#pragmatism

[fortuneaday]

[pratchettquotes]

"It wasn't a nice thing to do," Adora Belle Dearheart went on, in the same level tone.

"There wasn't a nice thing that would work," said Moist.

Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

[anonartstudio]

Platonic Pairs Aquatic Pigeon Racing

[thefloralmenace]

I posted something last night that I knew was going to be controversial, but I did it because of that and because I still believe it needs to be discussed. The post is very long, but you can read it here.

What I was talking about is how broad generalizations (using the example of "all men are trash") can get divorced from their context and amplified beyond their intended context and audience, and as a result, it can create a dynamic where people (here, men) can get bathed in constant group-level negative criticism online, feel upset and demotivated by it but know they can't say anything (because consciously they KNOW that those feelings don't compare to women's traumatic experiences with men), and this creates a well of pent of negative feeling that can be manipulated by people offering validation to those emotions.

All the discourse currently on that post surrounds whether or not those feelings are justified and how people (here, men) should know that those feelings don't compare to real oppression and just get over it.

Here's a part of the original post I want to highlight:

"My point in drawing attention to these dynamics is because we're seeing some of the consequences of them play out in real time. The constant feeling of being categorically hated, even if it's not associated with tangible oppression, combined with feeling like you can never express those feelings without negative backlash, creates a well of pent up emotion, that in turn, makes people feeling that way incredibly vulnerable to manipulation by people offering them validation."

In that post, I'm not saying men who feel that way are poor little babies who deserve all the world's sympathy and hand-holding. I'm acknowledging that those feelings exist, are somewhat common, and even if they're objectively and completely a "them-problem," it's still an "us-obstacle."

Ben Shapiro loves to say "Facts don't care about your feelings." Unfortunately, the reverse is frequently also true: People's feelings often don't care about facts.

It is a fact that some people feel that way. It doesn't matter if they "deserve to" or not because everyone experiences feelings involuntarily 100% of the time.

My issue is that people seem to take acknowledging the existence of emotional dynamics like that as automatic justification/validation of them. That's not my intent. I can empathize with and understand feelings that I may ultimately not feel are valid.

My whole thing is practical activism. I have acknowledged before (and even did in that post) that being angry at various groups and criticizing them as a group is a completely valid way to feel and behave. However, no matter how valid you might be in screaming at someone or taking a shot at a group that holds power, that may not be the most practical, effective way to get your point across.

One user well-stated that the reason that statements like that get people so fired up is because it feels like victim blaming. I get that. That's never my intent when talking about this. I have a whole other post about how it shouldn't be oppressed people's responsibility to constantly lay bare their experiences to bigots and argue civilly, and at the same time, some people cannot accept valid, true, and correct information presented to them in a hostile manner. This does not mean they are unsalvageable garbage human beings. It means they are emotionally immature. My point is that converting people to allies sometimes takes a lot of emotional labor and hand-holding that none of us should have to do. But getting caught up in the shoulds and shouldn'ts means potentially discounting people who could become allies.

Which brings me to another point I really want to make here. If there is an ideology/perspective you want to see go away - to be stamped out completely, practically, you mean "I want everyone who has this opinion to change their mind" or "I want everyone who thinks this way to stop existing."

The first I already kind of covered in this post (people don't just spontaneously do stuff without outreach or incentive - and here I'm talking about the most effective way to do that outreach).

If what you mean is the second, what you really mean is "I wish everyone who thinks like this were dead." Divorcing all moral considerations from that for a minute, what's the plan? How are you going to murder every person of a certain ideology then keep it from cropping up again? Practically, is it possible to stamp out an ideology that way? No.

Practically and effectively combatting bad ideologies/perspectives takes a lot of work that no one should have to do.

Additionally, another motivation I had in making the original post is to highlight to people who HAVE FELT or DO FEEL categorically hated and silenced, even if they haven't experienced real oppression, that bad actors can use that pent up negative feeling as a hook to manipulate you. Not everyone offering you validation for things you're afraid to admit outloud is a kind and sympathetic soul who wants to support you. That cathartic relief you might feel in hearing someone say something you've been thinking SHOULD NOT automatically equate to trust in them.

That is exactly what Trump has done to conservatives. Many of them have no real concept of what oppression feels like but perceive themselves to be oppressed by certain kinds of leftist rhetoric. They're objectively wrong, but that doesn't negate that they feel that way. Trump and Elon have swooped in to say stuff like "Hey, it's okay! The way you feel is valid! You don't have to feel ashamed for being white. Or Christian. Or conservative. We know the mean people online have been telling you you're bad and stupid. They're wrong, and you're right, and oh by the way, since we agree on that, I think you should also agree with me on [insert littany of disgusting policies that certain people are now primed to support because of that play towards validation]."

