monideas

Reminds me of when non-coding DNA was thought to be useless, it was labeled “Junk DNA”, and then it was realized it played a role in regulating gene expression.

What are these political ideals?

There are no popular conservative movements in the US at all. “Popular conservative movement” is almost an oxymoron.

The “conservative movement” in the US is just liberalism, the US was conceived as a liberal project. The founding mythology is a revolution against a king

How is this different from what I’m saying? What you listed is precisely the examples of what I’m talking about

I would say generally speaking under Liberalism the notions of different registers or rings of “collective” are illegible. There is only the individual and the collective, not different types of collective with different rules and protocols.

This is why even ideas like the nuclear family are hard to define or defend within Liberalism.

Remember that Black Lives Matter had on their website a declaration that they rejected the notion of the nuclear family.

Along the same exact lines the notion of what makes someone a citizen of a Western country is very hard to define or discuss. In some sense every person on earth is basically an American, they just haven’t been officially granted citizenship yet. No one can actually define what particular qualities qualify someone to become an American citizen or not, everyone just has vague notions and some ad hoc mishmash of various financial or political interests.

This makes discussions around illegal or legal migration in the West very difficult to have, purely on an intellectual level in terms of the categories.

It’s not about desirable vs undesirable. You have a different relationship and rules that govern conduct for your mother and father, wife, and children than you do your neighbors or someone who you don’t know who lives in the other side of the country. Those are not “undesirables”.

You need to consider what is actually the “citizenry” of a society. In your example it sounds like the nobles are the citizens and the peasants are non-citizens. Using the term “noble” and “peasant” confused the matter with inter class or socioeconomic concerns.

What you’re describing seems to be unequal justice for the poor rather than an in group or out group dynamic but it’s not clear because you’re mixing ideas. Note that in Ancient Roman society there wealthy Plebeians and poor Patricians.

The Greeks had a similar arrangement in their various city states with regards to citizenship and non-citizenship (the helots being the most legible example of this).

I would encourage you to consider that you are at least an order of magnitude not thoughtful enough to really understand what we’re talking about and keep that in mind when it occurs to you to use insults.

What we’re talking about is the notion of what constitutes good or “being a good person”.

Within the Liberal frame “not discriminating” or at least “not being seen as discriminating” is good and the opposite is bad.

You’re still approaching this from the Liberal frame. It is very hard to transcend this because it is the totalizing predominate ideological substrate of the modern world.

In reality there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination itself, only with particular forms of it. Types of discrimination which are considered non-controversially acceptable would be people’s choices of mate, who they hire into their company according to their skillset and “culture fit”, who is invited to a birthday party, or allowed into a home, things like this. These are forms of discrimination. The term itself in common usage has a negative valence which means “bad forms of discrimination”, “bad” according to Liberal/modern sensibilities.

We are talking about modifications to what constitutes bad vs good forms of discrimination.

If someone is still struggling with this, consider the semantics/valence of the phrase “I have a very discriminating taste in art”. This doesn’t have negative valence but the basic idea of discrimination is being invoked here.

Conservatism would actually be encoding the differing treatment for the in-groups vs out-groups directly and explicitly into the law.

For example, under Jewish law a Gentile who commits theft against another Gentile is liable for the death penalty, whereas it is not a capital crime when a Jew commits theft against another Jew.

Liberals cannot even conceive of such a thing since it contravenes the basic premise of liberalism so they can only conceptualize it in the way you outlined.

And by the way, this means that this in-group vs out-group thing (“two-tier justice system”) happens under liberal regimes, it just doesn’t get acknowledged officially.

We’re talking about a basic human sociological reality that is modeled incorrectly by liberalism.

Total destruction of cities is generally the way that wars end. This is simply a historical fact and anyone who studied history with any sort of interest would understand this.

I don’t think public parks in the 1950s in America were filled with used heroin needles and homeless people strung out or defecating.

You can correct me if I’m wrong though.

Well Israel is also the only developed country on earth with a fertility rate above replacement.

I don’t know what metrics you would consider non-psychopathic.

Getting married, having children, being materially successful, destroying your enemies. These are good things.

Ok so you agree there’s no genocide, I guess because they want to keep them alive for fun or something.

The sexual assault thing never happened. It was simply a lie.

You can use the term Palestinians if you want. Many of the people who engaged in atrocities on October 7th were Palestinian civilians, not Hamas.

For example the Bibas children and their mother were kidnapped by Palestinian civilians and sold to a Salafi terrorist organization within Gaza, they weren’t taken by Hamas. This is why the mother and children were strangled to death instead of being held as leverage and there were issues recovering their bodies for the hostage exchanges.

They were kidnapped by Palestinian civilians unaffiliated with Hamas and handed over to a different terrorist organization which had different priorities than Hamas.

So yes it is appropriate to use the term Palestinians here. It wasn't just Hamas and it wasn’t just “Gaza”, it was the Palestinian civilians too.

The context of this discussion is the idea that war could have been avoided if Israel had been willing to negotiate with Hamas over the hostages.

Often times when communicating an idea you need to repeat yourself.

