User:RD/9k/When everyone thinks it wonderful (Q36,67)

Main entry

3667. Nothing should be done unless everybody considers it wonderful / "they had such good reasons for doing what they did that the ends justify the means" -> I am so sick of this phrase and its use in analyzing both fiction and reality. there are so many wrong assumptions in it that are difficult to dig up at first, but whenever anyone uses this concept it always totally distorts their view of how reality really works. you get so many crazy propositions out of this like that it's absolutely not allowed to investigate how reality works without obeying metaphysics, etc.
3667. Peter Singer should never donate unless tribal populations consider it wonderful / If Peter Singer believes that acting is better than not acting, it results in brutally assimilating tribal populations; telling people that nothing should be done unless everyone considers it wonderful will somehow cause Peter Singer never to do anything [1] -> no no no no no. I mean, those historical events are real, but this is terrible reasoning to apply to explain them. the moment you start reasoning like this you empower millions of Tories to say that a single person making them use preferred pronouns or teach the history of racism is tyranny. you don't want to open that can of worms. before constructing a system of ethics please just admit that people don't actually have control over other people's minds and decisions.
3667. Do not what unto others is not wonderful / Do not what unto others surprises / Do not what others would not experience / Do not unto others what they would not decide / Do not what others would not 'unto' themselves / Do not what others would not normally-see-happen-as-a-spontaneous-event-unto-them / Do not what others would not "unto" -> in the end this thing is a lot like a twisted version of the golden rule.
      this... is also the same thing as the Shenlong effect. it just has a slightly different context it appears in and explanation of the process. this one is strictly viewing the world through ethics and the assumption it exists or makes sense, while the Shenlong effect as it's defined in its original context is viewing the world through material analysis of behavior and interactions at various scales, basically a slightly warped version of dialectical materialism. this proposition is like, an origin story for why particular individuals assume the Shenlong effect to exist, although people could also hypothetically invent it through different assumptions

Critical theory and what is wonderful

618. What is oppression? / How should oppression be defined or modeled for the purposes of assuming that any oppression leads to resistance? -> words can be used a lot of ways, but this is specifically in relation to the proposition below, "Oppression leads to resistance".
618. Oppression leads to resistance / where there is oppression there will be resistance; where dignity and justice are denied they will be sought (motif; incomplete thought) [2] -> my only problem with this is how you define what oppression is — or what dignity and justice are. you can't identify it just from seeing resistance. Tories can be legitimately upset about things that aren't really oppression. Trotskyists can be legitimately upset about things that... might maybe be oppression, but that they respond to in totally wrong ways. I have a lot of problems with any attempt to 'save morality and ethics from the iron grip of science' because almost any time you introduce the concept of oppression versus resistance you actually lose the ability to tell what's right and what's wrong.
     say a gay man lives in the Soviet Union in 1930. the government is not in favor of autonomous gay movements (although 'autonomous' is the intended key word in that sentence, not 'gay'). a great number of people accept and side with the government. the gay man participates in an unauthorized movement. the public responds with resistance as if hurt. if the public produces resistance in response to someone's actions and choices, does this mean the public is oppressed? did the individual in fact choose wrong? should he have fully sided with the central government on the position of defending the Soviet Union from division and external attack in order to not be oppressive and dominating? this particular scenario actually gets a lot easier if you know the historical context and that it's not actually scary to say the answer is "yes". but for most people looking at workers' states from the outside this scenario is really difficult, and it shows that a simple rule from anarchism / critical theory is quite unsuited for real situations.

Queer studies and what is wonderful

618. Transgender inner experiences deserve their own autonomous existence regardless of whether cis people understand that they exist or what the majority thinks [3]

Psychoanalysis and what is wonderful

5379. Jungian repression brings dialectical reversals / Jung's model of psychological repression describes part of the inner process of creating dialectical reversals -> this is a tough one. difficulty: very hard. I didn't fully know what to do with it for a while. but I think one of the best responses is this: Jungian repression can stamp down things that are genuinely bad, such that while punishing them is traumatic and holding them in is traumatic, if they get out they would still be reactionary and bad for society. repression doesn't identify something as progressive. it doesn't identify anything as belonging to a particular class or Bauplan element or repeated pattern that would be useful for doing existential materialism on to calculate a societal transition from one kind of structure to another.
5384. Freudian repression identifies Marxist errors / Freudian repression can be used to identify Marxist errors -> historical ones maybe, but not dialectical ones. that alone is a big enough problem to mark this false
5382. We know gay marriage is a fact because Jungian repression / (9k)

Anarchism and what is wonderful

5489. Trotskyists in Britain didn't understand anti-racism, therefore Trotskyism will never be realized -> follows from: nothing should be done unless everyone considers it wonderful. this is an Idealist model of the variety "if everything doesn't magically conform to universal cosmic ideas immediately it actively chose to be evil". Trotskyists failing to understand a single other movement doesn't mean Trotskyism will not gather more people and continue trying to realize. Trotskyism is a material object if and when it successfully connects itself to any particular Lattice of workers, just like a particular finite anti-racist movement is a material object. to fully understand whether Trotskyism will succeed or fail you have to understand its unique internal structure and how it attempts to further realize it.
      will Trotskyism fail? I mean... probably. but definitely not for these specific reasons.

Žižek and what is wonderful

5416. the right step in the wrong direction -> Žižek's idea that anything that bursts out of repression must be some critical new form of progress in ways not yet understood. in my opinion this is mostly wrong. I'd be hypocritical not to acknowledge it a little bit, given how I talk about "the theoretical point where Trotsky stops complaining" — certainly, every time people incorrectly label things as tyranny it traces back to something real. but I think it's a deepity to act like literally all of that resistance and reaction is meaningful, instead of just a little bit of it. not everybody is reasonable or ethical, at all. it isn't just "not everybody is rational", it's that people hate each other because blobs of human Animals have to eat and occupy space and join onto a shared morality and they literally run into material contradictions on those things that make those needs impossible and make them furious. they need their physical needs. they can't get their needs. other people are standing on them. they get mad at the other people for really actually blocking their real actual needs on purpose or often by accident. it's not "ideology" making us blame other groups of people for things, it's that in different ways than people are commonly led to think on Fox News etc, human individuals really are fighting each other over everything every day. businesses are limited. community itself is finite and limited. migration to open slots is hard and limited. repression happens daily as people adjust to the actions of all other people claiming territories and slots that often predict things badly and fill space badly and also come with a bunch of dumb rules and we all try to persuade ourselves that this is just normal while also getting increasingly mad at it to the point of being hateful and yet not wanting to change anything from the way it is so we just get angry twice over when anybody tries to fix it. that boiling cauldron of anger comes from people wanting to solve things crudely with "hard work" and psychoanalysis and migration and constitutions and "I believe that everybody" statements and pieces of paper about human rights.

Ideology codes

• ES
• HM / critical theory
• A / anarchism and transition to restore Native American tribes (motif)