The social justice wars

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Post Reply
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn » Fri Aug 25, 2017 4:28 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote: . . . this idea of having to go over to the side of the fundamentalist Christians, white supremacists and conspiracy nut-jobs that comprise most of the modern Republican party.
What does it mean to "go over to their side"? If you are in the southern hemisphere, does it mean moving to the northern hemisphere? Does it mean that you have to sign up as a fundamentalist Christian or a nazi?
I am talking about mentally going over to their side.

Imagine in Sicily that there is a man who boasts that he is pro-law and order. He goes around claiming to people that he is against crime, that it is his number one priority, that letting crime go unchecked will ruin society. It all sounds good in theory, but there is a catch - his definition of what constitutes a crime is very narrow. To him, the most heinous crime of all is graffiti. He can’t stand graffiti. It drives him nuts.

So when the mafia sweeps into his neighbourhood and announces a crackdown on graffiti, he applauds it. When the newspapers write about all the other types of crime that the mafia are involved in, he ignores it. He calls it fake news and gossip. When people accuse the mafia of being subhuman thugs, he berates them for name-calling. He even goes so far as to call the mafia don a successful businessman. And why? Because all he is focused on is graffiti. He has built graffiti up to be a very large menace in his own mind, a menace that needs to be stopped at all costs, even if it means siding with the devil.

As a “free speech advocate”, you make no attempt to address the various crackdowns and abuses perpetrated by the Republicans. It is obvious, for example, that Trump wants to take his country in the direction of Putin’s Russia, a place where crackdowns on free speech are far more prevalent and violent than in either America or Australia. In Russia, the attack on free speech is real. It is not uncommon for journalists and dissidents to be detained, and even killed. As a free speech advocate, you ought to be horrified and alarmed about what Trump is trying to do. But nope, there is nothing from you. Not a single, solitary peep. All the focus is on graffiti. Graffiti, graffiti, graffiti, graffiti.

And by the same token, if I were to support the democrats, would it mean going over to the side of the communists, the radical feminists, and the fundamentalist Islamists?
Given that the communists, the radical feminists, and the fundamentalist Islamists probably make up less than 1% of the Democratic support base, while the fundamentalist Christians, white supremacists and conspiracy nut-jobs make up about 80% of the Republican support base, your comparison is not even remotely grounded in reality.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway » Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:15 pm

David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote: . . . this idea of having to go over to the side of the fundamentalist Christians, white supremacists and conspiracy nut-jobs that comprise most of the modern Republican party.
What does it mean to "go over to their side"? If you are in the southern hemisphere, does it mean moving to the northern hemisphere? Does it mean that you have to sign up as a fundamentalist Christian or a nazi?
I am talking about mentally going over to their side.
So you mean actually becoming a fundamentalist Christian or a nazi? You can't mentally go over to their side without becoming a fundamentalist Christian or a nazi.

I think you are speaking gibberish.

siding with the devil.


Okay, so according to your logic, in supporting the democrats you are siding with and mentally going over to the side of communists, SJWs, feminists, authoritarian socialists, black supremacists, and fundamentalist Islamists, which together make up most of the democratic supporters.

In Russia, the attack on free speech is real.
It's real in the West as well.

It is not uncommon for journalists and dissidents to be detained, and even killed.
That's how things are becoming in the West as well, because of the authoritarian left.

As a free speech advocate, you ought to be horrified and alarmed about what Trump is trying to do.
I'm much more alarmed by what the SJWs are actually doing. And I think a lot of what you imagine about Trump is purely imaginary.

All the focus is on graffiti. Graffiti, graffiti, graffiti, graffiti.
The destroying of our universities is not merely graffiti. Sacking people and blacklisting them for the crime of speaking the truth is not graffiti. Mass censorship on social media outlets is not graffiti. Shooting people dead or smashing people in the head with baseball bats is not graffiti. Physically preventing people from having public discussions is not graffiti. Mass propaganda and lying in the mainstream media is not graffiti.

white supremacists
What evidence do you have that the bulk of republican supporters are "white supremacist"?

Firstly, define clearly what you mean by "white supremacy" and then provide your evidence.

I'm also interested to know what percentage of black people you believe to be black supremacists, by your own definition.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn » Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:57 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote: What does it mean to "go over to their side"? If you are in the southern hemisphere, does it mean moving to the northern hemisphere? Does it mean that you have to sign up as a fundamentalist Christian or a nazi?
I am talking about mentally going over to their side.
So you mean actually becoming a fundamentalist Christian or a nazi? You can't mentally go over to their side without becoming a fundamentalist Christian or a nazi.

Of course you can. That’s what forming alliances are all about. My enemy’s enemy is my friend - that sort of thing.

When people who used to be enemies become allies, they often have to hold their nose for the sake of the alliance. They mentally block out the outrageous, morally repugnant behaviour of their new allies; they try to justify to themselves and to others that their new allies are not so bad; they downplay the whole affair as much as possible, both in their minds and in their words, so as not to have a bad conscience about it.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:siding with the devil.

Okay, so according to your logic, in supporting the democrats you are siding with and mentally going over to the side of communists, SJWs, feminists, authoritarian socialists, black supremacists, and fundamentalist Islamists, which together make up most of the democratic supporters.
No, they make up less than 1% of the democrat support base. They represent an aberration of the left, not the substance of it.

