rams, i'd discuss it with you, but we should be working from the same presuppositions, which i'm far too lazy to ground. nobody likes to be lectured, but i won't signal i'm wrong on something i'm not.
Stefan Molyneux
- Thread starter Anthropoid
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Flin Flon
I'm not too lazy to ground them. I'm up for it if the other person explicitly says that they are too. Otherwise, I'm sending walls of text to normies, that lead actual lives, who never even thought about these things. It's awkward, weird and a waste of time if they don't care about engaging.
For exmaple, Sundeki is clearly not familiar with concepts like how the values of a society we're born in, is 90% predetermined; he characterizes a top-down shift of values in a loaded fashion as ''propaganda'', and completely neglects that established and promoted cultural forces are the only thing keeping us from our more harmful biological and psychological inclinations. These sort of things are existential and unintuitive if you don't take an active interest in them.
And again, like we've discussed earlier, I care about sentiments that are felt and left behind after conversations (because they're equally formative etc.).
no i am genuinely too lazy/sick/distractable to ground them for you right now. the ones you're missing to be able to adequately have this discussion. no shade, tho by meme law i am obligated to say that i have the advantage on you there, as i dabble in doing words real good.
Flin Flon
**** you but thanks for the good faith.
Well it certainly took you long enough to make a point. Might be easier to just type it out rather than have a breakdown mid discussion next time.Flin Flon said:
Well if you're looking at it through the lens of material determinism, then it's more than 90%. More like 99.9999-something%. Since humans clearly have certain realities that prevent us from having actual free will (e.g you can't fly without technological assistance, you can't live on the bottom of the ocean without technological assistance, etc.). But within the framework of what little % of possible actions we can take, basically nothing is set in stone. Opinions shift constantly, values change over time. Some values change without being forced, others do. And within the context that this is relevant to what is posted by me previously: crisis conditions lead to massive shifts in opinions. When people can't feed their kids, a large number are willing to accept a violent tyrant, who kills off his political opponents, as long as otherwise he keeps the food coming, the streets safe, and the government functioning. This is exactly how demagogues emerge.
Uhh, no. I characterize any biased, 1-sided, information peddling, as "propaganda". Regardless of the source. The word propaganda has recieved negative connotations in recent years, but literally every movement/group/party/country engages in it. A top-down shift of values is called social engineering. Propaganda is one mechanism through which this is achieved.
But such things are entirely subjective. Stalin's Soviet Union criminalized homosexuality as a "harmful psychological inclination". "Established and promoted cultural forces" that are established in e.g Western Countries now are subjectively determined, and other countries who don't share many of the same values, view theirs as "the only thing keeping us from our more harmful biological and psychological inclinations.". There is no objectively right answer. It is widely accepted that the overwhelming majority of Germans in Nazi Germany supported Hitler. Less than 2 decades later, West Germany was a high functioning Liberal-Democracy with antithetical values to that of the Third Reich. The idea that the values of your country just happening to be the ones that keep things from "harmful...inclinations" is just arrogance, since there is no such thing. Many of us just determine, entirely subjectively, that most of the values of our countries now are more moral than that others.
I'd also like to point out that most of what you've leveled against me in this post is a strawman. At least argue the points instead of pretending that you know what is going on in my head. Since you clearly don't.
Flin Flon
Ok, hostility aside.
You, without a doubt, invoked the word 'propaganda' in a loaded fashion. Signalling, (intentionally or not) that I suggested we engage in information warfare of some sort.1 Or that, my suggestion that we 'combat' certain notions was in contradiction to the plurality of ideas, or impeding on our autonomy2. These things aren't a dichotomy per se. Maybe the mistake here was that I shouldn't have said 'combat' because it can suggest aggressive methods. The 'combating' or 'promoting' of ideas can encompass anything and can be as simple as a children's cartoon teaching not to judge a book by its cover. However, I did clarify twice I did not mean aggressive methods per se. Me saying that you're characterizing 'promoted values' as 'propaganda' (negatively) is a result of you and/or: 1) not reading what I'm saying; 2) mischaracterizing me; 3) not extending a charitable interpretation of what I mean. But I'll concede that I should have used examples because that's what people best engage with.
