Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Gloominary » Sat Dec 19, 2020 5:29 pm

These days, many democratic socialists are culturally authoritarian.
That is to say, they're for leftist identity politics and political correctness.
It wasn't always like that.
A couple of decades ago, democratic socialists tended to be culturally libertarian, or at least arguably more culturally libertarian than neolibs and neocons tended to be.
Still there are some democratic socialists who are either against, ambivalent or apathetic about identity politics and political correctness.
Some of these democratic socialists identity as socially libertarian.

However, many of these same democratic socialists, who reject or are indifferent to identity politics and political correctness, are in favor of some scientific or, I don't know what to call it, safety and security authoritarianism?
For example, they're in favor of lockdowns, mandatory masks, social distancing, quarantining and vaccines, gun control, mandatory helmets on bikes, seatbelts in cars and prohibiting indoor smoking.
Some are in favor of banning fossil fuels and meat for the earth.
My question to them is, how can you be favor of all that, and still identify as a social libertarian?
If there is a pandemic, wouldn't the more libertarian thing to do be for the state to strongly encourage and recommend social distancing and so on, rather than enforce it?
For the state to help vulnerable population groups voluntarily isolate?
These are the kinds of measures democratic socialist Sweden is taking, instead of forcing people to wear masks and so forth.

My other question is, how far would you take your scientific, health and safety authoritarianism?
Should alcohol be prohibited because people who drink tend to be more abusive?
Or because they might drive, or kids might get a hold of their booze?
Should those who abuse their bodies be last in line to receive treatment because they did it to themselves?
When self-driving cars become available and more safe, should we ban human-driving?
Should we ban conspiracy theories, religion and superstition?
Is mass surveillance a good idea?
Mandatory RFID chips?
Pre-crime?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:16 pm

Yes, let’s trade all freedom for absolute security, no more autonomy or self responsibility.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #2/2

"facts change all the time and not only that, they don't mean anything...."-Peter Kropotkin :evilfun:
"I can hope they have some degree of self-awareness but the facts suggest that
they don't..... "- Peter Kropotkin
. :evilfun:
"you don't know the value of facts and you don't know the value of the ‘TRUTH”... " -Peter Kropotkin :lol:
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Meno_ » Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:57 pm

Unfortunately, the trade off of metaphysical certainty by physical uncertainty, made the present a foregone conclusion decades , if not a century ago!
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8073
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby d0rkyd00d » Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:23 pm

Gloominary wrote:These days, many democratic socialists are culturally authoritarian.
That is to say, they're for leftist identity politics and political correctness.
It wasn't always like that.
A couple of decades ago, democratic socialists tended to be culturally libertarian, or at least arguably more culturally libertarian than neolibs and neocons tended to be.
Still there are some democratic socialists who are either against, ambivalent or apathetic about identity politics and political correctness.
Some of these democratic socialists identity as socially libertarian.

However, many of these same democratic socialists, who reject or are indifferent to identity politics and political correctness, are in favor of some scientific or, I don't know what to call it, safety and security authoritarianism?
For example, they're in favor of lockdowns, mandatory masks, social distancing, quarantining and vaccines, gun control, mandatory helmets on bikes, seatbelts in cars and prohibiting indoor smoking.
Some are in favor of banning fossil fuels and meat for the earth.
My question to them is, how can you be favor of all that, and still identify as a social libertarian?
If there is a pandemic, wouldn't the more libertarian thing to do be for the state to strongly encourage and recommend social distancing and so on, rather than enforce it?
For the state to help vulnerable population groups voluntarily isolate?
These are the kinds of measures democratic socialist Sweden is taking, instead of forcing people to wear masks and so forth.

My other question is, how far would you take your scientific, health and safety authoritarianism?
Should alcohol be prohibited because people who drink tend to be more abusive?
Or because they might drive, or kids might get a hold of their booze?
Should those who abuse their bodies be last in line to receive treatment because they did it to themselves?
When self-driving cars become available and more safe, should we ban human-driving?
Should we ban conspiracy theories, religion and superstition?
Is mass surveillance a good idea?
Mandatory RFID chips?
Pre-crime?
If so, why?
If not, why not?


Interesting discussion. It sounds like your initial question boils down to, why did some small subsection of some smaller subsection of democratic socialists appear to adopt a policy contrary to their old one? Is that the gist?

This is the problem with political labels: they become meaningless if the definition consistently changes, and often to be the exact opposite of what it represents. Then you're left with what we have today: people throwing labels around that have lost all meaning, each label subjective to one's own biases and judgments depending on what time period or location one lives in.

Democrats are Republicans. Liberals are Conservatives. Neos are Leos.

