Herd Mentality
quillette.com
quillette.com
Seriously, latest season of South Park seems the best depiction of this phenomenon that I've seen so far.
But they managed to turn me from moderate liberal (in the EU sense, I guess I am raving socialist by US) to complete nihilist. I want to see Trump elected just to piss them off.
I got detained by police on a demonstrations in support of gay rights and democratic elections. But at the same time, I believe that flat tax (not flat tax rate as in % of income, but flat tax as in constant amount of money per month) is the most just form of taxation. Not even remotely feasible, of course, and it would be very stupid to even try to implement it, but still, the most just in theory.
Now — does it make me left or right?
Is, for example, the constant amount of money you mention the same of every member of the populace regardless of income?
If so, it bears semblance with the UK's poll tax (or Community Charge as it was officially labelled), an early 90's tax which was disastrously received (riots in the streets across the country).
It introduced by a right wing government, and subsequently repealed
Yes.
> If so, it bears semblance with the UK's poll tax (or Community Charge as it was officially labelled), an early 90's tax which was disastrously received (riots in the streets across the country).
I didn't know about it, but it's exactly how I imagined it would turn out in reality.
I think it makes you confused. :-) Which is an OK state to be in, and it's up to you if you want to change that. Let me explain.
I think left vs right means how much you care about people when it comes to their relative power and social status in society. If you don't like power inequality, then you're on the left. If you enjoy it or are indifferent to it, then you're on the right.
Now democracy is a distinctly leftist concept, because it explicitly gives everybody the same political power. Gay rights, well, it's a little aside from this classification but basically equal rights for everybody is in the same ballpark (that's why most equal rights movements are considered leftist).
On the other hand, supporting flat tax is somewhat alluding to the idea that money do not influence power relationships in society. Which is AFAICT empirically false. I do however think that you can recognize flat tax as being just under that assumption.
You do seem to care about distribution of power in society, which makes you leftist. So I think the question is, do you believe in that assumption, that income has no influence on political power (and it cannot, for instance, limit personal freedom of other people)?
This one dimensional left vs. right can't accurately describe anything.
Even the subject of wealth redistribution is too nuanced to be properly described or debated with this oversimplified left/right paradigm.
Left/right originated in the French parliament, where on the left were proponents of political equality (you could perhaps, with a stretch, call them democrats), while on the right were proponents of keeping the hereditary privileges of the nobility.
The definition of left/right I gave describes a very general moral principle. Of course there are many flavours of left and right, depending on the exact interpretation, and they don't agree in many things. However, you didn't give any argument why is democracy not leftist, according to the above, historically accurate, definition.
GP asked if he is left or right, I gave an answer.
Like with the historical usage of the term "hacker" I think we have to accept that the real world usage is now so muddled that on a general forum such as this you can't fall back on that anymore.
Left is whatever they say on MSNBC and right is whatever they say on FOX NEWS (or your local equivalents) And I hope we can agree that whatever those they is completely partisan. Totally disconnected from any political, social, or economic philosophy. Utterly devoid of intellectual honesty.
> The definition of left/right I gave describes a very general moral principle.
I don't know that it does.
For example, compare the modern American libertarians (see Murray Rothbard) vs the left libertarians who predate them. (see Mikhail Bakunin)
Both see the state as evil. Their morals are pretty much the same. Their only difference is in how to structure government to protect the interests of the individual. One is right while the other is left.
And whether or not the state itself is inherently evil is not a left/right debate either. There's obvious examples of authoritarians on both sides.
I don't want to accept it. I don't accept it with respect to other words either, such as hackers or democracy (despite GDR calling itself democratic).
> Both see the state as evil. Their morals are pretty much the same. Their only difference is in how to structure government to protect the interests of the individual. One is right while the other is left.
I am not really all that familiar with them to be the judge here, but if their morals are pretty much the same, then one can hardly be left and the other hardly right according to my definition. I think this may be a case of misapplied labels, but I am not sure.
> There's obvious examples of authoritarians on both sides.
That doesn't mean anything. Just my opinion - left/right moral distinction is used within your ingroup, but authoritarianism resolves to what the ingroup is.
You could reasonably say that modern Democracy is an enlightenment project.
But why assume that one's opinion on it has to be scalar? What if I enjoy power inequality in some places (say I prefer a small group of smart people to be in charge of energy policy) but abhor it in other (say I believe politicians should not be above the law, or that corporations should not have so much power over ordinary people, or that many issues should be decided by as direct vote as possible)? Does it make me more left? More right? Or a Schrödinger's cat?
That's the problem with labels. They reduce the multidimensional space of ideas to one-dimensional space and ask you to pick a range on the axis - while what we need to do is to focus on single data points.