In this case I also mentioned the Greece Israel Cyprus military alliance which I didn’t before. This is an alliance which is due to the threat from Turkey which transcends a lot of the petty ideological issues with Israel coming from Western Europe.

There were many temporary ceasefires in exchange for hostages but this was done as part of the broader war effort, ultimately Israel is not bound to anything in these “agreements”. It’s basically just saying and doing whatever needs to be said and done to accomplish the war goals.

If that is what you’re talking about ok, but it sounds like you were saying to actually make concessions.

The point is to accomplish the aims of the war. There are no concessions that have to or should be made. Israel is by far the stronger power.

Yes it would have been insane to accept any concessions. If you don’t understand that then you have work to do on yourself. This is a very weak and suicidal position to take.

50k civilians dead out of a population of 2.2M. The population of Gaza has increased since the war began. That’s not a genocide insofar as the word means anything.

If it was a genocide you would expect basically 90% of the population of Gaza to be dead. Israel controls the water supply and the food into Gaza, they could just poison the food and water, dropping bombs isn’t even necessary.

I don’t know how to make it more simple than that.

What did you mean then?

Essentially your point is that Hamas protected the hostages from the IDF by not returning them and keeping them underground in chains in near starvation conditions.

This is abject insanity and it’s a good representation of what is going on in the minds of most of humanity.

The Israel stock market is up about 100% since October 7.

The Israeli Shekel is so strong against the dollar it is causing issues with exports.

Israel has signed major missile defense deals with many European countries and just signed a major new one with Greece.

Gaza is in near complete ruins, the tunnel infrastructure Hamas spent the past 2 decades building is being destroyed.

Nasrallah was killed and Hezbollah is severely diminished militarily and politically in Lebanon.

Iran’s nuclear weapons program and ballistic missile capabilities have been severely damaged and no longer pose an existential threat, at least for the time being.

Israel is doing very well since October 7 whereas Hamas and Gaza is not.

Well we’ve already established that the use of the term genocide is nonsense, I’m arguing something different. In this case that the type of defective thinking displayed in the idea you need to be a member of some institution to apply your intellect is in part responsible for the fact every other developed society is dying, it has to do with agency and libido (the psychological sense of the term).

They’re not all actually decreasing in population, they are increasing via mass migration, legal and illegal. That is how the elite strata of Western European societies and the Anglo sphere countries (US, Canada, Australia) are dealing with this.

In Japan, Korea, China, Hungary, etc they are indeed decreasing.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that a society where the marriage rates are so low is stable though. For some definition of stability yes, but usually we also mean healthy when we say stable.

“in part” this would only require 1 building to be destroyed to satisfy this definition, in fact any sort of action taken at all during war or any sort of inter ethnic conflict would satisfy this definition.

That makes this definition useless, just to be clear.

If the “in part” refers to the physical destruction of the people itself rather than the potential nexus between the act and the physical destruction of the people, then clearly this doesn’t meet the definition because Israel didn’t destroy the buildings in order to bring about the physical destruction of the Gazans. The buildings were not destroyed in some round about way to kill the Gazans.

How do you think Arabic came to be spoken in Palestine?

What you’re describing is basically a people + a covenant + a system of law. That is basically the structure of the Jews, the covenant they have with G-d, and the Torah.

The question is then to what extend that particular system is an accurate reflection of reality, and to answer that question you would have the analyze the delta between them, both in terms of how it was initially conceived vs how it evolved.

In the case of the US, at a very basic level for example the founders did not envision the US as a multiracial society or that everyone, including non-landowners could vote. Also that the US constitution itself looks very different today in terms of its amendments and more importantly the case law and jurisprudence around constitutional law which is de facto the constitution of the US. I don’t mean that these are right or wrong necessarily, just that the initial conception is very different.

Basically I think you are right but that also the basic premise of liberalism and the liberal system even in its initial conception is flawed and therefore doomed to fail.

I do think fundamentally liberalism does assert a view of human psychology and sociology that assumes that properly organizing and orienting the human mind is at least 3 orders of magnitude easier than it really is. If you actually study anthropology, like the anthropological studies that were done in the 19th century and if you study depth psychology which heavily makes use of those anthropological studies, you find a very terrifying and very chaotic and complex picture of the human psyche, as revealed in the religions, mythologies, and rites of pre-civilization peoples which liberalism has virtually absolutely no awareness of.

I don’t know what you’re calling a strawman, but the point is that wxw’s response is simply an epitome of the underlying problem. He’s just engaging in political discourse completely in line with the ideological superstructure which is ultimately responsible for this very problem (violence against teachers being normalized). You can’t expect the typical person to be able to transcend that, hence “to be fair”.

This is a consequence of the fact that they are what constitute the legible identity of a given society. The middle and underclasses in any given society just reflect the structures and circumstances created by the elite. The middle classes of every society simply desire psychological security i.e the ability to follow a track laid out before them, the underclasses of every society simply want to fulfill their base desires. The specific character of a society comes from the elite strata who desire self actualization, the character of a society being what self actualization means in that society.

They are precisely the ones that can damage society because their beliefs, activities, desires are what the society actually is.