What's the point anymore?
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." -Voltaire

"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do."
-Bertrand Russell
d0rkyd00d
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:26 pm

I am generally behind the critique in the OP, but......
I'll focus on one issue dear to my heart. I do like a lot of freedom, for myself and others. But I am so fucking glad smoking is being pushed out of most places. My parents smoked. I can't bear that shit. I am old enough to remember when there was smoking on airplanes. I would spend the whole time sick. But hey, I'd be willing to allow for smoking if I get to cook up some fart smelling shit and just seep it out in restaurants bars airplanes. And if I can bring a fairly high decibel recording of someone chewing on tin foil or sex sounds to the restaurant. We got used to smoking so this really rather terrible smell that most organisms recoil from unless they get habituated or mentally override that with marketing ideas and it was ok to create this and only this kind of unpleasant sensory experience for everyone else in all sorts of spaces. 50 years ago, yes, you could smoke in restaurants, say, but if you burped over and over', loud, they'd throw you out. You hit yourself on your forhead with a hammer, even if the (second hand) blood doesn't get on my kids, you'll get thrown out.

If it was easier to get and hold jobs, I could even see letting the market, now, after years of people moving away from cigarrette, determine how, say, a bar or night club would do. I think people are used to breathing well in places where before they did not have any other experiences. Back then you could say - ok, we'll let the market decide. People who want smokeless bars go there, people who want bars with smoking go there. Everybody happy. But given the bizzare mind control situation things were in back then, only the smoking bars would have survived. Which means that a job market that did not require much education meant you were somewhat of a smoker, whether you wanted to be or not. People working in those places would not be able to hop over the smokeless working places.

But for those that think any issue like this should be left to the freedom of individuals I hope they spend some time being creative with scenarios. You may not mind smoke or may not be interested in bars, nightclubs and restaurants. Or care if people smoke on the subway or on buses or in schools. But perhaps there is something else that if people were allowed to do it everywhere, you would find it horrible, especially if you needed to commute, say. People fucking their pet lizards or wanking looking you in the eyes. I don't know, consider it a creativity training exercise. I mean people inhaling smoke from carcinogenic unbelievably oddly treated at some point organic leaves is just something people got used to, so everyone overrode their bodies natural revulsion and sucked it up, literally and metaphorically. While asthmatics and people allergic and people like me for whom it just plain sucks.

We'd get used to people fucking their lizards in restaurants, and on the subway and moaning with ecstacy if there were ads for, you know, the lizard the independent, Marlboro lizard fucker cowboy on television and people could buy a new lizard with their daily rag at the newstand. It'd normalize. And there's every chance as a habit, the lizard fuckers would outlive their smoking counterparts. It'd be win win.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:45 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I am generally behind the critique in the OP, but......
I'll focus on one issue dear to my heart. I do like a lot of freedom, for myself and others. But I am so fucking glad smoking is being pushed out of most places. My parents smoked. I can't bear that shit. I am old enough to remember when there was smoking on airplanes. I would spend the whole time sick. But hey, I'd be willing to allow for smoking if I get to cook up some fart smelling shit and just seep it out in restaurants bars airplanes. And if I can bring a fairly high decibel recording of someone chewing on tin foil or sex sounds to the restaurant. We got used to smoking so this really rather terrible smell that most organisms recoil from unless they get habituated or mentally override that with marketing ideas and it was ok to create this and only this kind of unpleasant sensory experience for everyone else in all sorts of spaces. 50 years ago, yes, you could smoke in restaurants, say, but if you burped over and over', loud, they'd throw you out. You hit yourself on your forhead with a hammer, even if the (second hand) blood doesn't get on my kids, you'll get thrown out.

If it was easier to get and hold jobs, I could even see letting the market, now, after years of people moving away from cigarrette, determine how, say, a bar or night club would do. I think people are used to breathing well in places where before they did not have any other experiences. Back then you could say - ok, we'll let the market decide. People who want smokeless bars go there, people who want bars with smoking go there. Everybody happy. But given the bizzare mind control situation things were in back then, only the smoking bars would have survived. Which means that a job market that did not require much education meant you were somewhat of a smoker, whether you wanted to be or not. People working in those places would not be able to hop over the smokeless working places.

But for those that think any issue like this should be left to the freedom of individuals I hope they spend some time being creative with scenarios. You may not mind smoke or may not be interested in bars, nightclubs and restaurants. Or care if people smoke on the subway or on buses or in schools. But perhaps there is something else that if people were allowed to do it everywhere, you would find it horrible, especially if you needed to commute, say. People fucking their pet lizards or wanking looking you in the eyes. I don't know, consider it a creativity training exercise. I mean people inhaling smoke from carcinogenic unbelievably oddly treated at some point organic leaves is just something people got used to, so everyone overrode their bodies natural revulsion and sucked it up, literally and metaphorically. While asthmatics and people allergic and people like me for whom it just plain sucks.

We'd get used to people fucking their lizards in restaurants, and on the subway and moaning with ecstacy if there were ads for, you know, the lizard the independent, Marlboro lizard fucker cowboy on television and people could buy a new lizard with their daily rag at the newstand. It'd normalize. And there's every chance as a habit, the lizard fuckers would outlive their smoking counterparts. It'd be win win.

