How do you square that with the position of "I'm taking my family, with agreement of all adults, out of Leftist society" being a grave sin? You do not get to do with others as you please, so you also don't get to shove people in a group and force that group to follow a particular view, nor do you get to go in to another group and demand they change to hold your views.
There is not problem with taking your family with the agreement of adults out of leftist society nor do I believe its a grave sin. But for 1 if you are going to remove yourself from a leftist society then you are removed. You get nothing from the society. Not the use of roads, not medical treatment, not cellphones. You get nothing. The only issue I would take is if you attempt to prevent any offspring that may exist in the family from leaving, or if there were abuse going on. As long as you do not try to prevent people from leaving you are welcome to have your little compound isolated from the rest of the world. Your pathetic attempt at re-framing your own removal from society as victimization is telling. No you shut the door. It is unlocked. You can let yourself in. But so long as you decide to live on the outside, you are on the outside. You get nothing from the rest of society.
What is the actual fundamental functional difference between the "reactionaries" homeschooling their children and you demanding actively working to demolish aspects of a culture on another damn continent? You need to be coherent in your views, and you have stated nothing that actually clarifies an underlying reasoning that your forced cultural conversion is okay, yet people just refusing to participate in it is not.
It is not my fault that you cannot tell the difference between a principle and a policy. But allow me to spell it out for you given that you don't understand. Reactionary home schooling (as opposed to home schooling) is isolationist and intended for use as a form of information control/thought control. The principles shared by both domestic and foreign reactionaries are exactly the same. The difference between the two is that the foreign reactionary cultures are worse than the domestic reactionary cultures. But the principles (which is what I want to destroy) are exactly the same. Thus I am fully consistent and coherent in my fight against reactionaries. This is why if you have been paying attention I am advocating for more or less the same tactics in both places. Children are not property. Parents do not own their children. They are temporary custodians until the child reaches autonomy. An attempt to retard autonomy or to impede autonomy is unacceptable and a violation of another's rights. In such instances it is the moral thing to do to interfere. Just as it is the moral thing to do to interfere with cultures of rape.
What's to say the revival movement has to be exclusive? Liberation Theology exists, and the current mainstream understanding of Christianity takes the notion that humans were created by a higher power that holds them to a universal standard as justification of universal rights. Why would it have to be the outright reactionary religious views returning trying to backtrack to the 1950s, instead of those who just use religion as the groundwork of much the same ethics of interference you say you support and decide that the ceaseless drive to force compliance with those ethics is a violation of them?
Special note: During this point and until I indicate that the its ended I am going to hit reset on both attitude and tone of the conversation. I am going to try for minimal technicalism but its very difficult when it comes to epistemology. Proper terms are capitalized. In this case if it seems I am talking down to you I am actually not. This is an area where it is better to assume someone has no knowledge at the beginning and then to build up from there.
Axiomatically there are certain things which any sane individual must accept. These are what is known as Properly Basic Beliefs (PPB). My problem with mysticism is my exact same problem with Global Atheism. Both of them are unjustified positions. Ontological Naturalism and Supernaturalism are both without warrant. To claim that the natural world is all that exists or that a supernatural world exists cannot meet a reasonable warrant. The problem lay in that by holding either position without warrant one must engage in unsound an invalid reasoning.
This leads us to Methodological Naturalism which as a much more modest claim and is warranted (I can get into the how if you want but I am sticking to the argument for now). While those who adhere to Methodological Naturalism are not free from cognitive bias or fallacious reasoning neither are inherent to the system itself.
With regard to mystics the biggest problem that arises is the belief in Freewill particularly Libertarian Freewill which is an incoherent and nonsense concept. Of every single belief I have ever come across this is the most insidious, harmful, and destructive, with hard fatalism running a close second. The belief in Freewill (be it from a mystic nor secular source) destroys any ability to model behavior which is an absolute requirement to be able to function in the world. It destroys any ability to explain past human behavior in any coherent fashion. By obliterating causality the world becomes incomprehensible.