As I say, being stuck in an isolated town, you have cut yourself off from mainstream society and it is distorting your perspective. You have forgotten what mainstream left-wing people are like.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:In Russia, the attack on free speech is real.
It's real in the West as well.
On the contrary, we are living in the most fantastic of places and the most fantastic of times. Our freedom of speech has never been greater than it is now. In truth, we should be grateful for being so blessed. Instead, we have become so full of fear and resentment that we run the risk of foolishly throwing it all away.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:white supremacists
What evidence do you have that the bulk of republican supporters are "white supremacist"?
I didn’t say that. I said that the bulk of them are fundamentalist Christians, white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. What percentage are white supremacists? It is difficult to say. It does seem that a lot of Trump’s support derives from grievances held by white people. A form of white identity politics has taken hold on the right. Whether Trump and Bannon will be able exploit these grievances and push a lot of these people across a threshold into white supremacism remains to be seen. I suspect we will get a clearer picture of this in the weeks and months to come .

Firstly, define clearly what you mean by "white supremacy" and then provide your evidence.
In essence, a person is a “white supremacist” (or a “black supremacist") if he rejects the modern democratic view that all people should be treated as equals before the law.

I'm also interested to know what percentage of black people you believe to be black supremacists, by your own definition.
No idea. As far as I can see, most of them are still fighting the fight to be treated as equals before the law.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway » Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:18 pm

David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:siding with the devil.

Okay, so according to your logic, in supporting the democrats you are siding with and mentally going over to the side of communists, SJWs, feminists, authoritarian socialists, black supremacists, and fundamentalist Islamists, which together make up most of the democratic supporters.
No, they make up less than 1% of the democrat support base.
No, nearly all democrat voters would be feminists, and close to half of democrat voters would be SJWs, and a lot have communist sympathies. For example, it is very rare to find a democrat voter calling out the violence of antifa. More than half of democrat voters would be authoritarian socialists, since they have alienated the libertarian socialists.

You have forgotten what mainstream left-wing people are like.
No, you are in denial that the left has become overrun by crazy authoritarian SJWs and feminists.

Our freedom of speech has never been greater than it is now.
Nonsense. Comedians used to be able to perform shows at University campuses. Now they can no longer do it.

Humour has been outlawed, because the left takes offense to everything.

In essence, a person is a “white supremacist” (or a “black supremacist") if he rejects the modern democratic view that all people should be treated as equals before the law.
Okay, so now tell me which republicans, or Breitbart writers, think that some groups of people shouldn't be treated equally before the law.

Also, your definition is completely different to the normal definition that most people use, so whenever you speak of white supremacy you should always remind people of your particular, very unusual definition.

Most people regard white supremacy to be the belief that the white race is superior to all others, which doesn't say anything about what rights people have.
As far as I can see, most of them are still fighting the fight to be treated as equals before the law.
I don't see that at all. All the evidence shows that everyone is treated equal before the law, except for privileged classes, like women.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn » Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:26 pm

jupiviv wrote:The main fault in David's reasoning is that he is asserting an urgent need for radical shift towards rationality *only* for men, and *only* in their relationship towards women. He is completely ignoring the fact that such a need, by definition, must apply to all people in all contexts in order to be valid.
I definitely think that men should be become more rational in all areas of life, not just with respect to women. In fact, our long-term goal should be to encourage all people to become as independent and as conscious as possible, women included. That’s the core solution to the whole problem.

jupiviv wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote: They regard your concessions, and the special treatment you give them, as their due, and then they demand more.
I think it will be a long, long process, one that is only just beginning. It will take decades. Generations, even.
This doesn't make sense. What exactly is the process, and why is giving women special treatment the beginning of that process?
The phrase you use, “special treatment” - it is the wrong way to look at it. As men, we need to get out of this habit of playing the victim. It is beneath us. It makes us more foolish than women, and all it does is inflame the situation. We have to be much smarter than this.

What exactly should we do? Well, one of the things we should be doing is appropriating the concept of diversity and pushing it as far as it can go. We should be letting women know that yes, we do support diversity. The more diversity, the better. In a highly diverse society, everyone stands to benefit. Women will be able do as they please (within the bounds of the law), and so too will men. Thus, if a woman wants to spend her days tweeting memes about cats, she would be free to do so. If a man wants to give himself over to the highest wisdom and speak deep truths, then he would be free to do that as well. If a company wants to employ 50-50 quotas when it comes to hiring males and females, that’s their choice. If another company only wants to employ men, that's their choice too. And so on.

By appropriating the concept of diversity and emphasizing its value, you undercut women’s ability to use it as a truncheon of political correctness to restrict people's behaviour. It undercuts group identity politics. We are all individuals, we are all unique, we are all of equal value - this is the creed that the political correctness advocates stand behind. It is their way of repelling the attempt by old school males to demean and oppress them. Rather than fight against this, we should be turning it around and using it to advocate even greater freedoms for all people. Women will be on board with this because they will feel that they are being included. And men will be able to think and say what they like. But again, all of this depends on men becoming more independent, high-minded and conscious.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway » Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:48 pm

David Quinn wrote:Women will be on board with this because they will feel that they are being included.
No they won't. Feminists don't want a diversity of thought because truth goes against them. They don't really believe in diversity at all, but are using it as a ruse to gain power. Unfortunately most women don't have the courage to go against the feminists, even though they may not identify as feminists themselves.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn » Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:50 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:You have forgotten what mainstream left-wing people are like.
No, you are in denial that the left has become overrun by crazy authoritarian SJWs and feminists.
Kevin, I've just spent three years hanging around mainstream people, including a lot of Labor voters (our left-wing party here in Australia), and I'm telling you that none of the things you obsess about ever registers on these people's radars. None of it. They wouldn't know a SJW or a black communist if they tripped over one.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Our freedom of speech has never been greater than it is now.
Nonsense. Comedians used to be able to perform shows at University campuses. Now they can no longer do it.

They can go somewhere else and do it.

Kevin Solway wrote:Humour has been outlawed, because the left takes offense to everything.
Stop being so melodramatic. Not even Milo has been arrested for his humour.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:In essence, a person is a “white supremacist” (or a “black supremacist") if he rejects the modern democratic view that all people should be treated as equals before the law.
Okay, so now tell me which republicans, or Breitbart writers, think that some groups of people shouldn't be treated equally before the law.
As I say, I think we'll get a clearer picture of that over the coming months. Whatever racial resentments are simmering below the surface are likely to be prodded out into the open by Trump and Bannon. To what extent this evolves into full-blown supremacism remains to be seen. I'm hoping that it won't become too bad, but I'm not confident. There are a lot of desperate people out there, a lot of talk from the right about how this is their last opportunity to reclaim their country.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway » Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:14 pm

David Quinn wrote:I'm telling you that none of the things you obsess about ever registers on these people's radars.
Firstly, I'm not "obsessing" about anything. You are the one with the obsession who wants to evangelize their political ideas on the main Genius forum.

If the people you talk to don't know about the issues I mention, it is because they don't know what is going on. They are out of the loop. They are listening to the fake mainstream media. They are not the ones making the laws and educating the young people at universities, or reporting in the media. They are not in the board rooms enforcing so-called "diversity quotas". They are not the ones physically stopping other people from speaking. They are passengers, merely believing what they hear in the media. They are like the religious person who believes what they are told.

Yet they are the sort of people who would fire James Damore for speaking the truth, because they would bow down to the demands of the angry mob.

Also, remember that we were talking about people who voted for the democrats in America, not people you met at golf in Australia.

David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Our freedom of speech has never been greater than it is now.
Nonsense. Comedians used to be able to perform shows at University campuses. Now they can no longer do it.

They can go somewhere else and do it.
Increasingly, they can't go somewhere else, because the wider the censorship reaches, the fewer places they can go.

Universities used to be the one place where you would expect there to be freedom of speech, but that is no more.

[Re white supremacy - or your personal definition of it, at least] As I say, I think we'll get a clearer picture of that over the coming months.
In other words it's all speculation on your part.

What percentage of the left do you think are practicing socialist supremacy, as you define the term?

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv » Sat Aug 26, 2017 5:10 am

David Quinn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:The main fault in David's reasoning is that he is asserting an urgent need for radical shift towards rationality *only* for men, and *only* in their relationship towards women. He is completely ignoring the fact that such a need, by definition, must apply to all people in all contexts in order to be valid.
I definitely think that men should be become more rational in all areas of life, not just with respect to women. In fact, our long-term goal should be to encourage all people to become as independent and as conscious as possible, women included. That’s the core solution to the whole problem.
But I wasn't arguing against the goal of everyone becoming rational, since that is a given on this forum. I was pointing out the fallacy in the reasoning behind urging men to magically become rational with respect to women without taking into account the countless other changes which have to take place for that to happen.

Your argument boils down to: men are irrational beings who are free to become loving, lovable, chaste, rationality-embodying and -generating husbands, but don't, because they are irrational beings. As if that piece of philosophical genius isn't enough: it is rational for men to accommodate any and all irrationality in women, because they are also acting irrationally. After all, women are irrational beings who are *not* free to become loving, ... wives. Has your wife^H^H^H^H lifelong partner in enlightenment decided that balls *really* don't really exist?
What exactly should we do? Well, one of the things we should be doing is appropriating the concept of diversity and pushing it as far as it can go. We should be letting women know that yes, we do support diversity. The more diversity, the better. In a highly diverse society, everyone stands to benefit. Women will be able do as they please (within the bounds of the law), and so too will men. Thus, if a woman wants to spend her days tweeting memes about cats, she would be free to do so. If a man wants to give himself over to the highest wisdom and speak deep truths, then he would be free to do that as well. If a company wants to employ 50-50 quotas when it comes to hiring males and females, that’s their choice. If another company only wants to employ men, that's their choice too. And so on.
This is like the logical conclusion of Pollyannaism. The entire worldview you seem to have adopted is like that actually. It's a fairy tale about a society that, through perennial miraculous innovation, brushes away everything that lies between human nature and wisdom. We are progressing with "baby steps" towards a future where people won't *need* to irrationally desire things, because science and technology will give them whatever they want. Being given whatever one wants by science and technology isn't irrational because acceptance of science and technology was achieved through rationality in "baby steps" since the middle ages (as opposed to the 19th century realisation that they can, with the aid of fossil fuel driven industry, give us some of the things we want).

I've got an idea - women can do what they damn well please, as long as it doesn't involve men's time, effort and money. If they don't like that arrangement, or think that it is hostile etc., they can go back to sucking dicks. Perhaps that is unfair, so I have another idea - if women want to be offered a compromise between doing what they want and being protected from the consequences of such, then that same compromise should simultaneously and *commensurately* be extended to *all* human beings. If the latter is considered impractical/supererogatory, then so should the former be.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo » Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:15 am

David wrote:As I say, I think we'll get a clearer picture of that over the coming months. Whatever racial resentments are simmering below the surface are likely to be prodded out into the open by Trump and Bannon. To what extent this evolves into full-blown supremacism remains to be seen. I'm hoping that it won't become too bad, but I'm not confident. There are a lot of desperate people out there, a lot of talk from the right about how this is their last opportunity to reclaim their country.
I strongely and sincerely recommend 'Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars from 4Cahn and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right'. She is a middle-road feminist but a good researcher. In order to be able to understand the recent schizophrenia in American culture one has to understand the 'Tumblr' world and the '4Chan' world.