And people do.. and then they are called out as hypocrites. :-)
I am not actually sure if what we disagree on has a name. You seem to think that we should not seek and follow unifying moral principles and strive for consistency, but I do. And for sure I am hypocritical in that, too.
The world is complicated, and the more one learns about it, the better their "unified moral principles" will be - conversely, the less they know, the more their moral principles will be inadequate and possibly harmful. That person who is totally 100% against government dictating anything may change their mind when they learn about things like coordination problems, tragedy of the commons, etc. But then again, they might not. Still, their opinion will be more nuanced and better calibrated with the reality because they took into consideration the complexity of human interactions.
There are countless gems like that. Did you know that people's minds can really be different? That some people believed everyone can do mental images in their head[0]. Others believed that it's bullshit. Everyone called each other liars for centuries until eventually we've figured out that some people can do that, and others can't. There are other examples too; knowing that should affect one's empathy and view of their opponents. Maybe they're not evil people, maybe they genuinely don't think in the same way you do? Etc.
My point is - it's not hypocritical to seek underlying unifying moral principles. It's actually good science, it's pragmatic, and it's what scientists are doing in other fields. But the most important thing is that those principles have to correspond to observable reality, because that's their only value - the value of prediction. Will following them make people happy?
Reality is under no obligation to follow our imaginary political ideologies. And generally, it doesn't.
[0] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/
So, you not only think that there's a universal definition of left vs right in politics but also that it's all about one single problem?
> On the other hand, supporting flat tax is somewhat alluding to the idea that money do not influence power relationships in society.
I don't support flat tax, it would be an insane and idiotic idea.
I just think it's the most fair and just tax scheme. But I don't even remotely support it.
> So I think the question is, do you believe in that assumption, that income has no influence on political power (and it cannot, for instance, limit personal freedom of other people)?
You intertwined a lot of very complicated issues with your comment. First of all:
1) Power inequality is not good or bad; it's too broad of a definition. In order to attach moral value to it, you have to look at a concrete example in context, not an abstract concept.
For example, I think you would prefer for a few of leading climate scientist to have more power over environmental policy than of people who don't believe in evolution, right? But this is power inequality, too.
2) Taxes are, in theoretically just world, should be a form of payment for government services. Government is an entity that provides us with invaluable services like justice system and other perks, from certification of medication to protection from foreign threats. It's good stuff, worth paying for. But in theory, I don't see any moral reasons for some people to pay more for these services than others.
You, on the other hand, want to use taxes as a tool to solve power inequality, because you decided that it's a bad thing. Not only this decision is rather strange (as I already discussed in point 1), but you're using a hack to implement a unrelated requirement with the help of a feature that was implemented for completely different reason. Once again, _in theory_ this makes no sense at all.
3) And finally, when you involve terms like "personal freedom" into equation, I can almost guarantee that we will end up arguing about what "personal freedom" really is, where it starts and where it ends, and will not able to come to a conclusion.
However.
You might have guessed that I separate the political theory of what just and what is not from political reality. In political reality that we have, democracy did not appear because of theoretical considerations of what is the best form of government: it evolved as a compromise between different parties who would've otherwise kill each other to determine who's right. So were the taxes. And our discussions about what is good and bad, in theory, have very little dent on reality, which is shaped by power struggles of millions of people acting of their self-interest; all we can hope to achieve is to solve these conflicts in the most peaceful way possible. Trying to construct the perfect government system out of theoretical considerations is futile if you're lucky, and if you're not, you get North Korea or Pol Pot's Cambodia.
If you have more property, you should pay more for protecting said property. So while life and limb protection should cost the same, property protection should be payed by people that actually have property.
As I already explained elsewhere, I do believe that but with the caveat that the universality loses some explanatory power, of course. So yes, about a single problem, but the one that manifests in many ways throughout all human societies.
> I just think it's the most fair and just tax scheme.
I don't really see why you see it that way. From what moral principle does that follow? I personally think that "most fair and just" tax scheme is a consumption tax on natural resources.
> For example, I think you would prefer for a few of leading climate scientist to have more power over environmental policy than of people who don't believe in evolution, right? But this is power inequality, too.
I think it depends. I certainly wouldn't grant them unlimited power without any accountability (which may be, for example, they have to openly submit their conclusions for public review). But when you think about accountability, then the actual power differential is not so clear cut.
You can have hierarchies and yet power equality. For example, Linus is ostensibly an absolute dictator when it comes to Linux kernel development, yet he has the same power as everyone else by the virtue of the source being generally accessible.
> Taxes are, in theoretically just world, should be a form of payment for government services.
If you understand government in that limited way, as a service provider, then yes. But government can also be understood as an executor of agreement of how to redistribute some resources within the society. In that case it's perfectly natural to have redistribution from wealthier to poorer.
