+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
got to love the hypocrisy of modern leftist people. dividing people into groups where some have more worth than others (everything not male and white) and some are forbidden doing things.
it's racism/fascism sprinkled with pink glitter.
i could point out people here but that is bad style. their ability of maintaining the self image that they are _good people_ however is astounding. then, the nazis where perceiving themselves as good people too.
@bonifartius
> dividing people into groups
> stupid bad evil leftist people
@namark maybe it's me being a touchscreen peasant.. :> but i can't quite follow you.
if someone is making political statements, i don't need a radar for that, i don't have to know how they look. excluding and shitting on people just because they belong to a major group isn't better than if it happens to a minority. this kind of behaviour will only make things worse.
i don't fucking care what people _are_ as long as they act decent. many modern left behaviours explicitly go contrary to that.
🇳🇱
I think namarks point, and it is a valid one is ...
shitty left people are shitty, and
most left people are shitty
these are very different than
left people are shitty
With that said I took what you said (and I tend to voice a similar opinion) to just be more of an implied meaning. If I (and I presume you) say the left is shitty we arent trying to say 100% of the left, only that it is a pervasive problem with **most** of the left.
Similarly "McDonalds is shitty, they have trouble getting orders right" I dont think someone should or would imply that I am claiming that there is no well run mcdonalds anywhere on the earth that tends to get orders correct, only that most of the time with most mcdonalds it is and will be an issue.
@freemo @bonifartius My point is that left does not exist other than what you define it as. Grouping people based on a vague political statement is no different than grouping them based on color of the skin, clothes or length of nails. You imply that the world is divided into people who are left and who are not left, and you have a natural leftdar, even more, everyone has a natural leftdar: are they *some superficial characteristic*? - bash!
This is the curial fallacy imo. The tactic you employ to justify yourself here is common to the ideas that you are trying to criticize. "They bad, they discriminate, so I discriminate them". There is no they. You can criticize ideas without demonizing people, even those who at some point might in some ways appear to hold them, and trigger your enemydar. In this particular case your are criticizing something that you immediately engage in yourself.
The all vs most is a distraction. Talking about a McDonalds you will be talking in specific context in which McDonalds is a well defined dichotomy. We collectively ensure it is well defined, by not allowing any random thing to be deemed McDonlads by any random party. That is the fundamental thing that you require before you even begin with any of the loosey-goosey statistics.
I dare, anyone willing, to define the dichotomy of the left based on mathematical principles: define the binary relation, and demonstrate that it's reflexive, symmetric and transitive, without turning it into a tautology. In other words - show me your glorious any% accurate leftdar.
Not everything that is definable need be definable by mathematical principles.
Two important points here.
1) There are universally accepted definitions for what constitutes the left
2) Even if we accepted the definition of the left as arbitrary the fact remains that the vast majority of people self identify as left or right, so we can also use ones self-identification as the left as its own metric.
@freemo and I self identiofy as queen victoria today, politically leaning inside out. You are basically saying that the term is entirely meaningless and the whole point of it is to split people into two tribes, and as long as that happens we are golden. Yes keeping the definition vague serves that purpose quote well.
My point is that for any even semi-meaningful definition that you can come up with that is not just dichotomy for dichotomies sake, you would struggle to even prove basic properties that are required for it to be a dichotomy, let alone all the other claims you make.
While self identifying as queen victoria may not mean you are queen victoria I can make several correct assumptions about people who self-identify as queen victoria, namely that they are delusional (not you as this was rhetoric of course).
Similarly even if we agreed the left is a fiction and that people who self-identify as left are identifying with a fictional concept, it still doesnt change the underlying assertion or make it any less valid. That is, that people who claim to self-identify as left have certain common qualities in personality among the majority of such people.
So the left being a fiction, if that were true, doesnt in any way weaken the argument. The left doesnt need to be a "reality" for it to be true that those who self identify with it are often bad people.
@freemo "people who claim to self-identify as left have certain common qualities in personality among the majority of such people"
how exactly does that work? what are they a hive mind? is it that they agree on something?
The best you can claim is that they agree with each other on something. Now tell me what that something is, and then we can discuss whether that something can reasonably satisfy the properties of dichotomy defined on the set of all people.
Depends on what you mean by Hive Mind. But yes thats part of it, people who identify as being on the left tend to parrot, often without bothering to understand, things that other people who identify with being on the left tend to say. More so if those people are in high regard among the left (such as being a leader in a party that likewise identifies as being on the left). So yea, group think is a big part of "how that works"
And no the best we can claim is not simply agreeing on something (though there are things they tend to agree on). Personality traits, tactics used in discussion, specific phrasing without understanding the meaning of the words, are all things we can also claim is common or shared among the majority of those identifying as on the left.
@freemo nice, some kind of weird subspecies of hive mind parrot-humans. What a discovery you have made.
actually, it's not a new discovery but how church and politics always have worked. humans like to be in an in-group and do things which are expected from members of that group. this is well documented, a prominent example being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave_(experiment)
@bonifartius @freemo indeed it works very well, I can see it working on both of you right now. Not what @freemo said though.
funny, when its the left you have some absurd paraphrasing about me thinking its a "human parrot species" or whatever nonsense... now all of a sudden that you feel you can use it as a personal attack its a perfectly normal stance when applied to us...
Might want to look in a mirror your hypocrisy is showing.
@freemo if it's a natural thing that applies to all how is that a personal attack? or do you mean it a natural thing that only applies to inferior subspecies of hive mind parrots, and find it incredibly insulting that I dare to equate you to them?
When did I say it applies to all? I never once said all people equally demonstrate group-think.
