Ultimately I think the impulse comes from wishing politics was much
simpler than it is. A lot of political anger from people leaning on
rationalism comes from a fearful, cautious sense that nobody is being
honest about what pigeonhole they belong in, and they wish they had a
weapon for smoking out deontologists, who they regard as psychotics and
sociopaths. In other words, they are angry because they live with a
fearful sense that feminism will never be sated, never be done. Which of
course is true – nothing will ever end – not because feminism sucks, but
because human beings are driven primarily by freshly renewed daily
anxiety and the news cycle (as well as politics) feed on conflict and
spectacle.
The rationalist sense of entitlement to pigeonhole people fails to
regard politics as a process that always elects cabals and cadres, so
there is always something deontological about the process, because you
end up at least partially in fealty to a leadership cabal. I think it’s
rather obvious to most progressives that the field of Democratic
candidates is extremely heavy this cycle on neoliberals pretending to be
progressives. And that this is a normal artifact of politics. I always
think in this regard it’s ironic that deontological maniacs, at least
only in this sense of filial duty, tend to view politics correctly
through their lens.
But everyone is always in some level of denial about it, basically
because it’s such a hideous inescapable reality.
Sounds like you've thought about this quite a lot. Would be happy to discuss those themes with you, but I'm not sure if sneerclub is the place to do that though.
I’m going to get so much use out of this panel.
*wild applause*
Ultimately I think the impulse comes from wishing politics was much simpler than it is. A lot of political anger from people leaning on rationalism comes from a fearful, cautious sense that nobody is being honest about what pigeonhole they belong in, and they wish they had a weapon for smoking out deontologists, who they regard as psychotics and sociopaths. In other words, they are angry because they live with a fearful sense that feminism will never be sated, never be done. Which of course is true – nothing will ever end – not because feminism sucks, but because human beings are driven primarily by freshly renewed daily anxiety and the news cycle (as well as politics) feed on conflict and spectacle.
The rationalist sense of entitlement to pigeonhole people fails to regard politics as a process that always elects cabals and cadres, so there is always something deontological about the process, because you end up at least partially in fealty to a leadership cabal. I think it’s rather obvious to most progressives that the field of Democratic candidates is extremely heavy this cycle on neoliberals pretending to be progressives. And that this is a normal artifact of politics. I always think in this regard it’s ironic that deontological maniacs, at least only in this sense of filial duty, tend to view politics correctly through their lens.
But everyone is always in some level of denial about it, basically because it’s such a hideous inescapable reality.
Do I detect a whiff of red panda in here?