Take for example insurance. Is it fair that people who got lucky gave out effectively more than people who didn't? It's not just a payment for a service, it's a redistribution scheme.
> I can almost guarantee that we will end up arguing about what "personal freedom" really is
We can go into specifics, it's no big deal. What I meant, broadly, was circumstances like e.g. great potato famine, where if the society as a whole has the resources to help the poor, but they are in the hands of very few who don't want to give them up. I think it's hard to argue, then, the rich minority doesn't infringe on the personal freedom of the poor majority.
> democracy did not appear because of theoretical considerations of what is the best form of government: it evolved as a compromise between different parties who would've otherwise kill each other to determine who's right
I agree with that. But also, the very idea is embodied in the moral principle of equality.
> And our discussions about what is good and bad, in theory, have very little dent on reality
I don't think so. Theoretical analysis of moral principles may lead to interesting inventions, like democracy. I don't think humans have democracy inborn as a concept; it's a cultural thing they invented.
Secondly, they promote this lunacy in thinking. Instead of trying to understand problems and picking ideas that may work, people adopt ideologies wholesale. "I am a libertarian, therefore I support free market everywhere", whether it makes sense or not. Or conversely, others want to regulate everything because their reasoning is basically "regulation is good". This is not science. It's not even religion. It's mindless tribalism.
I see no other choice for humanity to move forward than trying to isolate that kind of politics from anything meaningful, just like we mostly did with religion in the West. If people want to endlessly debate who patternmatches better to one of their favourite history villains, fine. Let's just keep that type of thinking away from the process of deciding where to build a new nuclear power plant.
Me too. Many times over the past 6 months I wish I had a "TRUMP 2016" T-Shirt.
Really, I don't even like the guy. I don't respect him. It's not as if he has a coherent philosophy anyway. It's just that he best represents the contempt I feel for the whole political process, all discourse surrounding it, and especially for the people who buy into the bullshit of anyone in the running.
I think Pim Fortyn was the last person who'd share my sentiment, but he got killed by a "social justice warrior". It's funny to see LGBT-right advocates side with radical islamists. I guess gay rights doesn't mean shit when you can get a huge muslim voting cattle.
After talking to these people, I've repeatedly heard arguments like "well, they have been born in Ramallah, not Florida". Which is the worst kind of racism: thinking that certain groups of people just don't have to adhere to the same standards, essentially, treating them as kids and not responsible adults.
Kids that attach people to trucks and drag them through the streets for being gay. But hey, they're oppressed themselves, so it's not really their fault.
I've seen maybe a handful of failed attempts to allow students to opt out of university course curricula. Is that what you are so horrified about? Or is it the mostly failed attempts to get people fired for saying things that some people found abhorrent?
I've yet to see anyone imprisoned for their speech by SJWs. Frankly, the anti-SJW stance reads to me as quite ironic: people horrified that someone they disagree with might be allowed to have a voice on the national stage. I thought the whole point of free speech was that people get to voice ideas you find abhorrent?
What's really frightening is how often posts like yours, which are completely devoid of specifics, get voted up. It's like a frenzy of anger that rises to the top of these kinds of threads, totally detached from any history. I'm assuming there is some history behind your post, but you didn't reference it. Someone like Salmon Rushdie stands up and says he's terrified of the witch hunts, without providing any specifics, and it makes national news with thousands of people chiming in about how scared they are too. But scared of what, exactly? People rarely say. "SJWs".
The South Park episode is beloved because it's all straw men. If you had to reference real events, it would become clear that it's mostly straw feminists and students who actually didn't cause any particular reign of terror. As if wild-eyed college students haven't been making accusations that are beyond the pale for... well, forever.
That said, maybe I'm out of touch with the news and there are some events I missed. I would love to learn of such events, because it would make this debate much more interesting. As it is I find it kind of frightening how much anger seems to be building up around what appears to be a fabricated danger.
The biggest chilling effect coming out of this is that you never know. Whole big areas of discussion topics have been turned into minefields. You may voice your opinions for months and only have intelligent audience discussing them with you, and then your irrelevant comment somewhere gets posted to Twitter and your life is over. The reaction is sudden and so out-of-proportion that it's like government nuking the city because of a speeding driver.
> As if wild-eyed college students haven't been making accusations that are beyond the pale for... well, forever.
They were. The difference is that now they're being listened to. It's probably the side effect of PR being the most important thing for companies and academic institutions.
In which SJWs physically shove a journalist around, all the while claiming the moral high ground. And a professor at the university shoves a journalist, and then calls for "muscle" to eject him.