^^^ Not a typical KT post with the rated R language and rated X content which has left me wondering if all’s well????

Yeah, the owners should have decided whether there was smoking allowed or not, rather than the government and at first areas were separated in places between smoking and non smoking. If the government required additional public safety perhaps better ventilation systems would have sufficed with the government incentivising cleaner air filtration systems in both smoking and non smoking areas so there was no crossover.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #2/2

"facts change all the time and not only that, they don't mean anything...."-Peter Kropotkin :evilfun:
"I can hope they have some degree of self-awareness but the facts suggest that
they don't..... "- Peter Kropotkin
. :evilfun:
"you don't know the value of facts and you don't know the value of the ‘TRUTH”... " -Peter Kropotkin :lol:
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Gloominary » Sat Dec 19, 2020 11:16 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Yes, let’s trade all freedom for absolute security, no more autonomy or self responsibility.

Unfortunately a lot of people will without question, especially if the scientific community or some technocrats tell them to.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Gloominary » Sat Dec 19, 2020 11:21 pm

Meno_ wrote:Unfortunately, the trade off of metaphysical certainty by physical uncertainty, made the present a foregone conclusion decades , if not a century ago!

Right?

We need more skepticism about the bio and physio sciences.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:04 am

Gloominary wrote:These days, many democratic socialists are culturally authoritarian.
That is to say, they're for leftist identity politics and political correctness.
It wasn't always like that.
A couple of decades ago, democratic socialists tended to be culturally libertarian, or at least arguably more culturally libertarian than neolibs and neocons tended to be.
Still there are some democratic socialists who are either against, ambivalent or apathetic about identity politics and political correctness.
Some of these democratic socialists identity as socially libertarian.

However, many of these same democratic socialists, who reject or are indifferent to identity politics and political correctness, are in favor of some scientific or, I don't know what to call it, safety and security authoritarianism?
For example, they're in favor of lockdowns, mandatory masks, social distancing, quarantining and vaccines, gun control, mandatory helmets on bikes, seatbelts in cars and prohibiting indoor smoking.
Some are in favor of banning fossil fuels and meat for the earth.
My question to them is, how can you be favor of all that, and still identify as a social libertarian?

They can't justify it, and they know it. The self-proclaimed "social elites", the new Technocratic Autistic Nerds, who believe they are 'superior' to the average American, are no more hypocrites than the Social Democrats they are sleeping and in bed with. The thing is, they sold-out, and they know that too. They just don't care. Because the negative consequences of their thoughts, actions, and speech no longer affect them and their elitist clubs. It negatively affects everybody else.

And if there's an emergency, they grew so rich, they can fly to another country or private island, while their Strong-arm Street Thugs do their dirty work. When shit hits the fan, their Brownshirts in the streets will face the full retaliation and violence, while they are protected. And if you question/confront them, they will silence, DOX, deplatform, and deperson you. No job. No bank account. No social media. Etc.




Gloominary wrote:If there is a pandemic, wouldn't the more libertarian thing to do be for the state to strongly encourage and recommend social distancing and so on, rather than enforce it?
For the state to help vulnerable population groups voluntarily isolate?
These are the kinds of measures democratic socialist Sweden is taking, instead of forcing people to wear masks and so forth.

My other question is, how far would you take your scientific, health and safety authoritarianism?
Should alcohol be prohibited because people who drink tend to be more abusive?
Or because they might drive, or kids might get a hold of their booze?
Should those who abuse their bodies be last in line to receive treatment because they did it to themselves?
When self-driving cars become available and more safe, should we ban human-driving?
Should we ban conspiracy theories, religion and superstition?
Is mass surveillance a good idea?
Mandatory RFID chips?
Pre-crime?
If so, why?
If not, why not?

It's all a complete takeover of social, political, and technocratic power. That's really the underlying motivation behind the "Biden" and DNCommunist representation. Everybody against them must fall under the flag of 'Trumpism', whether we like it or not.

Libertarians are now on the political 'Right', which means most of the political standards and measures are now inverted 180 degrees. Up is down. Left is right. Good is bad.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:09 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I am generally behind the critique in the OP, but......
I'll focus on one issue dear to my heart. I do like a lot of freedom, for myself and others. But I am so fucking glad smoking is being pushed out of most places. My parents smoked. I can't bear that shit. I am old enough to remember when there was smoking on airplanes. I would spend the whole time sick. But hey, I'd be willing to allow for smoking if I get to cook up some fart smelling shit and just seep it out in restaurants bars airplanes. And if I can bring a fairly high decibel recording of someone chewing on tin foil or sex sounds to the restaurant. We got used to smoking so this really rather terrible smell that most organisms recoil from unless they get habituated or mentally override that with marketing ideas and it was ok to create this and only this kind of unpleasant sensory experience for everyone else in all sorts of spaces. 50 years ago, yes, you could smoke in restaurants, say, but if you burped over and over', loud, they'd throw you out. You hit yourself on your forhead with a hammer, even if the (second hand) blood doesn't get on my kids, you'll get thrown out.

