Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

[Laertes]

PRAK

PRAAAK

GOD DAMNIT PRAK

PRAK GOD DAMNIT

IN WHAT SENSE DOES SOMEONE LEAN ANARCHOCOMMUNIST BY DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ANARCHOCOMMMUNISM

IN WHAT SENSE DOES SOMEONE BELIEVE IN ANARCHOCOMMUNISM BY BELIEVING ANARCHOCOMMUNISM IS FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE

IN WHAT SENSE IS IT CORRECT TO IDENTIFY AS ANARCHOCOMMUNIST BY ACTIVELY REJECTING THE VERY IDEA OF BEING ANARCHOCOMMUNIST

AGREEING THAT NICE-SOUNDING BULLSHIT SOUNDS NICE BUT IS STILL BULLSHIT IN NO WAY CONSTITUTES A SUBSCRIPTION TO THE AFOREMENTIONED BULLSHIT

CAPS WERE NECESSARY I REGRET NOTHING

To this matchless prose I can add nothing of value; however I must point out in fairness to Prak that they're using the word "believe" to mean "don't believe or act upon in any sense but wish it was true", which is a fairly common usage nowadays, especially in religious communities.

[erik]

however I must point out in fairness to Prak that they're using the word "believe" to mean "don't believe or act upon in any sense but wish it was true"

But, must you?

using the word "believe" to mean "don't believe

If he'd said "I am also a realist, and so realize that won't happen any time soon (or ever), and so when I'm actually making political decisions, I act in favour of the next closest thing." That would be tolerable.

Instead we have:

having a specific political belief, realizing that it's untenable, and thus acting counter to it?

That is an intentional rejection of that specific political belief.

You can't dually believe in Santa Claus as a magical present bearer and also realize it's not possible and doesn't exist as such. Once you get to the second half you have rejected the first.

So, if I say that I most agree with the Peace and Freedom party over any of the others, but still vote democratic because they can actually win, is that distinct from what Prak is doing?

That's a lot more reasonable. Unfortunately it is more like "I most agree with the Peace and Freedom party over any of the others, but still vote War and Oppression because that works better".

I would rail against it harder, but at this moment provides a delightfully distracting brain hurt from the pressure and pain I have from this damned persistent head cold.

[Prak]

I recognize that this sort of hippie commune lifestyle thing isn't possible on the large scale, because people, by and large, suck. So I act in favour of the thing that will produce the most happiness, and the functionally close out come, which basically amounts to people's dickholishness being held in check, because that's one of the functions of government.

But I couldn't figure out a way to say that "strong government" is the next best thing to "no need for government" the other night.

[Laertes]

You can't dually believe in Santa Claus as a magical present bearer and also realize it's not possible and doesn't exist as such. Once you get to the second half you have rejected the first.

You miss my point.

We live in a culture of hypocrisy where the word "believe" is concerned. People can and do say "I believe in Santa Claus" while not actually believing in a fat man in a Coca-Cola tunic coming down the chimney. People can and do say "I believe in the supremacy of the white race" while also voting for a black president. People can say "I believe in global climate change" while also not believing that they're doing anything wrong by flying off on holiday. They aren't lying when they say those things, they're just doublethinking.

You are right when you say that you cannot honestly say that you believe both P and Not-P. However, you can believe both of these if you are able to doublethink properly, which is easy because we live in a society which encourages doublethink.

As such, Prak is not being stupid, merely dishonest; and he is being no more dishonest than most people in our culture.

[erik]

We live in a culture of hypocrisy where the word "believe" is concerned. People can and do say "I believe in Santa Claus" while not actually believing in a fat man in a Coca-Cola tunic coming down the chimney.

No we don't. Those people who would say that typically are kids who in fact do believe that. The people who don't believe it would not honestly say they believe in Santa Claus.

People can and do say "I believe in the supremacy of the white race" while also voting for a black president.

Again nope. Those people did not vote for a black president. Try again.

People can say "I believe in global climate change" while also not believing that they're doing anything wrong by flying off on holiday.

Aaand that's probably as close as you are going to get to not being 1000% wrong in your post. Congrats. You foul-tipped it after 2 strikes.

