Not sure I agree with that. In recent Western history it is typically the conservative voices that claim to be the voice of morality, law-abiding and righteous: "family values", "God fearing" etc.
This was true until about ten years ago. At this stage it's very clear who represents the moral majority - the response to Chick-Fil-A's anti-gay stance is evidence enough of that.
Quote:
I find liberals tend to be more focused on issues around social equality and justice. I suppose it depends which type of morality you're looking at: secular or non-secular.
"Secular morality" is not a thing. There are various moral theories, and pretty much only divine command is non-secular. What you define as "social equality and justice" isn't really a moral theory at all, but rather a set of political and societal goals.
__________________ "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
Do people actually label Sam Harris as alt right? God. Those people would be really dumb.
Eh, I probably have at some point, and you’re right, part of it is a lack of awareness and sort of an anger about people who don’t play by some of the “rules” of the far left, which had a lot of influence for a while (but I think the pendulum is swinging back a little).
I don’t know if dumb is the right word, but ignorant to things outside of their sphere, for sure.
This was true until about ten years ago. At this stage it's very clear who represents the moral majority - the response to Chick-Fil-A's anti-gay stance is evidence enough of that.
I don't think you can look at a handful of years and state that anything is "very clear" as a result. The western mainstream right-wing parties still regularly and loudly claim to represent family values, etc. If we're talking about noise from the internet than I agree with your point, but I think they are different things.
Quote:
"Secular morality" is not a thing. There are various moral theories, and pretty much only divine command is non-secular.
Okay, I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting that atheists can't be moral or have a moral code. I'm also pretty sure you're not suggesting that there isn't a morality woven into the tapestry of western culture that has nothing to do, explicitly, with religion. But I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
Quote:
What you define as "social equality and justice" isn't really a moral theory at all, but rather a set of political and societal goals.
Isn't that splitting hairs, aka "the Corsi" ?
Last edited by Red Slinger; 05-17-2018 at 03:21 PM.
I don't think you can look at a handful of years and state that anything is "very clear" as a result. The western mainstream right-wing parties still regularly and loudly claim to represent family values, etc. If we're talking about noise from the internet than I agree with your point, but I think they are different things.
It's not just "noise on the internet". If you want to be considered a morally upstanding company now, you advertise yourself as pro-gay, ethnically diverse, supportive of women's rights - it's a clear marketing win at this point, because that is where the moral authority lies in society now. Where in the 90's in a lot of corporate environments you'd be mocked and accused of being a "homo" for going to a gay pride parade, now your office might even be a corporate sponsor. I'm not saying this shift is anything but good, to be clear - I'd much, much rather have the current tenets of dogmatic ideology hold sway than the bible thumpers'. But no matter how much some Jerry Falwell wannabe touts "family values", his audience is now a niche. Still millions of people, but the balance has shifted dramatically the other way.
Quote:
Okay, I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting that atheists can't be moral or have a moral code. I'm also pretty sure you're not suggesting that there is a morality woven into the tapestry of western culture that has nothing to do, explicitly, with religion. But I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
I'm trying to say that you weren't speaking coherently about morality as a subject. A moral theory is an answer to the question, "how should we act". Morality is the debate about which moral theory is correct. There is no such moral theory as "secular morality" - the phrase is so broad as to be meaningless. Nearly all moral theories you could name are independent from a belief in God. You can be a rule utilitarian and believe in a God, or not. You can be a deontologist and believe in a God, or not. You can be a moral relativist and believe in a God, or not. Divine command theory is the only one that I can think of that directly requires a belief in a conscious deity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
Isn't that splitting hairs, aka "the Corsi" ?
No. They're completely distinct. A political goal is a statement to the effect of, "we want our society to have feature X." That goes no ways to answering why we want that - why it's morally right that the society should have feature X.
__________________ "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
Sure, and where's the article titled "How Rhetoric on the Right Fuels PC Culture on the Left"?
Why is it the Left always seems to be held to a higher standard than the Right?
But they do it too isn't a great look. And it isn't great political tactics either.
Alienating centrists and moderates is dumb politics. For decades, it was the right doing the alienating and driving people away with their anti-intellectualism, shaming, and scolding. However, in the last few years the left have become the finger-waggers. The ones who refuse to recognize distinctions or nuance.
If you look at the individuals in the newly-dubbed Intellectual Dark Web, I'm pretty sure most of them are lifelong Democrats. Most are atheists. Most support gay marriage. And they spent much of their lives resisting and denouncing the reactionary right.
Now they're criticizing the progressive left for employing the same tactics their old enemies on the right used. And because some on the genuine alt-right delight in the discomfort the IDW is causing progressives, progressives have turned around and denounced the IDW, and anyone who finds their arguments persuasive, as ultra-conservative bigots themselves. And they're turning a crapload of people they have a lot of common goals with into enemies.
It's idiotic politics, and the adults in the room have tried to step in and point this out. Of course, as soon as the adults point out the folly and excesses of the movement, they're denounced as bigots as well. And so it goes, the purity tests getting more and more severe. Which is why the progressive identarian movement will never succeed in its aims - its very nature means it will tear itself to pieces. The only question is how much damage the movement will do to civil institutions before it's spent as a political force, and whether that damage will be decisive in removing the obstacles to the enduring tyranny of a demagogue.
__________________
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I don't think you can look at a handful of years and state that anything is "very clear" as a result. The western mainstream right-wing parties still regularly and loudly claim to represent family values, etc. If we're talking about noise from the internet than I agree with your point, but I think they are different things.
When they do, they lose more votes than they gain. A Canadian politician expressing sentiments about sex, gender, and family that were perfectly acceptable 10 or 15 years ago would render himself unelectable today.
We're in the midst of the most rapid social change the world has seen. It's not far off the mark to say those for whom the changes aren't rapid enough are revolutionaries, radicals who expect ideas to go from academic speculation to public tolerance to public norm to state law in the space of a couple years, and see any delay in that progress as motivated by malice.
Humans don't work that way. Not everyone is plugged into the internet 20+ hours a week, keenly attuned to rapidly-evolving social values and expectations. You're not a bigot if you don't pick up on the latest letter added to the LGBT chain within 60 days.
Most people are neither progressive zealots nor socially conservative troglodytes. They're reasonably tolerant people who just want to be left alone.
__________________
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I like how the litmus test for "moderate" now is "doesn't hate gays".
It's been a long time since most Canadians thought gays were perverts. Decades. Only 20 per cent of Canadians today do not accept homosexuality. So it looks like a pretty good litmus test for moderate.
But why don't you offer up your litmus test?
__________________
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.
I like how the litmus test for "moderate" now is "doesn't hate gays".
Fifteen years ago, if you checked the following boxes, you were firmly and unequivocally on the left.
Pro gay marriage
Pro choice
Pro gun control
Opposed to the death penalty
Opposed to waterboarding and other forms of "enhanced interrogation"
Against the war in Iraq
Opposed to draconian criminal sentences
Opposed to religion in schools
Pro teaching of evolution
Recognize that climate change is a thing
Apparently, you can now check all of those boxes and still be classified as a rung or two up from being a neo-Nazi. I'm not sure your litmus test is the one I'm going to count on, honestly.
__________________ "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
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Most people are neither progressive zealots nor socially conservative troglodytes. They're reasonably tolerant people who just want to be left alone.
I agree with this. I also think neither the far left or far right are anything to be concerned about.
You need your dramatic crazies in the left, right, and center, to fight amongst themselves while average people just sort of go about their business, slowly picking and choosing the good ideas from the noise.
Leftist crazies fight with everyone right of them, Right crazies fight with everyone left of them, and Centrist crazies just pick fights with whoever seems to be winning at the time. It all sort of balances out over time it seems.
Fifteen years ago, if you checked the following boxes, you were firmly and unequivocally on the left.
Pro gay marriage
Pro choice
Pro gun control
Opposed to the death penalty
Opposed to waterboarding and other forms of "enhanced interrogation"
Against the war in Iraq
Opposed to draconian criminal sentences
Opposed to religion in schools
Pro teaching of evolution
Recognize that climate change is a thing
Apparently, you can now check all of those boxes and still be classified as a rung or two up from being a neo-Nazi. I'm not sure your litmus test is the one I'm going to count on, honestly.
The definition of being “liberal” certainly seems to be narrowing....
I agree with this. I also think neither the far left or far right are anything to be concerned about.
You need your dramatic crazies in the left, right, and center, to fight amongst themselves while average people just sort of go about their business, slowly picking and choosing the good ideas from the noise.
Leftist crazies fight with everyone right of them, Right crazies fight with everyone left of them, and Centrist crazies just pick fights with whoever seems to be winning at the time. It all sort of balances out over time it seems.
However this constant fight allows legislation that heavily favours corporatism to be passed without a fight. When both the crazies on the left and the right should be actively fighting against it than each other. The social battle becoming more important than the economic battle is not good for wealth distribution and productivity.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
However this constant fight allows legislation that heavily favours corporatism to be passed without a fight. When both the crazies on the left and the right should be actively fighting against it than each other. The social battle becoming more important than the economic battle is not good for wealth distribution and productivity.
Some have suggested the increasing emphasis on divisive social issues is a devious scheme by the plutocrats to keep the plebes fighting each other. I don't think that's true, but it may as well be for how it pushes economic issues to the background.
__________________
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.
This is hilarious. Basically every one of these interviewers views their time with Peterson as a challenge to try to bait him into slipping up and say something 'uncouth.' Then try to combat his points with a character assassination so they can dismiss him.
It's speaks pretty low of society that the mainstream reaction to someone's message that essentially boils down to "Try to be your best self first before blaming everyone else" is to line up single file and each try to shove the person delivering that message into the same political category as neo-nazi's, white supremacists, and white nationalists.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
Ah yes, I'm sure everyone tries to dunk on Peterson because of his moist-towelette life advice business and not because of his bad opinions on social issues and weird fixation with gender polarity.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
It's speaks pretty low of society that the mainstream reaction to someone's message that essentially boils down to "Try to be your best self first before blaming everyone else" is to line up single file and each try to shove the person delivering that message into the same political category as neo-nazi's, white supremacists, and white nationalists.
This is pretty gross misrepresentation of the critique most Peterson non-academic have, right or wrong. It’s worth going through this thread if you’re unsure, but no, that’s not why he’s been criticisized.
I think, for a lot of people, that’s also why his star power is so confusing. “Try to be your best self before blaming everyone else” is good, solid, safe, and intellectually underwhelming advice. Granted, he’s caught on with people who really need the basics for exactly this reason, but no, his basic life advice and mostly uninspired self-help book are not the reason anyone in society is lining up to “shove” him anywhere.
This is pretty gross misrepresentation of the critique most Peterson non-academic have, right or wrong. It’s worth going through this thread if you’re unsure, but no, that’s not why he’s been criticisized.
I think, for a lot of people, that’s also why his star power is so confusing. “Try to be your best self before blaming everyone else” is good, solid, safe, and intellectually underwhelming advice. Granted, he’s caught on with people who really need the basics for exactly this reason, but no, his basic life advice and mostly uninspired self-help book are not the reason anyone in society is lining up to “shove” him anywhere.
It feels like I can’t watch a single interview with him without some reporter pushing the alt-right on him. It’s tired and ridiculous.
Everyone who doesn't subscribe to identarian dogma - which I'd guess is at least 75 per cent of people - enjoy it when people like Peterson stand up to it. So yes, the alt-right are among the 75 per cent of people who get satisfaction from the discomfort of identarians.
What you don't seem to grasp, PsYcNeT, is that the worldview you regard as established fact embraced by most people is in fact an ideology held by only a fraction of people. It happens that those fraction of people are over-represented in the humanities and the media, so it has an outsized voice in our culture. Western society is not, en masse, embracing an ideology that only 10 years ago was confined to left-wing academics.
In our balkanized world of social media echo chambers, it can seem as though your tribe is the norm. But it's not.
__________________
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
?