If it was easier to get and hold jobs, I could even see letting the market, now, after years of people moving away from cigarrette, determine how, say, a bar or night club would do. I think people are used to breathing well in places where before they did not have any other experiences. Back then you could say - ok, we'll let the market decide. People who want smokeless bars go there, people who want bars with smoking go there. Everybody happy. But given the bizzare mind control situation things were in back then, only the smoking bars would have survived. Which means that a job market that did not require much education meant you were somewhat of a smoker, whether you wanted to be or not. People working in those places would not be able to hop over the smokeless working places.

But for those that think any issue like this should be left to the freedom of individuals I hope they spend some time being creative with scenarios. You may not mind smoke or may not be interested in bars, nightclubs and restaurants. Or care if people smoke on the subway or on buses or in schools. But perhaps there is something else that if people were allowed to do it everywhere, you would find it horrible, especially if you needed to commute, say. People fucking their pet lizards or wanking looking you in the eyes. I don't know, consider it a creativity training exercise. I mean people inhaling smoke from carcinogenic unbelievably oddly treated at some point organic leaves is just something people got used to, so everyone overrode their bodies natural revulsion and sucked it up, literally and metaphorically. While asthmatics and people allergic and people like me for whom it just plain sucks.

We'd get used to people fucking their lizards in restaurants, and on the subway and moaning with ecstacy if there were ads for, you know, the lizard the independent, Marlboro lizard fucker cowboy on television and people could buy a new lizard with their daily rag at the newstand. It'd normalize. And there's every chance as a habit, the lizard fuckers would outlive their smoking counterparts. It'd be win win.

I disagree with you on most things, but this is actually a very good point in the greater context of this thread and the political movement of 2020.

Here's the thing. We went from that, to "tolerating" liberal-leftist Riots in the streets, burning down businesses, and harrasment of strangers based on race.

So your point is ultimately invalidated by the fact that USA has gotten 100 times worse, not 100 times better.


Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:19 am

WendyDarling wrote:^^^ Not a typical KT post with the rated R language and rated X content which has left me wondering if all’s well????

Yeah, the owners should have decided whether there was smoking allowed or not, rather than the government and at first areas were separated in places between smoking and non smoking. If the government required additional public safety perhaps better ventilation systems would have sufficed with the government incentivising cleaner air filtration systems in both smoking and non smoking areas so there was no crossover.

Owners should decide whether they should stay open during this SCAMdemic as well.

Government corruption and Totalitarianism have spread across USA, preventing people from living happy, healthy, and balanced lives. Government wants to spread its taint and corruption in every person's home.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... hen-having

The Pennsylvania Department of Health is telling residents in the state to wear face coverings inside their homes when guests are over, part of expanded tactics by officials to bolster the state's COVID-19 orders.

The "new mitigation efforts" are aimed at preventing the spread of coronavirus between people of different households, the Pennsylvania Department of Health wrote Tuesday on Twitter.

The agency stated that "masks now required anytime you’re with people outside of your household, even if you’re socially distant. Applies to all indoor facilities + if you have people in your home not part of your household."


Fuck this Fascist government. The "Anti-fascists" are on the wrong side of history, a clever ruse by the DNC. They are the problem.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby d0rkyd00d » Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:59 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Yes, let’s trade all freedom for absolute security, no more autonomy or self responsibility.


I think this summarizes the straw man many folks fall victim to relentlessly attacking.
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." -Voltaire

"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do."
-Bertrand Russell
d0rkyd00d
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Gloominary » Mon Dec 21, 2020 4:48 pm

d0rkyd00d wrote:
Gloominary wrote:These days, many democratic socialists are culturally authoritarian.
That is to say, they're for leftist identity politics and political correctness.
It wasn't always like that.
A couple of decades ago, democratic socialists tended to be culturally libertarian, or at least arguably more culturally libertarian than neolibs and neocons tended to be.
Still there are some democratic socialists who are either against, ambivalent or apathetic about identity politics and political correctness.
Some of these democratic socialists identity as socially libertarian.

However, many of these same democratic socialists, who reject or are indifferent to identity politics and political correctness, are in favor of some scientific or, I don't know what to call it, safety and security authoritarianism?
For example, they're in favor of lockdowns, mandatory masks, social distancing, quarantining and vaccines, gun control, mandatory helmets on bikes, seatbelts in cars and prohibiting indoor smoking.
Some are in favor of banning fossil fuels and meat for the earth.
My question to them is, how can you be favor of all that, and still identify as a social libertarian?
If there is a pandemic, wouldn't the more libertarian thing to do be for the state to strongly encourage and recommend social distancing and so on, rather than enforce it?
For the state to help vulnerable population groups voluntarily isolate?
These are the kinds of measures democratic socialist Sweden is taking, instead of forcing people to wear masks and so forth.