Most of modern-day Satanism is pretty much the latter, alongside
a lot of other countercultures, at least in the US, taking an extremely contrarian set of beliefs to arrive at the mainstream code of ethics, that being individual liberties, with a few points inverted. In the real-life examples, debauchery being presented as a good, in your case, presenting the argument that minimizing the ability to choose wrong is itself an infringement on autonomy.
Once you introduce the concept of the Supernatural into the system fuzzy thinking must follow as a consequence.
Special Note rules ended
What would stop them from generally arising is what stops the vast majority of adults from thinking the earth is flat or that Santa Claus is real. Such bullshit beliefs are mocked and ridiculed so while a small segment of the population may hold absurd beliefs the ultimate goal is not the extermination of belief in the supernatural but to limit it and its ability to impact society. I am however as of this time convinced that beliefs such as Deism would warrant any special attention or that it would need to be eliminated.
Generally speaking Deism is harmless.
Soviet bloc shows otherwise, and we are currently living through a rerun of the previous century in many regards courtesy of Capitalism managing to reboot the Gilded Age, except even more asshole-driven and wealth-worshiping because now the entertainers get to be big role models when they were considered worse than whores the last 20's and the rich are at the point of actually bribing countries into submission.
You are correct. It was much better when they had to hire private armies to wage war rather than just bribe countries. And if you think the capitalists now are more of an asshole than they were in the last century or the century before then you seriously need to read some history. The scope and scale of their dick swinging is wider, however there is much that they can no longer do, or at least when they do do it they can only do it on smaller scales. Thousands of dead rather than tens of thousands. Check out the origin of the term Banana Republic. Dole Food Company owned an entire countries all but outright and they were not the only ones.
Many of the Marxist revolutions in South America had more to do getting the actually evil American owned corporations the fuck out of South American countries. As I have said prior. Slave rebellions are nasty. The corporations at the time didn't change their tactics in the least, they just did what they had always done only on a larger scale and outside US domestic boarders.
Much the same happened after the fall of Rome, as well, with the general peasantry returning to their communal behaviors once the big, central government taxing them and imposing laws shattered, and once more returned to it in the Americas when the necessary liberties and land returned (Amish, Quakers, most of the midwest for at least a century, etc.). In the absence of population concentration and governmental pressure, people have pretty much always returned to ultra-traditionalist community-focused living. Because that's what just works and comes naturally when you have a small population without outside interference.
As someone who grew up in exactly the kind of place you are talking about and who regularly visits old home let me just say. You are full of shit. Take your rose colored glasses off and look at modern rural communities and compare them to just rural communities of just 30 or 40 years ago and you will see you are wrong. The definition of traditional always changes. It's a moving target. The America and "American values" you jerk yourself raw over never existed except as a fantasy in your mind.
Isolationist communities (which is what you are actually speaking of) are shit holes. If it weren't for the improvement the internet has brought to the world I would never have looked back at my home town. Isolationism is a plague. The only thing it does is to allow communities to hide their flaws from the wider world. That is no longer the case.
In similar conditions, populations will take on similar patterns of behavior. The details of beliefs will usually persist, but the way of life will converge quickly. The more particular the base of knowledge needed for this, the longer it takes and the more likely a divergence, but when it comes down to it, farming towns have lived overwhelmingly the same way through all the kingdoms, empires, republics, democracies and any other form of government, because few are the governments that bother meddling with them beyond getting the food.
Ahistoric shit and pure delusion. The impact of technological advances alone have radically altered farm town life over the millennia, the advances of the last three centuries alone hare changed it beyond recognition from previous generations.
The issue we're having is that you think inclusivity somehow applies to the obliteration of entire categories of belief, demanding the upholding of moral standards in other societies a great distance away, and demanding that parents not be allowed to determine their children's education. Meanwhile, we look at the word "inclusivity" and actually think we should be inclusive of beliefs, provided they do not turn into wrongful action by the society they are within, and respectfully allow other societies to have different standards of wrongful action so that beliefs outside our won acceptance are not brutally oppressed, and therefor retain their autonomy.