I don't care much for the term 'social engineering' because it's invoked too easily. You agree that personal sentiments are formed by the public, and that public ones are formed by personal ones. If this circularity is safeguarded with sufficiently rigid checks and balances, then a top-down shift of values is not only secure but should even be beneficial (if you're a meritocracy). Experts should be better placed on what is for the best for the public3, where the liberal notion of preference maximization is included in such a determination.
If, the Soviet Union in the 1950s, through sophisticated manners, conducted research to their best ability, and concluded that homosexuality was harmful, then that, should be an objective value or truth.4 Truths are a necessary condition of being alive and making an argument of any sort of improvement to your society. If there is no truth, then there is no argument to be made for any improvement, anywhere. In fact, if there is no truth, then you cannot logically have this conversation, because we cannot prove our existence. This is what epistemology deals with, and what I meant with 'meta-science'. Science is not a static entity but advances as we develop a better understanding of our surroundings. Previously established 'true' ideas can be proven wrong as your methodology of measurements and interpretation of data becomes more sophisticated. Currently, such sophistication includes the forgoing of preconceived biases and personal and state agendas. Whether or not these biases and agendas can truly be withheld depends, among others, on the accessibility of academia and the freedom of circulating your findings (or speech), which are liberal values.
In a social-liberal society, the way we organize and determine the desired from the undesirable is through a series of syllogisms, where we attempt to maximize pleasure for the most people in spite of contradictory desires. Again, we must rely on a calculus of desires if we want to be able to make arguments for improvement, lest no improvement is possible. We have, for purely egotistical reasons, entered into a social contract where we must forgo maximum egotistical impulses (e.g.: stealing) for us not to become subject to them (being stolen from). This framework is what we call justice. By virtue of entering into the social contract, we have agreed that we must construct values in order for society to function most consummately. If you postulate that values are entirely subjective (which is not untrue, but inevitably lead us to...) then that means that one can justify anything. Which is not a belief held by anyone, and not how we should organize society. We should have established beliefs, even internationally ('injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' is a good one to go by). This is what we call moral constructivism.
Many of the aforementioned impulses are ingrained biologically, whilst, remaining incompatible with our constructed values of justice. For example, we have the inclination to rape; however, instilled cultural values have taught us that rape is deplorable because it is unjust to rape a non-consenting person in view of the (social, bodily, psychological etc.) damage it causes. Rape is incongruous with our established notions of justice. The condemnation and eventual illegalization of raping your wife was only codified in the ~1970s. Despite the public majority opposition, there is logically no way to uphold such conduct if you hold that the undesirable outweighs the desired. Science helps us inform of the damages (or undesirables) and determine whether we will do way with them in our calculus (where the benefits are also weighted). The same example is true for matters such as discrimination or racism. Humans are intrinsically dependent on heuristic thought-processes such as categorizations. We have a natural inclination to categorize groups of people and assign them characteristics because we cognitively can't deal with nuances on nuances. This sort of thinking leads to discrimination. Fortunately, here too it is possible to address this with instilled cultural values. We should treat people equally if we want to be treated equally, and if, we can measure that inequality is undesirable. Despite the majority demographic group (potentially) pushing back on such a correction, you should conduct it still.5 Not adhering to our construct of justice means that the social contract is broken and that the misgrieved party can enact injustice on you (because it is not granted equal justice).
It's strange that you bring on the example of Germany because the German people did not decide to adopt a liberal government. It was imposed on them.
Lastly, I didn't say that 'your country is the only thing that keeps you from harmful inclinations'. That's a gross reduction of the discussion we're having. Leave this **** out, yea?
1: Your words: '...creation of a thought-crime policing state.'
2: You can argue otherwise, but it'll become a philosophical discussion. Which again, I'm fine with having, but I don't think the odds are in your favour if you're a determinist.
3: Hierarchies should be utilized to their benefit, when appropriate. E.g.: You'd rather have a surgeon dictate your operation as opposed to it becoming an open discussion where one or more of the participants are uninformed.
4: However, if the Union postures indiscriminately maximizing wellbeing to all (including homosexual people), whilst maintaining that homosexuality is harmful despite contrary evidence, then its conduct is irrational by definition.
5: There's a moral conundrum here. As a consequentialist, you should account for potential backlash when you promote progressive values.
To anyone that has read the above: if you want, feel free to point out things that are unconvincing, flawed, incomplete or wrong. Or anything that sounds like gibberish. I like feedback and I'd love to improve/adjust things.
You, without a doubt, invoked the word 'propaganda' in a loaded fashion. Signalling, (intentionally or not) that I suggested we engage in information warfare of some sort.1 Or that, my suggestion that we 'combat' certain notions was in contradiction to the plurality of ideas, or impeding on our autonomy2. These things aren't a dichotomy per se. Maybe the mistake here was that I shouldn't have said 'combat' because it can suggest aggressive methods. The 'combating' or 'promoting' of ideas can encompass anything and can be as simple as a children's cartoon teaching not to judge a book by its cover. However, I did clarify twice I did not mean aggressive methods per se. Me saying that you're characterizing 'promoted values' as 'propaganda' (negatively) is a result of you and/or: 1) not reading what I'm saying; 2) mischaracterizing me; 3) not extending a charitable interpretation of what I mean. But I'll concede that I should have used examples because that's what people best engage with.
I don't care much for the term 'social engineering' because it's invoked too easily. You agree that personal sentiments are formed by the public, and that public ones are formed by personal ones. If this circularity is safeguarded with sufficiently rigid checks and balances, then a top-down shift of values is not only secure but should even be beneficial (if you're a meritocracy). Experts should be better placed on what is for the best for the public3, where the liberal notion of preference maximization is included in such a determination.
If, the Soviet Union in the 1950s, through sophisticated manners, conducted research to their best ability, and concluded that homosexuality was harmful, then that, should be an objective value or truth.4 Truths are a necessary condition of being alive and making an argument of any sort of improvement to your society. If there is no truth, then there is no argument to be made for any improvement, anywhere. In fact, if there is no truth, then you cannot logically have this conversation, because we cannot prove our existence. This is what epistemology deals with, and what I meant with 'meta-science'. Science is not a static entity but advances as we develop a better understanding of our surroundings. Previously established 'true' ideas can be proven wrong as your methodology of measurements and interpretation of data becomes more sophisticated. Currently, such sophistication includes the forgoing of preconceived biases and personal and state agendas. Whether or not these biases and agendas can truly be withheld depends, among others, on the accessibility of academia and the freedom of circulating your findings (or speech), which are liberal values.
In a social-liberal society, the way we organize and determine the desired from the undesirable is through a series of syllogisms, where we attempt to maximize pleasure for the most people in spite of contradictory desires. Again, we must rely on a calculus of desires if we want to be able to make arguments for improvement, lest no improvement is possible. We have, for purely egotistical reasons, entered into a social contract where we must forgo maximum egotistical impulses (e.g.: stealing) for us not to become subject to them (being stolen from). This framework is what we call justice. By virtue of entering into the social contract, we have agreed that we must construct values in order for society to function most consummately. If you postulate that values are entirely subjective (which is not untrue, but inevitably lead us to...) then that means that one can justify anything. Which is not a belief held by anyone, and not how we should organize society. We should have established beliefs, even internationally ('injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' is a good one to go by). This is what we call moral constructivism.
Many of the aforementioned impulses are ingrained biologically, whilst, remaining incompatible with our constructed values of justice. For example, we have the inclination to rape; however, instilled cultural values have taught us that rape is deplorable because it is unjust to rape a non-consenting person in view of the (social, bodily, psychological etc.) damage it causes. Rape is incongruous with our established notions of justice. The condemnation and eventual illegalization of raping your wife was only codified in the ~1970s. Despite the public majority opposition, there is logically no way to uphold such conduct if you hold that the undesirable outweighs the desired. Science helps us inform of the damages (or undesirables) and determine whether we will do way with them in our calculus (where the benefits are also weighted). The same example is true for matters such as discrimination or racism. Humans are intrinsically dependent on heuristic thought-processes such as categorizations. We have a natural inclination to categorize groups of people and assign them characteristics because we cognitively can't deal with nuances on nuances. This sort of thinking leads to discrimination. Fortunately, here too it is possible to address this with instilled cultural values. We should treat people equally if we want to be treated equally, and if, we can measure that inequality is undesirable. Despite the majority demographic group (potentially) pushing back on such a correction, you should conduct it still.5 Not adhering to our construct of justice means that the social contract is broken and that the misgrieved party can enact injustice on you (because it is not granted equal justice).
