The social justice wars

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
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 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And I do believe Genius type of philosophers, like yourself, have a role to play since they have the background, experience and the understanding to provide a healthier philosophical base than the "new right" can ever do with their race identities or hallowing of a fading set of traditions.

So I'd suggest to write your next blog entry on gender and its relevance and irrelevance to a true philosophy of life :-)
I'm currently working on an expanded version of Wisdom of the Infinite, which will be released at some point over the next few months. I do agree with you that the issue of masculinity in the modern, globalized age needs to be addressed in a far more intelligent way than what we are seeing from the Breitbart/alt-right movement. But I have other priorities at the moment.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:next blog entry on gender and its relevance and irrelevance to a true philosophy
The first thing you'd need to do is to clearly define what "gender" is, since people have no clarity as to what the term means - especially among academics. An ordinary person on the street would understand gender to be the same as biological sex, but to an academic the meaning is unspecified, in the same way as a Christian's notion of God.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:In the case of Damore it's staggering how many vocal opponents clearly didn't read the memo at all!
To the authoritarian left it doesn't matter what the memo says, since, to them, it's all a matter of interpretation, and they can interpret literally anything to say what they want.

The reason the authoritarian left are against freedom of speech is that fools like you and I lack the ability to interpret things properly, and so we can be led astray.
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:To the authoritarian left it doesn't matter what the memo says, since, to them, it's all a matter of interpretation, and they can interpret literally anything to say what they want.

The reason the authoritarian left are against freedom of speech is that fools like you and I lack the ability to interpret things properly, and so we can be led astray.
Or it could be that women and minority groups are deeply suspicious of the old-school white males who still hold most of the positions of power and still continue to treat them as second-class citizens. Who could blame them? We do have a long track record.

Both sides need to come together here and work through the issue like adults. White males need to assure women and non-whites that they will be treated as equals going forward, while women and non-whites need to face up to the scientific realities that there are differences between the sexes and the races. In other words, both sides need to come to grips with reality and start acting with integrity.

Or we could just continue with the chest-thumping and name-calling, and continue enabling this stupid, farcical administration to sleepwalk us into nuclear oblivion. Whatever rocks your boat.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv »

Kevin Solway wrote:There's a lot more people fighting against the SJWs than the far right.
There are also a lot more people fighting against the alt right than SJWs and the far left. The reason politics has been reduced to a few token issues about genitalia and identity is because the real issues are unsolvable from both the right and left wing perspective. The alt right has made its point about the irrationality of SJWs, but that point has become or is in the process of becoming a first principle.
Google has serious problems when they are firing their top employees for the crime of speaking the truth. And their policy of hiding information they don't agree with will probably spell the end of Google.

As someone has pointed out, Google may just be trying to satisfy what they perceive to be the needs of the general public. If they believe that the general public are crying out for bullshit and lies, then they see it as their duty to provide it.
If they don't ratchet up the liberalism in response to the alt right wave many people will feel betrayed and switch to someone else who does. The usage of their products isn't determined by any actual need. No one will starve to death if they choose to duckduckgo or baidu over google or facebook.
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:
Kevin Solway wrote:There's a lot more people fighting against the SJWs than the far right.
There are also a lot more people fighting against the alt right than SJWs and the far left.
I don't see what the alt-right has to do with anything. I thought this thread was about the SJWs.

The alt right has made its point about the irrationality of SJWs . . .
As I see it, the current "alt right" is an extremely fringe group that doesn't play any significant part in the battle against the SJWs. I don't agree with David that Breitbart is associated with the alt-right. People were fighting against the SJWs for many years before the alt-right ever existed, and I don't see any connection between anti-SJWs and the alt-right.

. . . but that point has become or is in the process of becoming a first principle.
In my view, the issue of freedom of speech is a first principle. When very powerful companies such as Google are firing people for speaking the truth, this is a very serious problem.

the real issues are unsolvable from both the right and left wing perspective.
I agree with that. A more philosophical, or even scientific view is required.

No one will starve to death if they choose to duckduckgo or baidu over google or facebook.
Indeed. That may be why Google has chosen to become political. They might be trying to make a mark before they disappear.
JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by JohnJAu »

David Quinn wrote: Or it could be that women.... are deeply suspicious of the old-school white males who still hold most of the positions of power and still continue to treat them as second-class citizens. Who could blame them?
Do you really think that women are treated as second-class citizens? That seems to be out of touch with the facts. From every statistic that I've seen and my own anecdotal evidence it seems that the average middle/lower class woman in western countries like America and Australia is far more privileged than the average middle/lower class man.
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 »

Russell wrote:This SJW vs alt-right war is merely just the far left vs the far right. What many people seem to miss is that far leftism even exists. I think it was Stefan Molyneux that said that America has become so far left that regular, ordinary conservatism has become demonized and offensive. I think he caters too heavily towards the far right but he's right about that.
I would suggest that if it can be made to seem as you say, that it will happen that both of those extremes can be successfully resisted and defeated. And what will be left? The present structure. And what is the present structure? The answer to that question will determine where one sits, politically and in many different areas, and will tell exactly who one is, what they desire, et cetera.

I think that your statement is wrong for a number of reasons. One reason is that the present radical SJW-type (if we are speaking of America) is clearly to be found in the radical Christians who put in motion the American Civil War. Lincoln is said to have said to Harriet Beecher Stowe: "So, you're the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war'. It is apocryphal and yet it reveals a truth. Her radical northern-style puritan Christianity with all its social interpretations and its equalizing desires and motivations is clearly evidxent in the modern American SJW. The cultural continuity can be traced. Therefor, the classic SJW at least in the sense of their psychological motive and their historical link, is not radical to America.

Similarly, what motivates the New American Right can be found within American political opinion. It is not radical to it. It is part-and-parcel of it. It becomes then a question of what region or aspect of Americanism one desires to focus on.

I would suggest that the question is more about what asspect of American identity one desires to link to. My understanding is that it can best be seen in a North vs South antagonism. The active, self-convinced Norther zealot who is so convinced of his righteousness before God and man (and who defines 'American exceptionalism') vs. the older, traditionalist, pre-nationalist who defined himself more in relation to his state, his region.

Both hold to different visions of what America is and where it should go. And that, IMV, is where the core of the present and developing conflict is located.

Complicating that is early 20th century Marxian influence and the trend toward socialism. The present SJW Left feels comfortable within socialist discourse, indeed embodies it as an extension of American civil religiosity. The Alt-Rightist (in the best case) is more linked to Paleo-conservatism which is more linked to the older, regional Americanism.
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: And I do believe Genius type of philosophers, like yourself, have a role to play since they have the background, experience and the understanding to provide a healthier philosophical base than the "new right" can ever do with their race identities or hallowing of a fading set of traditions.

So I'd suggest to write your next blog entry on gender and its relevance and irrelevance to a true philosophy of life :-)

David: I'm currently working on an expanded version of Wisdom of the Infinite, which will be released at some point over the next few months. I do agree with you that the issue of masculinity in the modern, globalized age needs to be addressed in a far more intelligent way than what we are seeing from the Breitbart/alt-right movement. But I have other priorities at the moment.
______________________________

I think what you have said is a bias-loaded statement overall, Diebert. It may be true, and certainly will be true, that philosophers of many sorts will have a 'role to play' in the developing definitions that are now coming into view. And those philosophers come from many different backgrounds and orientations and are in no sense at all a monolith. To find a term that can sum them up is a fraught effort. It has to be done carefully and also fairly.

I am not at all convinced though that David has the necessary background or experience to make much of a contribution at all. Both you and he --- if I will be allowed to place you together for a moment --- can be said to be wrapped up in postmodern personal exigencies. This is clearly true in your own case. You have no structure, or very little of one, to make any definitive statement on any topic. And if David will make a statement, how will it be different from a recapitulation of his present socialized political vision?

What is the 'background' 'experience' and 'understanding' that will is required to forge a platform and position that can be applied in our present? I suggest that you can make no such statement to that question and when you do you will spin off into postmodern indefinites. That is basically what your discourse is.