My other question is, how far would you take your scientific, health and safety authoritarianism?
Should alcohol be prohibited because people who drink tend to be more abusive?
Or because they might drive, or kids might get a hold of their booze?
Should those who abuse their bodies be last in line to receive treatment because they did it to themselves?
When self-driving cars become available and more safe, should we ban human-driving?
Should we ban conspiracy theories, religion and superstition?
Is mass surveillance a good idea?
Mandatory RFID chips?
Pre-crime?
If so, why?
If not, why not?

Interesting discussion. It sounds like your initial question boils down to, why did some small subsection of some smaller subsection of democratic socialists appear to adopt a policy contrary to their old one? Is that the gist?

While that is not my initial question, my initial question was:

For example, they're in favor of lockdowns, mandatory masks, social distancing, quarantining and vaccines, gun control, mandatory helmets on bikes, seatbelts in cars and prohibiting indoor smoking.
Some are in favor of banning fossil fuels and meat for the earth.
My question to them is, how can you be favor of all that, and still identify as a social libertarian?

Still, the question you raised is an interesting one, one I've been thinking about lately.
My theory is that progressivism, which democratic socialism is a part of, began as a subversion of many conservative values, and governance (blackness became equal to or greater than whiteness, femininity equal to or greater than masculinity, the working class equal to or greater than the upper class and so on).
Scientific authoritarianism barely existed when progressive subversivism arrived on the scene at the turn of the 19th century or so.

Progressive subversivism is a product of its times.
The people, including progressive subversives, have never fully lived under authoritarian technocracy before, so they don't see the evils of it.
I think we will have to be subjected to its evils for centuries, perhaps a millennium before we begin to see it.
We've experienced the evils of religious and conservative totalitarianism.

People think it's always unreasonable to question the scientific community.
And so those who mean to control humanity have taken note of that, and so they will impose a scientific dictatorship on us, and many or the vast majority of people will accept it, even beg for it, including many former progressive subversives, and former individual libertarians.

This is the problem with political labels: they become meaningless if the definition consistently changes, and often to be the exact opposite of what it represents. Then you're left with what we have today: people throwing labels around that have lost all meaning, each label subjective to one's own biases and judgments depending on what time period or location one lives in.

Democrats are Republicans. Liberals are Conservatives. Neos are Leos.

What's the point anymore?

Right well, for me, they can't have their cake and eat it, you can't be in favor of lots and lots of scientific authoritarianism, and still identify as an individual libertarian or progressive subversive.
They're authoritarians, they just don't know it.

Progressive subversivism is anti-hierarchy.
Science is inherently hierarchical.
It places experts over laymen.
Reason over intuition.
Reductionism over holism.
Determinism over freedom.
Controlled observation and experimentation over uncontrolled.
High tech drugs over letting detoxing, herbs and whole foods be your medicine and so on.
Science is actually a form of conservatism, not in every sense but in some important ones, but whereas conservatism is mostly confined to the spiritual, social and ethical realms, science is conservativism's mostly biological and physical, but also social manifestation or wing.

I'm not anti-science, but I'm not pro-science either.
I take from science what makes sense to me and discard what doesn't.
Science should exist alongside other ways of thinking on a roughly equal playing field, it shouldn't be given a near total monopoly.
I'm a populist, I put individual liberty on the one hand, and democracy and democratic courts on the other ahead of science.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Gloominary » Mon Dec 21, 2020 4:59 pm

Christian values, conservative values, and scientific values aren't the same, just similar in that they're hierarchical, or at least more hierarchical than individual libertarianism, and proper progressive subversivism, I guess, maybe, maybe not, maybe they're all hierarchical in their own way, anyway it's not that important to me.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Gloominary » Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:11 pm

I think of science as inherently ideological.
Science isn't value-free, it's a value system.
Again, experts over laymen, reason over intuition, what they consider to be healthy and sane over unhealthy and insane, and so on.
Science isn't an alternative, but one of many competing value systems, along with Christianity, conservatism, individual libertarianism, populism, progressive subversivism and so on.
For Christianity, Christ, as revealed by the bible, is the truth.
For conservatism, tradition is the truth.
For individual libertarianism, the individual determines truth for themselves.
For populism, the people determine truth for themselves.
For progressive subversivism, all truths are equal, equality, if anything, is the truth.
For science, experts conducting controlled experiments is the truth.
Depending on where you derive your truth from, that will likely have implications for your politics.
If science, rather than the individual, or the people, or all truths being equally valuable (progressivism) or nonvaluable (nihilism) is your ultimate truth, then you cannot claim to be an individual libertarian, you're a scientific authoritarian.
Last edited by Gloominary on Tue Dec 22, 2020 3:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:46 pm

Gloominary wrote: I think of science as inherently ideological.
Science isn't value-free, it's a value system.