If you confronted those people they might acknowledge that what they are doing is not helping the climate, but they have a conflicting need to not stay home forever. I acknowledge I do harm to the environment by driving, but I'd have a damned hard time surviving if I didn't, so I do for me.

[Kaelik]

I recognize that this sort of hippie commune lifestyle thing isn't possible on the large scale, because people, by and large, suck. So I act in favour of the thing that will produce the most happiness, and the functionally close out come, which basically amounts to people's dickholishness being held in check, because that's one of the functions of government.

But I couldn't figure out a way to say that "strong government" is the next best thing to "no need for government" the other night.

Your first paragraph lays out how strong government is absolutely better than no need for government.

Your second paragraph insists that you really believe that no need for government is better than strong government, in direct contradiction to your first paragraph.

Again.

"I recognize that Christian god does not in fact exist, and that Jesus, if he ever existed at all, did not advocate basically any of the things attributed to him. I also think all the things attributed to him are stupid.

But yesterday I couldn't find a way to convey the fact that I believe the rejection of Jesus as a religious figure is is the next best thing to recognizing that Jesus obviously exists and being a Christian."

[Whipstitch]

Yeah, you can't claim to support something you've summarily dismissed. I mean, ffs, even many hardcore conservatives will admit that a lot of liberal ideas sound nice prior to soundly dismissing all of it as soft-headed impossible twaddle. It's why some corners of the internet are happy to resurrect variations of the old 'Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head" quote.

[momothefiddler]

Jesus christ, how hard is "I wish we didn't need this thing, but as it stands we do, so I'll try to make it the best possible example of that thing rather than pretending that we don't need it" to get?

Look, I would like to own a car that didn't require fuel of any sort. I think it'd be great to not have to worry about gasoline, or electricity, or hydrogen or plutonium or whatever. But I realize that this is not currently an option. It's not hypocritical of me to then do something other than buy a car and not put gas in it, because I realize that that's completely fucking useless and, in fact, counterproductive. It's also not hypocritical that I don't just get a lawn mower because those use less fuel, because a lawnmower doesn't do what I need (transport me places).

I think that the world would be a nicer place to live if we didn't spend such a huge percentage of our resources on telling each other what to do, but I acknowledge that there're a lot of changes that would need to happen before that's actually possible, so I don't try to tear down the system, man (car with no gas) or vote libertarian (lawnmower).

Saying that's hypocritical is like saying someone who really likes plums should buy the moldy plum rather than the fresh strawberry, given those are the only options and they can only afford one.

[Laertes]

What you've mentioned, momo, is is more an expression of the fact that a certain level of doublethink and hypocrisy is necessary to survive in an imperfect world. It is hypocritical to act against one's sincerely held beliefs, but we all do it every day anyway. That's the sensible thing to do.

I used to live with a guy who was a Hard Green. He ran his smartcar on biodiesel, and when he fucked the engine too badly while doing that, the mechanic told him that he had to switch to normal diesel because the biodiesel was going to keep destroying his car. So he sold it and started bicycling two hours to work. That is a rigidly honest and principled man. That's also a fucking idiot, because as you point out we don't live in a perfect world. Actually sticking to your principles is something which you can take far too far; but that doesn't make it not hypocrisy to abandon them. It just makes the hypocrisy be the right thing to do under those circumstances.

erik - do I understand correctly that your position is that human beings are incapable of doublethink? That seems to my mind a somewhat radical position to hold.

[erik]

Depends by what you mean by doublethink. If you mean that issues can be complex enough that you act against some of your interests then yeah, that happens all the time. You just happened to choose two very, very bad examples of it, and one that doesn't really compare to Prak's assertion.

[edit: expanded following paragraph]
If you mean that you can honestly say I believe X and I don't believe X at the same time, then no, because that is not honest because it is a contradiction. People may say it but they are wrong. That's not just doublethink, that's wrongthink and there's a reason it was invented in science fiction. And if you pin them down on it they are likely to concur that one or the other doesn't hold up. See: Cognitive Dissonance. Of course, people often try to avoid being pinned down, but that wasn't the case here.