Or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KpdL8UuntA
In which SJWs in masks claim that trying to shut down other peoples speech with megaphones is their "freedom of speech".
If "freedom of speech" means preventing others from talking, I think they've got the definition wrong.
You haven't been paying attention to events of the past few years.
The SJWs have been very clear that the only permitted voice is theirs. That anyone who questions them deserves to be shunned, censored, shut down, vilified, and attacked.
> As it is I find it kind of frightening how much anger seems to be building up around what appears to be a fabricated danger.
You're out of touch with events.
In the 1940's we had 18-20 year-olds go "over the top" in France. D Day, Iwo Jima, etc. Now, we have 18-20 year-olds hug pillows in "safe spaces" because someone who disagrees with them is giving a presentation in another building.
I submit that exchanging bravery for cowardice is a net loss for society.
You're getting downvoted because your comments are at odds to most peoples experiences.
See the witch-hunting that went on with the University of Virginia rape accusation. Or the Duke Lacrosse team. In both case, self-proclaimed SJWs found the groups guilty. And demanded sanctions, bans, "forced education", public shaming, etc.
Later, of course, the accusations turned out to be false. The prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse case was disbarred for his activities in what can only be called a witch hunt.
I submit that the rule of law is better than public lynchings. That careful analysis of events is better than knee-jerk reactions.
Try joining an SJW group and asking questions, or raising a dissenting opinion. You'll see group-think enforced with a speed and efficiency that rivals communist party meetings.
And see the public statements by people who've left SJW groups. Olivia Benson led the charge against "double plus ungood" thinkers. No tactic, no matter how slimy was beneath her. After she left, she publicly said that the SJW attacks on her were worse by far than the attacks from the people she opposed.
When the "evil" groups act nicer than the "good" groups, I submit that you have your labels reversed.
And lastly:
> I've yet to see anyone imprisoned for their speech by SJWs.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guthrie_vs._Elliott
He's on trial for "criminal harassment". An examination of the public facts shows that no such thing occurred. He publicly disagreed with SJWs. They then worked together to find ways to get him charged.
His bail restrictions have destroyed his life. The judge could have forbid him from using twitter, or having contact with his accusers, or making public statements about the trial. Instead, as a self-employed graphical designer, he was banned from using the Internet for until the trial was over.
Whatever the result of the trial, the SJWs have succeeded in using the criminal justice system to destroy an opponent.
I submit that such behavior is unethical, reprehensible, and fundamentally opposed to anything resembling "justice".
That's why you're getting downvoted. You're saying such behavior isn't that bad, and that the anti-SJWs are terrible people.
No, no, they're not. The SJWs have a long track record of evil behavior. And of shaming, shunning, lying, and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.
I'm going to ignore your generic claims because I have no way to validate them but I will respond to your factual claims:
> See the witch-hunting that went on with the University of Virginia rape accusation. Or the Duke Lacrosse team. In both case, self-proclaimed SJWs found the groups guilty. And demanded sanctions, bans, "forced education", public shaming, etc. Later, of course, the accusations turned out to be false.
In both cases the accuser turned out to be an unreliable witness. It seems quite possible that one or more rapes occurred in both cases, but I am not one of the very few people in the world who have reliable information about what actually happened. Neither, I suspect, are you.
I certainly agree the Rolling Stone reporting was grossly irresponsible and that much of the Duke reporting was grossly irresponsible and that some harm should be blamed on SJWs.
However, the harm done is infinitesimally small compared to the harm done to rape victims by police officers, public officials, and others in similar distortions in the opposite direction. It doesn't appear to be a systematic power dynamic in favor of SJWs. If anything these cases are perfect examples of how ineffective SJWs are at getting their agenda to result in real convictions or policy changes.
Are you aware of any policy changes that resulted from those cases? If anything they seem to have led journalistic institutions and universities to be more careful reporting rape allegations.
> The prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse case was disbarred for his activities in what can only be called a witch hunt.
I'm glad he was disbarred. But again, that supports my assertion that SJWs aren't really getting away with anything here.
> Olivia Benson led the charge against "double plus ungood" thinkers.
Olivia Benson the fictional T.V. character?
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guthrie_vs._Elliott
This case does seem like a miscarriage of justice to me. However, again, there has been an outpouring of support for him. And this seems to be a one-off case, not a growing phenomenon. And the number of people who do harass women, like actually making death threats, etc, and never being punished... is huge.
This is my whole issue. There will inevitably be crazy violent people on both sides, and miscarriages of justice in both directions. The anti-SJW crowd seems to have no sense of proportion. A handful of cases that were, in the end, victories for them are evidence of a systematic problem, while constant miscarriage of justice in the other direction is completely ignored.
