The social justice wars

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:This only serves to make men sound even more pathetic.


Who is saying that men are brilliant? The fact that men have allowed the world to become as messed-up as it currently is, means that men are not brilliant. They are very foolish and blind.

And this is supposed to be the superior sex!
"Superior" is a relative term, is it not? And I don't think that anyone would claim that men are superior to women in all matters.

It's not contempt if it's true, as with the Google memo writer.
Unfortunately, in most cases, it is a case of mediocre beta-males gathering together in a herd and stomping on women to make themselves feel big.
This is a psychological assessment on your part, and it may not be correct, or it may be only partly correct.

It may be that the "alpha" males are too highly invested in women, and so cannot think clearly about them. It may also be that those who are even lower on the pecking order than the beta males don't have the confidence to say what they think.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:All of that is regressive in my view.
Who cares what those lunatics think?
I care, for one. It was lunatics who got the Google memo writer to lose his job.

It is lunatics who are currently destroying the Universities.

It is lunatics who are censoring speech.

They are very much on the fringe and ignored by nearly everyone.
Google is not on the fringe and ignored by nearly everyone. Likewise with all the left-wing academics in the social sciences and the humanities. They are mainstream, and have a lot of social power.

Only a person stuck in an isolated town with nothing going on in his life at all could possibly take such rubbish seriously.
You should try making a rational argument instead of insulting people and resorting to ad hominem attacks.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv »

Kevin Solway wrote:
jupiviv wrote:I define "alt right" as right wing inclined reactionism
That sounds like anyone who strongly disagrees with the authoritarian left, which would include pretty much the entire right, as well as centrists, and as well as the libertarian left, since they too would be "inclined" to the right, relative to the extreme left.
I said that the *reaction* is right-wing inclined. My point is that these people want to use tolerable (--to them) right wing delusions to oppose unpleasant left wing delusions, which is itself deluded. It will only end up creating more confusion as people will double down on their new reactionary positions when things don't work out as they hoped. Much like David's medieval progressive movement encompassing all rationality, fabricated as a reaction to perceived Trump fanaticism.

I don't think the political stances of "moderate", "extreme" etc. have any bearing on the rationality of a point of view, since the definitions of those things are heavily dependent upon political preferences (which I don't trust).
. . . they don't want to think deeply about anything
So that's part of your definition of the alt-right then? It only includes those people who haven't thought much about their position? So it doesn't include all those people who are anti-SJW, and anti-globalist who have thought about their position?
Yes, but the former are the vast majority of anti-SJWs! The latter sort are politically unaffiliated and comprise a tiny minority, as they always have, and are very easy to miss.
A person can know the truth and make it known to others without having the right to free speech.
It wouldn't be easy if you're not allowed to communicate at all.
Of course, but that has never really been the case. You can avoid expressing or conceal your opinions about taboos and focus on wisdom itself. I'm not arguing in favour of taboos, but demonstrating that free speech isn't a first principle of wisdom.
I would define freedom of speech as the right to say what you think is true. You can't do anything without affecting other people.
But how much more valuable is your definition of free speech than free thought? You may have the right to say what you think is true, but so do others. If you are hated and right, and others are revered and wrong, then what you think is true will repulse others. If you are truly wise then, you are limited to free thought, since changing your speech in order to give it more freedom (i.e., influence) would be unwise.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv »

David Quinn wrote:So yes, women in Australia are privileged in an economic sense, but at the same time they are still being treated very poorly in other ways. When I was playing golf, the contempt that was displayed towards women by many of my white male golfing partners was quite remarkable. I am talking about a deep-seated hatred here, a hatred that really wants to crush woman out of existence - not in a pure philosophic sense, but in that whiny, reactive manner of an aggrieved toddler. These were all married men who spent their lives grovelling to their wives, but being away from them out on the golf course obviously gave them an outlet to vent, and vent they did. It was embarrassing watching these mediocre men needing to constantly put women down in order to puff themselves up.
Replace all the masculine and feminine terms in this paragraph with the "darkie" and "white" equivalents (respectively) and it becomes apparent that David agrees with Alex. Credit where credit is due - I did challenge Alex to get the sahibs to kick me out. Perhaps Russell, my half-brother from another mother, would care to preside over a segregationist compromise?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn »

Kevin Solway wrote:David wrote to Santiago Odo:
Look, I am going to say this once and then I will ignore you.
Doesn't that sound a little authoritarian to you?
It sounds like good judgment to me.

Kevin Solway wrote:
That you equate masculinity with the white nationalist movement is a joke.
I very much doubt that Santiago Odo equates masculinity with the white nationalist movement, but since you are now ignoring him, you will never know what he thinks.
He has been around for years. He is like a broken record.

For the record, I don't agree with David that wisdom of the infinite - or at least knowledge of some aspects of it - determines whether a person prefers Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump, or whether they want less immigration or more immigration, or even the extinction of white people.

This is because wisdom of the infinite is not an all or nothing affair. There is a very wide range of awareness of the infinite, and every person is on a different level. What this means is that having a wisdom of the infinite does not at all make a person rational. In other words, it doesn't logically follow that a person who knows about the infinite is rational in most of the things they say. A person with a wisdom of the infinite can be irrational and blind even most of the time, because of the compartmentalization of thought.
You are simply trying to justify your own irrational behaviour here. You have allowed women to get under your skin, you spend your days exacting revenge upon them, and it has now reached the point where you are even downplaying the significance of enlightenment in order to make room for this folly.

Poisoned by the heart.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:you spend your days exacting revenge upon them
What evidence do you have have that I spend my days exacting revenge on women? You are speaking bullshit.

Calling people misogynists isn't going to get you anywhere.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway »

jupiviv wrote:
So it doesn't include all those people who are anti-SJW, and anti-globalist who have thought about their position?
Yes, but the former are the vast majority of anti-SJWs!
I don't claim to know the numbers. The people I have had contact with, and whom I see expressing their views, are reasonable people who are mostly either left libertarian or centrist in their politics. Some, such as Milo, or Ben Shapiro, are right wing and still reasonable on most matters.

My impression is that the vast majority of anti-SJWs are pretty good, but opinions on this will naturally vary. Anti-SJWs are often judged by what they write on Twitter - which isn't always a good way to judge people.

You can avoid expressing or conceal your opinions about taboos and focus on wisdom itself.
You can try to avoid all the controversial subjects, but what happens when even your wisdom teaching itself becomes controversial? This has happened many times throughout history. Spiritual teachers have been killed for "misleading the youth".

I'm not arguing in favour of taboos, but demonstrating that free speech isn't a first principle of wisdom.
If you lose freedom of speech then you also start to lose freedom of thought. The two aren't entirely separate. Thought itself is a kind of speech, or expression, which gives rise to the idea of "thought-crime".

If you are hated and right, and others are revered and wrong, then what you think is true will repulse others. . . .
Yes.

If you are truly wise then, you are limited to free thought, since changing your speech in order to give it more freedom (i.e., influence) would be unwise.
It's a matter of degree. Freedom of thought allows for a degree of expression of truth, and freedom of speech allows for a fuller expression of truth.

How much expression of truth can you get away with? If people don't push the boundaries of free speech, then those boundaries will be crushed inwards till they implode into nothing.
JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by JohnJAu »

David Quinn wrote: He is like a broken record.
He honestly amazes me, how can someone repeat exactly the same thing, provide no reasoning whatsoever, be so long winded every time he does it, thousands of times in a row?
David Quinn wrote:their inability to control them.
That's exactly it, and not just to control them, but to control her very thoughts and body language toward the man. If a man seeks validation from her, he can obviously never get enough to satisfy that dependence and self-consciousness, the emotions arising from this deluded vanity he then takes out on her, and he becomes like a raving lunatic set off by the slightest thing. Then, feeling guilt, and hating that feeling, he attempts to legitimize his actions by reinforcing and rationalizing that women are evil and stupid.
David Quinn wrote:then it is up to them to deal with the situation in a superior manner.
That's true but it is increasingly difficult when you have a feminized man who is uneducated on the differences between the sexes/genders, and feminism (and Google, and whoever else- I'm a conspiracy theorist on this subject) is attempting to make that very notion illegal speech. It's not going to help the situation and will only drive men that deny this insanity and women apart. The white knight will do just fine protecting his new alpha female of course, at least until she drives them into a wall at 100mph.