Once Prak acknowledged that Anarchocommunism doesn't work and gave a reasonable reason why, that put him outside of that camp because the people who believe it actually *do* think it can work. That's one of the traits required to be counted.

[momothefiddler]

Laertes: Let's take a less-charged example: blackjack. There are times (say, at 19) when you want more, but (treating the deck as random) taking steps to get more is dumb because 1 more is good, 2 more is great, but 3+ more is disastrous, and you should be expecting 8.5 more.

Or another option: design of video game characters. While realistic-looking characters are a thing many people want, the fact is that, where we are currently, we're not able to consistently avoid having them fall back into the uncanny valley, so many games go for stylized characters instead.

Is it hypocritical to acknowledge that the utility function has a very steep slope near the maximum and to thus hold back? It's not hypocrisy here - it's math. If Prak claimed to value lawless society and lack of property above all else and then voted for strong government, I'd see your point, but it's extremely easy to construct a situation where you can say "if x were different, f(x,y,z) would be great, but as-is I'm gonna go with g(x,y,z) instead." It's not hypocrisy to assign multiple things finite positive utility values and end up moving away from the maximum for one of those things to maximize the sum. That's just "not being one-dimensional".

[Occluded Sun]

people's dickholishness being held in check, because that's one of the functions of government.

I suspect that if we were interested in categorizing Gaming Den posters by their political beliefs, the above statement would be a very useful test to sort them.

[erik]

Or another option: design of video game characters. While realistic-looking characters are a thing many people want, the fact is that, where we are currently, we're not able to consistently avoid having them fall back into the uncanny valley, so many games go for stylized characters instead.

This is not a fair comparison since it is conceivable that graphics will ultimately be good enough to climb out of the uncanny valley.

People will never stop being dickholes. And to wit, hippie communes will never work. Having accepted this, I cannot rationally be a proponent of that system of governance (or lackthereof).

[momothefiddler]

I do not think it's impossible for people to stop being dickholes. I also do not think it's impossible to reach a point where I can pick bodies like outfits. I acknowledge that neither of those seems particularly likely, and that even if they happen it'll be on a much longer timescale than truly realistic game characters, but I don't feel that's a meaningful objection to the argument that people can want things without considering them immediately obtainable.

I note that you didn't object to my magical free-energy car, which violates physics and is thus less likely than people ceasing their dickholishness. Is it wrong to state that it would be nice to have free-energy cars despite that? Because if not, it's also not wrong to state that it would be nice if people weren't dickholes and we thus didn't have to have massive social structures to pull oil out of the ground decide who can pull oil out of the ground and how and when.

[Occluded Sun]

The issue with hippie communes isn't that it's logically impossible for them to work, but that they are meta-unstable. Like a pencil balanced on its point.

A working social model must be more stable than any state it can be put into with a modest bit of twiddling, inhabiting a local minimum sufficiently deep that normal fluctuations don't disturb it. If even a tiny violation of the norms causes the whole system to break down, that system will never work in practice regardless of how well it works in theory.

[Kaelik]

I do not think it's impossible for people to stop being dickholes. I also do not think it's impossible to reach a point where I can pick bodies like outfits. I acknowledge that neither of those seems particularly likely, and that even if they happen it'll be on a much longer timescale than truly realistic game characters, but I don't feel that's a meaningful objection to the argument that people can want things without considering them immediately obtainable.

I note that you didn't object to my magical free-energy car, which violates physics and is thus less likely than people ceasing their dickholishness. Is it wrong to state that it would be nice to have free-energy cars despite that? Because if not, it's also not wrong to state that it would be nice if people weren't dickholes and we thus didn't have to have massive social structures to pull oil out of the ground decide who can pull oil out of the ground and how and when.

Yeah no, you are wrong. as long as dickishness is defined as "acting in their own self interest, even when doing so hurts other people" which is the actual thing government exists to deal with, then it it literally actually impossible for them to be otherwise.

The only thing you can possibly do is change the structure of incentives to make sure that acting in their own interest doesn't hurt other people. That is what government does.