Are there morally bankrupt SJWs? Of course. And morally bankrupt baseball players and morally bankrupt pre-school teachers. Are any of these widespread social problems or fundamental flaws in social justice, baseball, or pre-school, respectively? I don't think so.
No. In both cases, the accuser turned out to be lying through her teeth.
> It seems quite possible that one or more rapes occurred in both cases, but I am not one of the very few people in the world who have reliable information about what actually happened. Neither, I suspect, are you.
Yes, I am. You should be, too. Because the information about what happened is publicly available.
For the Virginia case, it turns out that every aspect of the story was false. Her alleged boyfriend was fake. There was no party on the date she said. Her friends disagreed with her depiction of their behavior, etc.
The same applies to the Duke Lacrosse case. Please educate yourself.
> ... some harm should be blamed on SJWs.
The majority of the witch hunting can be blamed on SJWs. Again, public facts help here.
> However, the harm done is infinitesimally small compared to the harm done to rape victims by police officers, public officials, and others in similar distortions in the opposite direction.
Supposition without evidence. And that shows a complete callous indifference to the people falsely accused.
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." Catherine Comins
Or witness the false rate of rape convictions. Studies based on DNS evidence show it's about 15%. That's non negligible.
And are you really saying we live in a culture where police officers, public officials, etc. distort the numbers to lower the incidence of rape? Are you joking, or just deliberately blind?
See any SJW-style discussion on rape "one in five university women are raped". Are they delusional, or just lying? That incidence would be higher than war-torn Somalia, for crying out loud.
> Olivia Benson the fictional T.V. character?
Ophelia Benson. Auto-correct for the fail.
> This case does seem like a miscarriage of justice to me. However, again, there has been an outpouring of support for him.
I'm sure he's happy to know that. With his life destroyed. And his bills only partially paid for by the "outpouring of support".
> And the number of people who do harass women, like actually making death threats, etc, and never being punished... is huge.
Evidence.
If you look for studies, you'll see that men get harassed on line at least as much, if not more than women.
> This is my whole issue. There will inevitably be crazy violent people on both sides,
That's a crock. Please show me one anti-SJW organization that engages in violent protest of people who disagree with them.
It.
Just.
Doesn't.
Happen.
> The anti-SJW crowd seems to have no sense of proportion. A handful of cases that were, in the end, victories for them are evidence of a systematic problem, while constant miscarriage of justice in the other direction is completely ignored.
That's projection. Like most SJWs, you've got it completely backwards.
> Are there morally bankrupt SJWs? Of course.
My contention (backed up by facts) is that the entire SJW movement is based on censorship, shaming, violence, and lies. I cannot in all good conscience support a movement where the end justifies the means.
That way led to the French revolution. Stalinism. Maoism.
> Are any of these widespread social problems or fundamental flaws in social justice, baseball, or pre-school, respectively? I don't think so.
Only the SJWs claim to be the moral police for all of society. Only the SJWs claim to set the moral high ground for all of society. Only SJWs claim that "if you're not with us, you're against us".
There are morally bankrupt people everywhere. I find the whole SJW movement to be morally bankrupt and inhumane at it's core.
You should, too.
But not for lacking of trying. Really hard.
We need to make sure they don't get away with such abrogations of justice.
> His "key man" in Singapore was Vincent Cheng, a full-time Catholic Church worker in the Justice and Peace Commission
Oddly enough I trust the dead Lee Kuan Yew more than I trust any "social justice" advocate... or the Swedish government.
Sometimes I think the craziness of "social justice" sociopaths is on design, in order to push people to the far right. It certainly worked on me. Guess I'm weak minded enough to buy it.
If we can look back in history and compare with national socialism growing, I am sure we can do the same with socialism/marxism.
The way Singapore handled both islamic and marxists threats is incredibly useful to read about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Coldstore
Let's say that there's certain political movement A. And that certain _other_ political forces B are seeing that this political movement can be beneficial to them, so they infiltrate it and help it.
Does it really mean that everyone who supports A is really covertly working for B? Don't you allow the possibility that a lot of people supporting A don't even think about B and are sincere in their support of the issue?
I still think Occupy Wall street had/has a point.
It is not an intellectually stimulating activity - it doesn't further any particular ideological cause, and I find it extremely troubling. Last night a friend of mine was set upon by a group of (self-declared) Libertarians for having the temerity to tweet about being disabled.
I can't quite get into the mindset of the people who harass others online. Is it juvenile lashing out? The uncontrolled rage of the impotent? Or people who get a sadistic thrill from detached torture?