Yes again there is an actual name for it. Its called the Tolerance Paradox.
Correcting what you said above
The issue we're having is that I think inclusivity applies to the exclusion of intolerant belief systems, leftists demand the upholding of moral standards in other societies that are geographically 2 days away and informationally seconds away. Demanding the
recognition of the fact that parents do own their children, and that they have a moral obligation to prepare their children for life beyond their walls. This means that parents do not have a right to warp a child's sense of reality by teaching them things like flat earth, race realism, or other such nonsense that directly goes against the known facts of the world. It is the parents responsibility just as it is the teachers responsibility to teach the child not what to think but how to think (Critical Reasoning Skills).
Meanwhile you look at the word inclusivity and actually think that you should be inclusive of cultures which practice rape, the murder of women who have been raped, the murder of queers, slavery, the torture of infidels, etc. to quote
@ShieldWife "None of my business". You are just full of shit. You don't give a flying fuck about "respecting other societies" you just don't want your society to be scrutinized and examined and potentially altered. You have no principles anymore than shieldwife does. Societies have no right to autonomy. That's stupid and absurd. Individuals have rights societies (systems) do not.
The nature of gradual conversion under inclusivity is to reason with the other, to talk them out of it, not indoctrinate them, deny them the ability to choose "wrong". Because we don't see ourselves as perfect paragons, and therefor see ourselves as fallible, so most of us look to determine what is right by reason and work to extend this reason to as many as we can, while not actively removing the seemingly-unreasoned because they may indeed have quite valuable ideas within their worldview and we may still be wrong on some matters, and more importantly they are entitled to decide the values to teach their children.
Yes I do very much agree that the nature of gradual conversion under inclusivity is to reason with others. However that makes a grand assumption which is demonstrably false. To reason one must adhere to the principles of reason. Something reactionaries regularly demonstrate they do not care for. I will tell you what. No joking, no mocking. You indicate to me that you are serious about wanting to have an actual respectful conversation in which we engage in good faith with reasoned arguments not based on emotion and I will hit the reset button on the entire tone of our conversation. No swearing (which will be difficult because I write like I speak), no derogatory terms, a complete tonal reset. But you must act in good faith. You must make an honest attempt at steelmanning my arguments. You must not misrepresent my views or build strawmen out of them. Now if you are serious I require only two things. 1) An indication that this is how you wish to proceed. 2) an actual attempt at steelmanning my view on inclusion. You do not have to actually succeed at it you do need to make a good faith effort. If you get it wrong we will discuss it until you are able to state my view in your own words in a way that I go "yes that is my position or close enough to make no mind". I do agree beforehand to act in good faith and to steelman your arguments whatever they may be.
My request. Not my requirement but my request is that you would treat my views as though they are completely foreign to you and you have never regardless of the terms used heard them before.
We place limits on how those values may be taught, for the material safety of the child, but children are not given full autonomy. It is the parent's responsibility, as you say, to teach the child not to make mistakes, and part of this is them having the right to teach the child correct courses of action, which is fundamentally the persistence of the parent's beliefs.
No you don't. You (general) do not value autonomy at all. As to children being "given" full autonomy... Children cannot be given autonomy. It is either something they have or they do not have. Children do not have autonomy. It is a parents obligation by virtue of the role they have chosen to foster autonomy and independence. But autonomy is not something that anyone can give to anyone else. It is something each individual must learn on their own. The parent is the sponsor and guide but it is beyond their ability to give autonomy, just like it is beyond the ability of a slave owner to give freedom to their slaves.
This isn't just a semantic difference but a fundamental difference. To get what I mean you have to do more than get it you have to grok it on a fundamental level. The autonomy of the child exists independent of the child who has yet to reach autonomy and independent of the parent who is incapable of granting autonomy. It is something which exists within the realized individual just out of reach of the child. Once the child achieves autonomy they are no longer a child even if they are not physically fully capable yet and so considerations of physics must be taken into account just as one would take physical limitations into account with any other individual. What is in the parents (and others) per view is the ability to externally recognize and validate the achievement of autonomy. Autonomy like freedom is a state of mind.