[DSMatticus]

Look, I would like to own a car that didn't require fuel of any sort. I think it'd be great to not have to worry about gasoline, or electricity, or hydrogen or plutonium or whatever. But I realize that this is not currently an option. It's not hypocritical of me to then do something other than buy a car and not put gas in it, because I realize that that's completely fucking useless and, in fact, counterproductive.

Try again, except with the following sentence which is actually analogous, as opposed to the dumb thing you said which is not:

"I don't put fuel in my car, because it would be great if we did not have to do that and it would all work out. But I realize that I have to put fuel in my car, so I do."

You know, like:

"I lean anarchocommunist, because it would be great if we did not need government and everything would all work out. But I realize that we do need government, so I do absolutely zero of the things an anarchocommunist would do."

or:

"I'm a Christian, because it would be great if we could all spend eternity in paradise getting blowjobs from angel babes and/or hunks. But I realize every word I just said is bullshit, so I believe and practice zero aspects of Christianity."

or:

"I am a billionaire, because it would be great if I had a ton of money. But I realize that I don't, so I am not actually a billionaire."

Prak didn't fucking say "it would be great if X worked out, but it won't, so I'm a ~X." Prak actually fucking said, "I am an X because it would be great if X worked out, but it won't, so I'm a ~X." The former of those is just the observation that implausible utopias sure sound nice while being realistic about their implausibility. The latter of those is a contradiction.

[momothefiddler]

Kaelik: I find it hard to believe that human psychology is fundamentally immutable, but there's the completely valid argument that even if it is malleable, taking advantage of that would be massively immoral. But it doesn't matter, because for the forseeable future it's essentially unchanging and you're right - people are going to keep functioning the way they do.

DSM: You are going out of your way to be an asshole. Stop it This is the Den so whatever. But while "I lean toward x" can be read as "I consider myself x", it's just as easy to read it as "I desire x" or "I like the idea of x" or simply "x appeals to me". And you're right! If you read it as "I consider myself x", then following it up with "but also x is impossible so I vote anti-x" is stupid. Monumentally stupid. Stupid to the point that it's really kind of unreasonable to read it that way if there's the equally valid interpretation of "x appeals to me, but I acknowledge it as unfeasible, so I go with something reasonable" or, if you're being really strict, "x appeals to me, but I acknowledge it as unfeasible, so I go with something reasonable, and also I'm not very good at expressing this."

If I said "I lean toward eating candy every meal, but I realize that's dumb, so I don't", and you took that to be a claim that I both eat candy every meal and do not eat candy every meal, then that's... I don't even know what to do with that. I guess you have an exceptionally low opinion of my logical faculties and an exceptionally high one of my ability to precisely and accurately state exactly what I mean to in the English language. And a surprisingly strict interpretation of "leaning".

[Kaelik]

DSM: You are going out of your way to be an asshole. Stop it This is the Den so whatever. But while "I lean toward x" can be read as "I consider myself x", it's just as easy to read it as "I desire x" or "I like the idea of x" or simply "x appeals to me". And you're right! If you read it as "I consider myself x", then following it up with "but also x is impossible so I vote anti-x" is stupid. Monumentally stupid. Stupid to the point that it's really kind of unreasonable to read it that way if there's the equally valid interpretation of "x appeals to me, but I acknowledge it as unfeasible, so I go with something reasonable" or, if you're being really strict, "x appeals to me, but I acknowledge it as unfeasible, so I go with something reasonable, and also I'm not very good at expressing this."

You would have a point if Prak hadn't clarified and expounded upon himself to make very clear that he is talking about considering himself X. But since in fact, he has done so, you have zero points, and you lose the game.

[DSMatticus]

I just want to note that basically every defense of Prak boils down to up is down, left is right, you can't know what words mean.

You cannot actually "lean" Republican and vote straight Democrat. You can make those words come out of your mouth, but they will not be true. I'm not even going to bother to quote Prak paraphrasing himself far more explicitly. I could, but there is no need to knock the wind out of the ruined sails you have raised.