And I am not convinced that David is qualified to speak about masculinity. In fact, as I have said, there is a good deal of visible confusion about what 'masulinity' is and how it should be defined. I have no doubt that a start has been made in this direction but I am not at all convinced that based on David's recent discourse I should add though also based on what he has written about masulinity in the past that anything of much use or interest will be put forward.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Russell Parr »

Kevin Solway wrote:
Russell Parr wrote:This SJW vs alt-right war is merely just the far left vs the far right.
There's a lot more people fighting against the SJWs than the far right. I'm a left-leaning person, and I'm fully against the SJWs. Others, like Jordan Peterson, or the Google memo writer, are centrist.
This may be the case, but I think the tides will turn as Trump's presidency continues, like a seesaw in reaction to which political party holds presidency. As I see it, following the crash of '08 (and to some degree, Bush's presidency), Obama's presidency gave rise to the far left and the SJWs. He gave them a sense of legitimacy, just as Trump will continue to do for the far right and the Nazis (I'd like to change my words a bit: on the extreme left are the SJWs, and on the extreme right are the Nazis. Most of the alt-right are moreso 'regular right-wingers' than they are extremist). Increasing economic pressures make extremism more popular.
Google has serious problems when they are firing their top employees for the crime of speaking the truth. And their policy of hiding information they don't agree with will probably spell the end of Google.

As someone has pointed out, Google may just be trying to satisfy what they perceive to be the needs of the general public. If they believe that the general public are crying out for bullshit and lies, then they see it as their duty to provide it.
It most definitely was a PR move. As Google is a for-profit company, it will do whatever it needs to protect its profits by ensuring its employees have a comfortable place to do their jobs, at the expense of principles if necessary. If they hadn't fired Damore quickly, there would have been Berkeley-esque riots on their campuses for weeks.

_____
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:There's this human tendency to assign a "willful force" or some intent to certain affairs as to worship or to fear.
It is both meaningful and responsible to assign "willful force" somewhere along the causal chain when it comes to human action. I see Google as a passive organization. I think its role and goal is not to assert any particular agenda, but to provide the service of information to assist others in their own agendas. This includes, unfortunately, not just normal businesses looking to reach customers, but also socialists, fascists, and oligarchs looking to spread political ideologies.

In other words, Google, as a company, is feminine in nature. It will bend and mold itself to whims of society. They do this very well. I predict they will be around for a long, long time.

_____
jupiviv wrote:If they don't ratchet up the liberalism in response to the alt right wave many people will feel betrayed and switch to someone else who does. The usage of their products isn't determined by any actual need. No one will starve to death if they choose to duckduckgo or baidu over google or facebook.
We now live in the information age. I highly doubt there will be any nuclear war, and definitely no more uber-scale long term wars like the World Wars, because they can only be sustained upon public ignorance. The oligarchs' grip on public outlook is more fragile now than it has ever been.

On top of all that, things are getting better overall worldwide. See this and watch this Hans Rosling video if you'd like.

The biggest threat to humans in the future might be, as Elon Musk put it, artificial intelligence.

_____
JohnJAu wrote:Do you really think that women are treated as second-class citizens? That seems to be out of touch with the facts. From every statistic that I've seen and my own anecdotal evidence it seems that the average middle/lower class woman in western countries like America and Australia is far more privileged than the average middle/lower class man.
This is all true in a sense, but what also remains true, and perhaps always will, is that men treat women with a protectionist attitude that inhibits their ability to become wise and truly independent. But of course, what will perhaps always remain true as well, is that women play into this because it is the most pleasurable and least difficult way to live.

_____
Santiago Odo wrote:I would suggest that if it can be made to seem as you say, that it will happen that both of those extremes can be successfully resisted and defeated. And what will be left? The present structure. And what is the present structure? The answer to that question will determine where one sits, politically and in many different areas, and will tell exactly who one is, what they desire, et cetera.
Yes of course, take away extremism and the current system will be better off for it. But even then, the government is way too big and powerful. As is, it provides large scale consequences for if and when corruption infests it.
I think that your statement is wrong for a number of reasons. [snip]
And I think you're stuck in the past! Your historical examples can only apply to current times in limited degrees. History certainly rhymes, but it doesn't necessarily repeat.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv »

Kevin Solway wrote:As I see it, the current "alt right" is an extremely fringe group
I define "alt right" as right wing inclined reactionism, which I see a lot of people doing because they hate certain liberal policies, Clinton, SJWs etc. I have a problem with it because it exhibits a desire for belonging and some common purpose; they don't want to think deeply about anything, and want instant ad hoc revolutions against rightly or wrongly perceived evils.
I don't agree with David that Breitbart is associated with the alt-right.
Like leftists and SJWs the right, alt right and anti-SJWs are only interested in reality when it favours them. And that was my point - you are equating the lack of *specific* delusions with rationality.
In my view, the issue of freedom of speech is a first principle.
Freedom of *thought* is a first principle of the concept of wisdom, because thought bounded by delusion or desire is unwise ipso facto. A person can know the truth and make it known to others without having the right to free speech.

Then there is the question of how freedom of speech is defined. If it merely means that you can speak your mind or express yourself without affecting anything or anyone else, then I would say that is logically impossible to achieve since the nature of speech is the same as that of other things.

On the other hand, if it means you are only free to speak the *truth*, or the truth as it pertains to the specific context which is at hand, then it is not the same as freedom of speech as conventionally defined. In fact, the whole of the SJW movement in the west will become impotent if this definition is applied to the education system, i.e., summarily firing anyone whose actions in official capacity are guided by *any* political affiliation. Also, any curricula with political elements (including freedom/great women/founding fathers) should be banned outright from schools and only limited to the relevant subjects in colleges. The choice presented for school boards at least would be very simple - either teach the students real skills (agriculture, mathematics, sciences, trades etc.) or you'll be unemployed or disfranchised. They can choose to learn about how good diversity, freedom and race realism are as adults.

A similar system exists, unofficially at least, in a few private tech colleges in India. 9.0+ GPA M.Tech professors are a dime a dozen, don't have a union and usually aren't interested in activism anyway so they don't complain about it. Recently a feminist teacher from Delhi/Punjab tried to implement some kind of sex-specific punishment system in a government school, so the parents stormed the DM's (=district magistrate; basically the de jure number 2 civil servant in the municipality, appointed by the chief minister of the state) office and had her kicked out. The majority of the school's teachers were female and some of them apparently protested, but you can't argue against the lower middle-class vote. Government teachers do have unions and according to the paper I read the story in she wasn't doing anything technically illegal (unless the punishment was corporal, which wasn't specified). She was probably moved to another school, but she won't try anything like that again.

I studied at a Christian missionary school called Don Bosco between the ages of 13 and 15. We had a (female) Anglo-Indian teacher who bad-mouthed Hinduism and called our gods either non-existent or demonic. I inadvertently told my dad about this, and he wrote a letter to the headmaster. I didn't deliver it as you can imagine, so he questioned my manhood, got some of the other dads and his colleagues together and - long story short - no one was required to sit for the "Bible Studies" and "Moral Science" exams that year. What can I say, I've only inherited about 60% of my dad's ornery assholitude.
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 »

Santiago Odo wrote:...radical northern-style puritan Christianity with all its social interpretations and its equalizing desires and motivations is clearly evidxent in the modern American SJW.
That's really close to nonsense. The list of "anti-SJW" folks who are "located" in Northern-style puritan Christianity is endless, including the massive crowds of Christians abhorred by everything the hard core SJW stands for! And even if you want to go that route, do a Nietzsche (e.g. his Anti-Christ) where you explore the specific error of Christianity, which goes beyond the protestant version. If anything, Luther embodied for many a purification of a sick religion, even Nazi radicals like Alfred Rosenberg declare this in a very specific and detailed way. Unless you think Rosenberg is a typical early SJW...
The active, self-convinced Norther zealot who is so convinced of his righteousness before God and man (and who defines 'American exceptionalism') vs. the older, traditionalist, pre-nationalist who defined himself more in relation to his state, his region.
While I did read the background to your thinking on the Civil War forum with some interest, I think you're often way too forcefully ramming a round peg into a square hole. It all could way more easily map to a more universal resistance to progression and change. And all the money tied up in unhealthy hypocrite structures fueling resistance movements. Trump's real power base! Did you read Pye's primer on postmodernism in the mean time? Money is now the new master narrative, which you need to understand if you want to dig into modern politics. Economical interest have become the "thing" while it used to be mere symbol and signifier. Those days are gone and you are, like so many, long for them to return?
The present SJW Left feels comfortable within socialist discourse, indeed embodies it as an extension of American civil religiosity. The Alt-Rightist (in the best case) is more linked to Paleo-conservatism which is more linked to the older, regional Americanism.
And then there's still a very big group not liking either for many reasons. This is what Kevin tried to tell and unlike you or David, he actually understands this topic from the inside out, at least is my impression. And I live in the real world, deal with real people from all over the place every day. Did you know for example that the only expression of the "New Right" in my country, the PVV with Geert Wilders is very much invoking strong images of a northern-style puritan Christianity to battle Islam as well as SJW? Most Protestants and Catholics both end up right-center here. Catholics tend to produce more populists so far though. Similar things elsewhere in Europe. So even if your discourse would mean anything, it's not relating beyond the US border.
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 »

