it is very likely you will encounter economical leftists that way and they tend to be more 'reasonable' - in my experience - than socially liberal libertarians, who often are not even that socially liberal)
    c) they have friends into that and think it is cool/take this as a 'word' by proxy (someone I know became a tankie just like that)

    It's a process.

    For what is worth I respect Marx and I'm a leftist, but I wouldn't call myself a Marxist. Also Marxists are pretty diverse, they are many scholars that base on Marx and they very often quarrel/disagree with one another.

  3. #3
    Cryogenic Sleep: Goodbye! Tommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    SLI-0 D sx/sp
    Posts
    3,146
    Mentioned
    374 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I mean more like, what are the motivations of the ppl who believes that marxism is the solution to economic problems.
    I think as system is pretty idealistic and doesn't take into account human nature and it results in repression and tyranny. And I think it limits human rights in the most basic levels.
    Last edited by Tommy; 06-27-2020 at 06:06 PM.

  4. #4
    Master of Space and Reality Viktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Sweden
    TIM
    SLE C
    Posts
    463
    Mentioned
    143 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it's mostly angry people from low income backgrounds that feel that the system has betrayed or rejected them. I think the far left is driven by outrage, and a feeling of alienation. Extreme ideologies are very attractive to these people because it provides an easy overarching solution to all their problems

  5. #5
    ♰CHRIST IS KING♰ squirtle69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Monte Carlo
    TIM
    H-ESI 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,734
    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    because they're gay with aids

  6. #6
    Cryogenic Sleep: Goodbye! Tommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    SLI-0 D sx/sp
    Posts
    3,146
    Mentioned
    374 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not all ppl who believes in marxism or communism are from low income background. But Marx was from low income background. However some atheists believes that an utopy as marxism is possible and desirable for getting a fair and ethical distribution of resources.

  7. #7
    Cryogenic Sleep: Goodbye! Tommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    SLI-0 D sx/sp
    Posts
    3,146
    Mentioned
    374 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dedxx View Post
    because they're gay with aids
    so you are a marxist.

  8. #8
    Master of Space and Reality Viktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Sweden
    TIM
    SLE C
    Posts
    463
    Mentioned
    143 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't see how atheism has anything to do with marxism. I'm an atheist and I'm not a marxist

  9. #9
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    1,386
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
    Not all ppl who believes in marxism or communism are from low income background. But Marx was from low income background. However some atheists believes that an utopy as marxism is possible and desirable for getting a fair and ethical distribution of resources.
    Marx was from an upper-middle class family. Engels’ father owned textile factories. Marxism isn’t about creating a utopia, and Marxists would dismiss calls for “fair and ethical distribution of resources” as liberal babbling.

  10. #10
    Cryogenic Sleep: Goodbye! Tommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    SLI-0 D sx/sp
    Posts
    3,146
    Mentioned
    374 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Marx was from an upper-middle class family. Engels’ father owned textile factories. Marxism isn’t about creating a utopia, and Marxists would dismiss calls for “fair and ethical distribution of resources” as liberal babbling.
    Marx didnt had money, Engels was his friend. The above is my pov of marxism ofc, if you have another different write it down and enlight us all.

  11. #11
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,092
    Mentioned
    193 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Someone becomes a Marxist because they don't understand mathematics.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    TIM
    INTp (Te)
    Posts
    613
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitta View Post
    Someone becomes a Marxist because they don't understand mathematics.
    Ehhh... It's probably not serious, but I'm going to respond.

    Economics is a complicated field at that sweet intersection of mathematics and human factor., with, imho, the second being much more visible and important.

    Your 'argument' would be much better if you had argued about the human component as Marxism only addresses that, not math. You can say 'Marxist don't really into people and their behavior' or 'Marxists make unfalsifable claims about people's behavior/false claims' (like Tommy said) but to say 'Marxists cannot into math' is just, whoa, dude. The math is here to follow a model, whether that model is Marxist, Austrian or written by Keynes.

  13. #13
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,092
    Mentioned
    193 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duschia View Post
    Ehhh... It's probably not serious, but I'm going to respond.

    Economics is a complicated field at that sweet intersection of mathematics and human factor., with, imho, the second being much more visible and important.