The 'racial resentments' were largely brought to the surface, exacerbated, pushed into the open, by Obama's activism in these areas. Prior to Obama there may have been tension and resentments but it seems things were largely stable. Obama comes out of a school of militant activism, both by his affiliation with Black Liberation Theology (his church which he strategically abandoned) and his Alinksy-style neighborhood activism. The Left felt tremendously empowered by the Obama presidency and capitalized on it in many different ways. To be truthful in regard to cause and effect one would have to back up from Trump and focus on these elements. The other element has been, over the last 20 years, a trmendous forward movement of Left and Progressive concersn generally: a take-over of the public conversation, the assent into the Academy, and in many instances going very much over the board with the details and minutia of 'identity politics'. Nagel goes into this quite fairly in her book (though she is Left-leaning).

In order to understand the cultural underbody of America that has, at least on a surface level, turned to the 'right' (in quotes because I do not think the bulk of it is intellectually supported), one has to understand the on-line world and a cultural reaction to the regime of the politically correct, to feminist excess, to the extremes of identity and gender politics, within a very young demographic rasied substantially without the soild preparation you, David, and many of us here have under our belt.

The 'social media' world is something like an unrestrained psychological pool where people engage with the strangest material imaginable. Bizarre pornographic imagery, mixed-up gender identifications, the projection of themselves, emotionally, into Internet space.

There is a very small true 'Alt-Right' but they have been given a great deal of access because of Hilary's rather stupid world-advertisement. Before that very few would have heard of them. But standing behind Hilary, that is going back through the rank and file democratic party there is a hidden space, a little known space, of on-line activists that, in truth, correspond to the Alt-Right. They are influencers at a cultural level and their object and domain is 'cultural hegemony' as Gramsci proposed. There really is an Alt-Left in fact. In amongst them you will find radicals of various sorts: socialists, communists, gender-trasformatists, gender radicals, radical feminists, and of course anti-fascists et cetera. It is all there.

So, Hilary simply brought out into the open that there is a similar and in a sense corresponding 'Alt-Right' that has established itself, in canivalesque absurdity really, in opposition of the Alt-Left. It was not as developed as the Alt-Left though. It was just coming into being.

But these are extensions really of the 60s and 90s 'culture wars'. These are groups of people who are not greatly unalike economically and in terms of employment who operate strictly in the cultural sphere. That is why what Chomsky says makes sense: While the carnival is going on and everyone is sucked into meladrama and madness, Republical operatives are quietly dismantling the various programs the Democrat party had managed to secure. The Culture Wars are now far more out in the open and are, it would seem, a sort of lived Reality TV.

However, on both ideological ends, I would say, there are real ideological actors and concerns. But they are pushed toward the fringe while the mass enjoys the Carnival of oddity.

It seems to me that in this present conversation-argument you are focussed on 'surface' but not on 'depth'.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:18 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I'm telling you that none of the things you obsess about ever registers on these people's radars.
Firstly, I'm not "obsessing" about anything.

Your words and actions say otherwise. Even those in your corner, such as jupiviv and Diebert, have noticed it. A number of people who have written to me privately have noticed it.

If the people you talk to don't know about the issues I mention, it is because they don't know what is going on. They are out of the loop.

Agreed. Most people in the liberal establishment are ordinary people who are largely unconscious of the fringe left and the cultural war being waged against them. Most of them are not SJWs, Islamic fundamentalists or black communists. I was compelled to emphasize this rather obvious fact because you like to make it seem that there are only two classes of people remaining in the West or in America - Trumpists/Republicans/anti-SJWs on the one hand and SJWs/left-wing academics on the other. That is patently untrue.

They are listening to the fake mainstream media. They are not the ones making the laws and educating the young people at universities, or reporting in the media. They are not in the board rooms enforcing so-called "diversity quotas". They are not the ones physically stopping other people from speaking. They are passengers, merely believing what they hear in the media. They are like the religious person who believes what they are told.
No, that is far too dismissive and harsh. A lot of these people are professionals, businessmen, scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc. They are intelligent people. I often found them to be very critical of what they read and saw in the news. And they did grumble at times about political correctness, but I cannot recall any of them ever using the phrase “social justice warriors” or “communists” or “Milo" or discussing the cultural war in any manner. The main reason for this is that the cultural war has largely been waged on-line and has had virtually no impact on their lives.

Out of your list of grievances above, the only one that has some serious import is the education of young people at universities. That is a genuine problem. This is where men need to take a leaf out the women’s liberation movement and organize themselves into a proper political force. Instead of ranting and raving on-line, men should take on the practical challenge of countering political correctness at universities. They could build their own universities, for example.

They are listening to the fake mainstream media.
Having familiarized myself with the New York Times over the past few months, I can confirm that at least 95% of the news articles they print are accurate. There is the odd mistake here or there, but by and large the long-standing reputation that it has gained for being a high quality newspaper is warranted. It is certainly a lot more interesting, high-minded, and intellectually entertaining than the grey, homogenized tripe that is regularly served up on Breitbart.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:42 am

jupiviv wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:The main fault in David's reasoning is that he is asserting an urgent need for radical shift towards rationality *only* for men, and *only* in their relationship towards women. He is completely ignoring the fact that such a need, by definition, must apply to all people in all contexts in order to be valid.
I definitely think that men should be become more rational in all areas of life, not just with respect to women. In fact, our long-term goal should be to encourage all people to become as independent and as conscious as possible, women included. That’s the core solution to the whole problem.
But I wasn't arguing against the goal of everyone becoming rational, since that is a given on this forum. I was pointing out the fallacy in the reasoning behind urging men to magically become rational with respect to women without taking into account the countless other changes which have to take place for that to happen.
I’m not sure what you mean by “countless other changes”, but certainly a man would have to make some revolutionary changes in his own mind before he can put an end to depending on women for his self-esteem and sense of identity. At the very least, he would have to place value on something that is greater than woman. Valuing wisdom is obviously the best way to go about it, but given how deluded we are as a species, we can hardly expect this to go viral in the near future.

