• Hello everyone, applications to join the moderation team are open. Please see This Topic for more information!

So can we talk about how garbage the idea of "reaching out" to trump supporters is?

Binx the Ampwave

New Member
One, I'm not sexist nor am I racist. Two, I'm not immersed into politics. Three, I think that the murders of colored people are terrible and I wish they never even happened. Also, I support the LGBTQ+ community 100%, in fact, I used to be in it. It's just that politics are crazy nowadays and I don't really know who to support anymore.
 

Merv

Member
One, I'm not sexist nor am I racist. Two, I'm not immersed into politics. Three, I think that the murders of colored people are terrible and I wish they never even happened. Also, I support the LGBTQ+ community 100%, in fact, I used to be in it. It's just that politics are crazy nowadays and I don't really know who to support anymore.
I can copy and paste, too:
Get out.
 

Manibrandr Soundworks

Emerald Subscriber
One, I'm not sexist nor am I racist. Two, I'm not immersed into politics. Three, I think that the murders of colored people are terrible and I wish they never even happened. Also, I support the LGBTQ+ community 100%, in fact, I used to be in it. It's just that politics are crazy nowadays and I don't really know who to support anymore.
You can claim this all you want, but unless you prove your character, that perception of you being dangerous is going to stick, because of your status as a Trump supporter.

It's not enough to simply be not racist or not sexist. You'd have to also be anti-racist and anti-sexist, because simply not being a bigot doesn't prevent you from being complicit when your peers do it.
 
One, I'm not sexist nor am I racist. Two, I'm not immersed into politics. Three, I think that the murders of colored people are terrible and I wish they never even happened. Also, I support the LGBTQ+ community 100%, in fact, I used to be in it. It's just that politics are crazy nowadays and I don't really know who to support anymore.
you literally said "I'm a Trump supporter", that means you support someone who is all of those horrible things and then some (he's been accused of how many sexual assaults? including by his own ex-wife?)

if you "don't really know who to support anymore", and you don't support racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic sexual assaulters, it's actually really easy to not call yourself a Trump supporter.
 

Manibrandr Soundworks

Emerald Subscriber
I am just gonna up and say this, if you're a conservative, you built the foundations that enabled the alt right pipeline. If you are in that group, as well as if you're a Trump supporter, and denounce extremist actions, what ARE you even doing still allied with those ghouls?

If you're really genuine about your motives, and want to make a difference without risking recouperation, move left.

- Valerie
 
  • Like
Reactions: Merv

Tamara

Member
and want to make a difference without risking recouperation, move left.

I disagree with that : there is always a risk of recuperation, no matter where you are on the political spectrum. The methods and goals will be different, but there will always be someone trying to recuperate a movement, to harness and use the energy of people for their own benefit.
 

Manibrandr Soundworks

Emerald Subscriber
I disagree with that : there is always a risk of recuperation, no matter where you are on the political spectrum. The methods and goals will be different, but there will always be someone trying to recuperate a movement, to harness and use the energy of people for their own benefit.
Well yeah, but it's a lot harder when your position is directly opposed to capitalism, rather than subscribing to a belief system that is practically in bed with capitalism.
- Valerie

Capitalism, conservatism and fascism all depend on a vertical social hierarchy to work, "As above, so below!" as they would put it. Meanwhile, most leftist beliefs are an iconoclasm from that social paradigm and proposes that we all should have as equal a social standing as possible.
- Iselyn

Really though, I am not fond of the potential nirvana fallacy being presented here.
- Julayla
 

Tamara

Member
It is true that it is harder given the egalitarian ideologies usually found on the left, but it not impossible. Also, it has been proven time and again that groups of humans will end up having a hierarchy, whether it is an official one or an unofficial one : any group will end up with leaders, followers and outliers. Thus there's always a risk of being recuperated.

I'm not familiar with the 'nirvana fallacy' and how it applies to what I've said, could you explain, please ?
 

Manibrandr Soundworks

Emerald Subscriber
It is true that it is harder given the egalitarian ideologies usually found on the left, but it not impossible. Also, it has been proven time and again that groups of humans will end up having a hierarchy, whether it is an official one or an unofficial one : any group will end up with leaders, followers and outliers. Thus there's always a risk of being recuperated.