    Your 'argument' would be much better if you had argued about the human component as Marxism only addresses that, not math. You can say 'Marxist don't really into people and their behavior' or 'Marxists make unfalsifable claims about people's behavior/false claims' (like Tommy said) but to say 'Marxists cannot into math' is just, whoa, dude. The math is here to follow a model, whether that model is Marxist, Austrian or written by Keynes.
    I can actually say that if the inequities that a Marxist believes are caused by free markets aren't actually caused by free markets but by creating bubbles. Wealth redistribution actually causes an erosion of the middle class via Jenganomics. The more socialist policies that are put into place, the more it makes capitalism look like it's creating the inequities, when it fact it isn't. Economies are networks of good exchanges that are occurring. When money is funneled from the upper middle class and upper class to the lower class, the money isn't used to create investment, but acts as a battery to prop up big business by creating a rise in demand. This over time erodes the middle class. The lower tier use the money on goods and services and the Upper class just ends up with more money than they had to give up, which is why big business are pro-socialist policies because it actually helps them. If you want to actually get into whether Marxism in full implementation is broken, then I will say that it just creates a cascade of mal-investment. Truthfully, Marxism actually does the reverse effect of what Marx predicts. The longer the system goes on, the more freedoms are taken away to maintain the system, and eventually you will have an uprising of people wanting freedom to be able to trade goods and services in the way they want to. While I don't think that Marxism is capable of maintaining equity, even if it was the living standards of the individuals under it as a whole would go down.

    Also, I haven't even gotten into how Keynesian economics fucks up the economy.
    Last edited by Hitta; 06-18-2020 at 01:00 AM.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  14. #14
    Head chef on the SS Diarrhea Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Great Spirit Robot
    TIM
    B I T C H
    Posts
    1,907
    Mentioned
    136 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can believe in an economic-reductionist view of history without sharing Marx's vision. That economic reductionism is "marxist," even though many people who reject marx's vision of the future also take this lens. In the same way, you can believe Nietzsche's view of historical values having been split between master and slave, without sharing his master-moralist views, and aligning yourself with slave-morality instead. The framework describes how you believe the world to be ordered as a matter of fact, but you can still apply your own values within that framework. What most people identify as marxists are those who share marxian visions, not all economic-reductionists, which fit under the technical umbrella of "marxism" even if we wouldn't call them that.


    Alternatives to economic reduction include religious-reduction like Max Weber's type, and the Great Man theory of history, which is factually wrong and shouldn't require justifying.

  15. #15
    Cryogenic Sleep: Goodbye! Tommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    SLI-0 D sx/sp
    Posts
    3,146
    Mentioned
    374 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktor View Post
    I don't see how atheism has anything to do with marxism. I'm an atheist and I'm not a marxist
    I didnt say all atheists are maxists. Some atheists are and communism rejects religious belifs.

  16. #16
    inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    946 sp/so IP mess
    Posts
    6,468
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ahem. From someone who sounds like a "Marxist," people from well off backgrounds are not likely to come up with ideas that work because they can only imagine class oppression. Then there are those from lower classes who make it "big" and then sell out. We humans are weak.

    More serious answer. I imagine what people are calling Marxism (though that may be the wrong label) has already won. The overlords aren't coming, they are already here. The time to fight them was years ago and the only way to fight them was to do equality better. No one did.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12,178
    Mentioned
    1114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    humanism
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  18. #18
    shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    (ง •̀_•́)ง
    TIM
    Se-LSI- Harmonizing
    Posts
    1,259
    Mentioned
    101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    bleeding heart, lack of historical perspective & shitty education

  19. #19
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    1,386
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    humanism
    Funnily enough, this is the closest thing to a good answer in this moronic thread. Marxists tend to regard Marxism as the conclusion and pinnacle of European humanistic thought.

  20. #20
    Socionics is a spook ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    15,081
    Mentioned
    850 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's because I think all that math stuff is over my head that I'm NOT Marxist (or an adherent to any economic system), but having lived all my life under capitalism, its easier to see the flaws and have a soft spot for presented alternatives. And NOT having had exposure to other environments makes it easier to justify or overlook potential flaws. I think this explains the "why," along with more confidence about all that math stuff, lol. I don't wanna dismiss anybody's thoughts by tossing out the phrase "grass is greener," but I think that's part of understanding the motivation.

  21. #21
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,552
    Mentioned
    121 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
    I mean more like, what are the motivations of the ppl who believes that marxism is the solution to economic problems.
    I think as system is pretty idealistic and doesn't take into account human nature and it results in repression and tyranny. And I think it limits human rights in the most basic levels.

    My LSE dad is marxist and believes communism is the solution, it seems contradictory to me that ppl is unhappy because of poverty and the lack of opportunities in capitalist nations, but then think that a system that's much more repressive and limits ppls income is the solution. A more fair distribution of money is right, but from that to renounce to all of your freedom to live in an utopic system ruled by another privileged cast (party, militaries, presidential family etc) are two different extremes. Plus the state can never be above the most basic human rights.

