you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Personally I think that the various "isms" essentially boils down to various form of religious thinking. Works in most any metric, someone who is a zealot. The true communist believes that communist ideology is the best path for society and the way to utopia. The feminist holds similar ideals although often they are very sexist in practice, though some hate of an outgroup is common with this sort of thing. Religion politics fandoms consumer groups are all driven by the masses of "true believers" in whatever it is and they are pursuing some kind of ideological purity whatever that may be and not necessarily doing it for their own personal gain. Naturally though as it happens with any religious or political movement there are those who realize the social dynamic and realize they can essentially use the group to further their own agenda, be that in service of a different ideological force or simply that of self betterment which is in and of itself its own ideology.

In the end it all boils down to power and how to get it. Most everyone is seeking power in their own lives in some form. Some more than others. Many people are simply blind to this fact and through various kinds of mental gymnastics have convinced themselves they are acting for the greater good.

If we see the corruption , shills, gifting, profiteering and all the rest. We aren't really "normal people" we are the same as the shills, grifting , and profiteers, in that we see how the game works. Whether or not we use that ability for self betterment at the detriment of others or to further agendas of bettering ourselves along with everyone else (but perhaps bettering some more than others) we are still seeking power.

If you see someone selling something and your first thought is "what's his angle" you aren't gullible, so you aren't a "regular person". Most people don't really understand when they are being manipulated. Or even when they do understand that they are, some are contrarians who won't allow themselves to do something someone is manipulating them into, and will act in the opposite way regardless of whether or not it's in their best interests. Classic reverse psychology, which ironically is itself a good manipulation tactic.

So how do you just be a regular person? Why the fuck would you want to be one of those. Use your ability to see past the initial offer and analyze people's motives to benefit yourself, and to benefit the people you care about. You aren't normal and you don't want to be anyway.

[–]panel30[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That makes sense, yeah. And about ideological purity... I've definitely experienced that.

By "regular person" I think I was trying to get at like... whatever it is to not be a shill. "Honest" maybe? It's good to be aware of people doing questionable things. Maybe like crime. You can be aware of the schemes without having to use them yourself. And it's better to be aware. But it's not good to do them.

I feel like I've been sortof a shill in the past for some things, I wanted to convince people of things. And maybe now it sorta seems not nice of me to do things that way. Like there's a better way maybe to just share information without feeling like I have to "win someone over to my side" in that way.

Thanks for the reply.

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

For this sort of forum there's no real need to attempt to "win someone over" beyond just giving your arguments. Debates are a better ground for explaining your side and why you believe it and why you believe the other side is wrong, or if not wrong, why you have come to a different conclusion to what they have not.

There are many positions that aren't reconcilable via debate and there isn't much point in attempting to change someone's mind. Your best option is simply to learn why they think the way they do and try to understand their logic even if you fundamentally disagree with it. Of course this also requires you to reevaluate your own positions as well and really know why you believe what you do.

Most people don't think that deeply and prefer the ideological purity route. It's far easier to simply dismiss others as evil rather than try to understand their motives. Their motives may indeed be evil in the end but rarely do people actively pursue agendas they themselves believe are evil. Everyone is the hero in their own story yadda yadda.

That's why logic and rational arguments are important tools for debate rather than emotion and assumption. These tools allow for communication with people from vastly different backgrounds where otherwise you might end up getting tangled up in preconceived ideas of "what the other person actually means" rather than what they think they mean. Just ask people to clarify their positions, if you think they are arguing in bad faith give them a chance to clarify as a way to save face. Even if bad faith is suspected never assume it outright, once someone who is arguing in bad faith is asked to clarify or define their argument in more detail they'll usually not give an answer or result to insults at which point it's safe to assume you've won the argument in the eyes of anyone watching worth giving a damn about, then you can simply bow out before they try to drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I will absolutely admit to arguing in bad faith with people. Some people are stupid. I enjoy watching them get frustrated when I counter their stupid arguments with arguments twice as stupid. Did aliens build the pyramids, maybe, but ask yourself this, why didn't they just build the pyramids underground?

[–]panel30[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

if you think they are arguing in bad faith give them a chance to clarify as a way to save face. Even if bad faith is suspected never assume it outright, once someone who is arguing in bad faith is asked to clarify or define their argument in more detail they'll usually not give an answer

this sounds like a helpful approach.