The problem here is that we already have a "PC" education system that doesn't even go near a dozen of the most important topics like this one, and it will only get worse.
David Quinn wrote:So I say to men. Stop the whining
They are feminine now, what else do you expect? I say it is not rational to expect anything else. As Bob Marley put it, "A hungry bob is an angry mob". Except this time it is a thirsty mob, feminism is only working toward 'dehydrating' men more and in a number of ways.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo »

David wrote:Look, I am going to say this once and then I will ignore you. Because you have no awareness of what it means to go beyond postmodernism and become conscious of the Infinite, your views of what masculinity is are extremely limited. That you equate masculinity with the white nationalist movement is a joke. I have no interest in your adolescent racist fantasies. It is herdly, it is emotional, it is regressive, it has nothing to do with individuality and rationality. Postmodernism is a major, major problem, but your spiritually-dead response doesn’t even begin to deal with it.
A few things can be said. One, all of my ideas are in movement. Maybe for you and for others you have arrived at a fixed position and only need to polish your description of that position? For example, you seem to have a fixed idea of what a vision or understanding of the Infinite is and what it will do. I think that you have already gathered that I question many different aspects of the position you are taking. I will not say that I am closed to understanding more, and do take into consideration that despire opposition to some of your formulations I have and do also defend what I see as positive in what I understand to be your-plural position and efforts: a form of vanguardism.

And to be truthful (and avoiding even my own long-standing tendencies toward sarcasm and irony) it would be difficult for you to know much of my 'metaphysics' or what I do as a person in relation to *that*. When you make a statement about 'the Infinite' as you have, I take it as I would take a mystic's declaration about God or Being. I have quoted Ortega y Gasset a few times where he speaks about the relevance not of the mystic's vision but of the theology that is decided on by the thoughtful man in relation to his 'transports'. Similarly, if you are going to define an Infinite, in the manner that you do, I suggest that it is ultimately a man's project, a masculine project, to articulate in definite and concrete terms a wide-ranging position. So, with that said, I would define 'masculinity' through attempts to get clear about seriousness in respect to 'theology'. What I mean by theology is essentially metaphysics. And what this means is specific and concrete definitions about 'the nature of the place where we find ourselves', the 'meaning' of our being here and our experience of consciousness, and then the decisions we come to (as men) who are called to arrive at definitions and to communicate our positions.

It is likely best to understand my declarations about 'white nationalism' in a nuanced sense. Or to attempt to see what ideas stand behind it. You would have to understand that I am working with certain facts and also perceptions of specific conditions within my own country. You would have to understand how I have come to understand 'social engineering' in the direct sense of manipulation of circumstances and of communities within my own nation. And you would have to understand that in relation to these things --- realizations --- that I as a person am genuinely concerned about what is going on and what this means (if such a term is permitted:) for my own demographic. My impression is that for you to understand these things you would have to undertake a time-consuming study. My impression of you is that you are quite outside the loop of many current events and trends. I do not think that you have a grasp of what you sound like, and what you seem to stand with, when you put out your opinions on *things*.

As I have recently communicated to Diebert I have come to understand this forum itself as a manifestation of a condition that arises within and out of postmodernism. But I am also chary of employing terms that are too general and loaded in a certain sense. Postmodernism is one such term. What does it really mean? I think that when you use the term --- this seems obvious --- you literally mean that you have a revelation of sorts that reorients you away from the posmodern and back toward something original, eternal, timeless. I would venture a sort of agreement and mention that I use the term 'metaphysic' similarly. That is, we must arrive at such a definition and then we must pull together a response in an existential sense to the conditions of reality in which we find ourselves.

I have been moved (if I can put it like this: moved in the idea-realm) to at the very least see the sense of certain definitions that have to do with Europe and also pan-Europe. One aspect of my own value-set has to do with eurocentrism. I do not see this as chauvinist necessarily but as a realistic and also a 'masculine' position. That is, to make the definitions that support the understanding of eurocentrism requires an excersise of reason but also of application of value. I see this as quintessentially masculine. I also see defense of self, and defense of people, and defense of cultural achievement, and defense of the mental, spiritual and material situation and condition of the Occidental man as being expressions of a masculine spirit.

It is within this larger context of understandings, value definitions and value declarations, and then in relation to what I underatand as vast forces opposing this that I would place the vanguardist idea of 'white nationalism'. It is certainly not in any sense a popular idea! It is one that immediately produces reaction. But I can tell you that the processes I have gone through to get to this position (and it is more nuanced than you may realize) has been because I have seriously and responsibly engaged in serious study of the issue. This is not a passing or adolescent position. If you did want to understand how these ideas can be expressions of serious analysis and serious concern for civilization and also Occidental civilization, I would suggest a careful reading of Madison Grant. There are numerous titles that I would recommend, and which I read, but that would give you a solid understanding of the concern which is based in 'scientific fact' about the decline that I am concerned about. What is that decline? Well, you allude to it with the term 'postmodern'. We have to recognize, in a manly fashion, just what is going on and where we stand in relation to it. To do that is to embody masculinity in my book. To surrender that responsibility and to lose that capacity, is to fall not only into 'feminized' modes, but I would suggest in daemonic modes. Obviously, that word would have to be carefully explained. But the point, as I see it, is that 'to be a man' and to define masculinity is a terribly demanding affair. The boys here, when they have merely acted like boys, have not ever given me the impression of really rising to the occasion. Can you consider that as a fair criticism? It is offered, and it has been offered, in good faith.

I can surely understand why you would speak about 'adolescent racist fantasies'. But I do suggest that you attempt to see behind your own reflexive reaction and to see and understand how this is a 'determined' statement. If you wish to speak about 'herdliness', well, one might couch a conversation within that particular definition. I see the protoplasm, the body, the man within his body, a man in time and within his condition, and man in relation to what he conceives and receives in spirit (in his mind, in his higher concepts) as being the essential area that we have to work with and in. We must not lose sight of these basic facts. This has to do with 'who we are' and what we have created and also what we must maintain. Therefor (if with this brief allusion I have made myself a little more clear) the definitions that revolve around race and biology, location and community, and spiritual choice in relation to declaration of value are quintessentially masculine definitons. They are part-and-parcel of a masculine project. All this can be further explained.

But one must talk about what is arrayed against this and against these definitions. We allude, generally, to governmental manipulation, or coercion, or social engineering, or the influence of the MSM, or to 'propaganda' and indeed just above (Google) there is talk about some of these ramifications. We have to see and define what is arrayed against us (in these and many other senses). That is 'masculine seeing'.

Well, there you have at least some part of a response as I would make to you. I suggest that it is you, David, who needs very much to open your mind a bit more.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Alex wrote:One aspect of my own value-set has to do with eurocentrism. I do not see this as chauvinist necessarily but as a realistic and also a 'masculine' position.
What you did there is first redefining what "euro" and "eurocentric" means and by doing so obliterating the actual meaning of this phrase in current days and then equating this with "good" so you can embrace it as value.

With that you ignore how 95% of Europeans would interpret a term "eurocentric" (the EU-neoliberal unified Europe project), then use that term as some kind of fascist banner to wave and call it "masculine", confuse the hell out of the rest while deriding everyone who "doesn't get it".

However, this is all the opposite to the word "masculine". It's not very intellectual either. It's just sentimental need and loving to play with words which are all way too big and unqualified to match any abilities and experience of its wielder. Or even to be understood.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo »

Well, you can offer up any particular characterization that you wish. The term is fairly standard, though it is used differently by different people. I mean, it can be used critically against such 'identification' with Europe. But I am interested in the term and desire to use it, make it more real.

It is not so much that I deride you or anyone. It is more that I see these definitions as being core to substantial idea-battles. In your case --- in relation to you and your discourse --- I have large doubts about what you really stand for, if I can use this way of speaking. Get it? I assert directly that you are caught in disempowering webs. This is my position in regard to you.

You have no power or standing to offer any set or fixed definition of masculinity. What I mean is that I personally do not have any faith at all in your discourse on that topic. Make sense? Am I making myself clear Diebert? I honestly do not mean to offend you. I am making efforts to be straightforward with what I think. And I fully expect you to do the same.
Last edited by Santiago Odo on Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn »

Kevin Solway wrote:What evidence do you have have that I spend my days exacting revenge on women?
It is there in the way you exclusively focus with hostility on the extreme left. The extreme left embodies everything that you hate about women - the political correctness, the anti-intellectualism, the inability to listen to reason, the mob mentality, the merged void. But you don't seem to be in control of it. It is controlling you.

You have always had a thing about women, but I used to overlook it. I used to believe that your harsh condemnation of women came from your spirituality, and in many ways it did - for a time at least. But now observing your behaviour over these past few months, it has become obvious to me that a deeply impure element has always been involved as well.

