Very valid points, supported by good examples. I too like the idea that if something is wrong, even if it is controlled by vested interests on the highest levels, it could be destroyed by people who have been affected by the policy/problem on the most obvious level. My first experience of this idea was when I was a kid and read Tom Clancy's Without Remorse, where a widower has his girlfriend murdered by drug dealers and decides that that is enough, and goes on a paramilitary vigilante justice spree against the mafia. I don't believe that any more, I think soft drugs should be legalized, but I enjoy the message of it, which also reminds me of all those Mel Gibson and revenge movies.

I love revenge against people who deserve it. It's a great way to exorcise feelings of anger (as I do myself have). However, I never use emotion when evaluating politics, I use reason. And I consider politics that uses emotion rather than reason, like "V," to be dishonest propaganda. I know that almost all TV politics is like this - but it's all still evil to me, left, right or centre. 

Do you think emotion can ("should"?) be used to enhance the motivation to use reason to achieve desired results? 

Emotion can fuel politics in most excellent directions. "X (discrimination, sexism, fascism, secret police) is wrong," is a conviction that has basically built our modern world for us today.

But I say fuck emotion the fraction of a second that it creates ideological blind spots. Emotion can never override reason in a useful political conversation. If each side just throws emotionally charged cliches at each other, what kind of productivity is that?

Each side must be able to converse with the other using a common dialogue of reason. Biases of various sorts (X economic, social, ethnic, religious group are good/bad/dishonest/honest) corrupt reasonable discussions. Anyone with an ideological preconcieved notion, is going to force the facts to fit that belief. And that is going to destroy honesty on some level. 

I agree! But, mustn't each of us make at least one assumption in order to enter into a debate? Is that necessarily ideological? 

That is a very good and difficult point.

At this point, I have almost nothing to say, and have to admit that my argument is ultimately intuitive and subjective.

But never the less I say this:

There is a different between ideologies of reason (to praise free speech, equal rights) and ideologies of emotion (to call nazism wrong intuitively - which it is.)

Fuck, it's late, and I'm caught in a tough spot here. But I hope to explain, that emotion cannot provide any kind real reason or policy. I know this because I can recognize a very simple, very real, difference between my political philosophies, and my... fantasies. 

Do we get to see Kevin James naked, possibly faking gay sex?

That is all I want, really 

The way I deal with that quandary is to ask, "what assumption(s) lead to the results I intuitively want?"

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the fact that most thinking activity is unconscious, nor with the notion that axioms are necessary in order to start using logic! (How would we use logical operations, if they aren't defined?) 

 

I think the French revolution was awesome. To me there is a huge gut appeal of just taking rich people, and chopping off their heads. It would be so awesome to legally constrain people and infiltrate their lives, and then murder them.

But luckily I've established a strong dividing line between emotions and reason in politics. I know that we have to have capitalism, and that it's completely unreasonable to have class warfare. Furthermore, I recognize that the TYPE of people that I hate, have just as much right to free speech as I do. Emotionally, all the crazy shit that Rousseau wrote really appeals to me. But with reason I can see that it's insane and could never work. 

"I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry" fun movie this one :) 

I know that we have to have capitalism, and that it's completely unreasonable to have class warfare.

Of all posts on func, your's is now number one in the category of "stuff I completely disagree with." :)
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/pelac.htm (notice the "free book" part)
"anarchism simplified": http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html
another: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html
"Criticisms of Capitalism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Capitalism

IMO, one of the most widely believed fallacies is the notion that neoliberal capitalism engenders efficiency and innovation.

�When the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables over to him. You 'consent' alright, but you do so because you cannot help yourself, because you are compelled by his gun. Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman�s gun.�
-- Alexander Berkman 

"the failure of historical alternatives to capitalism does not rule out the possibility that the principles of equity, solidarity, self management, and diversity may replace free trade"

Ok, so he's headed off my first objection, that Marxism has always created bad societies.