In what set of circumstances? For example, in America science and scientists by the thousands are employed by the government to sustain the military industrial complex. In order to to sustain a war economy in which millions of jobs are at stake. But what results by way of the armaments manufactured, bought and sold by the military is either in sync with the material laws of nature or they are not. There is no ideology here. And even the value judgments that are employed revolve by and large around "show me the money". Value at the very heart and soul of capitalism.

Science and scientists either function to sustain this particular political economy or they don't.

Gloominary wrote: Science isn't an alternative, but one of many competing value systems, along with Christianity, conservatism, individual libertarianism, progressive subversivism and so on.


Okay, but what are you talking about here? The ends that science and scientists come to embody through the particular jobs that are performed to achieve and then sustain this or that government policy? How are those policies not rooted in political prejudices rooted in the lives that individuals live?

Is there a way for philosophers to dispense with ideology and come up with the most rational policies that a government -- any government -- are obligated to pursue?

What then of the arguments I make about the existential juncture that is identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political power?

Gloominary wrote: For Christianity, Christ, as revealed by the bible, is the truth.
For conservatism, tradition is the truth.
For individual libertarianism, the individual determines truth for themselves.
For progressive subversivism, all truths and values are equal, equality, if anything, is the truth.
For populism, truth comes from the people.
For science, experts conducting controlled experiments is the truth.


Given what specific set of circumstances? And how do we go about dispensing with the "isms" in order to arrive at something in the general vicinity of the objective truth? Truths that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to accept.

Gloominary wrote: Depending on where you derive your truth from, that will likely have implications for your politics.


Exactly. And how is this not going to be profoundly and problematically embedded out in particular worlds understood in particular ways by individuals indoctrinated as children given any number of vast and varied historical, cultural and circumstantial contexts?

Gloominary wrote: If science, rather than the individual liberty, or the people, or all truths being equally valuable (progressivism) or nonvaluable (nihilism), is your truth, than you cannot claim to be an individual libertarian, you're a scientific authoritarian.


As a moral nihilist, I suggest it's not a question of moral and political value judgments being equally valuable or nonvaluable, but of being rooted subjectively in the arguments I make in my signature threads.

And that the objectivists among come to insist that only their own assessment of what is valuable -- true -- counts.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Gloominary » Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:06 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I am generally behind the critique in the OP, but......
I'll focus on one issue dear to my heart. I do like a lot of freedom, for myself and others. But I am so fucking glad smoking is being pushed out of most places. My parents smoked. I can't bear that shit. I am old enough to remember when there was smoking on airplanes. I would spend the whole time sick. But hey, I'd be willing to allow for smoking if I get to cook up some fart smelling shit and just seep it out in restaurants bars airplanes. And if I can bring a fairly high decibel recording of someone chewing on tin foil or sex sounds to the restaurant. We got used to smoking so this really rather terrible smell that most organisms recoil from unless they get habituated or mentally override that with marketing ideas and it was ok to create this and only this kind of unpleasant sensory experience for everyone else in all sorts of spaces. 50 years ago, yes, you could smoke in restaurants, say, but if you burped over and over', loud, they'd throw you out. You hit yourself on your forhead with a hammer, even if the (second hand) blood doesn't get on my kids, you'll get thrown out.

If it was easier to get and hold jobs, I could even see letting the market, now, after years of people moving away from cigarrette, determine how, say, a bar or night club would do. I think people are used to breathing well in places where before they did not have any other experiences. Back then you could say - ok, we'll let the market decide. People who want smokeless bars go there, people who want bars with smoking go there. Everybody happy. But given the bizzare mind control situation things were in back then, only the smoking bars would have survived. Which means that a job market that did not require much education meant you were somewhat of a smoker, whether you wanted to be or not. People working in those places would not be able to hop over the smokeless working places.

But for those that think any issue like this should be left to the freedom of individuals I hope they spend some time being creative with scenarios. You may not mind smoke or may not be interested in bars, nightclubs and restaurants. Or care if people smoke on the subway or on buses or in schools. But perhaps there is something else that if people were allowed to do it everywhere, you would find it horrible, especially if you needed to commute, say. People fucking their pet lizards or wanking looking you in the eyes. I don't know, consider it a creativity training exercise. I mean people inhaling smoke from carcinogenic unbelievably oddly treated at some point organic leaves is just something people got used to, so everyone overrode their bodies natural revulsion and sucked it up, literally and metaphorically. While asthmatics and people allergic and people like me for whom it just plain sucks.

We'd get used to people fucking their lizards in restaurants, and on the subway and moaning with ecstacy if there were ads for, you know, the lizard the independent, Marlboro lizard fucker cowboy on television and people could buy a new lizard with their daily rag at the newstand. It'd normalize. And there's every chance as a habit, the lizard fuckers would outlive their smoking counterparts. It'd be win win.

