3 ms·

> I’m going to de-prioritise trying to understand them—they’re politically no viable. imho lack of political viability should not be sufficient to not prioriti

> I’m going to de-prioritise trying to understand them—they’re politically no viable. imho lack of political viability should not be sufficient to not prioritize trying to understand something. For example, I don't think ideologies like Anarchism are politically viable, but do think understanding such ideologies is important to forming a solid base of knowledge upon which to base my actual positions.

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
> I don't think ideologies like Anarchism are politically viable why not?
- ganstyles 6y ago
  I was thinking about the USA specifically, but I think it applies generally that despite some of its interesting tenets, very few people support it. Without at least some critical mass of supporters, ideally at least a plurality, it has no chance of becoming supported enough to place people in office and is thus not politically viable.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> I don't think ideologies like Anarchism are politically viable, but do think understanding such ideologies is important De-prioritise doesn't mean ignore. It just means it goes down the list. If something has a chance of appealing to the population, it could merit working on. That makes it a priority to understand. Non-viable politics are fine. They move the Overton window. And they can, as you say, inform broader philosophies. But if something has a chance of being viable, it benefits from more-compassionate framing.
kordlessagain 6y ago
It is in some people's best interest if some continue to try to understand them, especially if what they are thinking (or signaling they are thinking) is highly irrational. It is in the far right's interests to continue to get press and traction of their irrational ideas. They are a cult of grifters (working the con) in that respect.

3 ms·

> I’m going to de-prioritise trying to understand them—they’re politically no viable. imho lack of political viability should not be sufficient to not prioriti

by ganstyles 6y ago

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
> I don't think ideologies like Anarchism are politically viable why not?
- ganstyles 6y ago
  I was thinking about the USA specifically, but I think it applies generally that despite some of its interesting tenets, very few people support it. Without at least some critical mass of supporters, ideally at least a plurality, it has no chance of becoming supported enough to place people in office and is thus not politically viable.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> I don't think ideologies like Anarchism are politically viable, but do think understanding such ideologies is important De-prioritise doesn't mean ignore. It just means it goes down the list. If something has a chance of appealing to the population, it could merit working on. That makes it a priority to understand. Non-viable politics are fine. They move the Overton window. And they can, as you say, inform broader philosophies. But if something has a chance of being viable, it benefits from more-compassionate framing.
kordlessagain 6y ago
It is in some people's best interest if some continue to try to understand them, especially if what they are thinking (or signaling they are thinking) is highly irrational. It is in the far right's interests to continue to get press and traction of their irrational ideas. They are a cult of grifters (working the con) in that respect.