I found it to be a load of indecipherable prose with a generous sprinkle of elite superciliousness.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
I guess the part that amused me the most was the author trying to make the analogy that "wokeness" (used mockingly of course) is a form of religious fervour.
Comparing support for social justice with the anti-woman, anti-gay agenda driven by REAL religious zealots on the right is idiotic.
You clearly don't understand the social functions of religion.
* Provide a sense of community and belonging.
* Provide a sense of purpose.
* Enshrine sacred beliefs - that is beliefs that it's immoral to question or challenge.
* Earn social status by conspicuously demonstrating your faith.
* Employ shame to enforce conformity.
If people can't recognize these behaviours in social justice warriors, I don't know what to say. I guess you stay off half the internet, don't listen to or read any left-leaning media, and you're ignorant of the dozens of public figures shamed or fired for questioning progressive orthodoxy. You aren't aware of writers who are shamed and denounced for simply writing fiction from a character of a different gender or race - if that isn't irrational dogma at work, I don't know what is.
A few days reading the headlines of the Guardian, Slate, or the CBC's website is more than enough to see progressive piety and dogma expressed with all the fervour of born again Christians. I can show you non-political hobby forums where to simply question whether the hobby is rife with racism and misogyny is enough to get you banned.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
You clearly don't understand the social functions of religion.
* Provide a sense of community and belonging.
* Provide a sense of purpose.
* Enshrine sacred beliefs - that is beliefs that it's immoral to question or challenge.
* Earn social status by conspicuously demonstrating your faith.
* Employ shame to enforce conformity.
If people can't recognize these behaviours in social justice warriors, I don't know what to say. I guess you stay off half the internet, don't listen to or read any left-leaning media, and you're ignorant of the dozens of public figures shamed or fired for questioning progressive orthodoxy. You aren't aware of writers who are shamed and denounced for simply writing fiction from a character of a different gender or race - if that isn't irrational dogma at work, I don't know what is.
A few days reading the headlines of the Guardian, Slate, or the CBC's website is more than enough to see progressive piety and dogma expressed with all the fervour of born again Christians. I can show you non-political hobby forums where to simply question whether the hobby is rife with racism and misogyny is enough to get you banned.
James Lindsay wrote about the same thing a couple of years ago in an excellent piece written somewhat less flowery academic language, but he seems to have deleted himself from the internet so that article is gone, I guess. Basically, he characterized this movement as an ideologically motivated moral community, which is something discussed in his books on religion. Religions are also IMMCs, but so are political parties, sports fan groups... lots of things that are organized around orthodox sacred values, taken seriously to varying degrees.
If I remember right, he thinks this trend in human psychology is also what allows humanity to function the way that it does and foster co-operation to achieve goals among groups that aren't biological families (in other words, what separates us from the animals) - it's just a piece of software that doesn't run very smoothly in modern society. I can't remember if that's something borrowed from The Righteous Mind. I think so.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
What we have discovered, Jordan should not give advice on diet and on religion.
This is the best rundown of the Sam Harris talk with Peterson so far, thankfully its just part 1, and this guy you should follow on Youtube if you are a skeptic.
Sounds like you're rejecting the entire field of moral psychology. Talk about denying science.
Can you name any non-Christian cultures where people feel collectively guilty about things their grandparents and great-grandparents did or believed?
Who feels guilty about things their grandparents and great-grandparents did or believed? I certainly don't. Of course, that doesn't preclude me from acknowledging things that weren't fair or just about society when my grandparents or great-grandparents were alive (or from acknowledging that we may still see effects from such unfairness or injustice). But surely no one would conflate those two things.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Who feels guilty about things their grandparents and great-grandparents did or believed? I certainly don't. Of course, that doesn't preclude me from acknowledging things that weren't fair or just about society when my grandparents or great-grandparents were alive (or from acknowledging that we may still see effects from such unfairness or injustice). But surely no one would conflate those two things.
I'm trying to figure out if it's a good thing or a bad thing? Either Western traditions are doing the right thing and should be praised for collective guilt over historical injustice; or Western nations are doing the bad thing and feeling guilty about things they shouldn't...
Cliff's post made it sound like we should be both praising ourselves in the West for acknowledging historic wrongs (we're awesome!), but also simultaneously bemoaning our unnecessary consciences (let's not be that awesome since no one else is).
Who feels guilty about things their grandparents and great-grandparents did or believed? I certainly don't. Of course, that doesn't preclude me from acknowledging things that weren't fair or just about society when my grandparents or great-grandparents were alive (or from acknowledging that we may still see effects from such unfairness or injustice). But surely no one would conflate those two things.
Germans do. I think they even have a word for it, but they have a word for everything(except sorry).
Sounds like you're rejecting the entire field of moral psychology. Talk about denying science.
Rejecting? No, I think its a damn good hobby for psychologists to engage in.
It would be nice if it were a recognized division in the APA to start with. As it is, its a bunch of people trying to smoosh the philosophy of morality with human and developmental psychology together. Not so much of a field of study, but more of a bastardization of two different and trying to find connections to build something new. You know, like "Baseketball."
Quote:
Can you name any non-Christian cultures where people feel collectively guilty about things their grandparents and great-grandparents did or believed?
Seriously? All of them? Any of them? Since when do Christians have the market on guilt cornered?
You clearly don't understand the social functions of religion.
* Provide a sense of community and belonging.
* Provide a sense of purpose.
* Enshrine sacred beliefs - that is beliefs that it's immoral to question or challenge.
* Earn social status by conspicuously demonstrating your faith.
* Employ shame to enforce conformity.
If people can't recognize these behaviours in social justice warriors, I don't know what to say. I guess you stay off half the internet, don't listen to or read any left-leaning media, and you're ignorant of the dozens of public figures shamed or fired for questioning progressive orthodoxy. You aren't aware of writers who are shamed and denounced for simply writing fiction from a character of a different gender or race - if that isn't irrational dogma at work, I don't know what is.
A few days reading the headlines of the Guardian, Slate, or the CBC's website is more than enough to see progressive piety and dogma expressed with all the fervour of born again Christians. I can show you non-political hobby forums where to simply question whether the hobby is rife with racism and misogyny is enough to get you banned.
I understand them just fine. But thanks for the lecture.
I still think it's idiotic to compare SJWs with the evangelical right simply because there is no equivalence to the danger each side represents.
I still think it's idiotic to compare SJWs with the evangelical right simply because there is no equivalence to the danger each side represents.
Nothing in the article compares them to the evangelical right.
You seem to be someone who sees everything through the lens of political partisanship. Bad ideas are found all over the political spectrum, and should be called out wherever they're found. Excusing the zealots on your side because the other side's zealots are even worse is one of the most toxic behaviours fostered by the Culture Warz.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 09-25-2018 at 04:38 PM.
You seem to be someone who sees everything through the lens of political partisanship. Bad ideas are found all over the political spectrum, and should be called out wherever they're found. Excusing the zealots on your side because the other side's zealots are even worse is one of the most toxic behaviours fostered by the Culture Warz.
I don't agree with you so I must be "someone who sees things through the lens of political partnership"? Nice try.
If you were just a little bit self-aware you might understand why I, and many others here by the looks of things, are sick of your liberal left is dangerous schtick and you don't like that you're getting more and more push back on the bs you post.
I await another condescending lecture from you.
Sent from my MIX using Tapatalk
The Following User Says Thank You to longsuffering For This Useful Post:
Bad ideas are found all over the political spectrum
One would never know that by reading your posts. You continually make it sound like SJWs are the biggest threat democracy facing is today.
I don't blindly support the left, particularly SJWs but I can identify where the serious threats to personal freedom and democracy originate and I'll prioritize resolving the real and immediate threats over worrying about the threat presented by political correctness run amok.
Also as much as I personally loathe the SJW on my side, they are a loud but small minority. I worry far more about the populists rising up on the right in the US, Canada, Europe.
There is no comparison between trigger words and actual right-wing nationalism.
Nothing in the article compares them to the evangelical right.
You seem to be someone who sees everything through the lens of political partisanship. Bad ideas are found all over the political spectrum, and should be called out wherever they're found. Excusing the zealots on your side because the other side's zealots are even worse is one of the most toxic behaviours fostered by the Culture Warz.
Could you possibly be unaware that people are doing just that: calling out bad ideas as they see them? What if multiple people believe you promote bad ideas? Aren’t we doing just as you believe we should? Or do you believe everything you believe and everything you share is a good idea?
You seem to be someone who sees everything through the lens of cultural bias. Guilt, and more importantly observance and honoring of previous generations and their traditions, can be found all over the globe, and should be acknowledged as a part of being human. Excusing the ignorance on your side because of your own particular religiosity and cultural bias is weak and one of the most toxic behaviours fostered by the Culture Warz.
Sometimes it's just so easy.
Since you wanted examples, have you ever heard of Jewish guilt? Have you ever heard of the practice of restoring honor - saving face - in Asian cultures (Japanese, Chinese)? Islam also has a similar tradition, although it is much more aggressive and free to use violence. Have you heard of karma, and having to live a good life to make up for bad karma (Taoism, Shintoism, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism)? Have you also heard of the many traditions of honoring previous generations, alive and dead, through cultural celebration (Latin and African)? Since you are so focused on the superiority of Christianity, you might want to be aware that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions borrow greatly from Sumerian cultural standards, especially the honoring of past generations and sharing the shame of their failures. Frankly, all cultures have some honor/guilt tradition, they just express them in different ways, each unique to their cultural context. Enough?
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