I understand where you're coming from, I don't smoke and I hate it.
I have sinusitis and I can't stand to be around the stuff for long either.
Personally I'm glad it's banned, altho I'm not sure how I feel about it morally.
Anyway my point was not to say we should never ban nonviolent behavior, rather if someone thinks many of our basic freedoms should be taken away or severely curtailed, whether on scientific grounds or not, then they cannot be a libertarian.
I think some people think it's only authoritarian to take freedom if it's on unscientific grounds.
I don't see it that way.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:17 am

I haven't commented on this thread because the OP is just too obviously true and other threads need more attention. :D
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Gloominary » Tue Dec 22, 2020 1:39 am

obsrvr524 wrote:I haven't commented on this thread because the OP is just too obviously true and other threads need more attention. :D

Awww, you're too kind.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Gloominary » Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:03 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Gloominary wrote: I think of science as inherently ideological.
Science isn't value-free, it's a value system.


In what set of circumstances? For example, in America science and scientists by the thousands are employed by the government to sustain the military industrial complex. In order to to sustain a war economy in which millions of jobs are at stake. But what results by way of the armaments manufactured, bought and sold by the military is either in sync with the material laws of nature or they are not. There is no ideology here. And even the value judgments that are employed revolve by and large around "show me the money". Value at the very heart and soul of capitalism.

Science and scientists either function to sustain this particular political economy or they don't.

Gloominary wrote: Science isn't an alternative, but one of many competing value systems, along with Christianity, conservatism, individual libertarianism, progressive subversivism and so on.


Okay, but what are you talking about here? The ends that science and scientists come to embody through the particular jobs that are performed to achieve and then sustain this or that government policy? How are those policies not rooted in political prejudices rooted in the lives that individuals live?

Is there a way for philosophers to dispense with ideology and come up with the most rational policies that a government -- any government -- are obligated to pursue?

What then of the arguments I make about the existential juncture that is identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political power?

Gloominary wrote: For Christianity, Christ, as revealed by the bible, is the truth.
For conservatism, tradition is the truth.
For individual libertarianism, the individual determines truth for themselves.
For progressive subversivism, all truths and values are equal, equality, if anything, is the truth.
For populism, truth comes from the people.
For science, experts conducting controlled experiments is the truth.


Given what specific set of circumstances? And how do we go about dispensing with the "isms" in order to arrive at something in the general vicinity of the objective truth? Truths that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to accept.

Gloominary wrote: Depending on where you derive your truth from, that will likely have implications for your politics.


Exactly. And how is this not going to be profoundly and problematically embedded out in particular worlds understood in particular ways by individuals indoctrinated as children given any number of vast and varied historical, cultural and circumstantial contexts?

Gloominary wrote: If science, rather than the individual liberty, or the people, or all truths being equally valuable (progressivism) or nonvaluable (nihilism), is your truth, than you cannot claim to be an individual libertarian, you're a scientific authoritarian.


As a moral nihilist, I suggest it's not a question of moral and political value judgments being equally valuable or nonvaluable, but of being rooted subjectively in the arguments I make in my signature threads.

And that the objectivists among come to insist that only their own assessment of what is valuable -- true -- counts.

Good points, you're right.

It's important to separate science the business, hobby or interest from scientism and technocracy the ideologies.

I was overreaching.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 22, 2020 7:14 pm

Gloominary wrote:Good points, you're right.

It's important to separate science the business, hobby or interest from scientism and technocracy the ideologies.

I was overreaching.


Okay, but in regard to authoritarianism...

...a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of a strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting. wiki

...be it theological, ideological, socialist, Communist, capitalist, libertarian, scientific, etc., how do we go about assessing our own moral and political value judgments?

From my frame of mind, moral and political objectivism begets an authoritarian frame of mind.

In other words, making a distinction between authority predicated on "might makes right" and authority predicated on "right makes might". With the former it's all basically about a dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest mentality. With the latter it's more about one or another font from which is derived the most rational and virtuous behaviors. It might be God, it might be ideology, it might deontology. Or the "good" might be ascribed to Nature.

Which is why I would like to explore in more detail your own political value judgments.

In regard to this:

Is there a way for philosophers to dispense with ideology and come up with the most rational policies that a government -- any government -- are obligated to pursue?

What then of the arguments I make about the existential juncture that is identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political power?


And:

...how do we go about dispensing with the "isms" in order to arrive at something in the general vicinity of the objective truth? Truths that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to accept.


To what extent do you construe your own reaction to liberal and left-wing policies from the perspective of authoritarianism? Or are you willing to accept that given new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas, you might one day find yourself embracing liberal and left wing arguments. Re folks like David Brock or Arianna Huffington. Just as any number of former liberals switched to conservativism.

But: my focus is on how this is embedded existentially in the lives that people live. Embedded in dasein. As opposed to those who argue that intellectually, rationally, philosophically etc., an argument can be made that actually demonstrates why left wing or right wing value judgments are necessarily, inherently more reasonable.

In other words, that authoritarianism has more to do with human psychology than with whatever particular values the authoritarians happen to subscribe to "here and now" themselves.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Dec 23, 2020 12:05 am

KT wrote:I do like a lot of freedom, for myself and others. But I am so fucking glad smoking is being pushed out of most places. My parents smoked. I can't bear that shit.


