LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Going for cheap scores, I see. It's not reductionist, but that's besides the point. You should recognize that the meaning of words don't depend on the whims of every jackass who uses them.

I'm aware. My point is that we shouldn't employ an uncharitable or blatantly wrong (for the context) defintion because it is the more "common" understanding. A poster appealed to Plato's Republic and the immediate response to mention of the word "aristocracy" was to equate it to medieval class systems when that clearly isn't what was intended. Not everybody who favors an aristocracy is about to go all-in on feudalism. The term has received quite a bit of use in various ideological and political circles.

I actually have no serious objections to you employing a more narrow or contextualized definition for socialism. My main objection is that the courtesy should be reciprocated when somebody uses a term in a particular context and we're all aware of the context in which it's being used. Aristocracy with reference the Plato and natural aristocracy should not automatically be associated with feudalism when that has no pertinence to the overall conversation.

You’re just lying here.

The word aristocracy was used. Then, a reference was made to Republican Rome and feudalism. Only afterwards did the poster say ‘but I meant Platonic Aristocracy’, to which the response was ‘then you should have defined that more clearly’.

The way you make it sound, someone wanted to discuss Platonic aristocracy and we all said ‘BOOOOOOHHHH’, which is clearly not what happened.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'm pretty against the idea that there's a natural set of politics someone from a particular demographic needs to agree with or else be "self hating".

Criticise them for their ideas being bad, but "you're not allowed to think that because you're x" is a very reductionist line of thought, particularly when people are prone to take the worst possible interpretation of intent in what the person said in order to make the point.

It's very rarely a good line of argument, basically, and it can have whiffs of treating groups as agency-free pets who have less rights to opinions because you've left out some food you think they should like. If you're holding someone to higher demands for ideological conformity because of their race, gender or whatever that seems a tad discriminatory.

[Kowani]

I'm pretty against the idea that there's a natural set of politics someone from a particular demographic needs to agree with or else be "self hating".

Criticise them for their ideas being bad, but "you're not allowed to think that because you're x" is a very reductionist line of thought, particularly when people are prone to take the worst possible interpretation of intent in what the person said in order to make the point.

It's very rarely a good line of argument, basically, and it can have whiffs of treating groups as agency-free pets who have less rights to opinions because you've left out some food you think they should like. If you're holding someone to higher demands for ideological conformity because of their race, gender or whatever that seems a tad discriminatory.

“Jews for Hitler.”

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'm pretty against the idea that there's a natural set of politics someone from a particular demographic needs to agree with or else be "self hating".

Criticise them for their ideas being bad, but "you're not allowed to think that because you're x" is a very reductionist line of thought, particularly when people are prone to take the worst possible interpretation of intent in what the person said in order to make the point.

It's very rarely a good line of argument, basically, and it can have whiffs of treating groups as agency-free pets who have less rights to opinions because you've left out some food you think they should like. If you're holding someone to higher demands for ideological conformity because of their race, gender or whatever that seems a tad discriminatory.

“Jews for Hitler.”

Would you like to develop that argument or are three words all you can be bothered to type?

[North German Realm]

“Jews for Hitler.”

Would you like to develop that argument or are three words all you can be bothered to type?

Honestly that's pretty much all one needs to say regarding to your statement that "there is no natural set of politics someone from a particular demographic needs to agree with or else be "self hating""

[Kowani]

“Jews for Hitler.”

Would you like to develop that argument or are three words all you can be bothered to type?

Simple. Nobody should favor policies that actively advocate their own death (or suffering to a certain degree, you didn’t see blacks for slavery). And not in the sense that anprims do, where the lack of modern medicine would kill most of its adherents. But rather, policies that explicitly call for one’s death for being part of an undesirable group should really not be supported by members of said group.

Though watching KKK members freak when they realize they had a black great great great grandmother who was a slave girl is always fun.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Would you like to develop that argument or are three words all you can be bothered to type?

Simple. Nobody should favor policies that actively advocate their own death (or suffering to a certain degree, you didn’t see blacks for slavery). And not in the sense that anprims do, where the lack of modern medicine would kill most of its adherents. But rather, policies that explicitly call for one’s death for being part of an undesirable group should really not be supported by members of said group.

Though watching KKK members freak when they realize they had a black great great great grandmother who was a slave girl is always fun.

Yes very droll I'm sure but most people accused of "self-hating" are minorities guilty only of supporting the "other side" in a two party system where no-one is arguing for genocide. It is not a moral failing not to base your entire politics off one personal characteristic that other people have decided for you to be the most important. "Jews for Hitler" is not a magic three word statement that forces all minorities into one political box in perpetuity.

[Kowani]

Simple. Nobody should favor policies that actively advocate their own death (or suffering to a certain degree, you didn’t see blacks for slavery). And not in the sense that anprims do, where the lack of modern medicine would kill most of its adherents. But rather, policies that explicitly call for one’s death for being part of an undesirable group should really not be supported by members of said group.

Though watching KKK members freak when they realize they had a black great great great grandmother who was a slave girl is always fun.

Yes very droll I'm sure but most people accused of "self-hating" are minorities guilty only of supporting the "other side" in a two party system where no-one is arguing for genocide. It is not a moral failing not to base your entire politics off one personal characteristic that other people have decided for you to be the most important. "Jews for Hitler" is not a magic three word statement that forces all minorities into one political box in perpetuity.

Oh, I’m not engaging with that argument. (Although I do think that in the case of the vast majority of African Americans, voting for the GOP is self-destructive at best). But identity cannot be separated from politics, as much as we might wish it to be. Voting without taking your identity and how others will react to that is a recipe for results that you really don’t want.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Yes very droll I'm sure but most people accused of "self-hating" are minorities guilty only of supporting the "other side" in a two party system where no-one is arguing for genocide. It is not a moral failing not to base your entire politics off one personal characteristic that other people have decided for you to be the most important. "Jews for Hitler" is not a magic three word statement that forces all minorities into one political box in perpetuity.

Oh, I’m not engaging with that argument. (Although I do think that in the case of the vast majority of African Americans, voting for the GOP is self-destructive at best). But identity cannot be separated from politics, as much as we might wish it to be. Voting without taking your identity and how others will react to that is a recipe for results that you really don’t want.

Other people's convictions towards you are something to be born in mind, but there is no imperative for them to be determinative. If your worldview, morality and political instincts lead you to identify with a particular ideology, but a number of people who hold that ideology don't like you for some characteristic, then that is a dilemma that involves compromise and self denial of one kind or another whichever option you choose. Compromising your political principles and supporting a platform you dislike is a form of self-denial also. Are the achievements of the rest of your goals more important than the fact that the people you'll be working with don't like you and might do things that harm some of those with a particular characteristic you share? Perhaps, it'll depend.

I think what I find annoying is this generic assumption that anyone who choose to work with people when some have bad attitudes to them is naive and can't possibly have thought things through. This idea that there's an easy solution that doesn't involve them having to sacrifice a part of themselves, that if they just think a bit all their political convictions will just align to What They Should and the one characteristic will shine above all else like it always should. Hella patronising that no one ever seems to acknowledge even that possibility, which is why the discourse around it puts my back up.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The Macedonian aristocracy is the one worth supporting.

[Albrenia]

Isn't this the wrong thread? There's a LWDT 9 somewheres.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Isn't this the wrong thread? There's a LWDT 9 somewheres.

Oh shit, you right.

[Cisairse]

Isn't this the wrong thread? There's a LWDT 9 somewheres.

The number 9 reeks of class privilege.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Isn't this the wrong thread? There's a LWDT 9 somewheres.

The number 9 reeks of class privilege.

It could have been a Roman numeral.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The number 9 reeks of class privilege.

It could have been a Roman numeral.

It sounds like the German for "no", which raises entirely reasonable suspicions of fascist dogwhistling. Which I'm largely fine with, but ancom just got a baseball bat out.