A middle section of two extremely opposite aspects is inevitable to surface into a discussion by consequential considerations. Evaluating proposed dispositions of each aspect, it is inevitable that people would want the established problem to be resolved by another aspect that's just: moderate, common, the exact middle. For example, atheism and theism = agnosticism. Determinism and free-will = compatibilism. Would that middle section, which is inherently not any different from an ism, be a problem as well? — SethRy
If a person refers to themselves as an ism, and another person assumes that they possess any number of traits or beliefs based on their own preconceived notions of what that encompasses then I think that’s fine, but if the first person then corrects the person about the preconceived notion then the onus is on the second person to adjust their view, not say something like “...but you said you were a so and so ism!” or somesuch. — DingoJones
It's similar to the logic behind my stance on offensive language. If the onus is on the person saying things, we are at the mercy of peoples sensitivity to offense. — DingoJones
sometimes it is better to take the long-winded approach by avoiding labels in exchange for a description of the thing the label is intended to point to. Your writing will become less concise, but your intended meaning will be much clearer. — VagabondSpectre
People simply assume that they know what the others think. Why listen or engage in a discussion then?The trouble I see with -isms is how we tend to become tribally identified with them, with a particular side of a conflictual divide on a question. It often seems that it ends up being more about protecting that group identity than trying to get closer to the truth. So people dig in, no matter how well the opposition argues. — petrichor
Well yes, that is where we disagree I think. People don’t pigeon hole themselves via someone elses assumption. That doesnt make sense to me. Rather the one with assumptions, even justified ones, bears the responsibility of any mislabeling of a persons stances. Its them who should maintain a stricter awareness. If its the other way around, we are all at the mercy of other peoples assumptions. — DingoJones
I'm not in the wrong by default just because they're offended. They'd need to be justified. — S
If reason is and should be slave to the passions then you cannot be in the wrong (in matters that are not empirically decidable) if you feel you are right. On that RIASBSTTP view they don't need to be justified for any sense of being offended by your view, either. — Janus
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[14] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[14] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[15][16][17][18] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[19]
You know that I'm a moral relativist. Do I really need to explain how that works again? — S
DingoJones
639
↪Janus
Well yes, that is where we disagree I think. People don’t pigeon hole themselves via someone elses assumption. That doesnt make sense to me. Rather the one with assumptions, even justified ones, bears the responsibility of any mislabeling of a persons stances. Its them who should maintain a stricter awareness. If its the other way around, we are all at the mercy of other peoples assumptions. — DingoJones
Giving labels to other people and then attacking the worst stereotypes of the followers of that "ism" is an easy method to circumvent actual discussion. It's quite luring to do this. Just think your own actions if you, as a mostly progressive person, would have to make small talk with a person who would start with saying "I voted Trump in the last election".In political discussions I am often labelled a "liberal" because I mostly favor a progressive agenda. But I insist I am NOT a liberal...which is a label. I am satisfied to offer my views on anything...and prefer that those views not pigeonhole me with a label. — Frank Apisa
ssu
1k
In political discussions I am often labelled a "liberal" because I mostly favor a progressive agenda. But I insist I am NOT a liberal...which is a label. I am satisfied to offer my views on anything...and prefer that those views not pigeonhole me with a label. — Frank Apisa
Giving labels to other people and then attacking the worst stereotypes of the followers of that "ism" is an easy method to circumvent actual discussion. It's quite luring to do this. Just think your own actions if you, as a mostly progressive person, would have to make small talk with a person who would start with saying "I voted Trump in the last election".
Nobody starts small talk with a stranger like this anywhere. If the other person is totally on the opposite side, the situation is awkward. Of course it shouldn't be so, if we truly would be open to ideas of others and respect each other. — ssu
I was wondering whether you know you are a moral relativist, but in any case, I've just explained it to you, so we're all good. — Janus
You’d have to expand on that for me given that it tells me very little about what you think. This is not as big an issue regarding the OP though as I am more concerned with political terminology than with philosophical perspectives or “ethics”. — I like sushi
I completely agree with you that people don't pigeonhole themselves via someone else's assumption they pigeon hole themselves via identifying their standpoint with some ism or other. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.