    I'm not a Marxist, but I can describe some of my own motivations for being to the left of social democrats:

    I believe in worker ownership for large firms — barring that, some form of worker representation or stake-ownership. I believe that this is desirable to the same extent that representative democracy is a more desirable form of government than benevolent oligarchy.

    What is social democracy in a nutshell? Better regulated markets and higher taxes on the rich to fund social programs. That's nice, but social democracy remains a two-tier society with a class of leaders held accountable by shareholders rather than workers. There is a degree of social mobility, but the class of leaders is only accountable to other members of that class, and remains more-or-less hereditary.

    Consider how the same logic would be received if it were applied to our political system. Would anyone seriously argue to have an unimpeachable monarch that is 'regulated' by a legal constitution? Politicians worked extremely hard to succeed — just as hard as businessmen — and continue to work hard to pass laws, yet the same argument is never used to justify giving them a permanent or semi-permanent station. There is a democratic premise that politicians can be removed by their constituents on election day; these are constituents by virtue of simply being citizens, not by virtue of being other members of the political class.
    Last edited by xerxe; 06-21-2020 at 04:57 AM. Reason: Removed unnecessary trailing sentence

  22. #22
    shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    (ง •̀_•́)ง
    TIM
    Se-LSI- Harmonizing
    Posts
    1,259
    Mentioned
    101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Funnily enough, this is the closest thing to a good answer in this moronic thread. Marxists tend to regard Marxism as the conclusion and pinnacle of European humanistic thought.
    That is not how Europeans see it tho. Kant's Categorical Imperative & his Transcendental idealism would be the pinnacle and everything since then has been one disaster after another.

    you'd be hard pressed to find mainland Europeans who aren't socialist & authoritarian to some degree tho (including me). It comes with the geopolitical situation (constant invasion & war), much like how the British & Americans have a predisposition towards liberty & capitalism (partially or entirely easy to defend island nations with access to the ocean)

    Its interesting to see tho how rampant capitalism always warrants a socialist backlash, even in the US.
    Last edited by shotgunfingers; 06-19-2020 at 08:51 AM.

  23. #23
    ragnar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    649
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
    Why someone becomes a Marxist?
    I think it partly boils down to some kind of "regressive" personality disorder. By "regressive" I mean a longing to return to childhood, with the State as the great Parent. The believer in Marxism longs to become the child of Daddy and Mommy State, the great Caretaker that makes sure that all siblings have everything they need and are treated equally.

    There's also another kind of Marxist, the one who wants to dominate and rule over others and be the benevolent wise and allknowing Parent or older sibling who occasionally has to punish the children for their own good.

    In either case the appeal of Marxism comes from a deep unconscious desire to return to an idealized version of childhood.
    Greetings, ragnar
    ILI knowledge-seeker

  24. #24
    inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    946 sp/so IP mess
    Posts
    6,468
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Honestly I'm not even sure I am a "Marxist." I'm not very good at political philosophy. I mainly just want money out of politics so the government represents the voters not corporate interests. I want more regulations for corporations as driven by the people's vote. I want corporations to have to pay their workers a lot more and see it as unjust they CEOs sit all fat and rich at the top while their workers do the heavy lifting and CEOs soak up money off of things like our internet data. The rich are not exemplars of justice, quite the opposite, and this is seen as acceptable while people are actually starving and dying on the streets. It's sick. Much of society exists to serve all the people with the most money, and the pandemic has exposed the sheer heartlessness of their class. I want low cost healthcare for everyone and lower cost education. Basically, I want the US to invest in the majority of its people rather than a minority of its people, and I don't think this is some radical terrible idea. Can it be done the wrong way? Certainly and I'm worried it's being done the wrong way now (the left's movement), though I'm ambivalent, because I'm also worried it's just a bunch of lip service and nothing will really change to end inequality in society, it will just rearrange it or tweak it and give some feel good words.

    I'm politically risky, though my favorite candidate was Andrew Yang, mainly because he was proposing changes within capitalism and since our system is capitalist, I thought that might be a less destabilizing approach. However, I did have several issues with him. For one I didn't see how UBI would end poverty as he said he wanted to do because for, say, a single parent with several kids in the poor class, they would only get $1000/per month UBI (their number of kids won't matter) AND they would have to choose between government benefits and UBI, whereas I think they would need both. So mainly it seemed to me the UBI would help people like the homeless and it would certainly help the lower and middle class, but I was afraid the poor would actually not be that helped by it. Yang also was reticent on the topic of reparations for African Americans, which I think is unwise since the majority of African Americans support reparations. I am not sure we can unite the poor and working class without reparations because I think it's needed to turn system racism around--and as long as the poor and working class are divided they can always be pitted against each other by the people at the top who want nothing to change. I don't think poverty can be ended without reparations. Also, he seemed very ignorant on foreign policy, and less concerned about climate change seemingly than I would prefer. I don't really care about arguments like "how will we pay for it?" because the US government is good at dumping tons of money into their priorities while increasing the national debt.