It has certainly changed my views of you. I can't read Poison for the Heart anymore, at least not without being aware of the taint. Even the title, "Poison for the Heart", no longer inspires. It now seems ..... vindictive.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo »

There is not much I can say in response to your comment John. Should I make a defense? I suggest to you that you do not have enough background in the importance and relevance of the issues and ideas under discussion to make contributions that make much sense to me. You speak of your sense of lack of reasoning --- what the heck are you talking about? You should make your critique more plain and then I might respond to it.
You I'll never leave
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:What evidence do you have have that I spend my days exacting revenge on women?
It is there in the way you exclusively focus with hostility on the extreme left.
What a load of bull. Firstly, I don't focus exclusively on politics at all. Secondly, I'm against the entire authoritarian left, not just the extreme left. And thirdly, the authoritarian left doesn't have anything to do with women. It is made up of both men and women. You must be trying hard to fit so much bullshit into one sentence.

The extreme left embodies everything that you hate about women
I don't hate women, you dickhead. As I said previously, calling people misogynists isn't going to get you anywhere. If you haven't noticed, the Left has already tried that technique, and it successfully managed to get Trump elected.

The political correctness, the anti-intellectualism, the inability to listen to reason, the mob mentality, the merged void.
All of those things are characteristic of the feminine mind, but the feminine mind is found in both men and women. It's clearly not exclusive just to women.

But you don't seem to be in control of it. [the feminine mind]


Nor am I in not in control of the weather. So what?

It is controlling you.
It doesn't control me any more than the weather does. It is just a force of nature that we need to deal with in the same way that we deal with any other force of nature.

But now observing your behaviour over these past few months, it has become obvious to me that a deeply impure element has always been involved as well.
Your opinion on such matters is worth zilch.

You need to provide evidence, because your subjective opinion isn't worth anything. It was only a few days ago that you were calling people "white supremacists" on the grounds that "it's a gray area" for you. I think you have thrown rationality out the window. The Merged Void seems to have become your everyday reality.

You are now down in the gutter diagnosing people with mental illnesses, calling people misogynists, categorizing particular politicians as sub-human, calling others "white supremacists" because it's a "gray area" for you, and failing to make any kind of rational argument, and all of this is, as you have told us, to try and impress the left wing academics. It couldn't get any worse.

Even the title, "Poison for the Heart", no longer inspires.
I don't know why you think the title has anything to do with women. I think you are delusional.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv »

Kevin Solway wrote:The people I have had contact with, and whom I see expressing their views, are reasonable people who are mostly either left libertarian or centrist in their politics. Some, such as Milo, or Ben Shapiro, are right wing and still reasonable on most matters.
Define "most matters". Do you just mean criticism of SJWs and support for free speech or is there something else you had in mind? Deluded views like Islam itself being responsible for immigrant crime in Europe, or Trump as saviour of humanity who is constantly fighting the exclusively leftist corruption in Washington, etc., are common enough among conservative anti-SJWs like Milo and Shapiro.
My impression is that the vast majority of anti-SJWs are pretty good, but opinions on this will naturally vary.
If they vary too much then it means that any one or all parties are wrong about something. The only reason I can think of for this discrepancy is that I'm judging anti-SJWs by stricter standards than you are.
You can avoid expressing or conceal your opinions about taboos and focus on wisdom itself.
You can try to avoid all the controversial subjects, but what happens when even your wisdom teaching itself becomes controversial? This has happened many times throughout history. Spiritual teachers have been killed for "misleading the youth".
Like you said somewhere else on this thread, the wisdom of the infinite doesn't magically result from the understanding and approval of a set of philosophical reasonings labelled "Wisdom of the Infinite" or "Poison for the heart", etc. In light of that, do you really believe that the understanding and approval of the concept of free speech will prevent deluded people from trying to silence a wise man if he becomes too influential, or even merely attacks their cherished views? Have you discussed any philosophy with anti-SJWs?
If you lose freedom of speech then you also start to lose freedom of thought. The two aren't entirely separate. Thought itself is a kind of speech, or expression, which gives rise to the idea of "thought-crime".
The measure of expression is the number of people listening to you (willingly or otherwise), but this doesn't apply to thoughts.
How much expression of truth can you get away with? If people don't push the boundaries of free speech, then those boundaries will be crushed inwards till they implode into nothing.
The boundaries of free speech apply to both truth and untruth, and the latter (in various forms) is more preferable to people. When I look at the social justice wars, I mostly see people pushing the boundaries of untruth with the aid of truth. There is no popular attempt being made to point out the common delusions binding all the factions together, and why those delusions should be resolved before anything else. I don't think increasing free speech will achieve that.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Alex Santiago Gustav Talking Ass Björnstad Jacob:
  • "Get it? "
    "Make sense? "
    "Am I making myself clear?"
Just by reading these, everything about your view, which is also mood, can be quite easily understood.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:It has certainly changed my views of you. I can't read Poison for the Heart anymore, at least not without being aware of the taint. Even the title, "Poison for the Heart", no longer inspires. It now seems ..... vindictive.
When did you stop reading dispassionately, David? You're just demonstrating how we bring our own projections, experiences and expectations into whatever we see. What I sense is a great disappointment with Kevin which goes back a long time. You are now "detecting" all kinds of stuff but those are not really the reasons. This process happens in family, between siblings, relationships and friends all the time. This is the stuff ordinary people fill their lives with discussing but you might have had relatively little exposure to it. But the psychology is quite solid: first one idealizes a person to an unrealistic degree, then all contradicting evidence is ignored for a while, then suddenly we are shocked and start seeing all these "changes". In many cases it's not the object of interests which has been changing much though. Even less so the words. So what's up?
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo »

I've actually opted to tattoo 'Poison For The Heart' in concentric circles around my torso. I hope there is no copyright issue ...
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo »

Diebert wrote:Just by reading these, everything about your view, which is also mood, can be quite easily understood.
The mood that rises up like a hatchet when talking to The Dutchman. (I was going to make a spider joke but ... I held back. Progress!)
You I'll never leave
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway »

jupiviv wrote:
Some [anti-SJWs], such as Milo, or Ben Shapiro, are right wing and still reasonable on most matters.
Define "most matters". Do you just mean criticism of SJWs and support for free speech
Yes, those are the main areas in which I agree with them. I've heard them express ideas on climate change and religion that I think are unreasonable to varying degrees.

Deluded views like Islam itself being responsible for immigrant crime in Europe
I think Islam is largely behind the terrorist attacks, and possibly partly behind the sex attacks. Islam may also be partly behind ordinary everyday crime, since Islam teaches that non-Islamic cultures are not to be respected, and that they should be destroyed.
or Trump as saviour of humanity
While Milo supported Trump over Clinton - not as saviour of humanity - Shapiro supported neither Trump nor Clinton.

My impression is that the vast majority of anti-SJWs are pretty good, but opinions on this will naturally vary.
If they vary too much then it means that any one or all parties are wrong about something.
[* See edit] Not necessarily. The entire mainstream media, as well as many in academia (social sciences), have been demonizing the anti-SJWs for years, and most people get their views from these sources, in which case it represents a mass delusion, such as with religion.

[Edit: I see now that you said that "any one" of the parties can be wrong. Yes, I obviously think one of the parties is wrong and that anti-SJWs are pretty good on the whole, relative to the SJWs.]

The only reason I can think of for this discrepancy is that I'm judging anti-SJWs by stricter standards than you are.
Possibly. From a political perspective I'm primarily interested in defeating the SJWs, so I have no expectation of anti-SJWs to be entirely rationally consistent.

Do you really believe that the understanding and approval of the concept of free speech will prevent deluded people from trying to silence a wise man if he becomes too influential
People generally end up believing that they themselves should have freedom of speech, but that this freedom should not extend to others. This usually happens when people gain power.

The best you can do is to try and impress on others how faulty, limited, precarious, biased, or self-contradictory their own thinking is, so that they will be more cautious.

Have you discussed any philosophy with anti-SJWs?
I talk a lot about the immediately forementioned issues.

You can't discuss deep philosophy with people who aren't interested in it.

The measure of expression is the number of people listening to you (willingly or otherwise), but this doesn't apply to thoughts.
Even if you don't speak or write, people can still see what you do, and so you are still communicating, which some people think is a punishable offense.

There is no popular attempt being made to point out the common delusions binding all the factions together, and why those delusions should be resolved before anything else. I don't think increasing free speech will achieve that.
I think the entire anti-SJW movement is, very crudely, a pro-skeptic movement. It's far from perfect, but many people are promoting skeptical modes of thinking, and are being relatively consistent in their thinking. Jordan Peterson or Gad Saad are good examples.

We can't resolve all delusions, and become Buddhas, before we do anything else, because the human race will probably be extinct by then. Some immediate action is necessary.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn »

Kevin Solway wrote:In my view, the issue of freedom of speech is a first principle.
Yet it does not seem to stop you from playing fast and loose with it.