So we have to drop it down a notch or two and make appeals to men’s sense of dignity and to whatever rationality they still possess. If men can see that their current approach towards women is not working and in fact creating even bigger problems for themselves, then maybe they will be persuaded to look at making changes in their own behaviour.

jupiviv wrote:Your argument boils down to: men are irrational beings who are free to become loving, lovable, chaste, rationality-embodying and -generating husbands, but don't, because they are irrational beings. As if that piece of philosophical genius isn't enough: it is rational for men to accommodate any and all irrationality in women, because they are also acting irrationally. After all, women are irrational beings who are *not* free to become loving, ... wives.
I think the biggest problem is the collapse of masculine ideals, which is a by-product of the postmodern era that we are trapped in. No one believes in truth anymore. No one believes in wisdom. No one believes in the ideal of the individual striving for spiritual perfection. And so people are turning away from these inward processes and looking outwards for distraction and entertainment. They are joining herds and abusing other herds. This increasing lack of inner life is a terrible development that is going to create many disastrous consequences.

In the past on this forum, we used to talk about how one of the biggest problems of Islam is that its adherents are always looking around for other people to blame for their own failings. But nowadays, we are beginning to mirror that very same attitude.

jupiviv wrote:Has your wife^H^H^H^H lifelong partner in enlightenment decided that balls *really* don't really exist?
Nice try.

jupiviv wrote:
David Quinn wrote:What exactly should we do? Well, one of the things we should be doing is appropriating the concept of diversity and pushing it as far as it can go. We should be letting women know that yes, we do support diversity. The more diversity, the better. In a highly diverse society, everyone stands to benefit. Women will be able do as they please (within the bounds of the law), and so too will men. Thus, if a woman wants to spend her days tweeting memes about cats, she would be free to do so. If a man wants to give himself over to the highest wisdom and speak deep truths, then he would be free to do that as well. If a company wants to employ 50-50 quotas when it comes to hiring males and females, that’s their choice. If another company only wants to employ men, that's their choice too. And so on.
This is like the logical conclusion of Pollyannaism. The entire worldview you seem to have adopted is like that actually.
Someone has to counter the overt pessimism and cynical loss of faith in the human mind that is pervading the West and seemingly most people on this forum. .

jupiviv wrote:It's a fairy tale about a society that, through perennial miraculous innovation, brushes away everything that lies between human nature and wisdom. We are progressing with "baby steps" towards a future where people won't *need* to irrationally desire things, because science and technology will give them whatever they want. Being given whatever one wants by science and technology isn't irrational because acceptance of science and technology was achieved through rationality in "baby steps" since the middle ages (as opposed to the 19th century realisation that they can, with the aid of fossil fuel driven industry, give us some of the things we want).
This is a grotesque and inaccurate summation of my views. What science can do is remove a lot of the unnecessary hurdles to the practice of wisdom. It can give people more leisure time, better health, longer life-spans, and the continued debunking of superstitions and myths. But all of this will come to nothing if people avoid the spiritual challenge of becoming wise.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway » Sat Aug 26, 2017 3:07 pm

David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I'm telling you that none of the things you obsess about ever registers on these people's radars.
Firstly, I'm not "obsessing" about anything.

Your words and actions say otherwise.


No, you are the one who is obsessing.

And using logical fallacies - the appeal to the number again - to support your argument isn't going to get you anywhere. Your use of logical fallacies just becomes expected of you, and becomes attached to your reputation.

you like to make it seem that there are only two classes of people remaining in the West or in America - Trumpists/Republicans/anti-SJWs on the one hand and SJWs/left-wing academics on the other.
No, I've repeatedly stressed that the feminists and the authoritarian socialists are also on the left, and are opposed to freedom of speech.

There are also a lot of people who don't care either way.

Most of the people on the left are passive, ordinary people, just as most Christians are passive, ordinary people, but just because they are passive doesn't mean they aren't part of a dangerous religious movement.

A lot of these people are professionals, businessmen, scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc. They are intelligent people.
The same can be said for any religious group, but it doesn't mean they're not severely deluded. Most of the people in scientology are intelligent, educated people. You'll find that communist activists also tend to be intelligent people. It means nothing.

I often found them to be very critical of what they read and saw in the news.
That doesn't mean anything, since you aren't critical yourself. It's like a Christian saying of other Christians, "I find Christians to be very intelligent and accomplished critical thinkers who don't blindly accept anything written in the Bible". It is meaningless.

The main reason for this is that the cultural war has largely been waged on-line and has had virtually no impact on their lives.


If they think it has no impact on their lives then they are delusional. When they have to send their children to school or to University it will have a large impact on their lives, since their children will be indoctrinated with nonsense. If they don't choose their words very carefully when they are at work, or if they make the wrong joke, they will lose their jobs. If they listen to the mainstream media and believe anything they hear it will have a large impact on their lives. When they do a search on Goolag they are seeing the results of filtering by SJWs. They're just not aware of the impact it is having on them. And nor are you, apparently.

They are listening to the fake mainstream media.
Having familiarized myself with the New York Times over the past few months, I can confirm that at least 95% of the news articles they print are accurate.
That doesn't mean anything. A Christian will say, "I can confirm that at least 95% of the literal interpretation of the Bible is accurate". You are reading what you want to hear, so you are biased, and will be making a biased assessment. You will not be distinguishing between what is fact and what is mere opinion, extrapolation, or speculation, and you will be ignoring facts that are not presented, or which are presented but which you don't want to acknowledge. Also, what you read in the NYT will be affected by what you read elsewhere.

P.S. I'm also subscribed to the NYT and have been trying to find articles critical of antifa and the alt-left. I haven't found any yet. I've only found articles which excuse the violence of the left. A typical NYT article describes the "alt-right" as "racist and antisemitic" whereas it says the alt-left doesn't even exist. This is pure left wing propaganda.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn » Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:48 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:P.S. I'm also subscribed to the NYT and have been trying to find articles critical of antifa and the alt-left. I haven't found any yet. I've only found articles which excuse the violence of the left.