Strict codes of conduct, dress, speech and such are a consequence of people instinctively creating and policing conformity. That can be thinking and voicing a dissident opinion about religion or politics, dressing outlandishly, speaking improperly or any other element of culture that's cohesive. It isn't a coincidence that in 18th century Japan and 18th century Morocco, people wore different hats. That conformity in hats happened as people themselves conformed to local hat culture and pressured those around them to conform.
I think you're right to call it juvenile. Juveniles seem especially vigilant about conforming and policing conformity. A 14 year old is more likely to berate a nonconforming classmate than a 40 year old.
Being online and anonymous tears down some of the barriers to both taking offence and offering it. But, I think that the instinct to find a core identity and violently defending it is, unfortunately, innate.
I haven't read it but I've heard him discussing it on The Nerdist[2] and The Joe Rogan Experience[3] podcasts, both of which were very entertaining and insightful.
Though I never stooped to the level of harassing and shaming people, I did go through an angry white male libertarian stage, and having been through that I think the underlying motive for the asshole behaviour is something to do with entitlement and resentment. I.e., "I deserve better than this (more money/status/respect/sex etc), if the world's not gonna give me what I deserve, then at least I can make other people as miserable as I am".
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You%27ve_Been_Publicly_Sham...
[2] http://nerdist.com/nerdist-podcast-jon-ronson/
[3] http://podbay.fm/show/360084272/e/1436227565?autostart=1
"I was, as it were, doubled. On the one hand, I was 'I'; Jean-Paul Sartre, you know, the person. On the other hand I was the chronicler of hell, the privileged young writer allowed to observe all the torments of the modern personality. I was extremely happy, fake and hoodwinked to my very soul"
- From his autobiography Les Mots
There's a reason kids are made to read/watch this book in school. The author was an English Master at Bishops [0] while he wrote this book. That's why it rings true. First hand knowledge of the pecking order and the herd in action.
" The consequences of dissent are excommunication from the tribe."
Excommunication is dangerous because it can result in death.
[0] UK, COE Grammer, Salisbury, Wiltshire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Wordsworth's_School#Not...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/fashion/so-you-think-your-...
"My sister has been dating her boyfriend for two years. They live together and seem mostly happy. And I am happy for them, except for one thing: I am about 99 percent sure he is gay. Now, I have no problem with homosexuality, but you can understand my concern. Also, I am not the only one who thinks this. Several male friends have told me that he has tried to kiss other men or grab their crotches. I would like to bring this up with my sister. How should I do it?
Michelle, New York"
The response:
"Request denied! Before you say anything hurtful to your sister, let’s take a peek at some of the (homophobic-adjacent) assumptions that you’ve made on your (probably well-intentioned) road to judgment. Your 99 percent certainty rests on unknown evidence. (Spare me your gaydar.) But I am willing to bet that much of it involves silly stereotypes about masculinity. Is the boyfriend effeminate? Does he follow fashion or musical theater? News flash: He can still be straight."
"More problematic is the “gay panic” of your male friends, whose gossipy stories may rely on secondhand reports from still other men. Not so reliable. What’s more, I don’t buy it. Gay men and lesbians have long been, and often still are, a persecuted minority. (Have you seen the excellent film “Carol” yet?) The idea that a gay man could blithely and repeatedly “grab the crotches” of his straight cohorts is absurd. There would be consequences."
This story was linked on the front page of the NY Times this morning. I may be completely uncalibrated and out of touch with modern values and sensitivities. But I don't think I am. So I'm curious: Does anyone else see anything a little odd about this piece?
"If your sister’s life is working for her, back off. Once you share your views, you can’t unshare them. "
Which seems pretty good advice to me.
Funny enough, the slogan "Check Your Privilege" has come full circle and become the battle cry of the Social Justice Warrior, alienating all that are on the receiving end of its blow. Whereas its original intent was to help the receiver do some contextual introspection.
There is some good advice here: Consider carefully whether your belief that they're gay isn't based on homophobic assumptions. But rather than frame it like that, they are instead assumed to have already made these assumptions, and berated for them.
I don't see anything odd about the story nor advice, but I am not American. What do you think is odd about it?
"I'm assuming your evidence is based on assumptions."
[...] Another commonly displayed “libertarian” approach that I struggle to respect is the puerile desire to offend, bolstered by the dubious claim that this is somehow a noble and worthwhile antidote to the equally tedious culture of taking offence.
[...] There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone’s personal liberty is furthered by such infantile sneering; yet swarms of supposedly liberal followers rejoice in this toxic effluence with excited applause, like an encouraging mother will celebrate her toddler’s first shit in the potty.
I long had libertarian-ish leanings, but I agree with the author's points above. By coincidence, in another tab I was just reading "The Fable of the Cardiac Surgeon or Why I Don’t Support Libertarian Organizations" - http://www.philosophyinaction.com/blog/?p=663. It's an interesting read for those of similar mind.
