WP support thread for apoliticals or ppl w/unusual views

Post Reply New Topic

Absolutely right on most of those counts.


I tend to doubt that you are "politiweird". I also doubt that you are a "pragmatist" in terms of policy, some people are more pragmatic than others, but the heart of the political debate does include ascertaining what is really the pragmatic option, and pragmatic towards what end, as well as various assessments by various advisors. Frankly, your claim of "pragmatism" guiding your idea of the world seems to imply you are some brilliant machine immune to confirmation biases and imperfections of information that plague the rest of mankind. Frankly, few people consider their ideas untenable even if they really are so.


Well, I don't think most political ideologies are based upon the idea of having the country or the neighborhood burn up in flames and explode. Not only that, but there is no objective claim to the perfect weighting of all 3(or 4) objectives. That fact is the reason why there is a difference in policy oriented social sciences(economics) on positive and normative aspects of the field.


That is far too true and rather annoying. People should only be labeled and mocked with the idiocies they tend to display, not the ones that they don't.

It does discourage us. Interests, priorities, understandings of the facts themselves, all of that will push us against each other and towards futility.

I did not list my views because I lacked time and language skills.

That is a good point (even though you forgot 'the biased media' ). And I try to prevent it from happening to me by talking to and discussing politics with people, who are not in the same boat as I am.

PS: You are US American, right?

hail to the king

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

Vi povas paroli en la angla?

Its a quote. I had to look it up. It means "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall."

I am a pragmatist by textbook definition.

I make a point of being aware of my limitations.

It remains that pure pragmatism is unpopular. Libertarians, for example, will often cry, "but that's socialism!" when confronted with the idea of government intervention or management of a problem.

In considering such decisions, however, any idea or solution should be considered in service to these objectives.

How pessimistic. Politics is the art and science of managing these conflicts and preventing them from ballooning into crisis. I favor good politics over bad politics.

Trading one injustice for another, however, does not qualify as justice.

Nobody is that consistent, trust me. Not only that, but what definition? When you reference a textbook I start thinking about epistemology but that isn't the only topic brought up but also ethics and things like that.


Well, right and a more developed libertarian argument ends up being similar to rule utilitarianism, and thus they side with what they consider pragmatic in that fashion. Once again though, we would have to define "pragmatic" as I am sure you have a specific idea in mind involving ethics, and epistemology.

Ok, why? What makes these objectives better than others?


If you consider politics an art or a science then you really have no clue what you are talking about. Trust me, most people favor good politics, but we consistently get bad politics. Not deadly bad perhaps, but trust me, policy makers make a lot of moronic decisions and we all know that.

Your concern would be warrented if I had made the claim that I were an ideal pragmatist, which I have not. I don't even accept universals.

Allow me to explain:

Those who would be positively affected by a socialist government should have socialist leanings, and it is foolishness to expect them to behave otherwise. In fact, seeding in them that they should act in contradiction to their interests is a seed for confusion.

Those who would be positively affected by a libertarian government should behave similarly, and it is ridiculous to expect them to do otherwise.

It is acknowledged that a person's interests are not necessarily limited to material gain. For instance, it is in the interest of a person who is compassionate to promote politicians whom they believe would assist the poor and destitute. In fact, to believe that pragmatism is a pro-moral philosophy, one must first believe that human beings have ambitions beyond mere selfish material gain.

These groups will inevitably come into conflict.

Rather than seeding confusion through the expectation that they conduct themselves against their interests, though, it is more helpful for them to realize that poorly managed conflict is likely to be detrimental to their long-term interests. For this to occur, libertarians whose interests benefit from libertarianism must first realize that socialists are socialists for the same reasons that they are libertarians: both groups want to be able to live in a society that is in line with their ambitions and values.

Instead of attempting to beat each other to pieces over whose preference is best, which is a great deal like parents who come into conflict over who has the most perfect child, the two should realize that they are both more likely to be able to live in something like the type of society that they favor if they exercise a willingness to give some degree of appeasement to those whose preferences differ. It's called "conflict resolution." However, although it is nice to think of conflict resolution as a mutual agreement between two or more parties, it bears mention that conflict resolution may often involve one party thwarting the interests of another, and it is inescapable that may often feel compelled to do all in my power to altogether thwart the interests of another to such an extent as to leave him or her completely unfulfilled and dissatisfied. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

In being a pragmatist, I accept that people who have different interests will favor a different kind of government. I also accept that my particular interests will compel me to exercise favor for a government that benefits my own ambitions.

I personally favor them. This is an uncomplicated idea. It is impractical for me to expect everyone to share the same objectives, and I generally expect them not to. In fact, it is more gainful to me for people to acknowledge their personal biases, for me to acknowledge mine, and for both of us to work toward the compromise that most benefits our respective interests. At the very least, it allows me to be thwarted on honorable grounds, so I can feel at ease in saying, "win some, lose some."

I don't expect myself to always be perfectly happy with how things are in society, and, as a pragmatist, I should not. To make too much of our dissatisfaction is to delude ourselves with the erroneous and self-defeating belief that it is ultimately beneficial to do anything and everything in service to what we, personally, consider an ideal society.

Incorrect. I am actually correct, under my views, in holding it as such. Furthermore, I feel that I am very advanced in my thinking on this subject matter. Although I do not always have the correct terms for what I am trying to express, I have put an appreciable amount of thought and validation into the construction of my views.

Your commitment to pessimism is admirable.