I'm not familiar with the 'nirvana fallacy' and how it applies to what I've said, could you explain, please ?
It's the framing of a measure as being completely pointless and useless unless it completely eliminates the problem it's meant to address. That is a fallacy because changes and improvements to society almost always come in incremental measures that are slightly better than the last. To think that there is a magic action that can fix all of society's problems is like thinking that there is a set of actions, rituals and ideas that can magically take you to nirvana, hence the fallacy.

As for the human tendency to form hierarchies, well, that's human nature, something that we've proven time and again that we can address using sociological means to reduce and/or eliminate deletrious human tendencies. The more productive point to make and discuss is whether or not we should lean in to forming social hierarchies, or work to resist it. We lean towards resisting it, how about you?
 

Tamara

Member
Thank you for the explanation. I do quite agree that changes and improvements come in little steps, and that there is no magical solutions to any of our current problems. I still do not see how what I've said falls within the definition of the 'nirvana fallacy' though ?

I do think that some form of social hierarchy is needed and necessary, in order to ensure that any kind of group (understood here in the largest meaning possible) can function together. It is, after all, human nature, and resisting human nature is often not a good idea. The better question, in my opinion, is what kind of hierarchy should be put in place ? A question that humanity has struggled with since it's early dawn, and for which we do not yet have a good answer, as far as I can tell, especially now that we've become a planet-spanning civilisation rapidly approaching 8 billion people.
 

Manibrandr Soundworks

Emerald Subscriber
Thank you for the explanation. I do quite agree that changes and improvements come in little steps, and that there is no magical solutions to any of our current problems. I still do not see how what I've said falls within the definition of the 'nirvana fallacy' though ?
The way you framed the argument seems to imply that you think it's futile to resist capitalist recouperation, because, as you asserted, it will happen anyways.

I do think that some form of social hierarchy is needed and necessary, in order to ensure that any kind of group (understood here in the largest meaning possible) can function together. It is, after all, human nature, and resisting human nature is often not a good idea. The better question, in my opinion, is what kind of hierarchy should be put in place ? A question that humanity has struggled with since it's early dawn, and for which we do not yet have a good answer, as far as I can tell, especially now that we've become a planet-spanning civilisation rapidly approaching 8 billion people.
The problem stems when the hierarchy creates a class of people above others based on their roles in society. Who gets to decide who gets to rule and who deserves to be ruled over? What of the consequences of the modern caste system being that a small group of people get to live a luxious frivolous and unsustainable life beyond anyone's wildest dreams doing nothing, while half of the rest of the world starves to death or struggles through 72+ hour works weeks just to exist?

Also human nature is a bad example, and here's why:
  1. Rape is a part of human nature, as there are natural urges that drive one side of the bimodal sex model of the population to reproduce at any cost, and the other side to be as selective as possible. In this view, cheating the consent filter is evolutionarily advantageous. Of course, we all understood this to be a horrible thing to do and have enacted measures to reduce its occurrence.
  2. Before the rise of agricultural farming, human life has been largely experienced through hunter-gatherer lifestyles. Because of the dangers that we faced, and the evolutionarily physical disadvantages we have compared to the competition and predators, we have developed behaviours that can be best summed up as "mutual aid" in order to cover for each other's security. Because more humans surviving to adulthood is always better than less. This behaviour has largely been suppressed and socialogically discouraged in modern society, which lead to a strand of very selfish political schools of though that is causing a lot of the sustainability problems we're facing today.
So here you go, and example of human nature being bad, and one of it being good. Making blanket value judgements on human nature without examining it on a case by case basis is therefore a poor argument. Q.E.D.
 

DelGryphon

New Member
just saying, if you agree with the concepts of building a wall to keep brown people out, or that being lgbt is wrong, or that the black people fighting for their rights against police are just violent thugs, youve pretty much already decided that your humanity towards your fellow man doesnt extend towards minorities. there are republicans who just prefer conservative economics and in that case there is a chance to reach out, but once someone dives into racism it is THEIR responsibility to wake up and learn that hating people for being born is wrong. to allow them spaces or platforms is to directly put people in danger.
I very much agree with this. Thank you.
 

Tamara

Member
The way you framed the argument seems to imply that you think it's futile to resist capitalist recouperation, because, as you asserted, it will happen anyways.

