A: have chosen to ignore future arguments, B: hurt those who try to persuade them.
this has been the core conservative M.O. for decades, metastasizing into trump’s constant assault on any statement anywhere that isn’t heaping fawning praise on him. “fake news” he says, and that is instantly parroted by his cult following. there is no “persuade” with people who have chosen to discard reality in favor of the completely insane fantasy land of the cult hive maga mind.
so yea. unfriend, burn those bridges, and never miss an opportunity to shame, mock, and ridicule all fascists’ wrong viewpoints and opinions
ok, interesting. if we are just choosing to reject what we call “consensus reality,” then what frame of reference are you using to “persuade” someone? if someone takes your definition of justice, fairness, “niceness” and throws it out the window, then what are you doing?
regardless of whether “reality” exists or not, at some point people need to agree on some definitions regarding what’s “real” and not-real… the rejection of this notion is why we have “covid is a hoax,” “LGBTQ is a ‘lifestyle’ choice” and other problems causing major harm. or death.
you are free to believe what you want. i won’t mock and ridicule you, i save that for people who actively wish harm on people just for the crime of being different
Falseness can be determined in an antirealist ontology in two ways: hypocrisy, and ethical consequences. For example, if someone claims a belief in science, but thinks climate change is a hoax, that’s hypocrisy. We can point out that science says climate change is happening. And if someone claims to value kindness, but misgenders trans people, we can point at the dysphoria caused by the actions.
Now, these two tactics won’t work on people who don’t mind being hypocrites and don’t care about ethics. Namely, fascists. We deal with fascists using violence. This includes “soft” violence like denying them freedoms, and hard violence like physically or emotionally harming them. If everyone agrees not to be friends with nazis, then nazis are gonna be lonely and maybe they’ll stop being nazis in order to gain friends again. If that doesn’t work, we can throw soy milkshakes at them. If that doesn’t work, we can put them in a room where they can’t hurt anyone and make them see a therapist. And if that doesn’t work, we can shoot them with a tank.
If someone has the entirely self-consistent ideological view that putting Jewish people in gas chambers is an axiomatic good, then I am willing to commit acts of violence within the bounds of the Geneva conventions to enforce My subjective belief that putting Jewish people in gas chambers is bad. That action doesn’t require realism, it just requires that I be strongly committed to subjective principles.
see, i agree: once someone has clearly signed on to the fascist cult bandwagon, then it’s time to burn bridges, mock, shame, and ridicule, and outright deny the notion that those viewpoints have any validity or deserve any consideration.
people who got mad at trump because of the AI jesus picture, but not because of the raping, pedophilia, fraud, corruption, bullshit iran war, and just generally being a complete asshole, are the people i have in mind. absolute 100% morally bankrupt hypocrites, yet projecting and accusing everyone else of same
and then you have comics like OP, trying to bothsides everything all the time, which helps nothing, ever
this has been the core conservative M.O. for decades, metastasizing into trump’s constant assault on any statement anywhere that isn’t heaping fawning praise on him. “fake news” he says, and that is instantly parroted by his cult following. there is no “persuade” with people who have chosen to discard reality in favor of the completely insane fantasy land of the cult hive maga mind.
so yea. unfriend, burn those bridges, and never miss an opportunity to shame, mock, and ridicule all fascists’ wrong viewpoints and opinions
What about people who have chosen to discard reality in favour of nice things like fairness, justice, and the power to improve the world?
for example…?
Me, I chose to discard reality in favour of nice things. I wrote a manifesto about it: https://soulism.net
ok, interesting. if we are just choosing to reject what we call “consensus reality,” then what frame of reference are you using to “persuade” someone? if someone takes your definition of justice, fairness, “niceness” and throws it out the window, then what are you doing?
regardless of whether “reality” exists or not, at some point people need to agree on some definitions regarding what’s “real” and not-real… the rejection of this notion is why we have “covid is a hoax,” “LGBTQ is a ‘lifestyle’ choice” and other problems causing major harm. or death.
you are free to believe what you want. i won’t mock and ridicule you, i save that for people who actively wish harm on people just for the crime of being different
Falseness can be determined in an antirealist ontology in two ways: hypocrisy, and ethical consequences. For example, if someone claims a belief in science, but thinks climate change is a hoax, that’s hypocrisy. We can point out that science says climate change is happening. And if someone claims to value kindness, but misgenders trans people, we can point at the dysphoria caused by the actions.
Now, these two tactics won’t work on people who don’t mind being hypocrites and don’t care about ethics. Namely, fascists. We deal with fascists using violence. This includes “soft” violence like denying them freedoms, and hard violence like physically or emotionally harming them. If everyone agrees not to be friends with nazis, then nazis are gonna be lonely and maybe they’ll stop being nazis in order to gain friends again. If that doesn’t work, we can throw soy milkshakes at them. If that doesn’t work, we can put them in a room where they can’t hurt anyone and make them see a therapist. And if that doesn’t work, we can shoot them with a tank.
If someone has the entirely self-consistent ideological view that putting Jewish people in gas chambers is an axiomatic good, then I am willing to commit acts of violence within the bounds of the Geneva conventions to enforce My subjective belief that putting Jewish people in gas chambers is bad. That action doesn’t require realism, it just requires that I be strongly committed to subjective principles.
see, i agree: once someone has clearly signed on to the fascist cult bandwagon, then it’s time to burn bridges, mock, shame, and ridicule, and outright deny the notion that those viewpoints have any validity or deserve any consideration.
people who got mad at trump because of the AI jesus picture, but not because of the raping, pedophilia, fraud, corruption, bullshit iran war, and just generally being a complete asshole, are the people i have in mind. absolute 100% morally bankrupt hypocrites, yet projecting and accusing everyone else of same
and then you have comics like OP, trying to bothsides everything all the time, which helps nothing, ever
Awesome, glad I could expose you to a prosocial version of rejecting reality!
Oh, how I hate you philosophers.
Oh, how I love you philosophers.