drmanhattan16
No bio...
User ID: 640
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
I am assuming that argument A2 is better in all regards than A1. So for people to believe A2 is still to believe a more valid argument. But I agree that both can ultimately be wrong.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
That's true. Books and films on these topics makes instruments of Leftist moral education.
No, status quo education. Hating Hitler as the ultimate evil, supporting the CRM, all of these are now the status quo. Even conservatives (not the radical ones) are not lukewarm on Hitler.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
And even then, I only really countenance steelmanning in ossified forums like this one, and never in real life; because at that point you're just handing your enemies better arguments.
Why would that matter?
Let's say you give them a convincing argument for X and they use it. If it's so good that people are convinced, then doesn't that imply it was actually valid?
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Anyway, I don't necessarily disagree, but the more often the lesson is repeated, the more glaring are the cases of evil we don't teach about.
If you don't teach it, you either don't consider it immoral or it's simply not relevant to you.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Thanks for sharing. But I'm nearly as tired of Holocaust-themed morality plays as I am of the Civil Rights Era-flavored ones. Has anyone under age 70 not been bludgeoned through their entire lives with "Prejudice is bad!" and "The banality of evil!" and "Never again!" etc?
You mistake the process of cultural moral education as an attempt at saying something novel. If I tell a young boy to not throw trash on the street every day, it is no flaw for my lesson to be repititive.
Hitler, for the foreesable future, remains an important figure in the West's cultural history - he is the ultimate evil who must be known so that he and his followers can be rejected. Likewise with the Civil Rights Movement - it represents an important step in moral progress, so it is taught to people.
These films should be recognized for what they are - an attempt at recreating our ancestors' feelings about these things in ourselves or our descendants.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Hitler dominates the cultural education people are provided. He is the ultimate devil, the most evil being to have existed to many. Asking why people care about one figure instead of another presumes that they care at all in the first place.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Sure. The question is still how prevalent Chu's view is among trans activists.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
but I genuinely don't think I'm hurting anyone by saying to my wife, "ya know, I bet the belligerent vagrant was on meth or something".
This seems like a personal virtue that is, in practice, supererogatory - you have no power, so your snap judgment does nothing. But it would be better if you didn't since it would emulate the thinking we praise in those who have power.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Hmm, fair enough.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Okay. So where's the proof that non-Western cultures aren't largely having to roll over to the demands of their youth as they temporally displace the citizenry?
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
In a stunning upset, Jeb! won both the Democratic and Republican nominations simultaneously.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Let's get more specific - when you say rebellion, are we talking about the general "fuck you" attitude teenagers have to what adults tell them, or are we specifically talking about progressive youth activism?
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Who stopped?
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
They have a mess of vague, contradictory beliefs and values.
No more than anyone else.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
The idea marxists have - that by being extremely critical and active against injustices you feel exist in the world you can usher in a better world. That criticism while having no clear idea or plan on what to do is still the right thing to do. etc.
This is completely at odds with Marxist usage of that term. It does not, despite it's name, work as a transhistorical concept. The entire idea is that socialists and communists need to ensure they don't get corrupted and complacent by working with democratic institutions and allying themselves with less radical political parties. It refers to a practice that was in place in the 19th and first half of the 20th century and doesn't work once you get into the 1960s and even less so with the collapse of international socialism/communism as a serious force.
You're free to define terms how you want. But the people who you claim use it that way would disagree.
That's the beauty of it. Adolescent rebellion along with the right memes is enough.
Literally every society ever has dealt with adolescent rebellion.
Hasn't it worked out ? Didn't Marcuse get a heart attack confronting radical left students? Aren't the radical leftists who so infuriated Marcuse now entrenched in academia and being replaced by far more progressives ? Etc..
This only supports my point and contradicts yours. The people in question have a clear understanding about what their utopia is. Go ask any progressive, Marxist, etc. and they will tell you that their system is moral, meaning that they do not tolerate deviation from it.
Do not conflate long-term rebellion with the idea that they are rebels first and ideological second.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Finnish isn't a religion that predates the Western civilization.
Can you define "permanent revolution" for me? Because I think you and the people in question have very different understandings of what those are.
Secondly, they're not creating a generation of rebels. They only become rebels insofar as the current system is undesirable. Progressives do not raise children with the terminal goal of fighting without respect to what is being fought for. Their terminal values are things that, if implemented, they would 100% not tolerate deviation from.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
The answer is, “It would be cool, and there are maybe some moderate cognitive benefits. We think. Mostly it would be cool.”
The cognitive benefits of knowing 2 languages is probably in the bottom 5% of reasons given to learn a language.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
In the past the right was gung-ho for fighting Communism, but the Communists secretly won and are now pulling the strings.
To be clear, are you saying this is how the right sees it, or are you actually asserting this? Because if you are saying the latter, I'll ask you to substantiate this argument.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
You can't sell it to the left. The idea that it can be sold is based on the anti-left's imagination of what the left cares about and conflates outcome with intention. It is assumed that because poor minorities have more children, they will line up to support this. Which may certainly happen, but selling it broadly to an ideologically anti-family (at least, not pro-nuclear-family) left is a non-starter.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Democracy prevents many effective policies from being adopted for fear of the voters, since it requires the highest saint and the filthiest sinner to have the same amount of say in the direction of society, and the sinners far outnumber the saints
The real power in your society is defining sinners and saints, and I don't suspect the people who would have it are as virtuous as you make them out to be.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Sure. But the OP was explicitly about future planning. If we're saying that things outside your control don't matter in this case, then that should be the objection, not "your planning sucks"
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Isn't that just joining the losing side?
China isn't exactly popular, and its cultural products struggle to compete with the West's.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
I'm not talking about that kind of thing. What if they're struck in such a way that their personality fundamentally changes, and you're no longer a good fit?
Why wouldn't you argue X2 against Y2?
More options
Context Copy link