I did not imply anything of the sort. I was simply reacting to your assertion that there was no risk of recuperation when moving to the left, that is all. Also, I said that there was a risk of recuperation, not that it was certain to happen.
I would ask you to stop putting implications and subtext in what I write, please. It is not the first time that you assumed that my words had another meaning than simply what I wrote and it is starting to get quite annoying to me. What I write is what I mean, no more, no less. There are no subtext, implications, hidden meaning or secret message. Just stick to my words and sentences, please.

The problem stems when the hierarchy creates a class of people above others based on their roles in society. Who gets to decide who gets to rule and who deserves to be ruled over? What of the consequences of the modern caste system being that a small group of people get to live a luxious frivolous and unsustainable life beyond anyone's wildest dreams doing nothing, while half of the rest of the world starves to death or struggles through 72+ hour works weeks just to exist?

Those are very good questions indeed, especially the first one. Questions that needs to be answered as we look for the best way to organize our societies and our civilisation as a whole. For me, it should be based on principles of equality for everyone, and make sure that every person on the planet has access to decent living conditions, good healthcare, good education and the means for everyone to pursue their dreams and the career of their choice, without any consideration of skin color, social or geographical origin, sexuality, gender, or any other criteria beyond matching the skills needed for said career.

Which could be achieved today, with a massive redistribution of wealth and resources and a complete overhaul of the current political, economical and societal organisation currently in place. But that would also come with heavy resistance, not only from the few who are currently the top profiteers of the situation, but also the many people on the lower levels who have been brainwashed to believe that this was the only way to have our society function. Changing that will, unfortunately, take many generations.

Also human nature is a bad example, and here's why:
  1. Rape is a part of human nature, as there are natural urges that drive one side of the bimodal sex model of the population to reproduce at any cost, and the other side to be as selective as possible. In this view, cheating the consent filter is evolutionarily advantageous. Of course, we all understood this to be a horrible thing to do and have enacted measures to reduce its occurrence.
  2. Before the rise of agricultural farming, human life has been largely experienced through hunter-gatherer lifestyles. Because of the dangers that we faced, and the evolutionarily physical disadvantages we have compared to the competition and predators, we have developed behaviours that can be best summed up as "mutual aid" in order to cover for each other's security. Because more humans surviving to adulthood is always better than less. This behaviour has largely been suppressed and socialogically discouraged in modern society, which lead to a strand of very selfish political schools of though that is causing a lot of the sustainability problems we're facing today.
So here you go, and example of human nature being bad, and one of it being good. Making blanket value judgements on human nature without examining it on a case by case basis is therefore a poor argument. Q.E.D.

Human nature is central in every sociological question : you cannot create any kind of organisation without taking it into account to try and determine how people will react, for example.

If rape is truly part of human nature, then that means that people of any gender or sexuality are inclined to commit rape, not just one side of one sex model as you mention. That would mean that we are all potential rapists, and I would dispute that. While I'm quite certain that we could find rape cases up to the prehistoric times if we had archives going back that far, I'm also of the opinion that it is not something inherently human nor was it as widespread as some would think throughout our history, or even today.

I would also very much dispute that 'mutual aid' as a behavior has been suppressed. While I fully agree that there is and there has been a concerted effort to discourage it in our so-called 'modern societies', you can see that those efforts have mostly failed. People still form communities, still come to the help of each other as much as they can, whether it is by helping an elderly person getting groceries or sending some money for a medical crowdfunding campaign or gathering to protect a natural area from housing speculations and so on. Even here, on this very website, you can find the Furry Fandom Safety Guide, designed to help fellow furs to recognize and walk away from abusive relationships.

I wasn't making a blanket value judgement on human nature, or on humans in general, especially since I quite despise blanket judgements on about anything. My point was that frontal resistance is usually the worst solution, while I said that resisting human nature was often, though not always, a bad idea, that does not mean that we have to give into it with wild abandon either. Much as you don't try to stop an overflowing river by building a dam straight in the middle, but instead try to divert the flow towards areas where it will do the less damage, the energies coming from natural human impulses can be diverted from harmful behavior towards things that are not harmful.
 

