3 ms·

>Most people are not libertarian, and so they down vote comments that don't fit their ideology. Libertarianism is an ideology too. Wikipedia: "Libertarianism

by batista 15y ago

>Most people are not libertarian, and so they down vote comments that don't fit their ideology. Libertarianism is an ideology too. Wikipedia: "Libertarianism is generally considered to be the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarianism is variously defined by sources. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition nor on how one should use the term as a historical category. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power." All of these beliefs reek ideology. You don't get a free pass saying "I'm for freedom". Not only because there are different kinds of freedoms, but also because any direction you pursue is full of assumptions of what society is and should be, what is the best for the individual and society, etc. But the best sign that you are advocating an ideology, is if you are considering all other beliefs as ideologies and not yours. Like the above comment does. Politics entails ideology. Presenting your view as some kind of empirical hard science is bullshit. And, as an aside, it's what the so-called "vulgar marxists" did. (Not only Libertarianism is ideology, it's also mostly geographically and culturally constrained: it's first and foremost an American product).

jerf 15y ago
I don't do this often, but I want to tell you I downvoted you for passionately arguing against a strawman. I can find no evidence that nirvana ever claimed libertarianism wasn't an ideology, only that it is a minority one. Unless perhaps there was an edit?
- batista 15y ago
  >I don't do this often, but I want to tell you I downvoted you for passionately arguing against a strawman. I can find no evidence that nirvana ever claimed libertarianism wasn't an ideology, only that it is a minority one. Unless perhaps there was an edit? I don't see any edit, so the current text is what I replied to. You're saying that "you can find no evidence that nirvana ever claimed libertarianism wasn't an ideology". Well, I read the sentence: "most people are not libertarian, and so they down vote comments that don't fit their ideology" as a claim that a) libertarianism is not an ideology, b) libertarians don't down vote comments that don't fit their ideology. Isn't he basically arguing as if libertarians are somehow above downvoting people who disagree with them? That is, they are, somehow, above ideology? I consider both claims as false. Even more so, because what the ideology you follow claims and what you practice are not really related. Christians are as prone to breaking the "seven-deadly-sins" as anybody else, and libertarians are just as prone to downvoting people they don't agree with as anybody else. That I was downvoted because of arguing against libertarianism is as good evidence as any, isn't it?
  - andrewflnr 15y ago
    He actually made no claim whatsoever about the downvoting habits of libertarians. You seem to be inferring the claim from that he thinks that libertarians must be the opposite of those who downvote them. That inference has no basis in this thread. You are making similar assumptions about the sentence you quote. He only makes claims about the downvoters ideologies, with no reference to libertarians' ideologies. Even if he does think something idiotic like that libertarianism is not an ideology, which I doubt, he had the sense to keep it out of this conversation. This is practically the definition of the straw man fallacy.
    - batista 15y ago
      >He actually made no claim whatsoever about the downvoting habits of libertarians. You seem to be inferring the claim from that he thinks that libertarians must be the opposite of those who downvote them. That inference has no basis in this thread. Maybe in some "axiomatic-pure-logic-language-land" what you said holds true, but in real natural language land, when we mention something about X, we do it in order to compare it to that which is not-X. That is, if we are to assume that the libertarians have the same downvoting habits, then there would be ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for him to even mention the downvoting habits of the rest of the population. >This is practically the definition of the straw man fallacy. No, it's practically the very definition of extracting the meaning of a statement beyond what it explicitly states, i.e the very cornerstone of having a discussion: drawing conclusions.
      - andrewflnr 15y ago
        He was merely explaining a phenomenon, with no reference to other phenomena. Only some statements imply comparison, not all. I think that extracting meaning beyond what a statement explicitly states is actually responsible for a lot if not most of the nonsense that happens in Internet discussions, because it's too easy to be wrong. Best to stick with pure logic when you can, or start off asking questions rather than refuting something they might not have meant.
        15y ago

by batista 15y ago

jerf 15y ago

I don't do this often, but I want to tell you I downvoted you for passionately arguing against a strawman. I can find no evidence that nirvana ever claimed libertarianism wasn't an ideology, only that it is a minority one. Unless perhaps there was an edit?

batista 15y ago
>I don't do this often, but I want to tell you I downvoted you for passionately arguing against a strawman. I can find no evidence that nirvana ever claimed libertarianism wasn't an ideology, only that it is a minority one. Unless perhaps there was an edit? I don't see any edit, so the current text is what I replied to. You're saying that "you can find no evidence that nirvana ever claimed libertarianism wasn't an ideology". Well, I read the sentence: "most people are not libertarian, and so they down vote comments that don't fit their ideology" as a claim that a) libertarianism is not an ideology, b) libertarians don't down vote comments that don't fit their ideology. Isn't he basically arguing as if libertarians are somehow above downvoting people who disagree with them? That is, they are, somehow, above ideology? I consider both claims as false. Even more so, because what the ideology you follow claims and what you practice are not really related. Christians are as prone to breaking the "seven-deadly-sins" as anybody else, and libertarians are just as prone to downvoting people they don't agree with as anybody else. That I was downvoted because of arguing against libertarianism is as good evidence as any, isn't it?
- andrewflnr 15y ago
  He actually made no claim whatsoever about the downvoting habits of libertarians. You seem to be inferring the claim from that he thinks that libertarians must be the opposite of those who downvote them. That inference has no basis in this thread. You are making similar assumptions about the sentence you quote. He only makes claims about the downvoters ideologies, with no reference to libertarians' ideologies. Even if he does think something idiotic like that libertarianism is not an ideology, which I doubt, he had the sense to keep it out of this conversation. This is practically the definition of the straw man fallacy.
  - batista 15y ago
    >He actually made no claim whatsoever about the downvoting habits of libertarians. You seem to be inferring the claim from that he thinks that libertarians must be the opposite of those who downvote them. That inference has no basis in this thread. Maybe in some "axiomatic-pure-logic-language-land" what you said holds true, but in real natural language land, when we mention something about X, we do it in order to compare it to that which is not-X. That is, if we are to assume that the libertarians have the same downvoting habits, then there would be ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for him to even mention the downvoting habits of the rest of the population. >This is practically the definition of the straw man fallacy. No, it's practically the very definition of extracting the meaning of a statement beyond what it explicitly states, i.e the very cornerstone of having a discussion: drawing conclusions.
    - andrewflnr 15y ago
      He was merely explaining a phenomenon, with no reference to other phenomena. Only some statements imply comparison, not all. I think that extracting meaning beyond what a statement explicitly states is actually responsible for a lot if not most of the nonsense that happens in Internet discussions, because it's too easy to be wrong. Best to stick with pure logic when you can, or start off asking questions rather than refuting something they might not have meant.
      - 15y ago