Why "All Lives Matters" is wrong

[Lexicus]

Ah, the old "I'm not calling you X, I'm calling the thoughts in your mind as expressed in writing X" defense... just as lame as it ever was... and yet, never gets old.

BTW, I'm not calling you lame for making that tired, lame attempt to use a lame excuse to deflect from a lame argument delivered in defense of another lame argument... I'm just calling your words lame. LMAO (at your words, not you).

It's an important distinction to make, insofar as we don't allow our thoughts to define us.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well first of all, I'm not a Centrist.

Political Compass tests put me at around ~ -5/-5. If anything, then I'm mostly a liberal - and a progressive. To a far lesser extend though, because I often find myself agreeing with the issues and the need to create change, but not with the solutions. More generally, I do tend to find these hard labels to be rather useless, because political issues aren't really as split by party lines here in Germany as they are in the United States.

Secondly, you're again arguing for what people "usually do things for" instead of actually listening to what was being said. I don't really remember who you are and how you usually act (at least not as good as you seem to be remembering me), but from your posts here it seems to me that you're constantly interpreting things in the least charitable way possible. Why you feel the need to do that, I don't know.

It comes across that way to you because I'm seldom charitable to people who routinely make posts openly supporting fascism, then say things like "oh I get attacked from both sides" in one post and then claim in the very next post "oh I never said I was a centrist." Why people who post like that are generally despised I guess will remain a mystery to you, because you certainly haven't given me any reason to explain further.

 

[Ryika]

Ah, the old "I'm not calling you X, I'm calling the thoughts in your mind as expressed in writing X" defense... just as lame as it ever was... and yet, never gets old.

BTW, I'm not calling you lame for making that tired, lame attempt to use a lame excuse to deflect from a lame argument delivered in defense of another lame argument... I'm just calling your words lame. LMAO (at your words, not you).

This is interesting to me, because I DO differentiate between the two sentiments, even in the mock-example you gave.

In my mind, there's a big difference between judging something a person posted (and thus potentially the thoughts that led them to the post, although a lot is of course being lost "in translation" when using pure text-based communication), and judging a person. Because a person can say something that is very authoritarian in nature without being "an authoritarian". There may even be good reasons to say something that is authoritarian in sentiment from the PoV of a person who thinks that being an authoritarian is overall a bad thing.

 

[Lexicus]

I was going to make a snarky comment about far-right infighting in reference to his mention of getting attacked by the far right, but chose not to, then changed my mind and now I am. Meta af bruh

 

[Ryika]

It comes across that way to you because I'm seldom charitable to people who routinely make posts openly supporting fascism,

Uhh... what?

then say things like "oh I get attacked from both sides" in one post and then claim in the very next post "oh I never said I was a centrist."

The devil's once again in the details here. I didn't say I "get attacked from both sides", I said:

"the only people accusing me of "having lost my credibility" are the people on the far ends of the political spectrum, whether it's the left or the right depends on the discussion."

And that's true. The unfortunate reality of political discourse is that people who are very far off the sides will dismiss you if you don't go as far as they do, even if you're generally on their side. You don't have to be a centrist for that, your conclusions are built on a flawed premise.

I mean, if that helps you: I do get attacked by the hard-right a lot more often than I do get attacked from the hard-left. Depends on the forums of course, the OT-forums here don't really seem to have a hard-right faction.

Why people who post like that are generally despised I guess will remain a mystery to you, because you certainly haven't given me any reason to explain further.

People who are actual centrists are often in danger of taking a centrist position for the sake of taking a centrist position, and when they do, then being called out for that is perfectly fine.

I do not think I do that though. Like I said, I am on the left of the political compass and feel very well-positioned there.

 

[SkeleTony]

"identifying as a rationalist" can be, and often is, a ploy. Motivated by similar logic to the racist who identifies as a nationalist because it "sounds better." It is often a method to claim added credibility and nothing more.

I am sure this is going to get me in trouble with some here as I am the new guy and all but I am doubting your assertions here. I have been discussing and debating people online for 20 years now and the closest I have ever gotten to a poster who identified as a "rationalist" as some sort of ploy was when a skeptic at the skeptic.com forums (some 15 years ago IIRC) came advocating for conspiracy theories. That was different though in that in all other matters (i.e. psychics, religion, alternative medicine etc.) he was very much a "rationalist" and a card-carrying skeptic as far as anyone could tell. "Rationalist" as a term is akin to "Nazi" in many if not most peoples minds in my experience. Of course my experience is very limited in the scope of the whole internet so I may be quite wrong.
Your second statement here is more troubling. How on earth is identifying as a rationalist akin to a racist identifying as a "nationalist"? How is the logic even remotely similar?!

 

[Lexicus]

Your second statement here is more troubling. How on earth is identifying as a rationalist akin to a racist identifying as a "nationalist"? How is the logic even remotely similar?!