Yes, I know you are a nominalist, however, the notion of "ideal" goes back to textbook definition. To reference a textbook means you accept that the definition has meaning, and that the lables typically assigned to your ideological behavior fit in with the ideas of the textbook definition with some ability. Frankly, linguistic constructions really don't have a lot to do the nature of the world and really the entire debate is just an abstraction, and even an attempt at sleight of hand if introduced to other debates.


Are you asserting that the basis of political ideology should be understood as materialist concerns? Doesn't that simply mean that you are an egoist and thus calling yourself a pragmatist will then seem like sleight of hand. Not only that, but the framework either lacks appreciation for ideological concerns/nonstandard egoistic concerns, and it also seems to lack understandings of the fact that the debates are also often highly influenced by the notion of who is "positively affected", or it really lacks any predictive factor as once we insert intellectual effects the egoistic argument becomes meaningless.


You aren't a pragmatist. Your idea is ethical egoism with a broad definition of "egoism" similar to that used by a number of libertarian economists. Frankly, you are not a "textbook" pragmatist but rather are simply confusing things by assuming one term for something that terminology already exists for.


No, you are really just confused. Ethical debate can occur in egoistic ideas, sort of at the same level of people arguing that the other should like beef or beer, as people do argue about preferences as well. You are right, libertarians should recognize that socialists seek socialist ends, and want a society run by socialist values and I think that libertarians tend to seek inclusiveness with the idea of chosen associations, as such would allow for socialist communes to exist. Really though, the issue will come down to ethical underpinnings.


Griff: the issue still falls down to the fact that people have preferences that will not be sated by any tendency towards a mean of human desires within a society, and they won't have any ethical reasons to agree with democracy as such will stand against their "pragmatism" and the government will only have its power by force. It is not called "conflict resolution" but rather it is called "compromise" and frankly, if there were a nation purely of radical libertarians and socialists then it would likely soon become 2 nations or fall into civil war. Essentially though, your argument does presuppose political processes to be good, which libertarians and anarchists, 2 of the major groups involved, are opposed to.


Only if you have power enough to force a compromise. Frankly, you presuppose the grounds to be honorable when the basis of some of the ideologies being opposed is that these compromises are never honorable and the means of compromise is a problem in and of itself.


Technically nobody is perfectly happy. Griff, your entire idea is plain bullcrap. Your ideology is an ideology of denying its own validity. If you believe that something is an ideal society, then you accept that following your plan will create an ideal society, if you don't believe that last part then you don't believe the first, and if you don't believe the first then you don't have a conception of an ideal society. That is nothing but doublethink! You either have an ideal society or you don't. You can preface it by saying that your notion is "personal" but so are the things that you see with your freakin' eyeballs. Frankly, prefacing everything with a subjectivist element of "no truth" is just plain idiocy and holds no logical merit.


Um... "I am actually correct, under my views, in holding it as such." is just a meaningless sentence. Who is incorrect under their own views? The assertion is that your views are incorrect conceptualizations. As well, the statement "I am very advanced in my thinking on this subject matter", is merely a self-important phrasing without any analytical value and is essentially an appeal to your own authority and thus constitutes circular reasoning, as in the comic:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... =898#comic
Really, I have heard people who have made similar claims. I actually believe you more than those other people, but that is because your ideas aren't crap. The guy with the tinfoil hat claiming the Illuminati are watching him can make your exact claim though with the same earnestness.


I would call my pessimism to be "realism" and an "honest assessment", and frankly, whether or not I am realistic or honest can be debated, but that the political system generates sub-optimal outcomes is an empirical fact, with the issue being how bad it really is.

Well, we would have to define what constitutes justice. To me, this most fundamentally means that all negative rights should be respected. If you have a different definition, we could discuss that.

It is also the motto of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

.......

Last edited by ouinon on 18 Mar 2008, 9:42 am, edited 3 times in total.

About feeling

(see my post below)

I just remembered a thread i posted on a while back, at:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt48562.html, which provided this super link

http://www.Politicalcompass.org/

There are at least two other older threads referring to this site, one is at:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt4007.html

My own score put me somewhere between Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and Mandela. And a fair number of people on the three threads I found on the subject were scoring similarly.

This sort of political position is very difficult to express in mainstream political conditions, in fact it is very difficult to find it expressed anywhere. I don't think that it's surprising if many people with such ideas/beliefs/attitudes give up on "regular"/mainstream/establishment politics.

Last edited by ouinon on 18 Mar 2008, 9:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

No. I am not. Their counter-claim is wrong.

No. It would be completely ridiculous for me to expect every human being in this society to hold strictly materialist views.

No slight of hand.

Parsing error.

No.

Where can I find this universe in which everyone is either confused, dishonest, or perfectly in agreement with me? It must be very pleasant, in its perverse way.

No. Quite often, one group will simply have organized itself more skillfully and created a victory for their interests at the expense of others, and their success can become so well established as to relegate any remaining dissenters to the political fringe. Conflict still resolved, though. For example, perhaps I support the legalization of marijuana. Perhaps my motivation for it is that I suffer from multiple sclerosis and find it to be the only possible way for me to cope with central pain. Hard luck.

Or one will be so successful at spreading propaganda in favor of their views as to reduce the other to a mere fringe group. In fact, their libel may become so successful as to have their foes apologizing for holding their views.

No. It doesn't.

I was speaking rhetorically, you Aspie space case.

I do not accept platonic realism. It is ridiculous. There isn't going to be an ideal society. That's the point. My stance is simply that we should come to terms with that.

I have, though.

How nobly maladaptive of you. I hope you know that depression can result in long-term memory deficits.