The key thing is that autonomy includes the right to be wrong. Something you are comprehensively denying, by demanding a sweeping policy of obliteration of dissent to your ideas of what it means to be "right". My own position, at least, is liberty to enable gradual progress towards a better world, rather than a forced thrust to one kind of progress as you call for. I don't believe in an end goal that would be the best world like you, I believe in a process to improve the current one.
Yes. Autonomy includes the right to be wrong. Let's look at the framing of the next thing you said because it's rather interesting. I have been repeatedly stressing how I value autonomy. Autonomy in fact makes up part of my personal "trinity" if you will. What you said though is rather interesting. What makes it interesting is that I am actually unsure if you are gasliting me on purpose of on accident. Because yes the right to be wrong is a much more important right than the right to be correct. 10,000% agree. Without the right to be wrong the right to be correct means nothing. But, but the pivoting non-sequitur is telling.
"Something you are comprehensively denying," what an interesting statement. How am I comprehensively denying the right to be wrong? 'By demanding sweeping policies of obliteration of dissenting views which do not value autonomy'. Now please explain to me how the connection between denying people the right to be wrong, and denying people the ability to violate peoples autonomy. That is unless what you are saying is that I am denying people the right to be wrong about other people not having autonomy. In which case you would be correct. A dissenting view which denies the right to autonomy will not be tolerated and in fact must be obliterated. There is no middle ground between promoting autonomy and promoting dependence.
As to an end goal. For some they believe that the ends justify the means. I on the other hand believe that the means are the ends. I hate the Marxists. I despise them with every fiber of my being. And the reason I hate them is because I am not self-deluded, and there are times where the frustration of dealing with insane and irrational people grow so great that it nearly drives me to a black nihilism. The only thing that holds me back from that is remembering that the means are the ends. Schadenfreude while emotionally satisfying is ultimately counterproductive and self destructive. In life I have one single goal. Leave the world better than I came into it. Each step towards that better is one thing less those who come after will have to achieve. Reactionaries tend to accuse me of arrogance something which I find quite humorous. They mistake confidence and intelligence for an over inflated sense of self worth. Determinism acts as a check against arrogance. It is hard to believe that one is special when one believes it was luck and circumstance plays a larger role in ones life than ones personal effort. When one does not believe in choice their perspective on many things shift. There is no Greatman who will come to save us all. At no point will history be complete. At no point will struggle vanish from the face of the earth. What we struggle towards will change, what each generation does will be both different from and the same as the last, and each individual is but a single drop in the tide. No drop is greater or lesser than any other there is only the luck of circumstance.
My job and the job of every other person is to be a bridge to a better future. That isn't just a platitude but something I took to heart when I first read Thus Spake Zarathustra at 19. Our responsibility is to stand on the shoulders of those who came before so that those who follow may stand upon our shoulders and reach even greater heights. My problem with reactionary philosophy in general is that they do not just respect those who came before but worship them. They desire not to reach up but to dig down and stand in the graves of those long past. For me and those like me it is about remembering the past, learning from it, and moving towards the future. But most of all it is about remembering that we are road bumps on the road of history. We live we die and there is no grand ontological meaning assigned to us. There is only the meaning we choose.
And if the process results in your end goal, that is fine by me, but the important matter is that the process of questioning and reasoning and having the right to speak of bad ideas to determine why they are bad and should be rejected is followed. Keep the lunatic reactionaries around to show them wrong to others, instead of elimiating them and thereby having little practical example to firmly prove the view truly wrong.
and when dealing with good faith actors again you are correct. The problem is in the assumption that reactionaries are good faith actors. Oh there are a few but the vast majority of them? No matter what my rhetoric I always act in good faith and expect the same of those I am talking to. When I am pleasantly surprised and the individual I am talking to is acting in good faith I very much enjoy a genuine conversation. However when dealing with reactionaries it takes only a few exchanges before the mask starts to slip. They avoid or refuse to answer straight forward questions, or their actual beliefs start peaking through their rhetoric. They stand on their head and tell me that I am the one who is upside down.