It only took me a couple of minutes to find a few articles which explores the violence of antifa and the far left.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/a ... ml?mcubz=1

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/educ ... keley.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/p ... ml?mcubz=1

They seem like balanced reports to me, quoting a wide variety of experts, adherents and opponents.

A typical NYT article describes the "alt-right" as "racist and antisemitic" whereas it says the alt-left doesn't even exist. This is pure left wing propaganda.
The reason why these articles say that the alt-left doesn't exist is because, unlike the segment of right-wingers who use the term "alt-right" as a badge of honour, no one on the left has been utilizing the term.

And the alt-right has indeed been engaged in racist, antisemitic, white supremacist behaviour, particularly on sites like 4Chan. Just ask Pepe the Frog.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
They are listening to the fake mainstream media.
Having familiarized myself with the New York Times over the past few months, I can confirm that at least 95% of the news articles they print are accurate.
That doesn't mean anything. A Christian will say, "I can confirm that at least 95% of the literal interpretation of the Bible is accurate". You are reading what you want to hear, so you are biased, and will be making a biased assessment. You will not be distinguishing between what is fact and what is mere opinion, extrapolation, or speculation, and you will be ignoring facts that are not presented, or which are presented but which you don't want to acknowledge.
Your Christian analogy is flawed. The process is closer to science than religion, in that the acid test is whether the news articles concerned actually reflect what is happening in reality and whether you can make accurate predictions based on them. I have found the NYT to be reliable, particularly as far as the Trump presidency is concerned. I have had no problems thus far in predicting Trump's moves.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote: Firstly, I'm not "obsessing" about anything.

Your words and actions say otherwise. Even those in your corner, such as jupiviv and Diebert, have noticed it. A number of people who have written to me privately have noticed it.

No, you are the one who is obsessing.

And using logical fallacies - the appeal to the number again - to support your argument isn't going to get you anywhere. Your use of logical fallacies just becomes expected of you, and becomes attached to your reputation.
This would only have relevance if I had offered a logical argument. But I hadn't. I was simply sharing information about how you are being perceived. You can see the difference, can't you?

Just your response here - the way your bulldog jaws instantly clamp shut on anything that moves in your direction, however incoherently - indicates that you are in the grip of a very powerful obsession.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn » Sat Aug 26, 2017 8:03 pm

Kevin, I want to lay down my sword for a moment and speak to you as a friend. I have known you for a long time and I still have a great deal of respect for you for what you have accomplished in the past. So I want to say something that I feel very strongly about and I hope that you take it in the right spirit:

I really, really, really recommend that you take an extended break from all this cultural war stuff. Like, at least a year. Take up fishing. Play golf. Go on bush walks. Get back to meditating on Emptiness. Anything. Just switch off the internet. Seriously, it will do you the world of good. It will give you a fresh perspective on what has been happening over the past few years. If, after that, you want to back into the anti-SJW thing, then fine, but at least you will go back into it with fresh eyes.

Four years of being immersed in such an intense war-like activity is a long, long time......

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn » Sat Aug 26, 2017 8:03 pm

Anyway, that's it for me on this thread for a while. I'll see you guys another time.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Aug 26, 2017 8:28 pm

David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote: Firstly, I'm not "obsessing" about anything.

Your words and actions say otherwise. Even those in your corner, such as jupiviv and Diebert, have noticed it. A number of people who have written to me privately have noticed it.
For the record, I think the greater obsession I noticed last year here was the noticeable need present only with you and Dan to come here to attack Kevin for something I'm still not exactly clear about yet, perhaps for him taking ones own life philosophy to its political (real life) consequence? Generally I don't see him obsessing but he does defend his position with passion. And it's understandable considering the irrationality of so much of the arguments piled on him. So far I haven't seen anything convincing from you while Dan doesn't even try to argue. The irony being that you actually would agree with much of Kevin's concerns if the atmosphere would be calmer. Certainly you won't be able to have some rational argument on why anyone would not oppose the SJW ideology which is so much on the rise as a ruling idea in those places which matter for the course of society.

By the way, referring to "private" correspondence is a bit lame and gossipy as argument. You've become a bit too womanish!

Having familiarized myself with the New York Times over the past few months, I can confirm that at least 95% of the news articles they print are accurate.
It's a meaningless figure though. If the most important reporting would be inside the 5%, the number would be skewed. For example in the run up to the Iraq invasion, one of the most defining acts of this century which arguable caused Isis and countless of terrorist blow-backs, hurting the fabric of our society and starting to split it into highly charged "radical" camps at the extremes, was not just reported on falsely by the NYT (the Judith Miller case) but the Bush administration actually started the lean heavily on that very NYT reporting to justify their case as "fact". Later she went to jail to protect Scooter Libby, who was in the middle of the neoconservative cabal.

It's just one prime example but the NYT didn't self-reflect much after this. It's that 5% which really matters as far I'm concerned.
(to Kevin) Take up fishing. Play golf. Go on bush walks. Get back to meditating on Emptiness. Anything. Just switch off the internet
One might interpret this as well as call to "switch off the mind", become a happy cow, explore feminine values of protecting the comfy nest. That said, I do think it's always a good idea to take a step back and detach a bit. Personally I'm not worried at all about society "getting destroyed" in concrete terms, not by Trump, not by radical left or right. But irrationality always should be pointed out. In Donald Trump as much as David Quinn, as it happens. Anyone living in their Tower I suppose.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway » Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:02 pm

David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:P.S. I'm also subscribed to the NYT and have been trying to find articles critical of antifa and the alt-left. I haven't found any yet. I've only found articles which excuse the violence of the left.