[Eikre]

It is really fucking easy to intuit what Prak's actual beliefs are. I imagine that he wants to say he is an archo-communist in the same way that one would say he's a 12-o-clock boy or a kinkster or whatever the fuck, and that he wants to be loud and proud about how great a neighborly relationship, quad-bikes, and genital piercings are so that he can set himself apart from the people who rather prefer a professional relationship, yatchs, and the missionary position. Because it is conceivable to him and us that some people really are more comfortable in a fascist society where a large corpus of documents tell you exactly what you are and are not allowed to do, but that he is interested in saying that he is not one of those people.

That is not what subscribing to a political ideology means. Describing yourself as an anarcho-communist, in actuality, means somebody has fucking list of desires, goals, and tasks and that you want to see them put up on the table for discussion so that we can get the show on the fucking road and start dismantling the government and living in co-ops.

It is also really fucking obvious why an actual anarcho-communist would vote for a democrat. If an anarcho-communist, in addition to planning to disband the military and hand over stewardship of all federal buildings to local communes, also has designs on being able to walk down the street and pop a J, then it is perfectly fucking sensible for the anarcho-communist to concede that he can't have all of his goals and form a caucus with the dudes who at the very least are more amiable to blazin' it 420. That's not contradiction, just a cost-benefit analysis.

But is is factual that Prak has rejected that and doubled down on the position of "no, actually, I think that the United States Government SHOULD continue to come to my house and collect taxes by force so that they can keep the lights on at the Pentagon."

So ultimately while none of us are autistic robots and know exactly where he is coming from, and while in any other circumstance it would easy to make apologies for him by saying his critics were making much of semantics, the truth of the fucking matter is that he opened up the conversation by asking "what we think of his political stance" and the answer is that his stance is two feet planted firmly on the ground and a spine arched so far back that his head occupies space normally reserved for his prostate.

[erik]

Let it be known. I don't wanna dogpile on Prak. I think he is well meaning and sought an earnest assessment of his beliefs. It's not always easy to offer yourself to the chopping block and I respect that. I mostly just want to stand firm for 2 things:
1) against the notion that doublethink is acceptable. It's science fiction nonsense. (link-cited to specify doublethink = simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct)
2) if you want to say you are a proponent of some system, then at the bare minimum for this to be accepted you must actually believe in said system. That's the entry requirement to get in the door.

I also want to stand against this:

I note that you didn't object to my magical free-energy car, which violates physics and is thus less likely than people ceasing their dickholishness.

Despite taking the day off work since I was going to be useless with this hideous cold, I still do not have enough time in my life to respond to
Every.
Stupid.
Thing.
Ever.
Said.

Don't think just because I don't refute every word you say that I must be fully accepting of whatever I ignored. I refuse to be drowned in tangents.

Let's leave it at that.

[schpeelah]

Let it be known. I don't wanna dogpile on Prak. I think he is well meaning and sought an earnest assessment of his beliefs. It's not always easy to offer yourself to the chopping block and I respect that. I mostly just want to stand firm for 2 things:
1) against the notion that doublethink is acceptable. It's science fiction nonsense. (link-cited to specify doublethink = simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct)

Your link supports holding contradictory beliefs as a thing that happens. It's just usually becoming aware of the contradiction causes people stress, and it's called cognitive dissonance, while the 'science fiction' idea of doublethink is embracing the contradiction without stress. On that front, I can assure you that there are Catholic priests who will eagerly tell you how God being simultaneously three people and one person is contradictory nonsense and how that being true is a wonderful divine mystery.

[momothefiddler]

Okay. I have re-read every single post Prak has made in this thread since the first one of this topic and I admit I still have no clue how there's any argument there other than "I sure would like this thing. Too bad it's impossible."

I honestly cannot grasp what's so badwrong about having an ideal end result and a realistically optimal goal that differ drastically from one another, if the ideal end result is impossible or otherwise unfeasible. It's not doublethink if you clearly accept that it's not possible to have both and drop the better but impossible one in favor of the less good but possible option.

[Grek]

People should not identify themselves politically based on their ideals; they should identify themselves based on what policies they materially support.