You can argue all day about what factors make people more susceptible to this manipulation or to deficits in empathy and (validly) feel deeply angry that people fall for the dynamic that I'm trying to illustrate, but it. Does. Not. Stop. It. From. Happening.

Pretending it doesn't exist or raving about how the factors that motivate it shouldn't exist won't stop it from very much existing and very much affecting your work in activism.

[crimson-revelation]

Why Failure Is Not Possible

Bruce Lee once said that one can only be defeated when they accept defeat as their reality.

There is far more psychological truth in that statement than most people realize because people tend to treat failure as though it is an objective condition rather than an interpretation assigned to an outcome.

Failure has always been descriptive. Never absolute.

You cannot fail unless you decide the possibility itself is no longer worth entertaining. Even then, what occurred was not failure in any objective sense. You simply stopped moving in that direction.

There is no such thing as a failed attempt because every attempt produces something.

Maybe a revelation.

Maybe a new conclusion.

Maybe an awareness you did not possess beforehand.

That still counts.

Every attempt produces some degree of neurological, psychological, or experiential expansion.

The version of you entering an experience is never identical to the version of you leaving it.

From a neuroscientific perspective, moments of contrast between expectation and outcome prompt the brain to adapt and reorganize itself. The brain strengthens through repetition, though friction often accelerates adaptation.

Something always changes.

So to call an attempt a failure while ignoring the expansion that just occurred is an incomplete interpretation of reality.

That change becomes part of identity whether you acknowledge it or not.

Most people suffer more from interpretation than circumstance itself.

What people often label as failure is usually an expectation collapsing against a particular perception of reality.

Circumstances shift. Outcomes rearrange themselves. Meaning gets assigned afterward.

That meaning is rarely objective.

Identity determines interpretation long before interpretation appears conscious.

If identity is built around inadequacy, almost every obstacle becomes evidence confirming it.

If identity is built around expansion, obstacles become information.

This is why failure is ultimately perception based.

It has no independent existence outside the meaning attached to experience.

There are only events and the conclusions drawn from them.

Then interpretation enters.

And most people mistake that interpretation for truth.

[notkyaru]

I just finished playing the Pragmata demo and I love the nanny doom guy, Im wishing that the mod community drops any of these mods

- big daddy and little sister mod - hsr clara and svarog mod - doom slayer and isabelle mod

how cool would that be !!

[poorrichardjr]

Platner V. Collins

So, for the last few days, all I have been hearing is how "awful" Platner is. I don't know all that much about him as I don't live in Maine. But there are a few things people need to start thinking about, whether they like it or not.

First, people are not paragons of virtue. No one is ever going to line up exactly with what you believe the right candidate should be. If you look critically, you are going to find "problems" with every candidate who runs for office.

With that being said there are few other important points. The accusations are important, and may or may not be true. After all, if they are true then they are a pretty good indicator of the man's character. However, I hate how people demand purity especially when anyone makes an accusation of something. No proof has yet been provided in many cases and yet some move to demand that someone in power resign for the greater good. This political purity could easily lead opposition to assume that if an accusation is bad enough then the accused may just step aside whether they did it or not simply because of the outcry.

I am not saying Platner is innocent, just that no one is perfect, even a candidate whose ideas you may have aligned with.

The thing is, the accusations have started, and they are likely to get worse. Who benefits from this? Collins surely, but also the republican party, and everyone wishing the destruction of America. Platner isn't likely to step aside at this point, but the constant accusations are going to depress excitement from democratic voters. Whether they are true or not, the purists aren't going to vote for Platner.

Here's the problem with that. Collins will win. Republicans will likely retain control of the Senate. Trump will continue to get away with everything he is doing now. Like him or hate him, it is time democrats and independents become pragmatic. Which of these two people are worse for the country?

I am not a Maine voter so my opinion doesn't matter all that much, but this is something those who have the ability to vote there must consider. Which of these two people and their parties will do the least amount of damage to the country until the next election? Collins is a known commodity. We know exactly what she is likely to do in any given situation. She will say something along the lines of how bad something is, but most of the time she will go right along with that evil thing because her party demands it. Platner has problems as well, but his party isn't trying to turn the country into a Christian nationalist fascism.

The question ultimately comes down to a simple choice. Is it better to keep the devil you know or put a new one into power until the next election comes along? Plenty of people are going to tell you that we can't accept someone like Platner to serve, despite men like Trump and Johnson already doing so and tearing the country apart for their own ends. Some of the people bringing this problem up are going to be genuinely upset about Platner, but I can also swear that a lot of those people complaining about Platner are going to be republican operatives openly or in disguise. They understand the stakes involved. If they want to keep power without resorting to open force, they need you depressed and unwilling to vote against them. Sometimes doing the right thing involves bad choices, and we have to choose the least bad option. Sometimes you just have to keep moving the boulder to get it into the position you need. That way, you later get the chance to move it where that boulder can actually do good.