How are you not authoritarian? You are, in fact, demanding enormous control, demanding others act in accordance with your views, demand opposing views be eliminated... The nearest would be that you have some delusion that just because it's corporations doing the dirty work, it isn't actually authoritarian, because it's not a single big "government" doing the ruthless oppression. The Anarcho-capitalists at least pretend the big corporations can be out-competed, you are literally saying to deny competition to the agenda.
First I am not demanding enormous control. There is a difference between demanding a thing and carrying out actions while informing others the action is done (I refer here to the seizure of entertainment). As to demanding others act in accordance with my views. Yes. I do demand that others not violate the autonomy of other individuals. I do demand that others be treated with respect. I do demand that facts take priority over feelings. I do not demand opposing views be eliminated. I and others are ensuring that views opposing Liberty and Equality will be eliminated. There is no demand there only cultural Darwinism. We learned from the past. Leftists have been patient, we have tried to reason, we have tried appealing to facts. And the reactionaries launched and carried out a plan beginning in the 1960's (See 7 Mountains of Influence) to subvert and seize the seven pillars and carried out mass suppression on the battlefield of ideas. Fine. Reactionaries do not get to pretend to be surprised. And the reason why what we are doing is not authoritarian and what the reactionaries did and continue to do is authoritarian has to do with the means and the ends.
Reactionaries seized the levers of control for the purpose of exercising information and thought control. They excluded any possibility of dissent. I want dissent. I want reactionaries to openly and proudly and loudly say what they truly believe. I want them to take the fucking masks off. None of the bullshit cries about "personal freedom" when they go to a mass protest during a fucking pandemic. They need to be honest and say they want the right to walk around during a pandemic and to murder people by irresponsibly spreading a virus. I want the ethno-staters to admit openly what their plans are for in the words of Richard Spencer "Making America White Again". I want them to admit openly that they don't care about science or facts and that they just hate trans people for no other reason than their feelings. I want them to admit that they are fascists and they don't like democracy. But most of all I want them to admit they hate the enlightenment and everything it stood for. I want them to embrace openly and publicly and proudly the meaning of their name. Reactionary.
Leftists on the other hand. What have we done with the leavers we have managed to seize? We've spread the message that intolerance is not acceptable. That racism is not only unfounded but absurd. That there are different people in the world, and that people ought to be accepted not in spite of their differences but regardless of them. We have spread that science is a valuable tool. That facts are more important that feelings. We have spread that it is okay to not be like everyone else. Diversity as strength. Personal freedom actually means something. Principles matter. Democracy is valuable.
As most of us hold inclusivity as a good thing, we consider censorship to always be wrong, alongside forced indoctrination. And censorship is more than book-burning, it very much includes deplatforming, the practice of removing visibility of the speech rather than wholly preventing it. Indoctrination, too, is more than being locked in a select group and forced to acquiesce for companionship, it includes extremes of bias in education to leave reasoning unable to dissent, which is why we bitch about all the politically loaded material in universities. And, in this case, your plan to destroy religion.
Considering that I am a free speech absolutist and I know for a fact that several people on this forum are not. Bullshit. What reactionaries clamor for is a right to be platformed which is a right that does not and never has existed. Denial of access to a platform is not censorship and it's an outright lie to claim that it is. Even there though I want reactionaries platformed. As to your bullshit claim about being against forced indoctrination. Okay lets put that to the test because I know for a fact that you do not mean that, and while we are at it lets put your claim about being pro free speech to the test. Are you for or against sex education in public schools. Additionally are you for or against LGBT inclusion in sex education in schools? Lets take this a step further though. Are you for or against teachers openly advocating for acceptance of LGBT students.
Now lets really see where your principles lay. Should students who's parents foot the education bill be required to have authority figures (teachers, principals, school administrators) tell them they are a degenerate and or that they are going to hell?
Should teachers be permitted to teach information which is demonstrably factually incorrect?
And if you try to escape this by claiming "I don't think there should be public schools" that wasn't the questions. Given that we have what we do at the moment should X.
Returning to your cute little attempt at describing indoctrination. A key element of indoctrination is preventing an individual either directly or indirectly from seeking information counter to the information presented. Schools don't do that. Sorry buster try again.
Not all homeschoolers are locked away from dissent. That is actually quite the minority, often overlapping with the parents themselves being in much more intensive cult behaviors, as their peer groups usually include those who do it because of the abysmal state of public education for purely academic reasons, and they interact with those who are withheld for different cultural reasons. Many parents homeschool specifically to teach their children to question what they see and to reason so they don't make mistakes, because the public education system makes no appearance of doing such a thing.
Bullshit. I am very well aware of how the majority of homeschools are run. My objection is not to the principle of home schooling but to the way reactionaries homeschool. I have first hand experience with modern homeschooling and it's material as well as intimate knowledge of those who design it.
---
I'll also note you dropped the thread of discussion on two-axis political categorization. If there exists non-authoritarian Right, then there must be points that define Right vs. Left separately from any question of authoritarianism, and therefor some qualifiers of authoritarianism exist perpendicular to the Left/Right divide that can be held by the Left.
Picking this thread back up. Authoritarian is just the most right position. The axis isn't actually defined on authoritarian vs anti-authoritarian. Understand also that I am truncating a lot of information. Originally the axis was defined by Left Liberal (enlightenment) vs Right Reactionary (anti-enlightenment). There are a few positions between Liberal and Reactionary with Conservatism being one of them. The topic of conservatism is a discussion all on its own but understand that for the most part its a defunct position both within the US and globally. The last remaining conservative holdout that I am aware of is actually believe it or not Glenn Beck though that may have changed in the last year and a half. Since then the Liberalism has actually become the new center position as new positions farther left than liberalism have developed using liberalism as their foundation. The position just left of Liberal is Social Democrat (which people always read as socialist democrat for some reason), just left of that is Democratic Socialist, again there are more positions but the most far left position is Anarchism which advocates for the abolition of the state but not abolition of governments.
Anyway because of how right and left are defined given the new political landscape (new meaning ~150 years) its not Left Leftist vs Right Reactionary. Liberalism stands in stark opposition to authoritarianism and given that Liberalism has been considered centrist for the past ~150 years it's impossible to have a reactionary left. It's by the definitions involved impossible nonsense. If someone is an authoritarian they are not by definition left. It's not because as I am sure someone is going to say question begging. Rather it is because Liberalism and Authoritarianism are like oil and water. They don't mix. Interestingly enough though Neo-Liberalism (the current democratic party) can actually be authoritarian. But then again Neo-Liberalism is a center-right ideology.
I hope that makes sense.
Your statement of Enlightenment values being what defines "the Left" is both untrue, due to the advent of Modernism and Post-Modernism, and contradicts your opinion that Authoritarianism is always right-wing, because the Enlightenment called for philosopher-kings, because the unifying ideas were just intellectualism, the thought that it's best to reason rather than follow authority just because it's authority. It's not a rejection of authority itself in any capacity as a rule, because the Enlightenment thinkers were quite often feudal nobility, or at least employed by them.
For fuck's sake, eugenics came from Enlightenment thinking. Rather directly so, because the Enlightenment did not actually reject demographic superiority, all it did was make a call for demonstrating superiority instead of having automatic right to rule.
You just made my head explode. I am not having this conversation with you unless you define modernism and post-modernism and unless you do so correctly. I have gotten in far to many useless conversation with people who use these words and have no fucking clue what they mean. The one and only thing I will say with regards to this statement is that I strongly recommend that you actually read the Enlightenment philosophers who advocated for philosopher-kings because what you are intending to imply and what they actually said are not the same thing. Also be sure that you are reading Enlightenment philosophers and not just "philosophers who wrote during the Enlightenment" or later counter-enlightenment philosophers assuming they are Enlightenment philosophers. There are two popular Enlightenment sources that you could be pulling from one a conservative the other a liberal democrat. Both advocated for philosopher-kings and both meaning radically different things. I am curious about which you are pulling from.
