Interesting. I guess it’s about cultural conditioning. Growing up in Scandinavia the “both sides” and subjectivist approach was more common for leftists. Especially the “your terrorist is my freedom fighter”. In contrast rightists and liberals usually insisted on exactly this two-plus-two-is-four rhetoric. As analyzing American discourse from the outside I’m still not sure if the right wingers of my Nordic childhood was right anyway, or if American leftism has regressed horrendously
If we were talking about the normal version where one perspective does see 4 sides and the other 3, then I’d agree. But right wingers often completely ignore science and facts for what they feel is right - despite loudly claiming the opposite. They’re simply wrong about any number of things, from economics to gender studies to climate change, but they insist on their positions because of how they feel on a fundamental level - that all the common-sense folks around them think this way, their preacher thinks this way, and they don’t trust anyone they haven’t personally encountered long enough to understand. Time and time again, science has disproven explicitly conservative viewpoints, from race biology to Social Darwinism to climate change and so on. But they double down because to change their perspectives risks alienating their peers, or even worse, possibly damning them to Hell.
That’s why I said what I did. Liberals are a pain in the ass and generally incapable of accomplishing much of value, but at least they typically welcome new data that may contradict a previously-held position.
If you said “if it is a horse it has hooves” you can infer “all horses have hooves” but not that “all hooves creatures are horses”.
Otoh if you said “iff a polygon has 3 sides, it is a triangle” you can infer that all polygons has 3 sides it is a triangle and that there are no other ways to make triangles.
Of course not, if there were women in the forest they would be clearly accompanied by the Internet Argument Bear and therefore it wouldn’t be anarchism.
But only the specific subset of anarchists that I read about first in my early 20s! All the others are just like those fascists in the Judean People’s Front!
What it feels like having a conversation with conservatives
Interesting. I guess it’s about cultural conditioning. Growing up in Scandinavia the “both sides” and subjectivist approach was more common for leftists. Especially the “your terrorist is my freedom fighter”. In contrast rightists and liberals usually insisted on exactly this two-plus-two-is-four rhetoric. As analyzing American discourse from the outside I’m still not sure if the right wingers of my Nordic childhood was right anyway, or if American leftism has regressed horrendously
If we were talking about the normal version where one perspective does see 4 sides and the other 3, then I’d agree. But right wingers often completely ignore science and facts for what they feel is right - despite loudly claiming the opposite. They’re simply wrong about any number of things, from economics to gender studies to climate change, but they insist on their positions because of how they feel on a fundamental level - that all the common-sense folks around them think this way, their preacher thinks this way, and they don’t trust anyone they haven’t personally encountered long enough to understand. Time and time again, science has disproven explicitly conservative viewpoints, from race biology to Social Darwinism to climate change and so on. But they double down because to change their perspectives risks alienating their peers, or even worse, possibly damning them to Hell.
That’s why I said what I did. Liberals are a pain in the ass and generally incapable of accomplishing much of value, but at least they typically welcome new data that may contradict a previously-held position.
and tankies*
And liberals
(Just trying to be inclusive)
And my axe
Once again the anarchists are the only correct group
it’s like the curse of Nostradamus
More like the curse of nostradumbass
lemmy user DESTROYS the philosophical tendency of anarchism with FACTS and LOGIC and EXTREMELY mediocre WORDPLAY
I disagree!
That wordplay is nowhere near good enough to be considered mediocre
Are anarchists actually practicing anarchism if they form groups?
Actually yes. As long as the group only acts in a way that all members approve of, and members are free to leave or join.
Iff they’re not hierarchical
Iffs in the wild make me happy.
Are “Iffs” a thing? I’ve been missing out.
iff is the shorthand for “if and only if”.
If you said “if it is a horse it has hooves” you can infer “all horses have hooves” but not that “all hooves creatures are horses”.
Otoh if you said “iff a polygon has 3 sides, it is a triangle” you can infer that all polygons has 3 sides it is a triangle and that there are no other ways to make triangles.
“Anarchism is when there’s one guy alone in the forest.” -Mikhail Bakunin
Did Mikhail Bakunin think that women could not be anarchists?
Of course not, if there were women in the forest they would be clearly accompanied by the Internet Argument Bear and therefore it wouldn’t be anarchism.
I thought the woman might be busy having three kids with one of Bakunin’s disciples while still married to Bakunin.
Dude lived an interesting life.
But only the specific subset of anarchists that I read about first in my early 20s! All the others are just like those fascists in the Judean People’s Front!