If you accept that your goals cannot be accomplished, why maintain them as goals? If you know it is futile, why bother? It is literally a waste of time at that point.
That said, I personally dont think it is futile. I think it mostly is an attainable goal, minus the withering of the state; I don’t think we could reach a point where the state is completely unnecessary, so I advocate Socialism. I just also think it is ridiculous that someone would try and claim something is futile while simultaneously advocating that everyone adhere to that thing. Their philosophy states clearly attainable, objective goals. If they think it is unrealistic for anyone to ever achieve those goals, then they don’t believe in their own philosophy. That is textbook cognitive dissonance.
Communism is very utopian and it is not well defined about how it would work in a practical or thoeretical sense (AFAIK). It is something to aspire to. Something to guide your path. One day, something like it may be achieved, but will take a long time to get there. Like, say, carbon neutrality, the “pursuit of happiness,” the elimination of world hunger, to be like Jesus and to not sin, to have pyramids built, etc. It’s a fairly common concept.
That’s not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort one may feel when holding contradictory beliefs and forced to reconcile the two.
cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance
/ˈkäɡnədiv ˈdisənəns/
noun PSYCHOLOGY
the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change
Nothing to do with a feeling of discomfort or reconciling the beliefs. Not sure where you got that idea from.
Go back to grade school and learn reading comprehension again, please. Just because I said that colloquialisms are descriptive, does not mean that I said that all dictionary definitions are prescriptive. Get your red herring straw man bullshit out of here. You clearly lost the argument if you are at this point.
wrong. lexicographers are not the authority on a word’s meaning. the definitions they provide are necessarily descriptive of the way words are or have been used, and say nothing about the actual meaning of the word. jackbydev got it right.
Wrong. By your logic, no words can ever have a meaning, because as soon as you write it down it becomes a definition which you say has nothing to do with the meaning of a word. Your logic is also just objectively wrong. You really think there has never been a prescriptive definition for a word? You really think every single dictionary writer is going out and interviewing every single person to utter a word and making sure that they only define it in the way that they have heard it used? What an asinine line of thought.
If you accept that your goals cannot be accomplished, why maintain them as goals? If you know it is futile, why bother? It is literally a waste of time at that point.
That said, I personally dont think it is futile. I think it mostly is an attainable goal, minus the withering of the state; I don’t think we could reach a point where the state is completely unnecessary, so I advocate Socialism. I just also think it is ridiculous that someone would try and claim something is futile while simultaneously advocating that everyone adhere to that thing. Their philosophy states clearly attainable, objective goals. If they think it is unrealistic for anyone to ever achieve those goals, then they don’t believe in their own philosophy. That is textbook cognitive dissonance.
Communism is very utopian and it is not well defined about how it would work in a practical or thoeretical sense (AFAIK). It is something to aspire to. Something to guide your path. One day, something like it may be achieved, but will take a long time to get there. Like, say, carbon neutrality, the “pursuit of happiness,” the elimination of world hunger, to be like Jesus and to not sin, to have pyramids built, etc. It’s a fairly common concept.
That’s not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort one may feel when holding contradictory beliefs and forced to reconcile the two.
Edit: spelling
cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance /ˈkäɡnədiv ˈdisənəns/ noun PSYCHOLOGY the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change
Nothing to do with a feeling of discomfort or reconciling the beliefs. Not sure where you got that idea from.
That’s the colloquial usage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
No, that is literally a dictionary definition, not a colloquialism. A colloquialism would necessarily be informal and descriptive, not prescriptive.
You think dictionary definitions can’t be descriptive?
Where did I say that? Keep your straw men to yourself.
You said it right here.
Go back to grade school and learn reading comprehension again, please. Just because I said that colloquialisms are descriptive, does not mean that I said that all dictionary definitions are prescriptive. Get your red herring straw man bullshit out of here. You clearly lost the argument if you are at this point.
wrong. lexicographers are not the authority on a word’s meaning. the definitions they provide are necessarily descriptive of the way words are or have been used, and say nothing about the actual meaning of the word. jackbydev got it right.
Wrong. By your logic, no words can ever have a meaning, because as soon as you write it down it becomes a definition which you say has nothing to do with the meaning of a word. Your logic is also just objectively wrong. You really think there has never been a prescriptive definition for a word? You really think every single dictionary writer is going out and interviewing every single person to utter a word and making sure that they only define it in the way that they have heard it used? What an asinine line of thought.
You both got it wrong.
have you asked actual lexicographers?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
scroll to "The History and Dictionary Meanings of Racism and Racist: Usage Guide "