Kevin Solway wrote:People were fighting against the SJWs for many years before the alt-right ever existed, and I don't see any connection between anti-SJWs and the alt-right.
This is true. Most of the serious critiques I've encountered would qualify as centrist and some as libertarian. A lot of Christians resists as well and they are political difficult to place as a whole. It changes a lot per denomination but also inside a group. Some are trying to link this all to the history of a population frowning on major developments like the rise of mass entertainment (early 20th century) and then increasingly wilder music and dance styles, mini skirts, nudity, freed sexuality, consumer rights and so on. But not everything is the same...

The underlying theme here is never-ending liberation. It has become a product for the SJW: victims needing saving: slaves to be liberated, a gender to be uplifted, children requiring rights and protection --all which most these days will not question much-- but then this evolves to increasingly undoing of bounds and rules, breaking down or re-organizing structures, especially social structures. But we might wonder if this is all the same movement or that we see different stages: one stage of actual liberation and progress, then later stages of sham, of pretentious, hollow freedom making. Although things are on repeat, it's not the same thing anymore. Which is what I believe to be the most important insight in understanding what SJW is based on, something not that different from the alt-right militants and racists: they are building a whole protest on largely nothingness. A show is put on and rational people look at it and are left to wonder. And at the same time so many things, including politics, have become increasingly just that: a show void of content.
That may be why Google has chosen to become political. They might be trying to make a mark before they disappear
It's being speculated already since Eric Schmidt said in The Wall Street Journal (August 14, 2010): "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next". They already did the dreaded renaming and re-branding dance by becoming "Alphabet" with Google just now being a "product". And Google search is moving with their new stream and feed services to provide pertinent information based on location, time and general usage habits or preferences: thereby creating little private echo wells as "service" or perhaps more "guidance".

Is that all "political"? Perhaps it's more like shaping the service to become a major platform to create online "selfs", all in the moment, behavior based and not information centric anymore. People are moving electronically from creatures breathing information into jellyfish floating into their bubble of personalized services. And I think Google just responds here. Any ethical pretense is a sham simply because it does not represent anything realistic. Actually, like the simulacrum that the whole field of SJW has become, its main function is to hide the very fact that there's in fact nothing to it. Well, some form of destruction as it increased anxiety and provides channels for unreasonable, primal anger on display all the time.
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 »

In the US the traditional conservative demographic is shifting very quickly. That was an older white Christian demographic. The American conservative movement is mostly defined through those terms. I think this is a demographic fact. Years ago, and at various moments in the history of American conservatism, the conservatives 'purged' out of themselves what to them seemed too radical, or anti-egalitarian. And those pushed-out elements became the 'American right-wing fringe'. But just as mainstream conservatism pushed out of itself the ideologues it didn't like, it also rather obviously came under the sway of the Left and, more or less, began to adpopt its various ideological positions. It could no longer define a racialist position for example, or exclusion, or segregation of schools. Et cetera.

If you-plural desire to incorrectly define the Alt-Right you are free to do so. Your definitions are not completely off --- they have some elements of truth --- but a better definition is needed. With the collapse of the historical American conservative movement, and the cooption of the right into the progressive democratic position, the convervative becaame, as you likely recognize, a 'cuckservative'. A new generation is rising up but they cannot and do not seek their models in the old school conservative movement. Overall, they are raw, intellectually unprepared, confused and also --- what was the word that Jupi used? I don't remember now. I would say that these people are the ones who have suffered, if you will, the loss of their sovereignty on certain levels as they (they are white) have been displaced, undervalued, non-appreciated or, at worst, defined as the enemy. This new generation within the white deographic is engaging in the only way that it can: through Internet activism, through shitposting, through putting out disruptive memes. They do not have models to elumate and so they have to invent themselves. There is a great deal that one can say about them but these are just some general comments.

The Alt-Right that I am most familiar with defines itself as a 'vanguard'. That is they steer people toward certain sources in idea by introducing them to radical concepts. One of their inspirations was the Englishman Jonathan Bowden all of whose talks are available on YouTube. Richard Spencer has been very influenced by Bowden for example.

Is the Alt-Right merely fringe? What does that mean? Is it true? I see it as vanguard movement (frankly a bit influenced by Gramsci's 'cultural hegemony' ideas) that are working very hard to stir up their people. Their influence is more pervasive then you might imagine.
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 »

Your comments make very little sense to me Diebert so I can't really offer much in return. I can say that my views of American progressivism were influenced by Robert Bella and 'The Broken Covenant' and also by Harold Bloom in 'The American Religion: The Energence of the Post-Christian Nation' among a wide assortment of titles related to the topic. Bloom traces lines of continuity between the 'first and second great awakenings' and the following generations even when those generations make up different sections and factions. I came to subscribe to that view. I think it is wise to consider 'causation' in this sense. I do really recommend Bellah for that reason. Hyper-progressive but because so he explains a great deal about the mind-set of the present. And his views on 'the American civil religion' are indispensable but little known I have found.

Harriet Beecher Stowe was a force within the intellectual and literary world. But she made limited inroads into traditional Christian-Southern culture. I read a number of early editorials from Southern papers at the time and they seemed to recognize her 'outside' ideological position. It just did not fit into their understanding of their Christianity and also social hierarchy. (Oddly, I learned that Hitler was a great admirer of Beecher-Stowe but haven't quite processed that yet).

I am relatively sure that you are not too qualified to offer many comments on the American Civil War nor my intellectual processes during that time or after. There is so much more to examine there and I lament not having more background in those studies. I could only guess how you would define yourself in relation to that field of study and interest.

I can't imagine that Kevin understands American paleoconservatism or has much interest in the early American republic.

And I must confess that I don't have a great deal of confidence in your political assessments. I hope that you will excuse me for saying so. I don't get the impression that you can speak much to or about 'identity politics' as they are forming in various places in Europe now. I could not imagine that you would not be well-versed in the politics of Holland though.
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 »

JohnJAu wrote:Do you really think that women are treated as second-class citizens? That seems to be out of touch with the facts. From every statistic that I've seen and my own anecdotal evidence it seems that the average middle/lower class woman in western countries like America and Australia is far more privileged than the average middle/lower class man.
We are all privileged to live in Australia, male and female alike. It is true that the economy is very focused on women’s desires and needs, but that is mainly because companies recognize that women run the household budgets and have a lot of disposable income. It is why Google fired Damore - no company can afford to offend half of their customer base with views that are perceived to be outdated and sexist. The anti-SJWs are dreaming if they think Google’s decision will hurt their bottom line. (And I say this as someone who whole-heartedly agrees with the basic thrust of Damore’s memo.)

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.

Admittedly, it did produce some memorable conversations. One of the funniest remarks I heard came from a middle-aged male hairdresser of all people: "If women didn't have cunts we would have to throw rocks at them. " I found that so funny I was put off my game for several holes. It ruined my score, it did.

This underlying contempt is what women have to put up with all the time. And so I don't blame them for being deeply suspicious of the motivations of old school white males, particularly when it comes to the issues of affirmative action and non-discrimination and the like, and particularly when the males in question are talking openly about wanting to go back to the good old times and making America great again. It also partly explains why I am so aghast at the anti-SJW movement that Kevin is a part of. I see the same mediocrity and whiny, petulant reactiveness that I saw in those pathetic males at the golf club.

