3 ms·

I understand that you're very angry about the situation. A lot of things Trump has made me angry. I'd like to express my anger in a way that doesn't involve try

I understand that you're very angry about the situation. A lot of things Trump has made me angry. I'd like to express my anger in a way that doesn't involve trying to make others feel ashamed about their own actions or beliefs. It's not easy - it's very much part of our culture to call each other names and judge others as good or bad.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
Supporting or defending Trump is shameful though. The only healthy response our society can possibly have is to try to make supporters understand why it is shameful and unacceptable. Your response is kind of scary to me because you’re essentially advocating tolerance and diplomacy with extreme racists and fascists (in no sense is that hyperbole).
- ordu 6y ago
  > The only healthy response our society can possibly have is to try to make supporters understand why it is shameful and unacceptable. You are free to disagree with me, but I strongly believe that making claims like yours is shameful and unacceptable. Not because of Trump, but because it is the worst kind of demagogy, the one which is so loved by Christianity: to make a sacred moral thing from a topic, and to forbid even talk about it, because it is amoral. The world is not painted in black and white, it is an important trait of the world. When you paint it in black and white you are making it easier to think about it, but you are provoking your mind to make a categorical mistakes of judgement. The more so in minds of your followers. And even more in their children. You are sacrificing long-term success of a crystal clear mind to a short-term gain. And I'm very doubtful that there is any gain from what you are doing. > Your response is kind of scary to me because you’re essentially advocating tolerance and diplomacy with extreme racists and fascists (in no sense is that hyperbole). "Once you know which side you’re on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side"[1] Please, notice the word "appear" in a quote. You are fighting an illusion, and therefore your fight will bring you no friends, just push away potential allies. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-is-the-mind-killer https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-i...
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    I’m sorry but you are just flat incorrect about this and the stakes are so high that being wrong about it in the way that you are wrong (conflating intolerance of fascism with demagogy) is deeply unacceptable and amounts to tacit support for a superseding attack on general democracy. Remaining uncompromising in the constant pointing out that racism and fascism (which is what humanizing defense of Trump is equivalent to) are shamefully unacceptable is not itself any form of intolerance or absolutism, apart from democracy being a higher moral imperative than fairness or politeness extended towards violent racist actors and their sympathizers. In some intensely immature, coddled “let’s go to the common room and discuss our feelings in the framework of ivory tower ethical philosophy” you are free to argue that this is just moral relativism and upholding basic human rights for people of all races is just one viewpoint and we should be philosophically neutral to consider other viewpoints even if one set of norms makes them appear abhorrent. But that is so juvenile as to be completely ignored, and the appeal to rationalism principles from LessWrong in this example is just deeply absurd. Defending or sympathizing with overt sociopathic racists and fascists is not the same thing as ideological safe space for debating norms that are hard to process within a given baseline ethical framework. It’s beyond ridiculous for you to act like your response is appropriate at all.
    - ordu 6y ago
      > conflating intolerance of fascism with demagogy I'm not conflating, you are. If you use demagogy to show your intolerance of fascism, then you are still use demagogy. My country annexed a part of Ukraine, and do you know what propaganda says about it? I could tell you: it was not an annexation, because people of Crimea have chosen to go into Russia. I amused myself for sometime by trolling our patriots, and I know exactly how they think. They think that if one have a good moral reason to annex some land, than it is not an annexation. It is like if we have a good moral reason to execute a person, than it is not a homicide. But this is not the way for a moral to work. If you asked Jesus would he think an execution is a homicide or not, how do you think he would answer? > Remaining uncompromising in the... It is politics. Politics is a mind killer. Either you are uncompromising, or you have a working mind. It is up to you to choose your side. Read Yudkowski some more, you'll learn that a rational mind must allow itself to think any thoughts, because thoughts do not kill people, it is people who kills other people. I was born and grown in a country were "to remain uncompromising" was a government policy and the basis of propaganda. And being a teenager I learned that to think about something is not the same as to compromise. To speak about something without requirement to do a ritual of the two minutes hate is not the same as compromising. I see now what happens in USA, all this shaming, cancel culture and such, it seems to me that USA is going to learn the lesson of uncompromising position and the difference between uncompromising position and freedom of thought and speech. Do this, make your country into a totalitarian state and tell me would you like it that way. I have a loads of popcorn and ready to watch the coming show. I'm deeply suspicious of zealots. You behave like one. You look like you are ready to kill for an idea. You are a dangerous person. Ideas are immaterial, you should be concerned more about people and less about ideas. My country suffered a lot because some people valued ideas more than other people. Believe me, I could detect ideological warriors by looking from Moon without optics, and you seems to me exactly like one of them. > But that is so juvenile as to be completely ignored, and the appeal to rationalism principles from LessWrong in this example is just deeply absurd. What are you trying to achieve making irrational claims to reject rational arguments? Do you really believe it would work? Do you think that if you call my arguments absurd I would abandon them? Or if you hint that my thoughts are juvenile then it would have no other way but to conform? Or if you accuse me of racism, when I didn't say nothing racist yet, it would change my position? Try to reread our conversation, please. Try to find a place where I showed a support for Trump, or said something racist, fascist. You wouldn't find any. All I did is I rejected to do a ritual of two minute hate after hearing stimulus 'Trump'. I'm not a Pavlovian dog and not a Skinner's pigeon to react to a stimulus by a predictable way. Moreover I empathically reject to participate in a hate behavior, regardless of the chosen hate target. And no moral reasoning from your side would change it. And yeah, no demagogy, and even no rational arguments would change it, because my rejection to hate stems from my moral position.
- tomp 6y ago
  What's really shameful is comparing Fascism/Nazism (killed millions) to Trump (killed ... thousands? probably less than Obama).