    But I will vote for social democrats, which maybe is being called "Marxist," because everyone else just seems to want to keep up the status quo which is watching income inequality increase every year and bemoaning the loss of life on earth knowing it will eventually collapse the food chains and displace millions of people instead of doing something about it.
    Last edited by inumbra; 06-19-2020 at 06:48 PM.

  25. #25
    Cryogenic Sleep: Goodbye! Tommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    SLI-0 D sx/sp
    Posts
    3,146
    Mentioned
    374 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragnar View Post
    I think it partly boils down to some kind of "regressive" personality disorder. By "regressive" I mean a longing to return to childhood, with the State as the great Parent. The believer in Marxism longs to become the child of Daddy and Mommy State, the great Caretaker that makes sure that all siblings have everything they need and are treated equally.

    There's also another kind of Marxist, the one who wants to dominate and rule over others and be the benevolent wise and allknowing Parent or older sibling who occasionally has to punish the children for their own good.

    In either case the appeal of Marxism comes from a deep unconscious desire to return to an idealized version of childhood.
    that actually would make sense in the case of my dad, just that mb is not a desire to return to childhood but he as caregiver type thinks the best way for society is to get that idealized version of government where there's equity in the use of resources (that actually belong to that parental nation not to ppl as individuals).

  26. #26
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,552
    Mentioned
    121 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Tommy

    I take it that you want the personal motivations of Marxists (or of activists on the radical left). I can give you an anecdotal answer based on the Marxists that I've read and have personally known.

    They have tended to be very scholarly individual; better-educated than average, especially in fields like history. They're more likely to be sympathetic to people's suffering, even if it's at an abstract level. They're more opinionated than average, and more willing to dissent. They tend to be more excitable, and quicker to want decisive action against what they regard as unjustness or unfairness. They're more likely to have very rigid convictions about right and wrong.

    That's the gist of it. Some of this description may be applicable to radicals of most kinds (Islamist, Anarchist, etc...)
    Last edited by xerxe; 06-19-2020 at 08:09 PM.

  27. #27
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    2,901
    Mentioned
    276 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Because that is the push for the near future. Marxism, then communism, worldwide. Its not good and we can see it coming. It's easy to look around and see methods that can be used for this change of regime. It was foretold that without much prayer and without the consecrations of Russia by the Pope and Bishops that Russia would spread its errors throughout the world. That was foretold in Fatima in 1917 and, our infiltrated Church has never allowed that consecration to happen. So now it is easy to see that that is our future. Communism throughout the whole world. That is what the Blessed Mother foretold in Fatima, that day of the biggest miracle witnessed by the most people since the parting of the Red Sea. In the end, her Immaculate Heart will triumph - but not without some very painful times, first. Persecution and much blood of martyrs. Much loss of life.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  28. #28
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,902
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
    Discuss.

    Also do you think it can be related to quadra values and/or quadral complexes?
    Capitalism/Free Market/Whatever doesn't work for them.

  29. #29
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,670
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset once said: left and right are just two of the many ways for a person to be imbecile.

    There are two things: there is Marx and there is Marxism. Marx once said that he was not a Marxist himself. So we can safely conclude that Marxism, like any dogmatic stand in life, is just another way to be imbecile.

    With that out of the way, perhaps there is the possibility of giving Marx some credit for some of his ideas, or perhaps for his theory at large. I, for one, am as much an admirer of Marx as I am an admirer of Friedrich Hayek. Only ignorant people with self-serving tunnel vision (which is 99% of humanity) fail to see that both have valuable insights to offer.
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  30. #30
    Head chef on the SS Diarrhea Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Great Spirit Robot
    TIM
    B I T C H
    Posts
    1,907
    Mentioned
    136 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    They have tended to be very scholarly individual; better-educated than average, especially in fields like history. They're more likely to be sympathetic to people's suffering, even if it's at an abstract level. They're more opinionated than average, and more willing to dissent. They tend to be more excitable, and quicker to want decisive action against what they regard as unjustness or unfairness. They're more likely to have very rigid convictions about right and wrong.
    I really don't get this. I'd think education would lead one to realize that nature is red in tooth and claw, that love of human life is just another prejudice, and most of nature's life cycles are one organism dominating another, not living harmoniously. Why do we have this spook that enlightened = egalitarian? What forces nature to care about our petty bullshit?