With regard to the author's interaction with a "pack" of libertarians - you can find quite a few of groups but they rarely agree with each other.
You say that as if it's a bug and not a feature...
In all seriousness, I'm not sure I understand your claim that it's an impossible form of society. I understand the argument that the US or other existing nation states aren't going to become libertarian societies, but I see no theoretical reason why the creation of such a society is impossible (particularly when sea and space colonies start opening up new frontiers). I think this Startup School presentation by Balaji Srinavasan is relevant: https://youtu.be/cOubCHLXT6A
I agree that these societies could exist outside of a formal government - they'd need the ability to evict people which probably means everyone would need citizenship elsewhere.
Civilized society depends on the rule of law. There is a large mechanism in place in any civilized society with an extensive process to first decide guilt and then give the guilty an opportunity to pay the price, reform and try again. This by definition rules out arbitrary individual perceptions of justice or injustice, discrimination or organizing to 'directly' deliver it, to prevent anarchy. Justice by definition cannot empower some arbitrary individuals or groups views over others.
Activism targets laws or injustice based on reason and not individuals. The objective is not to shame or deliver consequences for an individual but change the law. Self righteous mobs on the other hand driven by their own opinions and the need to impose their views, rather than justice, target individuals.
Discrimination is illegal and has a huge social, personal, and professional consequences. If an individual escapes that somehow it indicates a flaw in the rule of law which activism would target, not the individual. But that's not fulfilling for those driven by self importance.
You may decide something is wrong but only the rule of law can make that decision objectively and enforce consequences. A mob convinced of its own infallibility sidetracks all that, evades accountability in favour of their own perceptions and in an exercise in pure self importance and injustice delivers consequences. That is little to do with justice and everything to do with vanity, self importance and inability to recognize the limitation of one own views, and the value of activism and rule of law.
No, it doesn't. There's just one Milo Yiannopoulos while there are thousands upon thousands of purposely anonymous channers making memes and cracking jokes.
I don't know how to say it without sounding negative but this is an uninsightful article based on little more than outcast mood affiliation.
Its purpose might be to bootstrap the insight machinery, which it accomplished, evidently.
Grey man.
Say nothing, don't make ripples and don't be noticed. Works well when SHTF and possibly when nothing of any consequence is happening. There is one aspect I don't like with this approach: By sitting back, not being noticed you loose the chance to lead.
In LOTF I can think of one person who tried this approach, Simon. When he voiced his opinion on the snake thingy, noting it was in fact a dead airman, he was ignored. By taking the grey man approach you fail to take the chance and opportunity to lead, letting others dictate your situation.
I think I'm just against extremism. To me, herd mentality is a form of extremism. Whenever I argue, I'm not trying to convince the other person of my argument for the sake of winning; I just want them to meet me half way.
In summary, I'm against people believing in anything with 100% certainty. Doubting things and changing your mind often is the right approach to life... I think.
IMO, why one becomes incited in the first place comes from the drunken sense of control one feels when all they think they are revealing is their gravatar/profile. However, it is relatively easy to reciprocate with a "herd agenda" of one's own and launch an attack without the need to extract any real facts to damage the target's reputation.
If I were to insult an individual in front of a group all physically present, I would most likely be doing so in a way that the "herd" clearly understands my message rather than the target. I have always despised this type of thinking as many do, yet it has become increasingly popular.
Also interestingly these two guys have very strongly opposed most sorts of elitism, while the phrase "herd mentality" is often used by elitists to justify their beliefs.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:raHl4fa...
2. Since libertarianism is, by definition, fully supportive of the rights outlined in the constitution, being anti-gun / gun-grabber / endlessly wanting more government restrictions on what is a fundamental constitutional right makes her not a libertarian. The criticisms levied against her on this front are correct.
3. She's quite insulting. "most sane individuals on this side of the Atlantic," implying one must be insane to respect and honor 2nd amendment rights? "Preening contrarians," "infantile sneering," "rejoice in this toxic effluence." Yikes. Exactly how full of disdain and contempt is she regarding anyone's opinions that don't precisely align with her own? I find it rather hard to believe anyone she is criticizing is as vitriolic as the author seems to be.
4. The important thing is, she's found a way to feel superior to everyone..
Actually true libertarian would think even the constitution as too restricting and prefer the world to be sorted on raw power alone. Realpolitik all day all night long.
Regardless of whether such libertarians are right or wrong in their beliefs about private governance, this is completely inaccurate depiction of their views. Peter Stringham's book Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life explores theoretical and empirical foundations for private governance and why it would not amount to sorting things out based on raw power.
The book received praise from Peter Thiel: "Stringham dispels state-worshipping fiction with historical fact to show how good governance has preceded Leviathan, ignores it when necessary, and can surpass it when it fails."
There are people who do get beaten or killed for who they are. Transgender people regularly fear for their physical safety. Minorities get abused and even killed by the police on a daily basis. So when people protest this sort of injustice online or in real life you'd expect the author to be supportive of this. Except no, she apparently considers this horrifying mob-like behavior of social justice warriors.
It's the lazy stance where she supports social justice activism in theory, but when it comes down to actually protesting abuses of power (which can include rioting and other mob-like behavior) she considers it unacceptable. Never mind that historically speaking large scale public protests (= mobs) have often brought meaningful social progress. I wonder if democracy can even function without it, because people must have a way to make their voices heard when the official channels are closed to them.
Don't get me wrong. Mobs are blunt instruments and without question scary. However, they're not uniquely or especially scary. So when I hear something like "[mobs] are the thing that frighten me most in the world" I have to roll my eyes. Other political issues are scarier by several orders of magnitude. Nuclear war. Global warming. NSA spying. Democracy getting hijacked. Perpetual war. Not on this list: Internet rage directed at Sacco.
Sure, plenty of people have it worse in this world, but that does not mean what happened to her was "fine" and that she was/is totally "fine".
Nuclear war. Global warming. NSA spying. Democracy getting hijacked. Perpetual war.
All these issues depend on level-headed, reasoned debate. Mass hysteria will only make it more likely that we succumb to these threats.
Unfortunately many click-bait "journalists" were simply too thick to understand the satire.
If people just wanted to make the point that it's unacceptable to attack an unknown person based on a single tweet (regardless of how bad the tweet is), then that's fine. Except people extrapolate from the Sacco incident to make sweeping claims about political correctness and mob behavior.
Level-headed debate is just one part of the puzzle. There's no point in having a debate if the outcome of the debate doesn't matter because the people who are having the debate are disenfranchised. At that point protests are needed. This isn't "mass hysteria". People protest because it works.
Where people object is where justifiable protest switches to ugly mob behaviour, including things like looting of innocent business operators, indiscriminate violence and vandalism, etc , just like what happened in Tottenham.
Mob behaviour, by definition, is where people stop thinking critically about issues and blindly follow whatever their peers are doing. This can never be beneficial. Independent, critical thought is essential for positive change to be effected.
The problem with the modern Social Justice Warrior movement is that it is counter to the interests of true social justice, as the people who need the most protection are the smallest minorities, and these are the people who lose out the most when everyone is banding together in mobs and deliberately shutting silencing debate and individual expression. Meanwhile, the "social justice warriors" are far too busy focusing on how moral they seem rather than how much real social justice they're achieving.
If your response is - as I would hope - that true campaigners for social justice are not like this, then that's ok - they're not the ones being criticised.
As for your claim that rioting and the like can never be beneficial, that's plainly wrong.
Take for instance the Curaçao uprising in 1969 [1]. Workers protested wage discrimination and it turned into a mob that burned down 43 businesses and 10 other buildings, primarily those owned by white people. Guess what? The protest was a complete success, they got the wage they asked for and they got new democratic elections to boot.
I reiterate: people protest and riot because it works.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Cura%C3%A7ao_uprising
But you know sometimes people protest because they're upper-middle class brats with a raging sense of entitlement, and they see some middle-ranking international trade conference with an agenda they know nothing about, as an excuse to rip down street signs and smash them through shop windows, or roll ballbearings under the hooves of police horses, just because they can.
No, it really isn't. Quite aside from the immoral way you have just cheerfully sacrificed strangers' homes and livelihoods in the name of your transient political goals, looting and rioting leads to businesses and productive citizens leaving and a collapse of the local economy. Go to Detroit if you want to see how that works out in the long run.
Incidentally, even if somehow rioting is okay as long as just people of the appropriate skin color are the ones being harmed, perhaps you should keep in mind that the folks who start businesses in low-income areas of American cities tend to be either local black people or immigrants. That's who suffers when buildings get burned down in the name of "justice."
you can't be serious. clearly the term lynching was not literal, and that seems as close to a description of an "online lynching" as something can be.
Tweets directed at a white woman: Lynching.
Killing of a person of color: "death of a young man".
Can I fire anyone with tweets I disagree with? Lets say SJW-s?
Losing a job over speech done outside of the employment is wrong.
The fact that it was caused by "our" guys - in two years when the pendulum has swung back - they will be the ones that will be victims of the mob.
Still, it can get even worse than that. I've seen cases where people have basically been blacklisted from an industry based on what they said online or their political views. It's horrible, likely illegal in many places, but there's definitely a crowd that wishes they can block people with 'unpopular' political opinions from various industries.