It only took me a couple of minutes to find a few articles which explores the violence of antifa and the far left.
Yes, I found those same articles. They "explore" it and then they excuse the violence of antifa.

Only the SPLC criticized antifa for forcibly preventing the freedom of speech of others, because the SPLC are being pressured to list antifa as a hate group, and they don't want to, because they are themselves an extremist left-wing group, just like antifa, and they would then have to list themselves as a hate group, which they are.

They seem like balanced reports to me.
They're not balanced reports, because nobody is speaking the truth about antifa and their fascism, supremacism, communism, and illegality.

The reason why these articles say that the alt-left doesn't exist is because, unlike the segment of right-wingers who use the term "alt-right" as a badge of honour, no one on the left has been utilizing the term.
It's irrelevant whether people on the left use the term, since the left are not the arbiters of language - even though they'd like to be.

And the alt-right has indeed been engaged in racist, antisemitic, white supremacist behaviour
I've repeatedly asked you to provide evidence why you said that Breitbart is white supremacist, and you respond with "it's a grey area" for you. You claim that the republican party has white supremacists, so I ask you who they are, and you respond with "I need a few more months to find out". Milo is always called "alt-right" by the left wing media, but he's not racist, antisemitic, or white supremacist. Likewise with Bannon.

The left is currently a web of lies.

Kevin Solway wrote:whether the news articles concerned actually reflect what is happening in reality
They don't.

The process is closer to science
If you think what you are doing has anything remotely to do with science then you don't know anything about science.

I have had no problems thus far in predicting Trump's moves.


Any religious person can make the same claim. No matter what happens - no matter whether the world comes to an end, or whether it doesn't - the religious person will rationalize that they predicted it, and that it was foretold in their scriptures.

I was simply sharing information about how you are being perceived.
You don't understand the nature of logical fallacies. It is irrelevant how a few people (or any number) might perceive me - not that I trust your ability to accurately convey what others have said, because of your biases.

I don't share your desire to appeal to left wing academics.

This forum is supposed to be for rational argumentation - not sharing gossip. If you want to share gossip - about what so-and-so thinks of so-and-so, then I believe people do that on facebook.

I really, really, really recommend that you take an extended break from all this cultural war stuff
Obviously you do, because I am supporting the opposing side to yourself, and see things very differently to yourself. You need to accept the fact that different people can have different opinions. You are not the arbiter of reality.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:29 pm

How strange, yet how consistent with his 'worldpicture', is David's assertion that the NYTs engages in accurate reporting and responsible journalism. And this based on an analysis only of the last 6 months? Hoo-boy...

What I notice thus far about your position, David, is that you really have no position at all. You bring out a flurry of mixed-up sentiments. Effectively, you have been out of the loop in all relevant senses as far as I can tell. Your 'disconect' is so large that it is hard to know where to begin in confronting it. Similar to barging (back) in to this forum you seem also to barge in with many emotionally-laden opinions about some very very convoluted and difficult-to-sort-through politics. The issues that are coming to the surface and huge, convoluted, many-levelled, and grand in the sense that they involve some of the most relevant issues and definitions. We seem to be witnessing a crisis of understanding and definition that is playing out on a world-scale.

Yet I would not dismiss any particular concern that you have about what you see/feel and also fear. Instead, I would focus on how the MSM focusses on your concerns, these concerns, and employs journalism as a tool which feeds on those 'concerns' (sentiments) and exploits them, bends them in this sense, to serve its purposes. Now, the NYTs is said to represent, ideologically, the New York intellectual class, and certain things can be said about it. But that is a separate analytical project.

Not long ago the journalist Jim Rutenberg of the Times wrote this disquieting article. Trump is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism.

The most telling paragraph is this one:
  • If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him? Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable….
And the core of the question is revealed to be:
  • "But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place? [my italics].
So here you have a journalist who speaks openly of 'throwing out the textbook that American journalism has been using for the better part of the last half-century' and the implications, I think, are very revealing. To make a long story short the NYTs has deliberately 'thrown out the textbook' (rulebook) that should provide the ethical parameters for proper reporting, and it has given itself over, quite blatantly, to using journalism and the Times to undermine a US presidency.

That in itself, and despite how you and anyone else feels about Trump, and no matter what ideas you have either rational or paranoid about him, is deeply disturbing. In general the MSM establishment --- what is called liberal news sources --- are following the Times in abandoning objective journalism in what appears to be a project of taking down an elected US president. But in fact it is far more complex insofar as this collusion between journalism, the existing 'deep state', the intelligence agencies, the former government, and all the institutions and industries that are part-and-parcel of the US System, are as a result of 'what is going on' revealing many disturbing things about real power-dynamics. It is as though, recently, the veil has been wrested away and one sees into the innards and the internal machinations.

Obviously, you have no objective relationship to these issues, and obviously you are completely unqualified, at any level, to make any statement at all! You would have to deliberately abandon your (outrageous) bias and dedicate yourself to a period of study just to understand what happened at the Times, and why. But your misunderstanding is so extensive that you could spend a year of more just beginning to get up to speed.

Even --- or especially! --- the photograph chosen for the article I have quoted from demonstrates exactly what the Times thinks and feels about Trump. Anyone looking at the image understands what is being said and, after taking some steps back, why it is being said. But I suggest that that photograph is more yellow journalism than straight-up and responsible journalism.

I found these comments months back which seem to me fair and rational:
  • In brief, the New York Times has told us that its reporters doing anything less than abandoning objective, non-partisan, impartial journalism would be “untenable.” The New York Times has just openly jettisoned journalism standards and ethics, as well as journalism itself, and called upon its colleagues to do the same. It has declared that rejecting integrity is integrity, and rejecting fairness is fair.