Santiago Odo wrote: And I am not convinced that David is qualified to speak about masculinity. In fact, as I have said, there is a good deal of visible confusion about what 'masulinity' is and how it should be defined. I have no doubt that a start has been made in this direction but I am not at all convinced that based on David's recent discourse I should add though also based on what he has written about masulinity in the past that anything of much use or interest will be put forward.
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.
JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by JohnJAu »

David Quinn wrote:
that I saw in those pathetic males at the golf club.
To be perfectly honest with you, part of me, "John", while of course I know such feelings are based in delusion and ignorance, seemingly can't help but feel those same things about women. Why is this? And why have men seemingly always felt this way if you look at history, the bible, ancient myths, etc?... It's too broad a question and one could venture many good guesses or related causal factors, whether they be biological or cultural factors.

It seems to me that women truly are more privileged in many senses in the west, including differences resulting from certain biological realities, such as the fact of their 'sexual market value' being a thousand times greater than that of the average male. Yet feminism is still only relatively recent when it comes to recorded history. Those same views your golfing buddies expressed seem to have existed long before it.

One of the reasons for this male tendency seems to be that women don't have the same level of ability or drive, on average, to engage in philosophy, moral philosophy, introspection and contemplation, or in depth rational discussion. This femininity leads a man to often be disappointed, expecting more, and also seems like a threat. The threatening awareness that her irrationality will lead to some kind of destruction, and that when left unchecked, does indeed lead to things like this:

http://imgur.com/UEgOtlo

So it's easy for a man to become angry about feminism.

Man, deluded often by the appearance of woman, fueled by his desire and attraction, comes to 'love'(attachment) a being which by its very nature contradicts, or does not live up to, his other desires or expectations, he also projects the fault of his perceived shortcomings blaming the center of his attention, the woman. These contradictions results in a sort of endless disappointment fueled by an enduring irrational hope that woman will become something else entirely.

Another reason is simply the competitive nature of man, jealousy, covetousness, and the biological sense that a woman is attracted to other men, value judging him, and ready to engage in 'trading up'. The weaker man, due to his great attachment, then becomes paranoid, self-conscious, he even lives in fear, and turns in on himself, or has already faced some feelings of rejection, all of which leads to frustration, hate, or anger.
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 »

Yes David but I have seen the face if God. Trumps there mere 'Infinite'. ;-)
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 »

Santiago Odo wrote: think it is wise to consider 'causation' in this sense.
Christianity is historically just as linked to forces of social and scientific progress as it's being linked to conservatism when rapid social or scientific developments are perceived as threat during a certain period. A case could be made that both SJW and "new conservatism" have roots in Christianity including the Protestant flavors. This is I believe the broader, more consistent and useful view. But what you're suggesting is just too truncated, too cherry-picked and propped up by quite a mixed, selective bag of sources. In any case, you're not making any proper case, logically or consistently. What you end up doing is a form of evangelizing, which makes it clear where to place you in this broader view. A Judeo-Christian white walker!
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: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.

So I don't think it's a useful definition. I get the impression it just means "anti-SJW", and carrying the implication of "Nazi".

. . . 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?

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.

Then there is the question of how freedom of speech is defined. If it merely means that you can speak your mind or express yourself without affecting anything or anyone else
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.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway »

Russell Parr wrote:Google, as a company, is feminine in nature. It will bend and mold itself to whims of society. They do this very well. I predict they will be around for a long, long time.
The problem for Google is that, internally, it is a religious cult, akin to the scientologists, and they try to stamp-out the slightest impurity. Such religious cults can't last forever. They might last a few more decades, but unless they turn it around, they are doomed.
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:One of the funniest remarks I heard came from a middle-aged male hairdresser of all people: "If women didn't have cunts we would have to throw rocks at them. "
I believe he's referring to the fact that men are biologically designed to look after women. In other words, we look after women not because it is rational to do so, but because we are impelled to do so through our biology, since we are biologically dependent on women to bear children. He's saying that without this biological bias, and if we judged women using the same criteria that we judge men, then we wouldn't think so highly of women. And I think he's right.

This underlying contempt is what women have to put up with all the time.
It's not contempt if it's true, as with the Google memo writer.

wanting to go back to the good old times
In my view it's the SJWs and the "regressive left" who want to go back to "the good old times". You even have feminists calling for women to completely cover themselves with burkas, and supporting fundamentalist Islam. They want separate laws for men and women. Many of the extreme left are calling for strict racial segregation based on skin color, or the extinction of white people, while many others are calling for the institution of communism. All of that is regressive in my view.
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 Quinn wrote:One of the funniest remarks I heard came from a middle-aged male hairdresser of all people: "If women didn't have cunts we would have to throw rocks at them. "
I believe he's referring to the fact that men are biologically designed to look after women. In other words, we look after women not because it is rational to do so, but because we are impelled to do so through our biology, since we are biologically dependent on women to bear children. He's saying that without this biological bias, and if we judged women using the same criteria that we judge men, then we wouldn't think so highly of women. And I think he's right.
This only serves to make men sound even more pathetic. Apparently, they are such pussy-whipped slaves that they cannot even begin to think straight when it comes to women and lack any capacity for independent decision-making. And this is supposed to be the superior sex!

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:This underlying contempt is what women have to put up with all the time.
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.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:wanting to go back to the good old times
In my view it's the SJWs and the "regressive left" who want to go back to "the good old times". You even have feminists calling for women to completely cover themselves with burkas, and supporting fundamentalist Islam. They want separate laws for men and women. Many of the extreme left are calling for strict racial segregation based on skin color, while many others are calling for the institution of communism. All of that is regressive in my view.
Who cares what those lunatics think? They are very much on the fringe and ignored by nearly everyone. Only a person stuck in an isolated town with nothing going on in his life at all could possibly take such rubbish seriously.
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 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?

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. So you effectively cutting yourself off from reality.

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.
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 »

JohnJAu wrote:To be perfectly honest with you, part of me, "John", while of course I know such feelings are based in delusion and ignorance, seemingly can't help but feel those same things about women. Why is this? And why have men seemingly always felt this way if you look at history, the bible, ancient myths, etc?... It's too broad a question and one could venture many good guesses or related causal factors, whether they be biological or cultural factors.

It seems to me that women truly are more privileged in many senses in the west, including differences resulting from certain biological realities, such as the fact of their 'sexual market value' being a thousand times greater than that of the average male. Yet feminism is still only relatively recent when it comes to recorded history. Those same views your golfing buddies expressed seem to have existed long before it.

One of the reasons for this male tendency seems to be that women don't have the same level of ability or drive, on average, to engage in philosophy, moral philosophy, introspection and contemplation, or in depth rational discussion. This femininity leads a man to often be disappointed, expecting more, and also seems like a threat. The threatening awareness that her irrationality will lead to some kind of destruction, and that when left unchecked, does indeed lead to things like this:

http://imgur.com/UEgOtlo

So it's easy for a man to become angry about feminism.

Man, deluded often by the appearance of woman, fueled by his desire and attraction, comes to 'love'(attachment) a being which by its very nature contradicts, or does not live up to, his other desires or expectations, he also projects the fault of his perceived shortcomings blaming the center of his attention, the woman. These contradictions results in a sort of endless disappointment fueled by an enduring irrational hope that woman will become something else entirely.

Another reason is simply the competitive nature of man, jealousy, covetousness, and the biological sense that a woman is attracted to other men, value judging him, and ready to engage in 'trading up'. The weaker man, due to his great attachment, then becomes paranoid, self-conscious, he even lives in fear, and turns in on himself, or has already faced some feelings of rejection, all of which leads to frustration, hate, or anger.
Good post. You are right that men’s contempt for women has been around for thousands of years and springs from their inability to control them. Indeed, their contempt is an expression of their impotence. Feminism exacerbates this by pushing women even more beyond their control.

Men cannot have it both ways, though. If they really are the superior sex, then it is up to them to deal with the situation in a superior manner. But we don’t see this in the anti-SJW movement. Instead, what we see are lots of third-rate men whining like little girls and attacking women in a very hostile manner. It really is a most pathetic spectacle.

So I say to men. Stop the whining. Take control of your lives. If you don’t like a particular situation, then do something about it. Stop playing the victim-card all the time. It makes you worse than women.
Locked