the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"

This. All of this. This, right here. All of the supposed moral authorities, everybody on Kotaku and Buzzfeed, along with all the sneerclubbers, really need to understand this post.

This is peak rationalism. An absolutely embarrassingly poorly conceived argument whose evidence takes the form of vague ahistorical wishwash coming to a head by directly accusing the reader of being a poor decoupler (w.r.t. Clinton in this case) to make a stupid tangential point that doesn’t actually follow (it becomes reasonable to vote for Trump... why? Exactly? And did Trump not employ victim/aggressor rhetoric? Really?) while claiming in the end that their ideological opponents all think in such terms and can hence be dismissed out-of-hand as opposed to with the work involved for evaluating even a single particular god damn thing their opponents have ever actually said.

It just absolutely baffles me how often rationalists, who (in my mind, before I started reading their trash) were supposed to look for objectivity, throw themselves wholeheartedly into the purest moral relativism.

That Ursula tries to sabotages Ariel's chances to further her own interests afterwards is irrelevant- she never said she wouldn't, and by this time both Ariel and Ursula are unlikable (as in, able to be disliked), and in any case it's Ariel's own flaws and actions that both caused and enabled Ursula's to progress.

This is your brain on ancapism.

Ariel isn't a wistful dreamer whose desires should be supported, but an irresponsible and careless child who puts her own shallow desires over both her own responsibilities and the well-being of others.

irresponsible child? The sentence is death! (in the org story she turns into sea foam).

Edit: and this is just a variant on the 'thanks for turning the normies more right' 4chan /pol/ idea. But the steelmanned version of it, without taking into consideration that this meme is already propaganda.

But morality is relative when considered across different groups of people

is it tho?

imagine basing your entire political outlook on sheer contrarianism! imagine acting like questioning a narrative is the end of the process of critique rather than the starting point. imagine using disney movies as an analogy to world politics with a straight face. imagine being right-wing and thinking you're rebelling against authority, or 'dissenting'. imagine reading someone doing all that and being like damn! now that's what i call rationality!

are these people children? is that what's going on? they hear someone saying racism is bad and process it as their mom telling them to please be polite to grandma. such a sad and bizarre display.

Real talk. The best actual evidence suggests that many or most of Trump's voters were motivated by racism, sexism, and/or xenophobia. No nth-dimensional rebellion against morality, just some bigotry sincerely expressed.

Not that I expect "Rationalists" to care about evidence.

Tl;dr: "we voted for Trump to trigger the libs".

I didn't read the post twice, and maybe I'm missing something, but I actually don't understand what we're sneering at.

It wasn't well-written or engaging, but it seemed like a basic dialectical observation that voting for Trump was a vote against both establishment parties, which probably opens up new electoral possibilities in future elections, both on the left and right.

This was the argument Slavoj Zizek made in favor of Trump, that he could become the villain version of a martyr, someone who in their awfulness would make a blatant case for unacceptable contradictions in the current system, rather than putting those contradictions more "to sleep" as they were under Obama.

As much as I hate Trump, it's hard to argue that leftists weren't asleep under Obama or that the field of leftist activity hasn't revitalized, arguably in response to the cracks opened by populism antagonizing elitism.