Both attach people to a simplistic essentialist concept of identity and both tend to go along with "my identity is better than all the rest."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I am sure this is going to get me in trouble with some here as I am the new guy and all but I am doubting your assertions here. I have been discussing and debating people online for 20 years now and the closest I have ever gotten to a poster who identified as a "rationalist" as some sort of ploy was when a skeptic at the skeptic.com forums (some 15 years ago IIRC) came advocating for conspiracy theories. That was different though in that in all other matters (i.e. psychics, religion, alternative medicine etc.) he was very much a "rationalist" and a card-carrying skeptic as far as anyone could tell. "Rationalist" as a term is akin to "Nazi" in many if not most peoples minds in my experience. Of course my experience is very limited in the scope of the whole internet so I may be quite wrong.
Your second statement here is more troubling. How on earth is identifying as a rationalist akin to a racist identifying as a "nationalist"? How is the logic even remotely similar?!

Similarity is in the effect, not the position. In this particular environment, we have people who consistently say totally irrational things and claim to be rationalists, people who consistently support any political proposal or candidate as long as it is Republican who claim to be independents, people who will support absolutely any fascist regime or scheme who claim to be libertarians. Just look at the conversation I'm having with Ryika. He persistently claims to be "left of center," but with 5000 posts of history to draw from he is generally recognized as an advocate for the most extreme positions of the alt-right. He is trying to come across to a new person like yourself as a kindred spirit under attack from extremists because you might give his arguments more credibility than those of us who have come to know him will.

I'm not surprised that you say you haven't seen such, because this is a pretty unique environment as the internet goes. There is 'social media,' where people generally are known to some extent. They also generally are commenting to 'followers' who are such because they for the most part agree. Then there is the anonymity of the comments sections, where there is hardly any way to become known unless you are willing to just make a career out of constantly commenting on article after article and might eventually have a few people recognize your screen name. Then there is this forum.

The number of regular users here is small enough that it is possible (and in fact inevitable) to become known, but because of the public nature of it there is no homogeneity of beliefs. Our 'usual fascists' will be jumped on by the people who regularly jump on fascists, even if they aren't saying anything particularly fascist at the moment. Our 'usual bullies' will be accused of bullying by those who are sensitive even if they aren't at that particular moment. Our 'usual left wing extremists' will be called communists even when they aren't saying anything particularly extreme at the moment. Because we do 'know' each other, at least as well as it is possible over the internet. There are, of course, those who you always wonder if they are presenting a persona, but if they are going to do that here they have to be pretty consistent about it.

I personally find the uniqueness very attractive, and hope that you will participate enough, for long enough, to become another known individual here.

 

[Sommerswerd]

This is interesting to me, because I DO differentiate between the two sentiments, even in the mock-example you gave.

In my mind, there's a big difference between judging something a person posted (and thus potentially the thoughts that led them to the post, although a lot is of course being lost "in translation" when using pure text-based communication), and judging a person. Because a person can say something that is very authoritarian in nature without being "an authoritarian". There may even be good reasons to say something that is authoritarian in sentiment from the PoV of a person who thinks that being an authoritarian is overall a bad thing.

Fair enough. I appreciate your thoughts.

the OT-forums here don't really seem to have a hard-right faction.

That contrasts with my perspective, cause I would say the opposite... but its probably a result of my perspective.

 

[Ryika]

He persistently claims to be "left of center," but with 5000 posts of history to draw from he is generally recognized as an advocate for the most extreme positions of the alt-right. He is trying to come across to a new person like yourself as a kindred spirit under attack from extremists because you might give his arguments more credibility than those of us who have come to know him will.

Did you just assume my gender (twice)?

But you're right, I do agree with the Alt Right on some issues, and I have defended those issues on these forums, particularly during the pre-election time. I have changed my mind on some of these issues, and on some I still agree with.

Want a few issues I agree with on the left? Well, here we go:
- Minorities of pretty much all types are discriminated against even in our enlightened western society. Not institutionally, but on a day to day basis, and often times not with malicious intent.
- Gender stereotypes have a direct impact on how well the genders do in many job fields
- Immigration and with it the mixing of cultures and races, when regulated, is generally a good thing
- Religion has no place in the Government (an important, but seldom discussed issue in Germany)
- We should have social services for those in need
- We should help refugees from areas of war, even if that means putting us into a worse situation (but the public must be informed about the predicted consequences, and the government should do their best to prevent negative consequences)
- The Government should aid the people, not big corporations
- American gun law sounds utterly stupid to me

I could go on, but I think that list is long enough to prove my point.

Like I said, I don't fit into your binary (neither in politics nor gender). And I'm ashamed of that either.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Did you just assume my gender (twice)?

