recently i noticed there are several methods that are often occur in debates, discussion, dialogues, when it comes to questioning things of the status quo, of capitalism, of "free market" society, of western society.
some of them are pretty intricate and seem clever - and convincing - at first, but when one understands them it is easy to see through them.
1. "it's complicated."
you hate to hear it in a relationship, and i hate it in debates too. when one critices the goverment, corporations, social problems, certain laws or actions, people react: 'oh, but you can't see it all black and white. there is more to it. it is more complicated. there is no easy solution. you have to see it from all sides.'
this brings us to the core problem underlying these "intellectual" methods: that those who use it take sides themselves, well the whole point of them bringing up is to take sides. the same conservatives who pull the "it's complicated" card when animal rights or fighting misogyny is brought up, do not find it is "complicated" when the issue is war, or police force, or the free market.
when you ask them if the police is necessary in a modern society, they won't say "not sure - it's complicated" they give a hearty, biased, dumb "yes" without trying to see this "from all sides" themselves. same when asking them if capitalism is necessary.
2. "do we know anything at all?"
while this might mostly occur to a stoner listening to a psyrock song, it is also used by conservatives of all walks of life in any conversations. 'you anarchists, you leftists think you are on the right side. but what is really 'right'? how can you be sure? can anyone truly say know he is 'right'?' similiar issues are addressed on wether one is fighting for a "good" cause or not. 'maybe the good of the anarchists is the bad for the others', and such. while it is necessary to questions ones own defintion of right and good now and then, generally getting lost in this is a cause of phiosophical bullshitits. really it's a case for high schoolers on their first acid trip, to wonder if we ever find out what is "good" or "true". you should not fall to social inactivity just because others doubt the answer. fight for your causes, if it's a good cause!
similiar, the taking sides phenomen is here of course too, as the conservatives who question the goodwill of the anarchists don't doubt the goodwill of the "brave" politicians-idiots and generals who run western countries and declare war on innocent nations.
3. "isn't everything the same?"
if you didn't think conservatives have the minds of people who went the wrong road with LSD, now you can be sure. after raising the question "do we know anything at all" we get "isn't everything the same". 'you leftradicals seem to quite like the rightwing radicals in your fanaticism, didn't this occur to you? isn't left and right really similiar? can you be sure? are you not the very thing you are fighting against?'. again, a severe case of philosophical bullshit dilemma. no, the left is not like the right, anarchists are not fascists, radical feminists are very different from radical male chauvinists. yes, it should be noted that one should not become the enemy oneself - it's funny this worry is raised by people who already very much "the enemy" themselves - but again this should not lead to the point of a philosphical wormhole, where everything is "somehow" the same and everything can be exchanged, yadda yadda.
4. rationalisation
this is the method that is mostly often used. the thing is, you can rationalise everything. eating humans to solve the world hunger problem? people could find rationalisations for that. total surveillance? yes some find pros for that. so, for everything the status quo does a rationalisation can be found.
this method might be the hardest to fight. but it is also very easy to see through, as the rationalisation is used for any thing *of* the status quo, but for nothing that is against it.
you can find a lot of people who use rationalisation when a policeman uses unlawful force on a youth. yet the same people won't rationalise it if the same youth uses "unlawful force" on some yuppie. yet there could be a lot of rationalisation found for this too; if only that he was hungry and needed the money to get some food.
but you will never see people apply this rationalisation, yet constantly trying to find of reasons and logic to defend everything of the status quo.
the "taking sides" is very easy to see here, and this enables one to see through this tactic.
there were some tacticts the conversative and reactionaries, who seem to be everywhere these days, use to defend the status quo, to defend western society and it's misdeeds and problems. maybe these hints can help you to see through these methods.
No comments:
Post a Comment