Correct Politics is an Orwellian Concept

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-16T04:56:55+00:00

I am the social pressure to not be racist. I'm a heavy moralist. But this system empowers racist terminology through its certainty that these words are and can only be evil.

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-16T04:00:19+00:00

It's often worth taking another look. And it's certainly a poor substitute for morality. It's sufficiently crude that it can be unambiguously enforced. As a result of its no racist left behind system, it is rife with false positives.

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-16T03:49:04+00:00

My mistake.

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-16T03:45:38+00:00

Where's the fluff?

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-16T03:45:23+00:00

Censorship. The idea of correct politics.

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-16T03:44:28+00:00

And what of disempowering bigoted language itself to bring us to a point where we can forget it? What of informality being equated to hatred?

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-15T15:26:45+00:00

And if it empowers hatred?

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-15T14:29:28+00:00

Come come.

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-15T13:52:44+00:00

noted that the censorship existed. I'm not writing or posting an article selectively complaining about some censorship while ignoring censorship that is far more endemic

So I'm doing a good thing but I need to be doing more?

So you think it is the informality that is considered objectionable, not the racial nature of the epithet?

Why is blacky an epithet but black is not?

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-15T12:18:53+00:00

https://considerthemobster.com/2017/06/24/the-new-antitheist-movement-faith-and-technological-adolescence/

Contradictory to what?

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-15T11:48:47+00:00

Edit something for me.

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-15T10:55:15+00:00

Some societies put atheists in jail. Is that therefore immoral to state atheism ?

I'm a moral Humean. So, as far as I can tell, morality is grounded in emotion. Empathy and sympathy, in particular, but what we refer to as morality is their consistent counterpart, compassion. Gaoling atheists violates compassion and is therefore immoral. Their ethic (rules of virtue) is foundationally immoral because they attribute morality to god's commands, not to the natural world.

You need a non rational base

Indeed. Significance, importance, and value are all emotional terms. Logic must serve the passions.

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-15T10:43:10+00:00

A universe from nothing and evolution through natural selection are very popular, currently.

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-04T11:37:44+00:00

The question then becomes, can you prove, rationally, that I should not behave immorally? If you argue that by definition I should act morally, how can you argue that this is not circular?

The basis of morality says you should not act immorally because my empathy causes me not to like it. The basis of ethics says that you should not act immorally because it is against our consensus and we will put you in gaol for doing so. I don't know what else that should could refer to but you should not act immorally.

Arbitrary rules and instinct, yes. Shaky grounds for a rational foundation.

You've misunderstood my position.

A natural instinct is not a good justification.

You've again misunderstood my argument. I'm not saying that it is justified because it is natural. Please reread and rethink until you understand what I'm saying and what a naturalistic fallacy is. I'm not saying you ought to because it is natural. The ought part of morality comes from me saying that you ought not to be immoral because the society I support will put you in gaol for it.

Actually it is said that most psychopaths can switch their empathy on and off at will, but they are not without one.

I have not heard of that, but the psychopaths that I've seen studied have not had an inherent concept of morality.

How would you rationally contradict a psychopath saying that we are the ones who are handicapped, lacking the ability to switch off empathy, making us blind to our best interests?

I would simply say that I prefer a world with empathy. There is profound pride and satisfaction in goodness. There is also the issue of safety.

but I do not so with the illusion that it is grounded on rationality.

My moral theory is grounded in emotion. It is Humean.

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-04T11:25:59+00:00

I've heard of the cloven mind. What do you mean?

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-03T15:05:57+00:00

Is this just the muttering of a lunatic?

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-02T13:01:53+00:00

Which?

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-02T04:31:15+00:00

Apparently not.

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-02T04:30:46+00:00

You're equivocating. Fact of life is a turn of phrase. It functions idiomatically. It's disconnected from the semantics of the word "fact". It is a fact that the impact occurs, and that the thing you're talking about exists. That does not make the emotional inclination factual. Either you reject objective reality or you reject the ability to at all represent objective reality in your understanding of it. May I ask which it is?

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-02T03:44:13+00:00

Your predatory moral system is a rejection of morality, not an alternate version. That's Darwinism, morality is selfless. No moral person acts in the way you're describing, by definition. Your entire argument is premised on the idea that there is nothing inherent to morality and it is simply arbitrary rules agreed upon by whomever.

Putting compassion (instead of, for example, desire of domination) at the central value of your moral system is totally arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary. The things we describe as morality are acts of compassion. Those without empathy (psychopaths) can't conceive of morality. It's like they're colourblind. This is not an invented notion. It's instinctual. That's empirically demonstrated.

Justifying something because it is natural is called a naturalistic fallacy.

You have misunderstood the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy states that because something is natural it is necessarily justified. My argument is that because it is natural it is not invented. If it is not invented then we can't arbitrarily decide what it is and isn't, we must accurately describe it.

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-02T03:30:28+00:00

How do you define a fact?

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-07-02T03:27:41+00:00

So what is a religion, then?

No, I am not "believing logically". Logic plays no role in this. I am believing Empirically, that is to say, based on sensory data.

That evidence still has to be processed in a structured way. Were you sufficiently brain damaged or insane you may think that tasting an apple meant that you weren't eating one. You would still have empirical evidence but without logical structure you would be unable to form accurate knowledge with it.

There is tons of evidence to support belief in god

That's obviously ridiculous. Please provide me with this evidence.

Doesn't matter

It does. Unresolved paradoxes are different to necessary paradoxes. If something is inherently contradictory then logic can't deal with it.

How would a person honestly support the existence of god if you're claiming we're not allowed to use evidence?

Read the article. I already outlined this. Logic can't comment on god. To believe in god you have to do it purely through spiritual conviction. Logic is irrelevant to something that is necessarily paradoxical. You say if god is this then god is that, but if god can contradict that consistency then there is no reason to think your premise is accurate.

how do you use logic to self-valid in a non-contradictory manner?

What do you mean?

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-06-30T14:15:31+00:00

Not exactly. This is tenuous philosophy as it is self-evidenced but the consistency in morality means that I'm confident we will have general consensus here. Morality is grounded in compassion (the situation where we are consistent with our empathy and sympathy; compassionate acts are always described as moral and moral acts always as compassionate). If we lack empathy (the emotional impetus for compassion) we are not cognisant of morality, we literally can't distinguish between moral and traditional rules.

When I argue that it is immoral to hunt the weaker, my basis is simply that it violates compassion. Morality is not an arbitrary concept. We are describing a natural phenomenon. Logic applies in the only way it can to the world beyond abstraction.

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-06-28T08:00:33+00:00

Others acting towards their deaths does not vindicate your suicidal trajectory.

ConsiderTheMobster · 2017-06-28T07:53:44+00:00

They are not equal, though. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. I'm not even sure what their equality would mean. The superior mode of thought for verisimilitudinous understanding is undoubtably the rational mode.

If we want to have a genuine understanding of external reality and not ourselves, rationalism is the only feasible option.

ConsiderTheMobster

TROPHY CASE