Settler leftists who have put their heads so far up their asses with “scientific socialism” that they actually believe in pure objective reality, deride morals as idealist and thus demeaning, and couch every argument in terms of some self-superior “rationality” that barely masks how much personal emotional projection is going into propping up their narrow world-view and rejecting anything that threatens their confirmation bias.
The kind of people who are supposedly interested in mass organization, but who look down on the actual masses as less rational, less intelligent, less pure, superstitious and backwards compared to their oh-so-educated secular European ideal.
The most annoying part is they’ll pick a single sentence out of something you’ve said to argue an entire imaginary point on that is just being materialist according to them, but somehow always results in picking fights with marginalized people while asserting that it can’t possibly be interpreted as a defense of the oppressor, because they never specifically said they support the oppressors. It’s obviously a coincidence that they spend so much time randomly talking down to “comrades.”
I was thinking about the use of “scientific socialism” and “objective reality”: I think there is pretty clearly such a thing as reality, and many aspects of reality are not subjective. Like you can’t say “in my opinion the people Israel/America just blew up are actually still alive” and be taken seriously; Reality contradicts that opinion.
But, people’s feelings are very much a part of that objective reality. The grief and torment people feel, the void in their lives where the people who were taken from them should have been, those are real and that pain matters immensely. That pain destroys lives. That pain gives people incurable PTSD. That pain tortures people. That pain drives people to suicide. That pain poisons the rest of their lives. To argue that it is irrational to take people’s feelings into account is bad methodology at best, evil at worst.
I can’t help but notice that in your latest shadowboxing comment talking about me without replying to me, you fail to engage with a single thing that I said, and instead are just psychopathologizing and relitigating a previous argument.
Not interested in talking to you, any disagreement will be dismissed as hostile. I wasn’t “relitigating” anything, I had not paid attention to the username of the person CommunistCuddlefish had been talking to until you replied to me, I was commiserating with her about smug condescending settlers.
You can reply to me in whatever threads you want, but I won’t be reading it or replying.
On one occasion, I said that your complaints about a third party’s hostility were silly, but I won’t dismiss arguments you make on the actual point on such a basis. I don’t think that I have ever done such a thing on this website and certainly I try not to. I think that’s an extremely unproductive way to try to communicate and it doesn’t even make sense. Like you, I might just ignore something, but that’s not the same thing.
I wasn’t “relitigating” anything
I really struggle to believe this when it was not even 24 hours ago that in one of your shadowboxing replies to other people replying to me you talked about people (who I guess definitely aren’t me) claiming Israel is a victim, and I replied to just that sentence complaining that it was a bad faith attack, and now you are saying:
The most annoying part is they’ll pick a single sentence out of something you’ve said to argue an entire imaginary point on that is just being materialist according to them, but somehow always results in picking fights with marginalized people while asserting that it can’t possibly be interpreted as a defense of the oppressor, because they never specifically said they support the oppressors.
But hey, I can’t read you mind, so I guess I don’t know. If that’s my mistake, then I apologize.
Settler leftists who have put their heads so far up their asses with “scientific socialism” that they actually believe in pure objective reality, deride morals as idealist and thus demeaning, and couch every argument in terms of some self-superior “rationality” that barely masks how much personal emotional projection is going into propping up their narrow world-view and rejecting anything that threatens their confirmation bias.
The kind of people who are supposedly interested in mass organization, but who look down on the actual masses as less rational, less intelligent, less pure, superstitious and backwards compared to their oh-so-educated secular European ideal.
The most annoying part is they’ll pick a single sentence out of something you’ve said to argue an entire imaginary point on that is just being materialist according to them, but somehow always results in picking fights with marginalized people while asserting that it can’t possibly be interpreted as a defense of the oppressor, because they never specifically said they support the oppressors. It’s obviously a coincidence that they spend so much time randomly talking down to “comrades.”
I was thinking about the use of “scientific socialism” and “objective reality”: I think there is pretty clearly such a thing as reality, and many aspects of reality are not subjective. Like you can’t say “in my opinion the people Israel/America just blew up are actually still alive” and be taken seriously; Reality contradicts that opinion.
But, people’s feelings are very much a part of that objective reality. The grief and torment people feel, the void in their lives where the people who were taken from them should have been, those are real and that pain matters immensely. That pain destroys lives. That pain gives people incurable PTSD. That pain tortures people. That pain drives people to suicide. That pain poisons the rest of their lives. To argue that it is irrational to take people’s feelings into account is bad methodology at best, evil at worst.
I can’t help but notice that in your latest shadowboxing comment talking about me without replying to me, you fail to engage with a single thing that I said, and instead are just psychopathologizing and relitigating a previous argument.
Not interested in talking to you, any disagreement will be dismissed as hostile. I wasn’t “relitigating” anything, I had not paid attention to the username of the person CommunistCuddlefish had been talking to until you replied to me, I was commiserating with her about smug condescending settlers.
You can reply to me in whatever threads you want, but I won’t be reading it or replying.
Bás do Mheiriceá
Bleaist eascainí
Chead acu focáil leo i dtigh an diabhail
On one occasion, I said that your complaints about a third party’s hostility were silly, but I won’t dismiss arguments you make on the actual point on such a basis. I don’t think that I have ever done such a thing on this website and certainly I try not to. I think that’s an extremely unproductive way to try to communicate and it doesn’t even make sense. Like you, I might just ignore something, but that’s not the same thing.
I really struggle to believe this when it was not even 24 hours ago that in one of your shadowboxing replies to other people replying to me you talked about people (who I guess definitely aren’t me) claiming Israel is a victim, and I replied to just that sentence complaining that it was a bad faith attack, and now you are saying:
But hey, I can’t read you mind, so I guess I don’t know. If that’s my mistake, then I apologize.