Where is your opposition to the widespread censorship and quashing of dissent taking place by groups other than the “authoritarian left”? We never hear a peep from you about these other forms of censorship.

Where is your outrage about Trump’s propensity to bully people into silence? Or about the Breitbart hordes intimidating their opponents into silence through torrents of threats and abuse? Or about the way many states are being encouraged by the Trump administration to legislate against the public’s right to dissent and protest? Or about the Trump administration’s stated plans to interfere with net neutrality? Or about Betsy DeVos's desire to make the teaching of evolution more difficult? Or about the stifling political correctness that permeates conservative campuses? Or about the long-standing Republican push to increase voter suppression?

We never hear a single word from you about these things. If you really are pro-free speech, how can that possibly be?

Just the fact that you are happy to identify with the anti-SJW movement gives it away. It is not "pro-free speech" that you identify with, but "anti-SJW". A big difference.

Kevin Solway wrote:From a political perspective I'm primarily interested in defeating the SJWs
Yep, that is clearly your first principle.

Kevin Solway wrote:I don't hate women, you dickhead.
lol

Kevin Solway wrote:I think the entire anti-SJW movement is, very crudely, a pro-skeptic movement. It's far from perfect, but many people are promoting skeptical modes of thinking, and are being relatively consistent in their thinking.
Yet they evidently don't like it when the skeptical gaze is directed their way....
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn »

As I say, I really think it is time that people started growing up and stopped participating in the partisan left vs right rubbish, which is leading to the polarization of Western society. Ben Shapiro has the right attitude, as displayed in this video about the recent Charlottesville incident:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67zCG-K ... be&t=15m5s

Back in December, Shapiro made the prediction that Trump would govern like a centrist Democrat, which I found laughable and I've never really paid much attention to him since. But the above video is much better. We certainly need more grown-up, non-partisan voices making themselves heard.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Dan Rowden »

The Intersectionalist virus that has infected feminism must be stopped. Of that there is is no doubt, at least in my mind. The idea that either the Alt-right or Trump has any connection to/or capacity to achieve that is utterly fucking demented.
JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by JohnJAu »

Dan Rowden wrote:has any connection to/or capacity to achieve that is utterly fucking demented.
What could realistically stop it? What could realistically stop any of the major problems or 'problematic directions' western capitalist societies have taken or are taking? I can't think of a single answer to any of it. The ways in which societies change, especially nowadays as things are more complicated than ever, is like an intricate causal ball of web with far too much momentum for anyone (perhaps save for a few people in extreme positions of power?) to be able to reliably direct in a predictable way.
JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by JohnJAu »

Santiago Odo wrote: You speak of your sense of lack of reasoning --- what the heck are you talking about? You should make your critique more plain and then I might respond to it.
How can you not see that you don't actually argue the points you make using reasons? You've literally never done this. You just repeat the same views using relatively vague and open language without providing concrete examples of any kind. The way you write is always akin to some kind of opinionated review or critique format rather than something including statistics, facts, specificity, clearly outlined alternatives (as opposed to linking us to an alternative view/philosopher), etc. You also never engage in metaphysical discussion using reasoned arguments or any attempt to do that. It's like reading from someone who is deliberately trying to avoid clearly saying what he means. It is mostly only obvious when some contemptuous insult comes out.

I guess to put it simply, you are as far away from someone using the Socratic method of reasoning as I can imagine, it seems as if you're talking to yourself as opposed to engaging in persuasive dialogue. I mean, if I remember correctly, you actually have been posting talking to yourself, asking yourself questions, and answering them for god sake. Do I remember correctly? It is you who come off as feminine and solipsistic.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo »

John, here is a post I wrote to Russell in this thread. Can you specifically comment on this post and explain what the fault is? Here is another from this thread. I am making an effort to respond to your criticism. In relation to these posts can you point out the flaws.

Here is a post of yours from this thread. I see you as expressing an opinion, of articulating your perspective in respect to a question, and I do not have a problem with or an objection to your sharing of an anecdote perspective. But I do not see this an essay on the topic with specific references that are reasoned and argued. Where in what you have written are the 'statistics, facts, specificity'? You surely must understand that no one would ask you for them in this sort of forum writing and commentary? What statistics, facts and specificity could you possible offer?
You I'll never leave
Locked