No, I just used traditional English, in which when gender is unknown the pronouns he/him/his are the standard. The whole "we must create gender neutrality in pronouns" movement passed me by. I would be regretful if I thought I actually hurt your feelings, but 5000 posts of history tells me that you are just trying to create a red herring here.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Just use Sklee or Skler,

 

[Sommerswerd]

No, I just used traditional English, in which when gender is unknown the pronouns he/him/his are the standard. The whole "we must create gender neutrality in pronouns" movement passed me by. I would be regretful if I thought I actually hurt your feelings, but 5000 posts of history tells me that you are just trying to create a red herring here.

Oh he got all of that one... its going back, back, back to the wall... it iiiiiiiiiiiis GONE!

 

[Ryika]

No, I just used traditional English, in which when gender is unknown the pronouns he/him/his are the standard. The whole "we must create gender neutrality in pronouns" movement passed me by.

Well, the Alt Right is generally against using gender-neutral pronouns, sooo... <something-something-you-re-now-a-fascist>?
Not that I really think you are, but that's your logic. "I've seen you agree with the Alt Right, so you're part of the Alt Right!"

But don't get me wrong, I too am against having to use gender-neutral pronouns just in case somebody gets upset.

I would be regretful if I thought I actually hurt your feelings, but 5000 posts of history tells me that you are just trying to create a red herring here.

No, it did not hurt my feelings, and I wasn't trying to create a red herring either. I just thought if I react like that it might give me leftist points. Did it work?

Why do you keep repeating that phrase about my 5000 post history though? I've got a total of 195 posts (196 after I've sent this one) in the OT-forums, I'd guess around half of them are from political discussions. The rest of my posts is from mostly politically neutral Civ-discussions.

 

[SkeleTony]

Both attach people to a simplistic essentialist concept of identity and both tend to go along with "my identity is better than all the rest."

What rationalist (or person identifying as such) has done that?!

 

[Lexicus]

What rationalist (or person identifying as such) has done that?!

Oh, sorry, I misread your post as asking what was the connection between racism and nationalism. My mistake.

However, your rhetorical question has a good answer. Most of the Enlightenment philosophers who made "rationality" popular to modern audiences were also virulent racists who not only attached essentialist concepts of identity to people but supported and even (in the case of e.g. John Locke) participated in unspeakable atrocities against them. The standard postmodern arguments against the edifice of the Enlightenment apply here: it is a construct which historically was deployed to justify power structures we consider to be barbaric and unjust today. The white supremacist project of colonial empire was held up by plenty of self-described 'rationalists' as an advanced, "rational" European civilization bringing the irrational primitives in the rest of the world into the light of modernity.

If you're gonna identify as a rationalist, you must be made to grapple with the historical baggage: you can't escape it.

Of course, to my mind making "rationalist" the be-all and end-all of your intellectual identity is a bit...I dunno...flavorless? Thin? In the modern day I'd say it definitely implies a kind of neutrality or position "above the fray" that must inevitably be an affectation, a pose.

 

[Berzerker]

This has to be one of the most sickeningly fascist things I've ever read on this board.

why?

 

[Traitorfish]

You can call somebody a bad rationalist, or be skeptical of their ability to be a rationalist. Claiming that somebody is not a rationalist on the other hand is claiming that you know better what they thrive for than they do.

Well, that, or they think "rationalism" is a five-dollar way of saying "calls it like I sees it", and you're not sure this is how language works.

That would probably be my contention.

Yes. I still want people who rob stores and grab for an officer's weapon locked up or dead.

Michael Brown wasn't locked up, though, and "or" seems far too small a word to bridge the gulf between those two outcomes. At least, I imagine, so far as his friends and family are concerned.

It's all very well adding such qualifications in abstract, declaring yourself most deeply in favour of due process and reasonable doubt, but that's going to be precious little consolation for those attending the funeral.

 

[Lexicus]

why?

Justifying the police murdering a man who was running away because he was afraid of getting arrested due to an outstanding warrant for child support, because getting arrested would get him fired from his job that he got to pay his child support, on the basis of a half-baked hypothetical scenario in which the man runs a bunch of people over in his car is like fascism 101

 

[Sommerswerd]

Justifying the police murdering a man who was running away because he was afraid of getting arrested due to an outstanding warrant for child support, because getting arrested would get him fired from his job that he got to pay his child support, on the basis of a half-baked hypothetical scenario in which the man runs a bunch of people over in his car is like fascism 101

I am reminded of the oft-used refrain against hyperbolizing Trump's potential worst-case scenarios, based on the historical similarities... which essentially went... "He hasn't done any of those atrocities yet, so you shouldn't be condemning him for stuff he hasn't done..."

In other words... "Might accidentally run someone over in his car, but hasn't yet... Off with his head! Shoot to kill! He was asking for it!" ... "Might intentionally repeat the holocaust and start WW3, but hasn't yet... Meh, let's not prejudge, and just see how it goes."