The Left Must Present Facts, Not Ideology

youtube.com/watch?v=iWzwf8IKp1s

Since most people seem incapable of reading, I've made a yt channel for listening to pretty much the same things I've written on my politics blog.

t. Sorkin

...

I mean, who are you arguing against here? Is anyone actually going to people talking about the bourgeosie when talking with regular people? Is anyone really using the word comrade? I've never encountered these people in my life, and I've been a leftist and in contact with leftist for years.

And the first point is downright dangerous I think, indulging in the same sophistry as liberals and the right is just retarded. Instead of clouding your political opinion as fact or using the most vulgar rationality we should point out that, as Nietzsche said, there are not facts, only interpretations. Facts used in public discourse are never stated on their own and always used to illustrate a previously formed belief - this is obviously clearly visible with the alt-right that downright ignores and denies facts that go against their worldview.

Pure rationality is not possible in the first place (because of ideology as Marx points out, and unconscious/super-ego as psychoanalysis tells us). The vulgar "fact cult" is literally the problem, and you propose joining just that cult.

...

Postmodernist ideologue outs himself and shows he has no grasp of philosophy. More at 11.

...

come on lad. Look at what you are saying:


This is literally just empirically wrong. We have seen in the last years that the alt right was successful not with facts, but with emotional appeal. This exactly shows the influence of what Nietzsche called Affekt - man is at his most moral when he is at his most emotional. So instead of just stating facts, we should emotionalise and try to create a collective feeling of (justified) rage. This sohuld of course not be on the ground of deceiving "facts" (as the right does), but on the ground of good reasoning based in reality. This is what I meant to say in the earlier poast - go away from this cold rationality that the liberals like to employ.

I mean, I hate to go there, but look at the last US election. Didn't the Hillary side argue basically only with facts, so much that there was no emotional power in the movement? Nobody could identify with the movement because there was no yearning for justice, no positive idea for a better world. Trump's campaign was on the other pure emotion, not caring about facts at all, often contradicting itself in the most ridiculous way possible. Left leaning politicians that were surprisingly successful like Corbyn, Mélenchon and Sanders understand this and used emotional appeal (remember Sanders repetitive "the top 1%", Mélenchon's rhetoric against Macron and Fillon…).

As a disclaimer, I am not arguing "facts don't tru lol" which is a position that none of the so-called postmodernists are arguing either.

Antonio is mai hazubando

What a faggot voice.

...

That's because facts and reality aren't all that vital to leftist ideology. the objective is to help destroy capitalism and traditional civilization, not about replacing it with anything that's actually better. That is why we need to convince the common man to help. The common man isn't swayed by facts, they're swayed by emotion.

Any moron with a room temperature Autism Level can look ahead for 5 minutes and see that the system we advertise would never actually be stable, but that's by design. It's not intended to be stable. but that's not the point of it and never was. The point is that it changes an otherwise uncontrollable population into a dependent population that's easy for someone powerful to take control of.

It's the Holla Forums can't false flag good episode.

Spit out the cock and try harder fag

useful idiots.

More like pol finished prepping the bull and has a few free minutes to shitpost before cleaning up his female friend episode

What system do we propose?
Why is it inherently unstable?

Is the population uncontrollable now? I see the opposite. And who will take control? Have you been reading cold war propagandists again, user?

good job gentile, 0,0000000001 sorosbux have been dipposited in your account, keep up the good work

We should also spread


Kindness over cruelty
Happiness over sadness
Truth over lies
Peace over conflict
Socialism over Capitalism

I like Zizek but being a captain obvious isn't something the left needs to do.

A.W. stand for A Worthless thread. Thanks for the ride homey.

...

Shame to see him make an intellectual concession to liberalism like this.

This but unironically.

user, facts on their own have no inherent meaning, it's the interpretation of said facts that matters, the left and right have different interpretations of, let's say, Black crime rate in the united states, one links it to poverty the other to race, you can't just call anyone who shits on your facts a postmodernist, that's not how it works Peterson

...

...

You quote me, and somehow you must either be illiterate regarding reading comprehension to miss what I say there, or just didn't listen/read at all.

I say exactly what you say I didn't. The fuck?

Chomsky has been stating facts for the past 50+ years and its done jack shit. Facts don't matter, Trump won by doing the exact opposite of stating facts.

Chomsky lacks the intellectual power house of Annoying Wanker, who will shower the world with facts deciphered from Hegelian mysticism.

lmao

...

k op. any idea on how to present the *fact* that they do hold ideologies, though? because they do. i mean, i'm awfully sorry, but they do and there's no going around that. if a guy believes hard work is liberating and i need to point to him that he's not free at all, there's no amount of facts i can use to sugarcoat that he believes something that isn't true. he's not gonna like it and i'm so sorry that he won't, i don't like being a leftist either, but there's no way around it.


yo why you gotta be like that? people don't like to be told that their beliefs are ideologies. see what i did right there?

also you gotta love this little bitchmoaning right here:
like, have you considered that maybe you're not writing anything worth of notice? i'm not even trying to insult you, just suggesting.

>>>Holla Forums

This thread. Sometimes this site really gets my goat, damn it.

What? You said

And I argue that this is not the right way to go. Don't you understand your own text? And I'm not the only one who understood your writing this way as shows.


if you think that there is any objectivity on any side in political discourse you don't understand politics at all. Choosing what facts to use already presupposes interpretation - weighing importance etc.. This is what I meant, and this is not some kind of loony position but has been argued before in some form by tons of people, including Hegel, Nietzsche etc. (and, yes, including le evil postmodern french people). Seriously this is peak anti-intellectualism of the kind Sargon etc use, completely out of touch with any literature on the topic, but relying on muh common sense, "GUISE WHEN I SHOOt PEOPLE, THIS GUY THINKS THEY DON'T DIE LOL WHAT A RETARD". Seriously, leave this place and go to Holla Forums or whatever.

Always present facts, but do so selectively to make your point.

Facts are not data you scientifically compare and come to a conclusion with peer review. You review the data quietly with your guys to come to a conclusion, and even if the data doesn't support your point of view (though often at least some of it will.) you can grasp at it in a pinch. Facts are weapons to be thrown.

Impossible. Lies.

To claim to be above ideology is the most ideological position possible.

Preset your ideology >as fact