Your proposal hinges on the assumption that a “miserable life” is worse than no life at all. I’m not convinced that is true.

Also since we don’t remember anything from before we were born it’s possible we were all given a choice, but forget as we incarnate. Not arguing that is the case - just saying that would also be a way out of the dilemma.

[removed]

Well why are others obligated, towards those who don't reciprocate!

Facetious on many, many levels.

First of all, you're demanding they give examples of openly "mask-off" comments as proof when that's simply not how it works.

The far-right knows its a losing strategy to just come out and admit you're a neo-nazi. Your political opinions get immediately dismissed because there's no doubt about where those opinions come from.

That's why people who had been known as white supremacists for years suddenly became "alt-right" in a coordinated rebranding.

But one swastika-filled rally and domestic terrorist act against counter protesters later and suddenly the "alt-right" vanished too. Now they're just "Republicans" or "Trump supporters".

They still used the same talking points as neo-nazis did 20 years ago. They still had the same figureheads. Hell, even their favourite insults like "cuck" were lifted straight from far-right forums where it was used to brand people as "race traitors", especially during their "raids" where they tried to take over other platforms to spread their propaganda.

But they'd finally learned not to give themselves a name. To keep the mask on at all times, so they could always have plausible deniability. So they could claim that "just because they'd done some nazi things, it didn't mean they were a nazi".

When you demand examples of prominent Republicans going mask off, you're either fully aware that they're not that stupid anymore, or you've fallen for the ruse yourself.

Because the person you're arguing with is absolutely right; The mainstream Republican party is riddled with white supremacists and their political platform has been focused pushing far-right goals, starting with the softest targets.

Attacking women's rights (especially when it comes to sex) because Christian fundamentalists will shield them.

Demonising the LGBT+ community as "groomers" and pedophiles, while also applauding violence against actual pedos, in an awkward slight of hand. Attacking the trans community because they're the most vulnerable and have the smallest voice to fight back with.

Openly opposing any ideas that undermine far-right ideals, from accusing everything of being "woke" online, to literally throwing banned books into a fire.

All of these are examples of exactly what they're claiming and we both know you're going to dismiss each and every one on the basis that nobody involved prefixed it with a press conference to announce "Actually, I do think we should genocide minorities".

But you're likely thrilled that this time, you don't have to.

It means the second reactionary strategy online is working: suck the oxygen out of every room with your misinformation, sealioning and constantly shifting goalposts, then claim victory when people don't engage.

The reality is that nobody owes you a long, nuanced post about why you (and the people you're leaping to the defense of) are bad people.

They're fully aware that it won't change your personality one iota because if you could actually be convinced you were wrong, you wouldn't be you in the first place.

But there is one (and only one) valuable thing about engaging.

When a teenager or other vulnerable person wanders into this thread and sees you crowing about an intellectual triumph that never actually happened, they don't mistake you for someone smart or cool.

Because people online have confused contrarianism and abuse with intelligence and charisma since the dawn of the modern skeptic movement.

It's likely how we ended up with a philosophy sub full of apologists and reactionaries in the first place.

So no freedom of speech for those who try to cancel the speech of others?

[removed]

The article of course conveniently bypasses the question how we can tell when an authoritarian movement can no longer be kept in check through open discourse. Given the immense radicalisation of the Republican Party since 2015, given the open attacks on the results of the election and given the attempted coup on January 6th one could arguably make a very strong argument that Liberal society is currently under imminent threat in the United States. Very hard to make the case that US democracy would be save even if Trump were to win in 2024 - pretty disappointing that the article doesn't address this central point.

>This may have been the most important question raised in the discussion: is it only "speciesism" that leads us to value complex life more than "less complex" life, or is there actually a rational basis from which to ask the question of which animals' lives are more important?

I mean, "important" is a value judgement, and so the question becomes "important to whom and for what". Animals are super important to me, for instance, because they provide me with a lot of different food products. I suppose the term "specieism" is an attempt to try to draw parallels with the notion of "racism", and to transfer the current moral outrage over the latter to the former, but if you ignore the emotional elements, the parallel isn't particularly helpful.

It's pointless to be tolerant, it's merely the absence of standards. However, if you view tolerance as a voluntary contract for the purposes of mutual respect, rather than an unconditional duty upon oneself, or an inherent right of others, then the paradox disappears - no freedom for the enemies of freedon

What you are doing is called "straw-manning" your opponents. This is a time-honored tradition in politics, but what is different now is that it used to be done cynically, as a way to fool others. But you seem to be sincere, meaning you have basically deluded yourself.

But I vehemently disagree with the notion of "structural violence". It's an attempt to harness our emotional reactions to violence and to apply our tendency to desire to restrict it to things that absolutely are not violence. It's similar to what progressives have done with the term "racism", which they started applying to a lot things that weren't, in fact, racism, in the hopes of using the emotion associated with the term to win support for their positions. And instead basically succeeded only in discrediting the term.

It's because most people haven't even read anything karl popper wrote and are just citing the meme they saw on Twitter that their favorite influencer posted and thought "man, that helps justify my beliefs".

Also I agree with your point overall I’m trying to add to it not disagree with you.

I’d argue they are structurally violent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence

I suppose that’s a different term from violence alone, but this concept was defined to handle the expansion in just this kind of discussion.

I mean, none of the examples you gave are violent, under any reasonable definition of the term. That's just not what the word means. "Harm" works, as long as you realize that "harm" is a much more subjective word, and that attempts to address "harm" are usually trade offs. For instance, anti-discrimination laws in hiring are deliberate infringements of an employer's right to freedom of association, justified on the grounds of the social harm they ostensibly prevent.

You should read your own link, because you can get fired after showing financial loss, and I'm well aware of Japanese labor laws. One of my main jobs was facilitating work visas for foreign nationals. But this is all besides the point, nowhere did I posit that mass layoffs are normal.

What I am saying and what you can't seem to comprehend is that Japanese C suites aren't avoiding increasing efficiency and automation in some honor based care for their employees. At least not any more than western ones, what they care about is not verbalizing that dishonor. Even among equals.

There isn't any special difference in the underlying human behavior. It's just how they approach the outward situation.

Good point. I do think the word violence needs to be interpreted potentially more broadly. Someone holding views that they then use to make biased decisions that impact other people materially should count. Example is bias in hiring, promotion, compensation, etc. These material actions I think are part of the concept that should be applied to the word violence. Or we need a broader word like maybe “harm”?

My pleasure!

Has anything neo- ever been good? (not asking rhetorically)

[removed]

Interesting. I saw a different mode that proposed cultures of honor were typically more associated with pastoral nomadism, which would be more like a desert culture in your metaphor.

I have, yes. That's kind of implied by my post.

You claim to have worked there, but you seem to be unaware of japanese laws on terminating employees.

Excellent share. Thank you!

[deleted]

This is the quality content that brings me here. Thank you for sharing!