mlthoughts2018 6y ago

Supporting or defending Trump is shameful though. The only healthy response our society can possibly have is to try to make supporters understand why it is shameful and unacceptable. Your response is kind of scary to me because you’re essentially advocating tolerance and diplomacy with extreme racists and fascists (in no sense is that hyperbole).

ordu 6y ago
> The only healthy response our society can possibly have is to try to make supporters understand why it is shameful and unacceptable. You are free to disagree with me, but I strongly believe that making claims like yours is shameful and unacceptable. Not because of Trump, but because it is the worst kind of demagogy, the one which is so loved by Christianity: to make a sacred moral thing from a topic, and to forbid even talk about it, because it is amoral. The world is not painted in black and white, it is an important trait of the world. When you paint it in black and white you are making it easier to think about it, but you are provoking your mind to make a categorical mistakes of judgement. The more so in minds of your followers. And even more in their children. You are sacrificing long-term success of a crystal clear mind to a short-term gain. And I'm very doubtful that there is any gain from what you are doing. > Your response is kind of scary to me because you’re essentially advocating tolerance and diplomacy with extreme racists and fascists (in no sense is that hyperbole). "Once you know which side you’re on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side"[1] Please, notice the word "appear" in a quote. You are fighting an illusion, and therefore your fight will bring you no friends, just push away potential allies. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-is-the-mind-killer https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-i...
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  I’m sorry but you are just flat incorrect about this and the stakes are so high that being wrong about it in the way that you are wrong (conflating intolerance of fascism with demagogy) is deeply unacceptable and amounts to tacit support for a superseding attack on general democracy. Remaining uncompromising in the constant pointing out that racism and fascism (which is what humanizing defense of Trump is equivalent to) are shamefully unacceptable is not itself any form of intolerance or absolutism, apart from democracy being a higher moral imperative than fairness or politeness extended towards violent racist actors and their sympathizers. In some intensely immature, coddled “let’s go to the common room and discuss our feelings in the framework of ivory tower ethical philosophy” you are free to argue that this is just moral relativism and upholding basic human rights for people of all races is just one viewpoint and we should be philosophically neutral to consider other viewpoints even if one set of norms makes them appear abhorrent. But that is so juvenile as to be completely ignored, and the appeal to rationalism principles from LessWrong in this example is just deeply absurd. Defending or sympathizing with overt sociopathic racists and fascists is not the same thing as ideological safe space for debating norms that are hard to process within a given baseline ethical framework. It’s beyond ridiculous for you to act like your response is appropriate at all.
  - ordu 6y ago
    > conflating intolerance of fascism with demagogy I'm not conflating, you are. If you use demagogy to show your intolerance of fascism, then you are still use demagogy. My country annexed a part of Ukraine, and do you know what propaganda says about it? I could tell you: it was not an annexation, because people of Crimea have chosen to go into Russia. I amused myself for sometime by trolling our patriots, and I know exactly how they think. They think that if one have a good moral reason to annex some land, than it is not an annexation. It is like if we have a good moral reason to execute a person, than it is not a homicide. But this is not the way for a moral to work. If you asked Jesus would he think an execution is a homicide or not, how do you think he would answer? > Remaining uncompromising in the... It is politics. Politics is a mind killer. Either you are uncompromising, or you have a working mind. It is up to you to choose your side. Read Yudkowski some more, you'll learn that a rational mind must allow itself to think any thoughts, because thoughts do not kill people, it is people who kills other people. I was born and grown in a country were "to remain uncompromising" was a government policy and the basis of propaganda. And being a teenager I learned that to think about something is not the same as to compromise. To speak about something without requirement to do a ritual of the two minutes hate is not the same as compromising. I see now what happens in USA, all this shaming, cancel culture and such, it seems to me that USA is going to learn the lesson of uncompromising position and the difference between uncompromising position and freedom of thought and speech. Do this, make your country into a totalitarian state and tell me would you like it that way. I have a loads of popcorn and ready to watch the coming show. I'm deeply suspicious of zealots. You behave like one. You look like you are ready to kill for an idea. You are a dangerous person. Ideas are immaterial, you should be concerned more about people and less about ideas. My country suffered a lot because some people valued ideas more than other people. Believe me, I could detect ideological warriors by looking from Moon without optics, and you seems to me exactly like one of them. > But that is so juvenile as to be completely ignored, and the appeal to rationalism principles from LessWrong in this example is just deeply absurd. What are you trying to achieve making irrational claims to reject rational arguments? Do you really believe it would work? Do you think that if you call my arguments absurd I would abandon them? Or if you hint that my thoughts are juvenile then it would have no other way but to conform? Or if you accuse me of racism, when I didn't say nothing racist yet, it would change my position? Try to reread our conversation, please. Try to find a place where I showed a support for Trump, or said something racist, fascist. You wouldn't find any. All I did is I rejected to do a ritual of two minute hate after hearing stimulus 'Trump'. I'm not a Pavlovian dog and not a Skinner's pigeon to react to a stimulus by a predictable way. Moreover I empathically reject to participate in a hate behavior, regardless of the chosen hate target. And no moral reasoning from your side would change it. And yeah, no demagogy, and even no rational arguments would change it, because my rejection to hate stems from my moral position.
tomp 6y ago
What's really shameful is comparing Fascism/Nazism (killed millions) to Trump (killed ... thousands? probably less than Obama).