  31. #31
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,552
    Mentioned
    121 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    I really don't get this. I'd think education would lead one to realize that nature is red in tooth and claw, that love of human life is just another prejudice, and most of nature's life cycles are one organism dominating another, not living harmoniously. Why do we have this spook that enlightened = egalitarian? What forces nature to care about our petty bullshit?
    It isn't clear to me that human nature is red in tooth and claw. From what I've experienced, human actions are so varied that there are sufficient behavioural examples to support an ideology built around any set of principles: hierarchical, egalitarian, individualistic, or otherwise.

    This is not a fact that I've known to be empirically verified by psychologists, but I believe that people formulate their world view based on how they feel. I'm willing to brook some deviation from the general rule, but I agree with Hume's dictum that "reason is the slave of the passions", though it could be the case that passions change throughout someone's lifetime. Better education gives someone the rhetorical tools to construct a stronger edifice to support one's beliefs as opposed to tearing them down.

    The main thing that really works to change people's minds is the seizure of political power. Legislation can change the incentive structure; for instance, to make abortion more desirable or less desirable. The impression that laws and customs are set in stone primes people to accept (even defend) the new reality, and to make dissent pointless without needing to make it punishable.

    Currently, there is a lively debate surrounding freedom of speech. A premise used throughout the debate is that dissenting opinions should be debated rather than immediately vilified and dismissed by political correctness. I happen to support this premise because I get pleasure from hearing provocative opinions, and because I believe that dissent is a necessary component of a free society. But, the insistence on 'freedom of speech' and 'reasonable debate' is itself a form of political correctness that primes people to moderate their rhetoric and lower their ambitions.

    EDIT: The free speech debate is a lopsided one, though, because some of the parties insist on reasonable debate only when their ideas are being attacked. "Freedom, bitch!" is a frequently-employed rhetorical trick used to avoid having to justify their ideas.
    Last edited by xerxe; 06-27-2020 at 06:10 PM.

  32. #32
    Head chef on the SS Diarrhea Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Great Spirit Robot
    TIM
    B I T C H
    Posts
    1,907
    Mentioned
    136 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Currently, there is a lively debate surrounding freedom of speech. A premise used throughout the debate is that dissenting opinions should be debated rather than immediately vilified and dismissed by political correctness. I happen to support this premise because I get pleasure from hearing provocative opinions, and because I believe that dissent is a necessary component of a free society. But, the insistence on 'freedom of speech' and 'reasonable debate' is itself a form of political correctness that primes people to moderate their rhetoric and lower their ambitions.

    EDIT: The free speech debate is a lopsided one, though, because some of the parties insist on reasonable debate only when their ideas are being attacked. "Freedom, bitch!" is a frequently-employed rhetorical trick used to avoid having to justify their ideas.
    As a tangent, I agree it's silly when freeze peach is invoked to protect what's essentially boorish tribal sloganeering used to brute-force an opinion rather than actually understand it.

    I think we need to turn the free speech debate towards protecting obscenities. If you defend only slurs that serve one's side's interests on the basis of free speech, then one's principle is transparent and self-serving, but once you defend the type of communication that no one would consider moral, then you've protected free speech when it's hard to do so. I don't think enough people care about that.

  33. #33
    khcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,176
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why someone becomes a Marxist?

    They born into the Angry Anarchist quadrant. ENFJ, ESTP, ISTP, INFJ

  34. #34
    shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    (ง •̀_•́)ง
    TIM
    Se-LSI- Harmonizing
    Posts
    1,259
    Mentioned
    101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by khcs View Post
    Why someone becomes a Marxist?

    They born into the Angry Anarchist quadrant. ENFJ, ESTP, ISTP, INFJ
    Tym to crush beta quadra then ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ.. lel.. Gamma corporate oligarchs get squashed as well.. its called taking out the trash.
    Last edited by shotgunfingers; 07-03-2020 at 08:45 AM.

  35. #35
    khcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,176
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The Angry Anarchist Quadrant: ENFJ(Beta), ESTP(Beta), ISTP(Delta), INFJ(Delta)

  36. #36
    shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    (ง •̀_•́)ง
    TIM
    Se-LSI- Harmonizing
    Posts
    1,259
    Mentioned
    101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by khcs View Post
    The Angry Anarchist Quadrant: ENFJ(Beta), ESTP(Beta), ISTP(Delta), INFJ(Delta)
    Only Alpha! <_< fuckin hell man.. every quadra gets the bullet!


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •