/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2920721
Nature is whatever you project into it. It's a justification to enforce social rules.

THREAD THEME

>>2920721
Really shows the difference between Marxists — who want to use dialectics to dominate and overcome nature — and anarchists — who insist “nature” is innately on their side.

>>2920991
And the left has largely embraced a (highly justified IMO) demand for objective morality, largely as a response to the eugenics and social murder caused by covid and the eugenics of the Big Tech billionaires who seek to use technology to eradicate disabled and neurodivergent identities. At least the neocons/Straussbros and Evangelicals function on a moral theory of Justice and would never allow the tech oligarchs to use genetic engineering to reshape society into their apocalyptic accelerationist eugenicist utopia.

>>2921058
jessie what the fuck are you talking about

everyone in this thread needs to read politzer's "elementary principles of philosophy"

to be a communist and think of "object morality" only speaks of a very poor dialectical materialism no jutsu

>>2921133
cockshott was right about dialectics being bullshit though

>>2921058
Can we fucking kill this retarded meme? NO ONE is killing off disabled people.

>>2921195
dialectical materialism is the philosophical backbone of marxism, at this point you are anti-marxist

>>2921033
Anarchists love copium because they have no record of success anywhere.

>>2921058
>neocons would never get in bed with silicon valley tech oligarchs

did you just get thawed out from a glacier?

>>2921201
>NO ONE is killing off disabled people

hi i'm disabled and i can no longer afford health insurance and i've been denied medicaid and i have spent the last 2 years applying and getting denied for SSI and i now have to wait at least another year before i will even get a hearing with a judge and i also have asthma and can't even get inhaler drugs anymore and i'm coughing and struggling to breathe and tired and lightheaded all the time but i guess it's my own doing for having inferior genes what a great leftist you are

>>2921248
>and i can no longer afford health insurance and i've been denied medicaid
That's just the fuckery of American "healthcare", not a full-blown eugenics program aimed at killing disabled people. Don't be a fucking mongoloid.

>>2921292
There isn't some grand conspiracy to killoff disabled people. American "healthcare" is purposely designed to be a nightmare and deny people shit based on ridiculous reasons.

Also, if a conspiracy against the disabled exists, how come you don't see disabled people being denied healthcare in countries that, you know, have universal healthcare?

>>2921297
Are you not familiar with the concept of social murder?

>>2921300
You aren’t innocent either retard

>>2921298
That's the result of a fucked up system, not something the people on top do consciously.

And again: countries with universal healthcare don't deny lifesaving medicine to the disabled, so no there is no grand conspiracy.

>inb4 MAiD
MAiD is highly regulated and most of the "questionable" cases you hear about in the media are very, very rare. No one is being approved for MAiD because they have ADHD or some shit.

>>2921297
>There isn't some grand conspiracy to killoff disabled people

now now, you're moving the goalposts, first you said "NO ONE is killing off disabled people", now you're saying "ok maybe they are killing off disabled people but it's not like it's a grand conspiracy." and even then you're wrong because people like donald trump and rfk jr and others are literally sitting in rooms together discussing and planning how to kill off disabled people, people in the top echelons of power in the us government are actively working towards eliminating all social programs that disabled people depend on to live and forcing them into homelessness or imprisoning them in institutions where they will die of neglect, and donald trump and rfk jr and elon musk and the other most influential powerful people in the world are all huge proponents of eugenics and they all speak very candidly about the importance of "good genes" and how much of a burden disabled people are on society etc. it is a conspiracy, a very poorly concealed and blatantly obvious conspiracy, but a conspiracy nonetheless.

>>2921306
The British NHS is almost completely uninterested in providing treatment and austerity can only provide a limited explanation for why. A lot of its structure and costs comes from gatekeeping access to cheap generic drugs at great expense, and it would be trivial to loosen this to reduce waiting times and provide more treatment but that would reduce their institutional power so they let the waiting lists and the expenses pile up.

>>2921320
holy TRVTHNVKE

while i think morality is subjective in terms of the social contracts that groups of people come up with which vary depending on the time and the place and the people, there are a few common threads between all of these different moral frameworks that are always the same regardless of the time or the place or the people, and one could call them moral absolutes but i would prefer to think of them as just simple logic. for example, the need for consistency - no system of morality can function if people think that there are certain situations where the ends justify the means and that it is okay to override the rules or that they can simply advocate morality with their words without actually demonstrating morality through their actions. either all of the rules are valid or no rules are valid, and that's not some absolute cosmic truth but just a logical conclusion that we arrive at by thinking about how the system actually works and considering what happens when people, particularly the so-called "good" people who are the backbone of civilized society, think that they can be immoral. no matter what rules a society lives by, that society will break down if the people who normally follow the rules start breaking or bending the rules and influencing others to break or bend the rules, just as a monetary system breaks down when people forge currency and thereby erode the common social trust in that currency. so one rule that can be thought of as is an objective moral truth, or at least the closest thing to it, is that the rules must always be followed, whatever they may be.

>>2920566
>authoritarian people only favor objective morality
While I admit the major strident of conservative thought is
>We need Christianity or Islam because society will collapse without it
Sort of knee-jerk thinking…
…A lot of authoritarian people have the more cynical grindset and outlook… but without objective morality.
It might be hard to notice because esotericism and traditionalism are so hip with /pol/fags these days, but buried beneath the Evolians are a subcategory of rightwingers who are for Fascism, Machiavellianism, Might is Right etc.
A good number of conservatives who favor religion favor religion purely for social utility and nothing else; to be frank, I'd say a large number of conservative people are like that.
Before Duginism took the 3rd worldist scene, a lot of the sentiments behind authoritarian 3rd world dictatorship apologia were Machiavellian in character.

There is a huge division in the rightwing right now between Christian Right versus Nietzschean Right that centered on BAP.
Also with Christian vs Neopagan, but that's beside the point.

Again, I think /leftypol/ takes too many rightwingers at face value.
A great many of them don't actually give a rat's ass about Christianity but find it convenient to use.
At the end of the day, Christianity is convenient but ultimately subject to Liberalism and the Republican party.
I would be willing to bet 100% that if you gave Republicans & Conservatives the opportunity to have their Christian theocracy on a platter without any excuse, they would seriously be cornered and ultimately would reject it.
The Conservative likes his Liberalism and two-party system.
He likes a declawed and marginal Christianity–he wouldn't actually ensure that society actually transforms into the words they bark.

Conservatives who supported Donald Trump–Rightwingers who elected this man.
Don't actually care about objective morality
It's a dog and pony show.

>>2916538
>Why are rightoids so obsessed with muh objective morality?
>So how does this belief in objective moral truth fit in with the greater right-wing agenda
Only to the point when the objective morality is their own morality to the letter and no other. Any ruling class ever has seen itself and sold to the people the idea that their way is the will of god / common sense / least worst option / the only way. In DotP it would be pretty much the same.

I guess for the 2000s righwinger there was also the certainty that anything objective morality system brings. You don't have to doubt, think, or question, nor struggle with anything, just let go and follow. Really appealing to 9/11 era "scared shitless of muslims by fox news" cattle conservatives. Today US is fucking over and belief that there is anything rock solid or objective in west or the US is also gone. They try to still larp it, but it's all gone by now, everybody basically knows American-mythos is all more or less bs.

>>2921364
>He likes a declawed and marginal Christianity–he wouldn't actually ensure that society actually transforms into the words they bark.
This. Any kind of "new morality" that genuinely goes beyond securing property relations and enforces social stability in modern America doesn't get a pass from capital. 21st century Muttland is the culmination of protestant reformation and ethics and any change to it would be a regression for capital, it would get less efficient for making profits or it could get too overtly oppressive to pacify the prole. They have their heaven on earth, all of their politics is just about distracting the cattle with myriad of reasons why it sucks so much for them, with idpol sissues and red-blue puppetshow.

>>2921359
>might makes right
That one always devolve into self-agrandizing double standards, if I win, then it was because of how mighty and strong I was so it's cool, and if "the ennemy" wins, it's because they're cowardly schemers that are also weak and stupid so it doesn't count and they don't deserve it

>>2921400
ok but this is objectively how the world works so
kvetching about it doesn't solve anything

>>2921400
Leftists make this point that
>well, Nazis are all might is right, but they lost!
That's exactly the point, lmao.
>it's because they're cowardly schemers that are also weak and stupid so it doesn't count and they don't deserve it
That's not actually might is right terms of thinking though. This is just another appeal to honor/virtue, but the schemer who does whatever he might and gathers a mightier storm doesn't debunk that idea.

>>2921401
>>2921403
In that specific sense, it's just recognizing that those who are victorious are the ones who decides what is moral at best, it's not a moral axiom in itself, or something you can "be for" just like you can't be for or against gravity
That is might makes right on paper, but everyone claiming to be for it uses it as a natural fallacy and to self fellate

>>2921203
The philosophical backbone of marxism is historical materialism. Cockshott is wrong in arguing that M&E don't use dialectics, they do. but it's not the cornerstone of their works, and you don't need to use it to get scientific results.

>>2921368
Seems like objective morality bends with their feelings.

>>2921359
>A good number of conservatives who favor religion favor religion purely for social utility and nothing else

that's not the only thing they favor it for and probably not even the main thing, in my opinion what really draws them to religion is the convenient moral absolution it provides. unless a person is a genuine psychopath, which is extraordinarily rare and possibly not even a real thing at all, immoral behavior carries with it a tremendous burden of guilt and shame and remorse and social alienation. and religion, and ideology in general, provide a means to pass that burden off onto some external higher power and escape from personal accountability. it's in god's hands, i did it for the party or for the good of the country, etc. it's sort of like installing a convenient flip-flop switch in your brain that just cuts off your introspection and sense of self-awareness whenever you do something or want to do something that you know deep down to be wrong and would otherwise feel terrible about. religion doesn't necessarily have to be this way and it is possible for people to use religion as it was probably originally intended to be used, as a tool for navigating and understanding reality and holding oneself to account and being a better person, but a lot of people simply use religion as an excuse, as a soft option, as a means of evading reality; they don't see it as something where they have to put in the work and have self-discipline to participate in it, they see it as a get out of jail free card.

“Objective morality” is worthless. You don’t implement or build socialism on the basis of muh morality. Plus, moral fanaticism is where you get religious right fundamentalism.

>>2921678
This

i think the real problem isn't so much whether morality is objective or subjective, i think it's pretty plainly obvious that morality is relative like everything else in the world is and anyone can figure that out for themselves if they actually thought about it for a moment. i think the bigger problem is how people seem to think of morality as if it were just a performance, like something you wear and display like an article of clothing or perform in front of judges who hold up score cards, or they think of it as just a simplistic arbitrary ledger like in an rpg game where you have a morality meter that goes up or down every time you do an immoral or moral thing. they don't think of it as something real and pervasive and relational, like a causal force that effects things and changes them permanently, which is really what it is in my opinion. you're driving in your car and someone cuts you off at a red light and you get angry and call them a dumb fucking uyghur and your windows are up and nobody hears you say it, but it still has an effect. it's easier for you to say it now than it was before, you've crossed that line once so you know you can cross it again, you're a different person now. if you feel ashamed or surprised at yourself for saying it you might hold court with yourself and decide that it wasn't fair of you to disparage an entire group of people because of one shitty driver or do some introspection and try to figure out why you said it and maybe realize something about yourself that you weren't quite conscious of before, and then you'll be a different person again. or you might just chalk it up to a temporary moment of anger and put it out of your mind and move on, and now it's easier for you to think up excuses to absolve yourself of your behavior and you're a different person again. everything that happens in the universe alters the universe forever, that's just fundamental physics - why would the human brain be exempt from this? like, if we are going to stay firmly rooted in science and understand the human mind as a purely physical structure, a wrinkled blob of meat full of billions of neurons continously forming and reforming electrical pathways in a dynamic complex network full of thoughts and feelings and memories and habits and impulses, why would what happens inside that structure obey different laws than anything else does? why would there be creations and deletions and undos and dry runs and shortcuts in this wrinkled blob of meat when they are strictly forbidden in absolutely every other part of the universe?

People who believe in objective morality are more likely to take the status quo as a given and far less likely to revolt.

Interesting how zoomers’ fascination with East of Eden seems highly correlated to their demand for objective morality.

>>2925104
Compared to his millennials loved The Grapes of Wrath, which is about the fuckery of capitalism.

>>2925104
Where are you getting east of eden’s popularity numbers from?

>>2925505
It’s fairly obvious if you look at social media trends.

>>2921058
Zoomers would love Strauss’ moralism.

How much longer before Natural Right and History becomes the next “hot book” on TikTok?

Catholic Church says eugenics is the result of moral relativism. What does the left think of this assertion?

>>2925510
Algorithms do not prevent astroturfing, quite the contrary.

>>2933694
Eugenics predates moral relativism by a lot.

>>2923343
Moral relativism is self-defeating. Knocked down on day 1 of any 101 class.

>>2925510
>muh social media trends
Horrible metric