    Somewhere, somehow, American journalism forgot that its function in a democracy is not to force-feed the public what its practitioners believe, but to inform the public thoroughly and competently so it can form its own beliefs.

    If the New York Times is truly the flagship of American journalism, then American journalism is corrupt, untrustworthy, undemocratic, and dead.
__________________

PS:

Trump is an obvious pre-manifestation of Kalki, the last incarnation of Vishnu. Here is an example of the proper mode-of-relationship.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo » Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:32 am

Get back to meditating on Emptiness. Anything. Just switch off the internet.
Noooooooooo!!!!!

How would he keep up with the McGregor vs Mayweather fight?

Are you proposing that he should copy all the Feminist Cringe Compilations to his harddrive?

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:49 am

David Quinn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:But I wasn't arguing against the goal of everyone becoming rational, since that is a given on this forum. I was pointing out the fallacy in the reasoning behind urging men to magically become rational with respect to women without taking into account the countless other changes which have to take place for that to happen.
I’m not sure what you mean by “countless other changes”
It's pretty obvious. The change which concerns the point I made immediately after this is that for men to collectively become significantly more rational for no apparent reason, women would have to undergo a coterminous and complementary change, since the unconsciousness of women is one of the major causes of the unconsciousness of men.

Then there are the changes that will happen to the economic and political structure, based on a realistic (and collective) judgment of our species' ability to sustain our industrial mode of life indefinitely. The entire financial system will probably disappear, including things like dollar preference - the convergence of the value of oil capital and of the dollars that are exchanged for it, leading to the current system of arbitraging between the dollar value of cheap labour/inequality and consumer-oriented lifestyle/equality. The practical aspects of life won't simply go on as they did before if men suddenly became a lot more rational, which in turn might decrease their rationality since they wouldn't be able to subdue or suppress gross forms of irrationality with comfort and diversion.
Someone has to counter the overt pessimism and cynical loss of faith in the human mind that is pervading the West and seemingly most people on this forum. .
I'm merely trying to evaluate human nature on the basis of what human beings actually do, as opposed to what they say. There just happens to be a huge chasm between the two.

When I compare everything you've "done" and "said" recently on this forum, by looking for (respectively) consistency and bombast in your arguments, I conclude that they are separated by that same chasm. Not that I'm any different in that regard. There are inconsistencies between my thoughts and deeds, or thoughts and thoughts, as well. However, unlike you, I don't ignore them or pretend that they all make sense.
What science can do is remove a lot of the unnecessary hurdles to the practice of wisdom. It can give people more leisure time, better health, longer life-spans, and the continued debunking of superstitions and myths. But all of this will come to nothing if people avoid the spiritual challenge of becoming wise.
This is a great example of what I called "bombast" above. You just rephrased what I said about your views and appended some platitudes.

Wisdom is not a specific state of mind, but *all* logically conceivable states of mind. The goal of removing unnecessary hurdles to wisdom apart from the practice of wisdom is itself unnecessary, since this happens on its own whenever wisdom arises.

Likewise with the spiritual challenge of becoming wise. You fail the challenge whenever you think of it as existing apart from whatever is already happening to you.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by JohnJAu » Mon Aug 28, 2017 12:29 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -York.html

Feminists are insane, it should be clear now that they will not stop, ever. There's no downplaying it, and there's no reasoning with them possible.

Communication and reason has broken down past the point of no return, there is no longer a debate happening, only plays for power that seek to disregard or demonize any logical opposition. Therefore David's solutions are null and void, they are impossible imaginative answers that will have zero effect. I can only see the 'gender wars' increasing in severity or men simply losing more and more until the 'war' ends, after all, the SJW's/feminists have the law and media supporting them. If only David knew how much he would be attacked just for mentioning his views on women, even as a white knight he'd get murdered, haha.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2367
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Pam Seeback wrote:Since the writings of James Damore are psychologically based rather than philosophically based I question their value to 'cut the ties that bind.' I realize psychology is part and parcel of the attachment-transcendence process, however, philosophy trumps psychology in this regard, ergo should it not be the main focus of those professing to be philosophers?
If you don't see the value in discussing it here, then at least do not try to insert the dull protest like "everything is unimportant compared to existence, heaven, saving your soul, etc". It's not different from, what's his name again, who tries to tie everything to some medieval underlying metaphysics losing its bearing. The effect is the same: the great smutching out! Discussing one simple worldly topic with some tie-ins to Genius history has a purpose, part of which is to see who smutches and who doesn''t. And what is your intention? As I hinted at: some processes function as contrast enhancer, in the finer details of things, as it were. For the subtler minds, it can clarify a few subtle things. But admittedly, there's also possibility for a lot of fizzling.
How is keeping the goal of attachment purification/cutting front-and-centre not THE only important task of the philosopher? If you want to subtly contrast/fizzle, that is your choice, as it is for everyone. With worldly matters, of course, being the result.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Aug 31, 2017 7:33 am

Pam Seeback wrote:How is keeping the goal of attachment purification/cutting front-and-centre not THE only important task of the philosopher?
Perhaps you just need some Important Task more than anything else?
If you want to subtly contrast/fizzle, that is your choice, as it is for everyone. With worldly matters, of course, being the result.
And yet you were the one coming in here to contrast this Worldly Matter with your subtle view of Attachment Purification/Cutting.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway » Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:35 pm

Pam Seeback wrote:How is keeping the goal of attachment purification/cutting front-and-centre not THE only important task of the philosopher?
Matters of the world are test of wisdom. If a person is irrational and uses logical fallacies with regard to matters of the world, then it means their wisdom is almost non-existent.

A person might believe they are wise, because they can speak intelligently on some topics, but reality tells a different story.

Post Reply