So...I wanted to write this in response to a friend who gave me some critiques about my blog lately, especially in relation to my article ripping people on r/nostupidquestions for not understanding UBI.
This blog...is...generally speaking, an outlet for me to get my thoughts out on paper in a relatively neutral space. If I debate on reddit, or another message board, I'm arguing with someone. Here, I'm just gathering my thoughts and discussing things of interest. And in that vein, the quality of these posts vary. As you guys know, if you read my posts, I'm likely autistic, and to a large extent, my UBI and anti work aspirations are a bit of a special interest for me. And being an unemployed guy with all of these political science degrees, I use my skills to try to fix the world in the ways I best see fit. So, this can lead to me writing some very detailed, well sourced articles on UBI and other policies of interest, where I try to propose policies that would change the world in ways I would like to see changed. Another thing I like to do is do political forecasts come election time, especially in terms of the presidential race. I got into that back in 2008 when I was in college, and I've been doing it every campaign ever since.
But, not all posts are like that. Sometimes I'm just shooting my mouth off talking about whatever comes to mind. And sometimes I'm criticizing other elements of the left. Because I debate them and I feel the need to criticize them. And with me, I understand that to some extent, there's just different value systems at work here. Like, one criticism I got was that that post wasn't persuasive. Well, it wasn't necessarily expected to me. Readership of this blog is very low. Like, until recently I'd get like 0-2 views unless I shared the articles directly with people. Now I'm getting 4-6 because a friend of mine appears to be sharing them, but yeah. This is mostly a labor of love. Sometimes I write articles I intend to share, sometimes I just write stuff I feel like writing. That post the other day was the latter. A friend shared with me that thread, knowing I'm a hardcore UBI guy, and I just couldn't get over how ignorant the posts were. But not wanting to argue with people who didn't understand UBI and not being subbed there anyway, I decided to instead reply to comments on my blog. And I kind of knew I wasn't going to be particularly persuasive there.
On the topic of persuasion, i think this goes into another topic this friend mentioned recently. He asked me whether I would debate a fascist, and I basically said no, because I understand that the morality underlying a fascist's views are so incompatible with my own that no amount of debate will change our minds. If our ideologies and assumptions about the world are ideologically opposed to each other, then why would I even entertain such arguments, and why should they entertain mine? When I was younger, i did this a lot. I would debate say, right libertarians, we would argue for 12 hours about whether taxation is theft and work is slavery, and we would just walk away hating each other. Because our core values are just so fundamentally different.
Heck, I'll say this on the topic of right wingers. I DON'T really talk about right wingers much on here. And when i do, I'm fairly dismissive and hostile toward their views. And it's because it's boring, and it's a waste of time. My ideology is just so much different than theirs, I can't even sympathize with their views, or find them interesting, or in any way intellectually stimulating. If anything, it's the opposite. I just get to the point I can't even intellectually respect or entertain those sorts of views, where there's little point in me writing about them, because I'm just going to call them stupid anyway.
So what DO I talk about? The left, mainly. Because for a while I considered myself a "leftie", but over time, I've just had a falling out with them. The fact is, while I came over to the left after my deconversion in 2012, I never really mixed in with the party and always forged my own path and tried to build up my own brand of politics. That's the thing, morally and ideologically, I'm a leader, not a follower. I only follow and cheerlead for people I approve of. Because I support freedom of thought, and as my friend knows, I have a deep dislike of authority and institutions. And while I "follow" Yang, I'm not afraid to disagree with him when necessary, as I have in the past, and support him, because, well, read this post from 2016 when I was a full on Bernie Bro. Particularly this part:
Economics is my main focus this election cycle. I believe that while capitalism is a good system on the whole, in the sense that it provides a lot of stuff, it is very deeply flawed and requires significant overhaul to fix. I largely support Bernie's platform. Higher minimum wage, universal healthcare, free education, etc. However, I do go farther in some ways. I believe we should implement a universal basic income to ensure every citizen has the ability to live without work. I see this as the only way to solve poverty, since jobs will never produce a good living for all, and I also believe forcing people to work is more or less de facto slavery and that it's unneeded in modern times and actually harmful. I'll port some articles from my old blog on this later.
Generally speaking, I believe the economy is made for humans, not humans for the economy, and that we need to stop treating people as means and treat them as ends. Our economic system, while very functional, fails on many levels to do this and reduces human beings to mere tools for wealth accumulation. I believe this alienates us from our lives, and that the structure of the system ultimately benefits a few at the expense of the majority. My views are ultimately a mixture of pro capitalist views combined with some anti capitalist ones. I believe it's important to understand both sides of the story and use them accordingly. Meanwhile, our current system and mainstream ideology, even on the left, only tells one side of the story.
As such, I'm significantly to the left of the current democratic party to an extent, but I would still say I'm largely to the right of socialism and communism. I believe capitalism is a necessary system to have at this point of time, and that we need to keep it. However, I am deeply critical of it and also believe that we need to enact some very serious reforms to make it work for the benefit of all. My ideal system is capitalistic, but also has a lot of safety nets, unionization, and even workplace democracy. Over the longer term, I would also like to see automation replace jobs, so that we can finally live in a post work world where we're free to do whatever we want to do. I don't see work as a good thing. I see it as a necessary evil and believe we romanticize it too much. I think people should have the option to seek it, but I disagree with our current system of forcing it on everyone under the threat of poverty if they refuse.
