I think it’s more that the things Arthur is responding to are, in fact, very racist.
Care to taboo what you mean by “racist”. In particular is it “racist” to believe that traits like intelligence correlate with where someone’s ancestors came from? Does it matter if there is evidence for the belief in question? Does it matter if the belief is true?
Also why is “racism” so uniquely awful. If you look at the history of the 20th century far more people have been killed in the name of egalitarian ideologies (specifically communism) then in the name of ideologies generally considered “racist”.
When discussing existing oppressive social structures such as patriarchy, white supremacy, colonialism, and capitalism,
Taboo “opressive”. Judging by how your calling capitalism oppressive it appears that improving the living standard of most of the world is “oppression”. If so we could probably use more of it.
In other words, if a fight is important to you, fight nasty. If that means lying, lie.
If you find yourself needing to lie for your cause, what your effectively admitting is that the truth doesn’t support it. You may want to consider updating on that fact when deciding whether you should really be supporting said cause.
Also as I explain here Yvain’s reason for not lying for your cause is not the best one he could give. The biggest problem is that it will fill your cause with people who believe said lies.
If you find yourself needing to lie for your cause, what your effectively admitting is that the truth doesn’t support it.
Not necessarily. You may deal with irrational people, who will not be moved by truth. Or the inferential distances can be long, and you only have very short time to convince people before something irreversible happens—although in this case, you are creating problems in the long run.
(I generally agree with what you said. This is just an example of how this generalization is also leaky. And of course, because we run on the corrupted hardware, every situation will likely seem to be the one where the generalization does not apply.)
Care to taboo what you mean by “racist”. In particular is it “racist” to believe that traits like intelligence correlate with where someone’s ancestors came from? Does it matter if there is evidence for the belief in question? Does it matter if the belief is true?
Also why is “racism” so uniquely awful. If you look at the history of the 20th century far more people have been killed in the name of egalitarian ideologies (specifically communism) then in the name of ideologies generally considered “racist”.
Taboo “opressive”. Judging by how your calling capitalism oppressive it appears that improving the living standard of most of the world is “oppression”. If so we could probably use more of it.
If you find yourself needing to lie for your cause, what your effectively admitting is that the truth doesn’t support it. You may want to consider updating on that fact when deciding whether you should really be supporting said cause.
Also as I explain here Yvain’s reason for not lying for your cause is not the best one he could give. The biggest problem is that it will fill your cause with people who believe said lies.
Not necessarily. You may deal with irrational people, who will not be moved by truth. Or the inferential distances can be long, and you only have very short time to convince people before something irreversible happens—although in this case, you are creating problems in the long run.
(I generally agree with what you said. This is just an example of how this generalization is also leaky. And of course, because we run on the corrupted hardware, every situation will likely seem to be the one where the generalization does not apply.)