That said, as I already stated (and you seem to continually be misreading things as I dont think your this stupid not to know basic english), the issue isnt that you might think I am experiencing group-think, thats not really the objection at all. The objection is that a second ago you ridiculed the very idea that a person could even experience group think (with such absurdities as calling it a parrot species or some nonsense) and then you go and use that very idea you just flamboyantly dismissed in an attempt to weaponize it against me.
It isnt that you are accusing me of group-think that is the problem, its the hypocrisy that you behave as if it is an absurd idea when I posited it and then double back to use that very idea in earnest to describe me.
your willingness to use hypocrisy when it suits your needs is the only issue here, not the claim itself.
@freemo It's not an absurd idea in the way that it applies to all. It is an abdurd idea to think that it applies to yourself or your group any less that to any other group, just like with any natural behaviour of a human being. I thought I don't have to break it down to that level. Humans also like to eat. DId you know? It's facinating.
We are talking about discrimination and dichotomy. Something you can reasonably discriminate people by. What you are saying in that context amounts to "one can manipulate people into discriminating based on anything, and that that it's good and should be perpetuated"
.
Again with the inability to comprehend what I state clearly...
I did not say it applied any less to my group or me, nor did I claim it applies more. I made no statements about if or to what extent I am susceptible to the effect.
What I did say (but you seem to keep reading what you imagine, not what you say) is that your hypocrisy in finding it absurd to state about others, and then to use it as a statement about me as if it is not absurd, shows the weakness of your argument. As I've reiterate several times now, I objected to the hypocrisy, not the accusation itself.
@freemo Sure, applies to everyone, how does it create a dichotomy then? Explain to me how something that is the same for everyone is a dichotomy? Again the only way I can interpret what you are saying is that the dichotomy just exists arbitrarily for the sake of existing, cause you just want it to exist or something. There is no difference between you and the left other than that you are not left.
> Sure, applies to everyone, how does it create a dichotomy then?
Since i did not claim it applies to everyone, your fundemental axiom that is present leading into the question is already incorrect before we get to the question. Therefore I can not answer a question that is founded on an invalid axiom.
> Again the only way I can interpret what you are saying is that the dichotomy just exists arbitrarily for the sake of existing, cause you just want it to exist or something.
Since your base axiom that you used to construct this scenario is itself invalid any interpretation you draw from it is likewise invalid.
> There is no difference between you and the left other than that you are not left.
That is certainly your opinion. Though I do not agree, as was already stated I see a great many differences on aggregate between those who identify as left and those who don't. you obviously disagree, that is your right, however wrong I may think it may be. Restating it over and over though wont get you anywhere on its own.
@freemo I say you mean it only applies to some people, you say no. I say you mean it applies to everyone you say no. I confuse. Please don't just say no to everything, tell me what you think.
@freemo It is my opinion that, for as much as such a thing is natural, it applies to everyone, therefore it is not a meaningful dichotomy. I would attribute it to myself as much as I would to you, I point you out in this discussion because you are the one arguing for the "common sense" of left's existence, while I'm going against the grain. My initial point is that such dichotomy for the sake of dichotomy should not be accepted and reinforced, but questioned and rejected.
Now tell me wheater you agree or disagree With the first sentance. Does the hive mind parrot syndrome apply to all equally or some especially? I argued the both points here but I guess it was too concise to be apparent.
Sure. I would say some people tend to be more susceptible to the group-think/parroting than others. It also may vary for any one person from topic to topic.
I would say no one is completely above it, generally some will do it to some extent (be influenced by the groups ideology), but it is a spectrum. I know some people who almost completely blindly follow the majority in most situations, I know others who are the polar opposite and will disagree with the majority as a matter of course even if the majority may have a very obvious and valid point.
So no I dont feel it applies to everyone equally. I do think there is some natural tendency towards it, again, stronger in some than others. But even then many people make a conscious effort to be aware of and negate that while others seem oblivious to it.
So yea I dont think youll ever find someone immune to it entirely, but it is not a universal constant everyone demonstrates in exactly the same perprotion as anyone else either.
you really have a problem differentiating between decisions people are free to make and reflect upon, and intrinsic unchangeable traits. we are talking about the decisions here. repeating stuff without reflecting upon it is a decision, not an intrinsic trait.
if someone says "$skincolor people bad" it's targeting an intrinsic, unchangeable trait and is bullshit. if someone says "people mindlessly repeating things like '$skincolor people bad'" are bad, it's targeting a conscious decision.
@bonifartius no you're targeting a superficial trait in both cases
"discriminating based on skin color is meaningless" is probably what you mean, but you are falling into the same trap that you are describing.
@bonifartius To elaborate on this particular case. What do you think people who seriously peddle "whitey bad", are going to justify their stance with? Biological inferiority? No, they are going to claim that circumstantially a group of people that are white has been formed that is privileged through systemic discrimination, therefor the only way fight this, circumstantially, is to persecute this unconscious conspiratory group. I'm pretty sure they will bring up exactly the same arguments and examples you bring up here, to defend the existence of the left and your persecution of it.
When someone says "whitey my enemy" you shouldn't say "then you are my enemy", you should say "what the hell are you even talking about, that makes no sense".
@namark i never said "you are my enemy" but pointed out the hypocrisy and similarity to facism which worked by the same means and actions. i have every right to be pissed at this, as it's completely bullshit and actively _against_ left ideas. then you came along and tried to construct a logical fallacy around that. 💁
@bonifartius I'm sure that's what you had in mind all this time while going:
> not gonna drop any names here, but modern leftie is the new nazi
> the dichotomy is well defined cause it's human nature
> at the same time being leftie is a decision, regardless of the fact that I just tried to justify the dichotomy by claiming that the group behaviour is natural
> I meant to criticize the idea, but it's a fundamental human right to make up an enemy group and be pissed at them, so I can do that
@namark @freemo of course, thats the fun thing about it!