I'm a non-smoker who's used to living among smokers. Not that it matters :)

I'm pretty sure that complete freedom for everyone and everything (even merely for a small number of people) is not the best option out there. Some actions are threatening and it's better to make an effort to protect yourself (by fighting the root cause, by fighting its effects, by evading them, etc) than not to.

The question is merely 1) what poses a threat, and 2) how to deal with it.

It appears to be your argument that it is a bad thing to let every restaurant set its own rules in that it leads to a situation in which every restaurant adopts one and the same set of rules, namely, that smoking is allowed. This might be the case (I find it agreeable) but does that mean the best way to deal with the problem is by forcing every goddamn restaurant to forbid smoking?

I can understand why you're pleased with the fact that there are laws prohibiting smoking in most places (and I wholly embrace your need to protect yourself from toxic substances) but don't you think there's also a downside to the approach currently in effect in that it enforces excessive uniformity?

We already live in a world in which there are not enough people who lead (authorities, gods, leaders, experts, younameit) and too many people who follow (pretty much everyone, if only out of sheer necessity.)
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4820
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby d0rkyd00d » Wed Dec 23, 2020 12:22 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
KT wrote:I do like a lot of freedom, for myself and others. But I am so fucking glad smoking is being pushed out of most places. My parents smoked. I can't bear that shit.


I'm a non-smoker who's used to living among smokers. Not that it matters :)

I'm pretty sure that complete freedom for everyone and everything (even merely for a small number of people) is not the best option out there. Some actions are threatening and it's better to make an effort to protect yourself (by fighting the root cause, by fighting its effects, by evading them, etc) than not to.

The question is merely 1) what poses a threat, and 2) how to deal with it.

It appears to be your argument that it is a bad thing to let every restaurant set its own rules in that it leads to a situation in which every restaurant adopts one and the same set of rules, namely, that smoking is allowed. This might be the case (I find it agreeable) but does that mean the best way to deal with the problem is by forcing every goddamn restaurant to forbid smoking?

I can understand why you're pleased with the fact that there are laws prohibiting smoking in most places (and I wholly embrace your need to protect yourself from toxic substances) but don't you think there's also a downside to the approach currently in effect in that it enforces excessive uniformity?

We already live in a world in which there are not enough people who lead (authorities, gods, leaders, experts, younameit) and too many people who follow (pretty much everyone, if only out of sheer necessity.)


If we are "excessively uniform" in the idea that we should not harm or kill people around us, I'm not sure what the problem is.
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." -Voltaire

"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do."
-Bertrand Russell
d0rkyd00d
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Dec 23, 2020 12:33 am

Gloominary wrote:I think of science as inherently ideological.
Science isn't value-free, it's a value system.
Again, experts over laymen, reason over intuition, what they consider to be healthy and sane over unhealthy and insane, and so on.
Science isn't an alternative, but one of many competing value systems, along with Christianity, conservatism, individual libertarianism, populism, progressive subversivism and so on.
For Christianity, Christ, as revealed by the bible, is the truth.
For conservatism, tradition is the truth.
For individual libertarianism, the individual determines truth for themselves.
For populism, the people determine truth for themselves.
For progressive subversivism, all truths are equal, equality, if anything, is the truth.
For science, experts conducting controlled experiments is the truth.
Depending on where you derive your truth from, that will likely have implications for your politics.
If science, rather than the individual, or the people, or all truths being equally valuable (progressivism) or nonvaluable (nihilism) is your ultimate truth, then you cannot claim to be an individual libertarian, you're a scientific authoritarian.


I value reason over intuition too. I would also consult someone I consider to be an expert than someone I consider a layman (I mean, who wouldn't?) So at least in one sense, I value experts over laymen. Obviously, there's a lot of overlap. The main difference, it appears to me, has to do with influence. I value logos over pathos (and ethos). And I am sure that science does not rely on logos as a method of influence. Rather, it relies on a form of pathos (or perhaps ethos?) that is mixed with a little bit of enough logos so as to make it more effective. Basically, they don't teach you how to think for yourself regardless of how many times they say otherwise.

Given what you said above, I am an individual libertarian.
Last edited by Magnus Anderson on Wed Dec 23, 2020 1:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4820
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Dec 23, 2020 12:59 am

d0rkyd00d wrote:If we are "excessively uniform" in the idea that we should not harm or kill people around us, I'm not sure what the problem is.


The problem is when you take what happens to be the best decision in one situation and apply it to all other situations (including those where it is not the best decision.) I believe that in reality in the great majority of cases the correct answers to questions of the form "What is the best thing to do?" are situation-dependent and thus different for different people. The current trend is to focus on finding the approach that when put into practice by everyone yields the best results. The result is that individual problems never get resolved because people are told to do what's not the best for them.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4820
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Next

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Silhouette