Manibrandr Soundworks

Emerald Subscriber
I did not imply anything of the sort. I was simply reacting to your assertion that there was no risk of recuperation when moving to the left, that is all. Also, I said that there was a risk of recuperation, not that it was certain to happen.
I would ask you to stop putting implications and subtext in what I write, please. It is not the first time that you assumed that my words had another meaning than simply what I wrote and it is starting to get quite annoying to me. What I write is what I mean, no more, no less. There are no subtext, implications, hidden meaning or secret message. Just stick to my words and sentences, please.
Then you'll do your due diligence and recognize that I clarified my position on the matter by mentioning the nirvana fallacy, and the follow up posts.

I would also very much dispute that 'mutual aid' as a behavior has been suppressed. While I fully agree that there is and there has been a concerted effort to discourage it in our so-called 'modern societies', you can see that those efforts have mostly failed. People still form communities, still come to the help of each other as much as they can, whether it is by helping an elderly person getting groceries or sending some money for a medical crowdfunding campaign or gathering to protect a natural area from housing speculations and so on. Even here, on this very website, you can find the Furry Fandom Safety Guide, designed to help fellow furs to recognize and walk away from abusive relationships.
You kind of debunked this point by your previous paragraph, and I quote...
Which could be achieved today, with a massive redistribution of wealth and resources and a complete overhaul of the current political, economical and societal organisation currently in place. But that would also come with heavy resistance, not only from the few who are currently the top profiteers of the situation, but also the many people on the lower levels who have been brainwashed to believe that this was the only way to have our society function. Changing that will, unfortunately, take many generations.
It is true, there is a lot of systemic issues that actively work to make it harder for people to look out for each other. Did you know that a lot of corporations actively discourage and lobby against donating unsold food to food banks?

Human nature is central in every sociological question : you cannot create any kind of organisation without taking it into account to try and determine how people will react, for example.

If rape is truly part of human nature, then that means that people of any gender or sexuality are inclined to commit rape, not just one side of one sex model as you mention. That would mean that we are all potential rapists, and I would dispute that. While I'm quite certain that we could find rape cases up to the prehistoric times if we had archives going back that far, I'm also of the opinion that it is not something inherently human nor was it as widespread as some would think throughout our history, or even today.
Considering that it is a pattern in reproductive behaviour that is seen all over nature and repeated in a lot of species, and encoded in reproductive biology, (Have you SEEN some of the phallus designs?) it's not beyond the realm of possibility that it is a behavioural tendency that we are inclined towards naturally, and have been socialized against doing.

I wasn't making a blanket value judgement on human nature, or on humans in general, especially since I quite despise blanket judgements on about anything. My point was that frontal resistance is usually the worst solution, while I said that resisting human nature was often, though not always, a bad idea, that does not mean that we have to give into it with wild abandon either. Much as you don't try to stop an overflowing river by building a dam straight in the middle, but instead try to divert the flow towards areas where it will do the less damage, the energies coming from natural human impulses can be diverted from harmful behavior towards things that are not harmful.
So it's about how to resist human nature now, and not that it's often a bad idea?
 

TheKingInTheNorth

New Member
No, don't empathize with them - but don't lash out at them (at least not ALL of them) just yet.
Yes, there are ABSOLUTELY people who deserve to be lashed out at, but there are some people who are willing to listen - some people who just, somehow, got brainwashed into believing crazy bullshit. My own mother, for example, is definitely one of those people. She still has a long way to go, but she's not quite a lost cause yet.
There could be plenty of people like that too. Does that mean treat them all like that? Lmao hell no, some of them are just plain horrible and definitely won't change, but don't condemn the ones that can still be saved. The more people we can get to see the truth of it all, the better.
 

Manibrandr Soundworks

Emerald Subscriber
They've had plenty of time to listen, a good five years, in fact. Anyone who would have jumped off the Trump train would have done so by now. What remains is a concentrated bromide of wretched white colonialism distilled into calls for a genocidal ethnostate and social eugenics.

If you want to risk your mental health, and being gaslit by their attempts to pull you in via your own empathy, I highly don't recommend it, but I can't stop you. Just don't say we didn't warn you, these folks are dangerous.
 

frillious

Member
yeah i hate that liberal shit, only the victims & the children of bigots and predators must be reached out to