It's strange that you bring on the example of Germany because the German people did not decide to adopt a liberal government. It was imposed on them.
Lastly, I didn't say that 'your country is the only thing that keeps you from harmful inclinations'. That's a gross reduction of the discussion we're having. Leave this **** out, yea?
1: Your words: '...creation of a thought-crime policing state.'
2: You can argue otherwise, but it'll become a philosophical discussion. Which again, I'm fine with having, but I don't think the odds are in your favour if you're a determinist.
3: Hierarchies should be utilized to their benefit, when appropriate. E.g.: You'd rather have a surgeon dictate your operation as opposed to it becoming an open discussion where one or more of the participants are uninformed.
4: However, if the Union postures indiscriminately maximizing wellbeing to all (including homosexual people), whilst maintaining that homosexuality is harmful despite contrary evidence, then its conduct is irrational by definition.
5: There's a moral conundrum here. As a consequentialist, you should account for potential backlash when you promote progressive values.
To anyone that has read the above: if you want, feel free to point out things that are unconvincing, flawed, incomplete or wrong. Or anything that sounds like gibberish. I like feedback and I'd love to improve/adjust things.
No, I didn't. I "invoked" the word 'propaganda' in a purely definitional sense. That you want to 'read between the lines', and incorrectly interpret my intentions or disposition; that doesn't have anything to do with me, or the discussion at hand. I don't have a hidden agenda beyond the discussion of the point. I don't desire this to go anywhere, or to achieve anything other than discussion for the sake of discussion. So I recommend you stop wasting your time trying to determine what my motivations are and read what I actually say.Flin Flon said:
Once again, you're reading between the lines. I did not use the term "propaganda" negatively. And this entire paragraph is based on the incorrect assumption that I did.
Assuming of course that it is actually meritocratic, and those experts are there by their own competence. Something that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to properly measure. There are also many cases of people/scientists who have theories that contradict the established narrative, who are ostracized, who eventually turn out to be factually correct when the mechanisms through which proper testing can occur, are created. You might not "care much" for the term social engineering, because you are of the perspective that "experts" are/should be "better placed" to affect social change. But it is the social mechanisms (which even in self-labelled "meritocratic" Liberal systems are flooded with many biases) in which these experts are selected and used which corrupt genuine results. I do have a problem with a special interest group, or state, attempting, for it's own political reasons, to engineer the behaviour/thought patterns of ordinary people. Such is little better than totalitarianism, even in a Liberal-Democratic society.
I don't really disagree with any of this. I also fail to see what this deviation has to do with the previous discussion. Being someone that, as you say, "dibble[ s ] in metascience and ethics", your perspective seems to be dominated by theoretical and philosophical perspectives, on this issue. My perspective is based more on applied political science, and sociology. When you asked the original question of "Do you think that we should, ideologically combat socialists and communists with any less diligence than fashy types, in view of that their ideas can be equally harmful?", the issue was framed in terms of it's practicality, due to it's specific defining statement of "that their ideas can be equally harmful". We aren't having the same argument. Here is where I avoid calling you ignorant, and simply state that we aren't on the same page, or even having the same argument.
Germans didn't choose to be ruled by a monarchy, or choose to have that monarchy abdicate and be replaced by a Republic, or choose to have that republic replaced by a one-party fascists state, or choose to tear down that state in favor of a liberal-democratic republic. What the German people chose or didn't choose doesn't seem to be relevant as it clearly had no deciding effect on events. Which historically is the case the vast majority of the time.
Try to avoid the underhanded insults and blistering arrogance in the future if you want to avoid "hostility".
Flin Flon
This feels so much like post hoc rationalization to me. I cannot be assed with going back and showing you that your use of 'propaganda' (or 'thought-policing' as you said) was implied with negative connotations. I don't know you, and I am not accusing you of any malice or agenda, only what I perceive as a gap in understanding. It is entirely possible that you did it subconsciously, that's what we do most of the time. Communication is not as one-dimensional as 'intention'. Personally, I'm unconvinced and super disillusioned with that the burden is on me to point this out instead of you owning up to it.
It's not theoretical per se (shut up, Moose), it's presuppositional. It's important because we can't have a conversation if we don't have the same understanding of what is desirable. I've touched on the effects or the practicability of the question with the Trump example, which you, as far as I could see, missed the point of, because you erroneously conflated nationalists with leftists (there probably is a comparison, but yours was odd, imo) and that (a shift of) values is reducible to material conditions, which is a very uncomfortable position. And then that values or 'desirables' aren't or shouldn't be 'objective'(?).
Yes, we can only do these things to our best ability.
So, would you be ok with engineering behaviour if it was not (just) for 'its own political reason'? It sounds like you don't believe that we should try to internalize and mitigate this particular issue as we do with any system. E.g: Democracy shouldn't function if we didn't have the mechanisms to prevent the tyranny of the majority; capitalism shouldn't function if we didn't have the mechanisms to address the aggregation of wealth, etc.. Also, not that I don't believe you, but do you have any papers that clarify your position? Hell, throw me multiple if you want.
I still don't get it. What do you mean by this?
PERSONALLY, I don't care. You can be as abusive as you want. I only reign myself in if it's obstructing the discussion. I'm mildly sociopathic or something.
My exact quote was: "Near as I can tell, these cases we're talking about seem to be the result of purely material conditions, and not targeted anti-communist/anti-fascist/pro-liberal propaganda from the state or special interest groups." I don't have to own up to anything if I didn't do anything. If you want to think the word "propaganda" means something else other than what it means, that's your problem.Flin Flon said:
I did not conflate Nationalists with Leftists. That never happened. Argue against what I actually said.
Values aren't objective, since clearly they differ from group to group. Two groups can see the exact same data and come to different conclusions, as is often the case.
Because there is a difference between telling someone something that they can't physically do, and manipulating them to thinking in a certain way. One acts in response to events, the other manufactures events. One reorganizes conscious behaviour while leaving them free to think/believe what they want, the other reorganizes the way people think(and yes before someone starts down this rabbit hole: laws do change how people think. Merely the intention and methods are very different). The "mechanisms to prevent the tyranny of the majority" are the former, as an example. The state holds the monopoly on violence, to give it the tools to engineer it's population's thoughts in a proactive manner(which by definition has no means of fighting back short of civil war) is playing with fire. If an idea has merit or value, it should be organically spread outwards through ordinary social interaction, and debate between conflicting parties. Not a shoved in your face specifically and often psychologically targeted piece of propaganda.
Also what papers are you talking about? On what?
I'm saying that how the German people ended up where they were, in my original example, is based on subjective value systems, which change depending on circumstances and perceptions. It's a part of the argument against the concept of objective values.
Then the point of "Ok, hostility aside.", was...?
The last good thing Stefan Molyneux did was Populous. Most of the newer stuff is a bit limp. I guess Dungeon Keeper is probably the other good one.
What about Syndicate, Black & White? You were overly amibtious in attempting to denigrate Stefan's legacy, and the result fell short. 
Flin Flon
Fair note, I'm gonna use the word 'logical' a lot, because you understand and agree that ideas and practices need to be congruent to be true and functional.
Both the ideas of fascism and nationalism, inherently, rely on the (illogical) notion of supremacy over other peoples. The method of the expression of this idea can only be in the form of conflicting forces. We culturally or societally combat notions of supremacy, because, we know that it's bogus and not conducive to a functional society.
Marxists and social democrats inherently believe that people should be equal. The method of expressing this should not be dangerous in and of itself, given that equality is in accordance with our understanding of a functional society. However, Marxists are not shy from adopting contradictory ideas to reach their goal, which is untrue for social democrats. Thus, we characterize Marxists as illogical, but cannot do so for social democrats.
We should combat nationalists, fascists and (potentially) Marxists because their ideas are incongruent. We cannot say the same for social democrats.
Supremacy has in recent times resulted in real harm; e.g.: the construction of concentration camps in China and the US, the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingyas and discriminatory legislation in India. Even in Europe, we have seen a rise in violence and discrimination against non-natives - all have a causal link to supremacist (or nationalist) notions. This not comparable to the danger that social democrats pose if you hold that the protection of (the quality of) life is the purpose here. Hence, I call your mention of potential radicalization of social democrats as conflation.
I have no idea of social democrats flipping to Marxism which results in actual harm. Maybe you can tell or link me more if you want.
Example: https://qz.com/1634319/the-us-is-to-blame-for-global-erosion-of-human-rights-says-top-un-official/
Contrary to what you said, I care about actual measurable effects. Where the presupposition is 'the best for the most people' (when that is measurable).
On one more note, you need to understand that invoking 'propaganda, social engineering or organic' as self-explanatory evidence is not a good argument. You will not find me invoking 'democracy' as an argument, because democracy is not intrinsically good. It is only good insofar it can be utilized for good. As soon as democracy becomes harmful, we curb it. As another example, violence is not intrinsically good or bad. Violence is undesirable most of the time because it causes harm, however, we utilize violence to uphold the rule of law, hence its desirability is entirely dependent on its purpose. 'Violence is bad because authoritarian regimes relied on violence to perpetuate their regime' is not an adequate argument.
So, if words have the same meaning to you as they do to me, then this implies: That social democrats have the same potential to adopt Marxist beliefs if nationalists have the potential to adopt fascist beliefs.
Both the ideas of fascism and nationalism, inherently, rely on the (illogical) notion of supremacy over other peoples. The method of the expression of this idea can only be in the form of conflicting forces. We culturally or societally combat notions of supremacy, because, we know that it's bogus and not conducive to a functional society.
Marxists and social democrats inherently believe that people should be equal. The method of expressing this should not be dangerous in and of itself, given that equality is in accordance with our understanding of a functional society. However, Marxists are not shy from adopting contradictory ideas to reach their goal, which is untrue for social democrats. Thus, we characterize Marxists as illogical, but cannot do so for social democrats.
We should combat nationalists, fascists and (potentially) Marxists because their ideas are incongruent. We cannot say the same for social democrats.
...all parties in Eastern Europe were effectively communist because that was the only permissible party
Supremacy has in recent times resulted in real harm; e.g.: the construction of concentration camps in China and the US, the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingyas and discriminatory legislation in India. Even in Europe, we have seen a rise in violence and discrimination against non-natives - all have a causal link to supremacist (or nationalist) notions. This not comparable to the danger that social democrats pose if you hold that the protection of (the quality of) life is the purpose here. Hence, I call your mention of potential radicalization of social democrats as conflation.
I have no idea of social democrats flipping to Marxism which results in actual harm. Maybe you can tell or link me more if you want.
But they should be where that is necessary, yes?
Granted.
So, should we or should we not instil a feeling (thinking) of repulsion in people with regard to rape? Should we or should we not instil a feeling that we should be equal if we have arrived at that conclusion to our best ability in view of our understanding of how society works and should work (on the bases of sciences in sociology, biology, psychology etc.)? Do you not think that the relationship between thinking and behaviour is incredibly interdependent? And do you not recognize that we can measure detrimental behaviour in our society that has a causal link to attitudes (thinking)? Meaning that, if the undesired effects are detrimental enough, that we should address them despite a potential impediment on their (illogical) sentiments (or thinking).
Can you explain the bold part?
I don't know if I agree with the distinction in the first place (because it's not useful (we rank categorizations in science on their usefulness to humans, right?), not because it doesn't 'exist' per se). For example, human rights, which should prevent a tyranny of the majority, are not only codified but are a set of normative beliefs. Which we only uphold because we think they should exist (on the basis of a series of syllogisms). Trumps' administration reversed its cooperation with international organizations, hence eroding the belief that human rights exist in the first place, which leads to a measurable change in peoples' attitude towards international understandings and agreements, thus resulting in measurable harm to people.
Example: https://qz.com/1634319/the-us-is-to-blame-for-global-erosion-of-human-rights-says-top-un-official/
Contrary to what you said, I care about actual measurable effects. Where the presupposition is 'the best for the most people' (when that is measurable).
Excuse me, did checks and balances seize to exist? This is a meaningless slippery slope argument.
Are you really this thick? Do you seriously think that I would suggest that we don't peer review information which we choose to promote? For god's sakes, didn't you say that you were interested in sociology? Wtf is 'organically' or 'ordinary social interaction'? Do you realize how stupid this sounds in view of how complicated our society is, and how no social interaction is 'ordinary' or 'organic'? This is reliance on dum**** loaded terminology instead of making arguments.
You're saying that you're concerned with how a top-down promotion of certain ideas can result in asymmetrical and incorrect propaganda, resulting in more harm than it has the potential to do good. You implied that this is your understanding on the basis of applied political or sociological sciences. I admit I am not familiar with that literature. My question, thus: Do you have papers, studies, textbooks or articles that would be helpful for me to understand your concern with how contemporary studies have been used, or have the potential to be used, to promote ideas that are for their 'own political reasons' (I assume this means that it doesn't properly consider all the variables involved?) in a liberal democracy? Or is this just conjecture?
Wait, do we not agree that some values are more correct than others and that we should obtain as correct positions as we can? Do you think that values are made true by virtue of what the majority of the people believe? I feel like we regressed here.
On one more note, you need to understand that invoking 'propaganda, social engineering or organic' as self-explanatory evidence is not a good argument. You will not find me invoking 'democracy' as an argument, because democracy is not intrinsically good. It is only good insofar it can be utilized for good. As soon as democracy becomes harmful, we curb it. As another example, violence is not intrinsically good or bad. Violence is undesirable most of the time because it causes harm, however, we utilize violence to uphold the rule of law, hence its desirability is entirely dependent on its purpose. 'Violence is bad because authoritarian regimes relied on violence to perpetuate their regime' is not an adequate argument.
Flin Flon said:
"Marxist" is also about as useful a political category as "Nietzschean". Marxist ideas are present in practically every political movement around today, even if those ideologies are ostensibly reactions to Marxism. I get that there are people who openly call themselves Marxist but just based on this you can't infer anything useful about what they believe, and calling them "incongruent" is like calling anyone influenced by Nietzsche or Freud "incoherent". Of course you're going to see them as incoherent, because you've started with the expectation that anyone who identifies with this hugely influential bearded modernist is somehow part of the same ideology.
Flin Flon said:
Where are you getting these definitions from? What is supremacist about civic or postcolonial nationalism, unless we generalise the term "supremacy" down to nothing?
The problem with trying to whittle down any specific ideology using "logic" is that you end up relying on the assumptions and morals of your own ideology to explain why another is wrong. What is "logically" incorrect about ethnic or cultural supremacy? Can you rationally explain why I shouldn't use my brand of Usainboltian Jamaican Cyberfascism to deport anyone who can't run 100m in 10s? I want to keep my nation genetically strong, so why are you imposing weak, slow white people on my powerful island-state? Don't believe me? Have you seen the Olympics recently?
A Marxist or a Fascist or anyone else could just as easily use their own logic to make our liberal hegemony seem incongruent (this has already been done countless times), so why do you as a (probably liberal) individual have a special status over other ideologies?
Flin Flon
**** off. I'm not gonna put out chapters of text for you if you don't bother with explaining where you think I'm mistaken.National Founding Figure Respecter said:
Afaik, when people politically refer to Marxists they mean revolutionaries who would lynch certain classes of people if they had the opportunity to. Slogans like 'eat the rich' are about as ironic as proto-fascists antagonizing and eventually dehumanizing Jewish people. Any calls for violence and incremental dehumanization should probably be treated as equally dangerous. I agree that Marx and socialistic values have been formative in a positive way to west Europe. I've heard of reformists that don't rely on violence, which I'm more ok with (but still have problems with).
First of all, it's a contested definition and if it's not generalised then it means nothing as to its ability to describe. Any modern paper on nationalism will outline its xenophobic characteristics. I guess civic nationalism is the exclusion. Postcolonial nationalism was only necessary because of the historic colonial supremacism that exited prior to it. It's meaning changes depending on context and if we're making descriptive or prescriptive statements.
I think we should look at what's effectively happening (not what is only definitional per the 1950s term) by looking at the people that identify as nationalists and the beliefs they hold. A generous understanding of nationalism is the belief: in the nation-state, in self-government, in national identity, in national well-being and in national superiority.
Any attempt at arguing that one must 'preserve' the 'nation' in light of an increasingly interconnected world can only be made on the suggestion that the nation (and its culture or ethnicity) is superior or under threat by another and should translate as such into policy. And this is exactly what we see in practice. Not to mention that nationalism in opposition to globalism comes at the cost of the well-being of your nation, hence it's illogical, unless you hold that the (perceived) threat is more dangerous than any benefit that is conferred on the nation by globalism. Which is untrue. Nationalists will masquerade as civic nationalists but enact ethnically exclusionary policies at the detriment of the well-being of their nation. I recognize civic nationalists like the Scottish, but here words just fail to accurately encapsulate everything.
If you believe that we derive or should derive normative statements (you shouldn't hit me with a rock...) from our ontological (...because a rock exists and has solid and sharp properties...) and epistemic (...because I can measure that I'm hurt when you hit me) understandings of the material world (science), then ideologies like ethnic supremacism do not hold up in view of our social and practical arrangements. Every time you try to internalize an issue with fascism it just ends up in absurdity.
Syllogisms, very crude, would go something along the lines of:
1. I want to live
2. In order to live, I need to let live
C: To live, my life is dependent on others to let me live (known as justice)
1. We are superior, but there's insufficient evidence thereof
2. We do not have to extend justice to inferiors
C: I can't enact injustice on the perceived inferiors because the evidence is insufficient
1. I don't care that the evidence is insufficient
2. I will enact injustice on the perceived inferior
3. Enacting injustice on the perceived inferior results in pleasure for the superior
C: I will enact injustice on the inferior despite the insufficient evidence of inferiority because it leads to pleasure
C2: Sufficiency of evidence is no longer a prerequisite, therefore anything can be justified
Not having touched on what is superior. Which is why Nazi race science is bogus, right? The only things that you have to 'morally' accept are 1. that people want to live 2. that people reciprocate (in the form of justice) and 3. you need evidence to make claims. If you hold that Nazis don't care about living because the state is greater than they are, then you still have to prove superiority to enact injustice.
It's fairly easy to deconstruct fascism not only because its scientific categorizations fail (we only form categorizations where that is necessary) (who is white? why is your predetermined culture or race superior? what is superior? etc.) but also because (unless there are unimaginably sufficient checks and balances) it inevitably leads to system failure if held consistently. If you don't want your life to be destroyed (I assume no one does) and you want to maximize your well-being on the Maslowian scale (everyone does), then you can't be fascist.
Bit philosophically; if right is might and obedience is duty, then cause and effect are reversed. A force that overcomes a right, becomes a right. Thus, disobedience becomes legitimate when it overcomes a right, hence there is no actual duty or obedience because the 'best' or 'strongest' is always right. If you've acquired the means to stabilize this 'yield to force', then the state will not confer you any rights, because it is stronger than you. This is not in your interest egoistically, nor collectively because neither hold sway over what is done with the right.
Hypothetically, if you can construct a society, where the state has coherently defined the state ethnicity and where there is no added benefit to multiculturalism or outside influence and it cannot impede the social and individual rights of its citizens, then you have an ethnostate that follows logically. And if you can generalize this to be true for the rest of the world, where no competition between peoples exist, then it becomes a moral good because it maximizes happiness. Morality is completely dependent on the circumstances. Should we in the future be able to maximize happiness by employing a slave system under a benevolent AI, then slavery becomes a moral good.
However, none of the above is true. You cannot exclude yourself from the world if you're pursuing something in this world besides genetic purity (art, food, culture, economies, everything is interdependent). You cannot accurately define ethnic purity in the first place. You cannot derive happiness from ethnic purity unless you're irrationally zealous about it. You cannot start deporting people without impeding on individual rights, thus becoming a potential victim thereof. You cannot have genuine peace between peoples that both compete for the title of most superior; and wealth and well-being maximization are best achieved when people don't want to kill each other.
If you have individuals that have reason to and can reciprocate your acts of hostility with hostility, then your system is likely to result in dissatisfaction. If you're going by a Spartan society where any weakling is thrown from a cliff before they can reciprocate dissatisfaction and your society is happier for it, then you have constructed a society that can't reciprocate, hence no justice exists. Predetermined characteristics can apparently become reasons for elimination. You can refine it further and say that only one particular characteristic will be eliminated: weakness, however...
So if your society is organized along the notion of: 'you need to be able to run fast', then the question is: can you make that run? And if you can, is there any possibility in your life that you will be subjected to having your leg broken and no longer being able to make that run? If yes, then it sounds like this is not a system that you want to live under. If you break your leg, will you resist being deported or put down? The same analogy is comparable to intelligence. If you organize your society on intelligence, then you won't necessarily discriminate on ethnicity, but on intelligence. Meaning if you become demented or stupid, you will be rid of, because that's what we value.
Oh yeah? How?
Feel free to poke holes in the above.
Similar threads