I will read your links. I am interested. So far the first writer seems more aware than the average "capitalism is bad" philosopher. But even though he does address that first point, and it's true that capitalism has flaws and creates problems, I really appreciate the society we have, and think it's the best compared to all historical alternatives. Perhaps it's possible to replace it with something even better, but I'm very, very wary of communism (even though I love the idea of a revolution overthrowing all the shit about society that I hate, including shopping mall materialism). 

a revolution overthrowing all the shit about society that I hate, including shopping mall materialism
There is so much I hate about you I cannot even believe it. 

I think you need more precise definitions of words like liberty, communism, capitalism, and so on. Part of the problem with philosophy is confusion about terminology! :) 

:) 

While I don't get to have any control over your emotions, I can remind you that you're not obliged to read things that you don't like.

We'll take it to the politics thread next time. 

was Kick-Ass! I liked the bit at the end where he killed all of those fucking cops and nasty ministers or whoever they were, and then died.

'V, oh no, V!'

Go and pretend to shoot stuff. 

was Kick-Ass! I liked the bit at the end where he killed all of those fucking cops and nasty ministers or whoever they were, and then died.

'V, oh no, V!'

Go and pretend to shoot stuff. 

vs emotion. You can't deduce values just from facts. You end up with questions like what's the meaning of life etc... If you pretend that you can, then you're just fooling yourself. You always have to take some axioms. This btw is the very common reason to call to a god, because you have to have some original source where your values come from.
People of course have an inbuilt sensitivity of unjustice etc. because we have mirror cells and are a co-operating species...

I don't like the Mel Gibson revenge flicks, haven't analyzed it that well... kinda seem just stupid.
In practically all Hollywood flicks the baddies are just pure filth with all the cliche baddie marks. A friend remarked how it's so individual and never anyone elses fault that a person turns to crime or does something bad. Perhaps the best example is Sin City. The baddie is highlighted in yellow ffs.

I'd have to read about different revolutions, but yeah, you are right in the movie just taking some cliches but not the whole control network that would exist, for example censorship... It's childish in that way.

Fight Club is one movie I didn't like that much, but many others did. I won't list the reasons here, but it still deals with the same revolution thing and people just wanting an easy and stupid life. 

I thought was good, because it was self-aware enough to be humorous and ironic about the subject of how stupid society can get, and how much fun it would be to go on a rampage against that kind of bullshit. It's a world apart from something that tries to be serious, but fails, like "V."

As for reason/emotion, my main point is that political ideologies end up pre-judging who's good and bad, without much concern for looking at facts on a case by case basis. The world isn't convenient enough to just have a list of good and bad social institutions, and both sides continually promote this view, and rarely look at the real points and ideas on the other side. You can't blanket-apply one idea or ideology to every problem and expect it to work.

I like Mel Gibson. He is a competent filmmaker who is kind of obsessed with violence, but one doesn't have to take it seriously all the time. Indeed it's kind of funny how he replays the same revenge-violence stuff, sometimes very seriously (Braveheart), other times with more humor (Payback). But with all of the directors who are either hacks (ie, Michael Bay) or pretentious assholes (ie, M Night Shamylan), someone you can count on to be competent and sometimes creative is pretty good. 

why are you bitching about shamylan so much? 

Luckily with every film he makes, his anti-cult following grows.

There was a decent quick knock at him on one of the latest Southparks. Oh man I love those guys. 

Hah, yeah that scene from the last southpark with Shamylan, Bay and Gibson was pretty hilarious, and pretty much spot on.

(Yeah my only occasion to jump in to this conversation is when someone mentions southpark, should I be worrying?)

Went to see Stardust the other day, was entertaining enough, the music was bloody annoying and sometimes it was pretty cheesy, but it had it's moments and was still a nice light-hearted fantasy adventure movie. 

made 1.5 decent films. I do think he has a keen sense of suspense, he just uses it in mainly stupid films. 

Never seen it before, but I read the book a long time ago (thought it was a very good book), and Im undecided about the film. It was a bit crap. Its too much of an ambitious thing to make that book into a film, cause of the timescale. King put a lot of detail in the book. I almost wish I hadnt seen the film because it has clouded my memory of the book.

It was OK though, but as the endof the book the town collapses and theres a massive flood, and they missed that out of the film.