babauzhis Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 Hi, I've been thinking a lot about the new Stefan's video about the against me argument. I'm having trouble connecting the "hanging with statists" part with the "philosophy is just a hobby for you" part. I didn't hear him explaining the relationship between the two. Maybe it's supposed to be obvious, but it's not for me. Everyone I know wants me thrown in jail for disagreeing with them because they think that otherwise theres anarchy and the world will end. That is a very understandable position. It doesn't mean they have anything against me, it just means they doesn't want the world to end. I will go far enough to say that I don't see how hanging with racists means you're not really anti racist. If you're constantly standing up for discriminated races, protesting, donating money, time for the cause and then go hang with a racist, how does that make you fake anti racist?
Wuzzums Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 You're subsidizing bad behavior. If you're still friends with the racist then he has lost nothing by discriminating against a whole class of people. So he will continue to be a racist, and you will continue to waste your time and money on anti-racist causes. If the grocer sells you rotten apples each day and each day you buy them all the same, why on earth would he even bother selling you fresh apples? And how will it help you to buy fresh apples by talking to the grocer and giving him money to import fresh apples when you still buy the rotten apples? Furthermore, you have no right to complain about the grocer selling you rotten apples when you are the one buying them.
babauzhis Posted July 9, 2014 Author Posted July 9, 2014 How am i subsidising bad behavior? Yeah he doesnt lose anything, but if I disasociate from the racist he will be just as racist anyway. Me hanging with him doesn't have anything to do with his racist views. In fact if he's surrounded with racists I might be the only anti racist voice in his environment which might eventually change his mind.
EricBaker.Linux Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 If you think you can persuade a racist or a statist then do it. If they don't take the arguments, it is likely that eventually THEY will end the relationship if you keep exercising your boundary against those harmful beliefs. But I'm wondering: you really don't see anything wrong with an anti-racist hanging out with racists?
babauzhis Posted July 9, 2014 Author Posted July 9, 2014 But I'm wondering: you really don't see anything wrong with an anti-racist hanging out with racists? To be honest if you asked me before I watched that video I would have said it's fucked up. But after I watched it I started thinking about it and couldn't come up with a reason why it's bad.
cynicist Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 It means that you value your relationships more than your principles. So philosophy is more of a hobby to you than a serious endeavor.
babauzhis Posted July 9, 2014 Author Posted July 9, 2014 I don't understand that. It's not like I have to swear an oath to the state before hanging with statists. I don't see how hanging out with a statist replaces my principles
Wuzzums Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 If your friend keeps calling your wife a cunt and you say you love your wife, why would you still hang out with him?
cynicist Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 What is the point of having principles? I see them as a method of guiding your actions, a set of ideal standards for you to live up to in your life. If I'm a fat person who sits on a couch all day and eats cheesecake, but claims that eating healthy and exercise are really important to me, would you take my words or my actions more seriously? Clearly my actions, because it takes a lot less commitment to say something than it does to do it. You might be saying, but it's my friends who are fat, not me! Except that, with regards to statists, we're talking about morality and not dieting. The difference being that morality is a universal, and dieting is a personal preference. (If I say that something is evil, it is evil for everyone, not just me) So to take the above in a moral context, if I say that I think murdering innocent people is an evil of the highest order, but I'm also friends with Hitler, what would you think of that? If I am making the claim that murder is abhorrent to me, but I'm fine being around people who murder, then clearly what I call a 'standard' is just a nice idea that I don't practice in reality. But if I don't practice living my standards, then what's the point of having them? At best it would be a kind of convoluted mind game. 1
AustinJames Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 I believe there lies at the root of your dilemma a common question: what is the best way to create a free society? Do we ostracize those who reject voluntarism, or do we attempt to convert them? This is a false dichotomy; it presumes we cannot tell the difference between those who can be converted, and those who will always reject voluntarism-- in spite of the arguments presented to them. It takes time to cultivate the skill of discernment; and, more than time, it requires that you be unafraid of abandoning those who will never change. If you have resistance to the idea of ending relationships based on principles, a therapist can be incredibly useful in helping you determine which relationships are worth maintaining, and which are toxic. Everyone I know wants me thrown in jail for disagreeing with them because they think that otherwise theres anarchy and the world will end. That is a very understandable position. It doesn't mean they have anything against me, it just means they doesn't want the world to end. Have you really tried the "against me" argument with everyone you know? Do they really say that the world will end?
cynicist Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 Everyone I know wants me thrown in jail for disagreeing with them because they think that otherwise theres anarchy and the world will end. That is a very understandable position. It doesn't mean they have anything against me, it just means they doesn't want the world to end. The only reason evil continues is because it can masquerade as the good or the necessary. If I told you I know this guy named Hitler who wants to help make the human race stronger you might think that was admirable... at least until I told you the how. Soldiers fight to protect their country, or invade another country in order to liberate it's people. Elliot Rodger was being robbed of the attention he rightfully deserved from blonde women. That guy I beat up fucking deserved it. All evil is paired with justification because the minute it is in plain sight people recoil from it. So you take your time and try to help the other person understand their error with sympathy and curiosity towards the history that helped lead them to it, but at the end of the day (not literal, it could take months) if they persist in spite of the rational arguments then they are advocating force against you.
SamuelS Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 Everyone I know wants me thrown in jail for disagreeing with them because they think that otherwise theres anarchy and the world will end. I'm curious if you have evidence for this -- you've discussed it with them and they agreed w/ that conclusion -- or if you're just (possibly correctly) assuming? Many people haven't ever seen the arguments, so just because somebody is a flag-waving patriot that votes every chance (s)he gets doesn't mean they think about it like that...any time I hear somebody say "there ought to be a law..." I hear "people ought to be shot...", but I wasn't always like that.
babauzhis Posted July 10, 2014 Author Posted July 10, 2014 Everyone I know wants me thrown in jail for disagreeing with them because they think that otherwise theres anarchy and the world will end. Yeah that is incorrect, I asked only people who are politically vocal (around 20 people), with some people politics just never comes up.. But the ones I ask answer without hesitation that they would put me to jail because anarchy equals wall street owning everything and enslaving us all (or something like that). What is the point of having principles? I see them as a method of guiding your actions, a set of ideal standards for you to live up to in your life. If I'm a fat person who sits on a couch all day and eats cheesecake, but claims that eating healthy and exercise are really important to me, would you take my words or my actions more seriously? Clearly my actions, because it takes a lot less commitment to say something than it does to do it. You might be saying, but it's my friends who are fat, not me! Except that, with regards to statists, we're talking about morality and not dieting. The difference being that morality is a universal, and dieting is a personal preference. (If I say that something is evil, it is evil for everyone, not just me) So to take the above in a moral context, if I say that I think murdering innocent people is an evil of the highest order, but I'm also friends with Hitler, what would you think of that? If I am making the claim that murder is abhorrent to me, but I'm fine being around people who murder, then clearly what I call a 'standard' is just a nice idea that I don't practice in reality. But if I don't practice living my standards, then what's the point of having them? At best it would be a kind of convoluted mind game. I get the dieting example. By eating the cake you do the opposite of what the diet tells you, therefore you're full of shit. I don't see how that applies to the second example. It doesn't seem to me that hanging with Hitler is the opposite of being voluntaryist. I don't see how hanging out with anyone has anything to do with voluntaryism. Could you expand on the part I highlighted? This is all very counter intuitive to me. I certainly wouldn't hang with hitler or racists because I wouldn't be able to ignore their beliefs and I just wouldn't enjoy my time with them. But I am used to being around statists and I can ignore their evil beliefs. I just don't understand how that makes voluntaryism just a hobby for me.
Brentb Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 It's a matter of integrity, which basically means acting in accordance with your principles and values. You cannot value freedom and value the thoughts and opinions of people who would have you imprisoned. What you can do is lie to yourself that you value both of those things, which has consequences like lack of trust in yourself and others, confusion, and possibly self erasure to name a few.
babauzhis Posted July 10, 2014 Author Posted July 10, 2014 It's a matter of integrity, which basically means acting in accordance with your principles and values. You cannot value freedom and value the thoughts and opinions of people who would have you imprisoned. What you can do is lie to yourself that you value both of those things, which has consequences like lack of trust in yourself and others, confusion, and possibly self erasure to name a few. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I'm not talking about valuing thoughts and opinions of these people, I'm just talking about hanging out with them. I think probably what Stef meant in that video was also actually being friends with these people. I understand that's uncompatible with valuing freedom.
cynicist Posted July 10, 2014 Posted July 10, 2014 I get the dieting example. By eating the cake you do the opposite of what the diet tells you, therefore you're full of shit. I don't see how that applies to the second example. It doesn't seem to me that hanging with Hitler is the opposite of being voluntaryist. I don't see how hanging out with anyone has anything to do with voluntaryism. Could you expand on the part I highlighted? Yeah that's exactly why I used those two examples. Preferences like 'I like to eat cheesecake' are what you might call non-binding. That means that I can say it without it applying to you as well. You can hate cheesecake and we can still get along fine. Morality, on the other hand, is both universal and binding. That means when I say that 'using force is wrong', it's not only wrong for me but for any human being. If it didn't have this characteristic then it could not be objective, and would fall into the category of opinion. (for more detail on morality in particular, I'd recommend reading UPB) Now, saying that something is wrong/bad/evil is an explicit disapproval of that behavior. If you then consider people who act that way to be friends, then you have a contradiction between what you claim to be your values versus what you actually do. What does it mean to condemn someone for being a murderer if you treat them the same way you would treat a friend? It would be no different than claiming to prefer exercise and healthy foods while eating fatty stuff on a couch. This is all very counter intuitive to me. I certainly wouldn't hang with hitler or racists because I wouldn't be able to ignore their beliefs and I just wouldn't enjoy my time with them. But I am used to being around statists and I can ignore their evil beliefs. I just don't understand how that makes voluntaryism just a hobby for me. I used those examples because Hitler and racism are recognized as obviously evil by the majority of society. The reason you feel comfortable around statists is because what they are advocating is not yet viewed the same way. If they suddenly talked about how glad they were that a black person got lynched or that some woman from work was robbed in an alley, you wouldn't hang around them right? But they are cheering for guys with guns to take your money and kidnap you if you should refuse. 1
babauzhis Posted July 11, 2014 Author Posted July 11, 2014 What does it mean to condemn someone for being a murderer if you treat them the same way you would treat a friend? It would be no different than claiming to prefer exercise and healthy foods while eating fatty stuff on a couch. I think we got to the core of my problem here... I don't see the point to ostracise in this case. Ostracising people who can think is not necessary and ostracising people who cannot think doesn't make any difference anyway. Could you explain me why you think ostracising in this case is valuable? Yeah that's exactly why I used those two examples. Preferences like 'I like to eat cheesecake' are what you might call non-binding. That means that I can say it without it applying to you as well. You can hate cheesecake and we can still get along fine. Morality, on the other hand, is both universal and binding. That means when I say that 'using force is wrong', it's not only wrong for me but for any human being. If it didn't have this characteristic then it could not be objective, and would fall into the category of opinion. (for more detail on morality in particular, I'd recommend reading UPB) I understand. Their beliefs are evil. I can't do anything about it though. If they can't think, ostracising them won't help. I need someone to socialize with and I am used to their evil beliefs. Why not hang with them? Thank you for your patience.
cynicist Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 I need someone to socialize with and I am used to their evil beliefs. Why not hang with them? That's fine, it just means you value friends/conformity over virtue. There is nothing that says you have to take philosophy seriously. 2
mthenke Posted July 11, 2014 Posted July 11, 2014 That's fine, it just means you value friends/conformity over virtue. There is nothing that says you have to take philosophy seriously. You absolutely have to take philosophy seriously if you want other people to take you seriously. The funny thing is, valuing one thing over another is exercising a principle. If you make a conscious decision -not- to take philosophy seriously, that's still an exercise of a principle. 1
babauzhis Posted July 19, 2014 Author Posted July 19, 2014 That's fine, it just means you value friends/conformity over virtue. There is nothing that says you have to take philosophy seriously. How do you come to that conclusion? If you say I prefer friends/conformity over virtue than point out exactly which virtues I have to give up in order to hang with them? Note that I don't have to initiate force/vote/support their beliefs/respect their opinion by hanging out with them. I get together with them and drink beer/go camping/tell jokes.
SamuelS Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 How do you come to that conclusion? If you say I prefer friends/conformity over virtue than point out exactly which virtues I have to give up in order to hang with them? Note that I don't have to initiate force/vote/support their beliefs/respect their opinion by hanging out with them. I get together with them and drink beer/go camping/tell jokes. honesty...integrity...you're doing a disservice to philosophy if your actions show that you would rather have social contact with people that want you shot than to live the values you profess. Stef explains it really well:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uaJAtMuIck
powder Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 I am looking forward to listening to this video as well. I questioned the decision to interview Chomsky (https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38332-stefans-lack-of-integrity-with-chomsky-interview/page-2) and the 'against me' argument and I got the 'its optional' response. Didn't add up for me. I also don't need to challenge everyone who is close to me with the 'against me' argument to determine the quality of their character. and just because someone agrees with the NAP does not mean they are good people to have in your life. For me, relationships are based on more than mutual consensus of ideas.
babauzhis Posted July 20, 2014 Author Posted July 20, 2014 honesty...integrity...you're doing a disservice to philosophy if your actions show that you would rather have social contact with people that want you shot than to live the values you profess. Stef explains it really well:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uaJAtMuIck I don't see how I have to give up honesty and integrity, could you explain that? Stef doesn't explain it either. He says that these people are evil to which he provides evidence and to which I agree. And then he says that if you socialize with evil people philosophy is just a hobby for you. To which he doesn't provide any evidence. I think he assumes it's obvious, but it is not for me. So far everyone in this thread just made the same statement that Stef made without showing the logic behind it.
cynicist Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 So far everyone in this thread just made the same statement that Stef made without showing the logic behind it. You can pretend that I didn't show the logic behind it in my post if you'd like, but then I don't see why you started this thread. Wouldn't it be much easier to pretend if you weren't posting here? 2
Recommended Posts