Gee, wanna know what this sounds like? Indepentarianism and a primitive form of human centered capitalism to me. While I knew about indepentarianism and was influenced by Widerquist's thinking even then, Yang didn't even think about UBI and human centered capitalism yet. And here I am saying things similar to what he said when he proposed the idea in his 2020 run. You can also see why I've had falling outs with the left. Back then, the main enemy was the institutional democratic party. But, you can clearly see, I didn't like socialism then either. Honestly, my views then are just what they are today. As I said, I have not changed much. It's the environment that has changed and I'm reacting to it.
Honestly? What I'm interested in, is advancing my own version of these ideas, and supporting those who think like me. In 2016, Bernie was THE BEST guy. He wasn't perfect, but he had some good ideas. But the centrist wing of the democratic party essentially decided to suppress any good ideas. And because I believed we needed the institution of the democratic party for politics to change in this two party system, my intent was to criticize them and pressure them. But, we know how that worked out. Bernie lost. Then Hillary lost, and the whole conversation changed to Russia, Trump bad, and culture war nonsense. And I mentally checked out.
Speaking of culture wars, I also ended up criticizing the SJWs. I was never huge on SJWs, but due to the fact that starting in 2016, their ideology became so dominant, and they essentially aligned with the centrist wing of the democratic party in such a way that they attacked the Sanders wing of the party, i was forced to take action in criticizing them. Because it seemed clear their main goals were to push their crazy identity politics and culture war nonsense and used bullying techniques against people like me in order to force us to support the democrats. And that just drives me the other way. I'll abandon THEIR ideals before I abandon my own. You gotta reach out and build bridges with people, form coalitions, don't minimize their concerns, and try to compromise with them to get them on your side. While nothing in my ideology outside of my freedom of speech stance is fundamentally opposed to their stance, the fact that they aligned with the "blue no matter who" people against me and weaponized their politics made them a target for me. Again. My main concern is to advance MY OWN ideology. I can compromise and work with people in doing so, but you need to actually work with me. if you work against me or try to undercut me, I'll attack you rather than work with you.
I supported Bernie while his movement was still the best way to move forward, but let's be honest. I never agreed FULLY with him. You can read the above statement over and over again about my ideals in 2016. I ALWAYS supported UBI, human centered capitalism, and anti work stuff. I only backed Bernie because he moved us in that direction. And then yang came along and my loyalties shifted, especially after 2020.
The fact is....I tried to work with the left because I saw them as potential allies. But, it seems like, the more I analyze their policies, their ideology, they're not really so much allies at this point, but competition. Their views are close enough to me where they're worth criticizing, but I also understand that at our core, our overall epistemologies and worldviews are different. And none of these factions care about many core aspects of my own ideology. As I said, I'm sandwiched in between the berniecrats and socialists on the left these days, and the centrist wing of the democrats on the right. And I don't get along with either these days. The centrists are useless, and the far left is too obsessed with crazy purity tests that essentially amount to an ideological difference between myself and them. They want minimum wages and jobs programs, I want UBI and an end to work. We are not the same. And two can play at that game. Even worse when it gets to socialism. Like, a lot of the bernie wing of the party has descended into peak insanity and literally wants communism. It's crazy. I can't support that crap. Sorry. Again. i'm true to my own ideals above all else. I'll burn bridges with anyone politically if we conflict enough. You get in the way of my core ideas and ideology, and I'll simply become your political enemy rather than ally.
And that's why when I responded to that topic on basic income, I was so hostile and dismissive. I wasn't necessarily intended to persuade always. In some cases I clearly was, because I did write lengthy posts proving them wrong, but let's face it, i've written most of this on my blog before at some point. And if I haven't covered it, I'm sure the likes of Scott Santens did. At a lot of point, i'm just willing to point out the general ideological difference I have with such people, and call that out. And that's what some of my posts were doing. I was just dunking on people at times who I had ideological disagreements with, and calling out those disagreements. At some point nothing I can say will persuade people, because my ideology is different.
I'm fine, at some point, just ripping people for ideological differences rather than trying to persuade people. Because if our core differences come down to deeper ideology or values, I would need to attack that entire value system to change your mind. I CAN try to persuade people within their value system to some extent. I can point to right wingers stating that UBI would eliminate the current inefficient safety net, and replace it with one that works. And that MIGHT win over some people on the right, but many just don't want social programs at all. And then on the left, people will scream that my ideas would remove welfare, and while I can mitigate that by removing only programs objectively worse in most instances, while keeping the most valuable and important ones, if you just genuinely believe welfare is good and that removing it is bad, and you would prefer to defend a handful of extreme niche cases who do benefit with the status quo over the needs of many, well, that's your choice, and I can't convince you. So I'll criticize you instead.
The fact is I can only persuade so much, and I know this. I've debated enough to be aware of what those limits are, and I know when people are beyond convincing. And when that happens, I'll just rip their underlying beliefs and ideology, because it's about all I CAN do. I can explain why I think as I do, why they think as they do, make a case for why my views are better, but I know they aren't going to change their minds. Because just like I'm slow to change my core ideology and views, so are they.
I just wanted to lay all of this out and address a criticism I got on this blog. Just so we're all on the same page going forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment