fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Depending on what you mean by it, I am against free speech, and believe it was always a sham, which is why I said I am going to need specifics.
Why then did you cite ‘the censorship’ as one of the ‘little things’ that justify your moral superiority to the woke?
But somehow, in this entire thread, no one attacked Lee or Rommel on their personal conduct.
I think I did. Obeying your superiors, fighting for your home country are some of the 'little things' I object to.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Are we talking academic feminism or popular understanding of feminism (“it just means ‘women are people’, equal rights, etc ”)?
Because I think the wider population is far less anti-pornography, anti-prostitution and anti-free speech than committed feminists , so modern feminism as a political player is hardly on the pro-side of these issues.
Hmmm. I thought they denied it was necessarily a bad thing, not that it exists at all.
Well it’s the original objection to kant. Are you ‘objectifying’ a baker by buying his bread? If yes, we are constantly objectifying others, I can’t see the problem with it, the concept of ‘objectifying’ loses all negative valence, so may as well not exist.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Agree with dag, this is why we need priests, to tell people “just be nice, for god’s sake” without having to explain the game theoric calculations. Do you litter too? This is psychological littering.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Actresses being promiscuous yet extremely high status refutes your point about the psychological or reputational damage suffered for promiscuous behaviour.
Besides, the ancients didn't bother differentiating between actresses and pornographic actresses, but one still married justinian.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
how many prostitutes and former actresses have ended up in successful happy functional relationships?
Most of them? Actresses are the highest status women on earth, and settle for billionaires and presidents after they've had their fill of co-stars and producers.
The terms pro-sex feminism and, later, sex-positive feminism were inspired by Ellen Willis.[14] From 1979, feminist journalist Ellen Willis was one of the early voices criticizing anti-pornography feminists for what she saw as sexual puritanism, moral authoritarianism and a threat to free speech.
The Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce (FACT) was set up in 1984 by Ellen Willis in response to the Dworkin–MacKinnon Ordinance;[17] in 1989 Feminists Against Censorship formed in the UK, its members including Avedon Carol; and Feminists for Free Expression formed in the United States in 1992 by Marcia Pally, with founding members including Nadine Strossen, Joan Kennedy Taylor, Veronica Vera and Candida Royalle.
Note the heavy emphasis on free speech. Does this sound like modern feminism to you?
Sex positive feminists still often oppose the sexual objectification of women because it is not empowering.
It is the sex negative side that adopted and developed the concept of sexual objectification. If they were truly sex positive, they would deny that ‘objectification’ was even a real thing .
The majority of the thinkers discussing objectification have taken it to be a morally problematic phenomenon. This is particularly the case in feminist discussions of pornography. Anti-pornography feminists Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, influenced by Immanuel Kant’s conception of objectification, have famously argued that, due to men’s consumption of pornography, women as a group are reduced to the status of mere tools for men’s purposes.
edit: The true heirs of sex positive feminism are 'individualist feminists', like Wendy McElroy, Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, who are basically considered anti-feminists by feminists nowadays.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
No, that's what "they" say. My conspiracy theory is that the sex positive feminists actually lost. Modern feminists do not like porn and prostitution. They are very fond of sex negative terms like rape culture and objectification.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Sex postive feminists existed at one point, it's just that after they lost the feminist sex wars, the sex negs flayed them and wore their skin to hide their puritanical, hypocritical nature.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Right, you’re surrounded: communists, progressives, social democrats, classical liberals, reactionaries, we’ve all been corrupted, now we’re scheming against you and all that is good. And I'm the moral crusader.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Are you denying this is an official @FCfromSSC positionTM ? If anything, he's even more against free speech, ie, 'it was always a sham and could never have worked no matter the opponent'. Now in practice I believe he is less anti-free speech than the woke.
Nevertheless, this is a major problem for your argument. Because firstly people disagree on what the seemingly universal norm of ‘common sense decency’(small-h honor of lee and rommel) even is, and secondly, free speech to me is actually a ‘big question’, so the distinction you’re trying to make, and the world where we all just stick to your small standards, can’t exist.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Many of them could recognize that it was evil, in the sense that they wanted it to stop
That's all I'm saying, that it was recognizably evil, not self-evidently evil.
without being able to agree that it was evil enough to sacrifice or even risk everything else of value in an attempt to end it, which is what you appear to be arguing.
What actually happened is that Lee and co sacrificed and risked everything of value in an attempt to maintain it - see the difference? Good honorable men have a duty not to fight for a recognizably evil cause. If lee had gone on a trip to europe for the duration of the war, I would have no problem with him.
What makes your moral assessments different from those of Lincoln or Grant or any of the others on the Union side, who thought Lee worthy of considerable respect despite having literally had to fight him?
My assessments are substantiated, coherent and elegant. I don't respect their opinions any more than I do those of living experts and ordinary people.
Could it be that your moral standards have... progressed?
So have yours and Hlynka's.
Bonus question: I think abortion is an abomination, roughly equal to slavery. Do you consider me liberated from any concerns of loyalty to my fellow countrymen, given that they have maintained this vile practice at the cost of 60 million innocent lives?
If there is ever a civil war between abortionists and anti-abortionists, I suggest you do not fight for the abortionists just because your home state is blue. As I said, morality in general, not just my morality, trumps the petty understanding of honor and loyalty lee used to justify fighting on the side of evil.
Had I the opportunity to contribute significantly to the military subjugation of my society, with a reasonable expectation that this would result in large-scale death, ruin and immiseration for my fellow Americans, should I do so?
No, because it’ll end up a communist civil war type deal, where the deaths are front-loaded, and after that your goals will fail and it will go on as usual. But what should stay your hand is morality, not loyalty to your home state, or ‘basic human decency’ (in the sense of ‘being a good neighbour’), or legality.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Still sounds suicidal, although I admittedly have no idea how realistic that is. Can you attempt a (series of) less ambitious treks first?
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Your chances of being in a relationship with an average american woman. But forget about that, it’s been discussed too much already, it’s just that I don’t trust your other evaluations as a result.
Is your plan still to parachute in the middle of alaska with just a knife? Is there any way I can convince you to adopt a less suicidal plan? You can perform a great feat without a great death risk. I feel like you’re going to splatter and it will be a millionth my fault because I didn’t suggest you build a cabin or do an iron man or something instead. I’m sure if we get our heads together we can find a better bucket list item for you to cross, one that isn't the last.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
A common sentiment in the sub is “When we had power, we gave them free speech. Now that they have power, they deny it to us. We won’t make that mistake again.“
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Can you give an example?
Generally, the sub (and FC) is more partisan right-wing than I am on the topics you highlighted, free speech, not firing people, tolerance for differing opinions among friends.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
This is devolving into petty squabbling, but I don't think 'wanting people to be nice' is a disparaging re-phrasing of your meaning. You admitted they are small things. The 'good manners' analogy is a more hostile paraphrase. And accusing me of cheka membership and a willingness to commit atrocities is on another level entirely. Anyway, I don't think it's for the speaker to define what can be inferred from his arguments.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
It’s a common enough defense, that’s why I keep accusing FC of moral relativism, but I always have a hard time believing it is a genuine position, as opposed to a one-off tactic. Who would willingly confess to moral incompetence on all the big questions?
You guys are not behaving as if you just want people to be nice, and refuse to judge/abstain from voting on the big questions. No, you act like your side is entirely morally correct, and part of that case is that your opponents aren’t nice (well, sometimes you argue you shouldn’t be nice either because they started it, but whatever).
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Yeah, and also the period where hedgefundie’s big adventure strategy was backtested successfully. It was so obvious it would crash and burn when rates came up. Just-leverage-it-bro no longer infinite money printing machine, experts concede.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
No one thinks slavery or the holocaust is more respectable because of Lee / Rommel.
Strong disagree. Isn’t that what the lost cause is all about? That they were in effect just lee-esque, decent, gentlemenlike men doing their duty. By extension, an institution defended by such men couldn’t be all that bad, could it?
It it is not the fact that they're on the other side of this giant controversy that bothers me about them, it is precisely the little things: the refusal to engage with opposing views, the censorship, the getting people fired from their jobs.
I endorse none of these things, even against nazis, so again complete irrelevancy.
You're the one claiming that sort of question is answerable, not me. The entire point of my framework is that the big questions are hard to answer, which is why doing the small, answerable, things right is so important, and why people like Lee deserve credit for it.
cop-out. This is a far more fundamental disagreement than the rest of the comment. Imo after that admission, you’ve forfeited the right to condemn anything the woke, or anyone else, do. Who knows, maybe hitler was right, it’s unanswerable. All you know is that you approve of Rommel’s good manners.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Are there still people who think spain perfidiously blew up the maine?
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Hey if you're enjoying the journey, that’s great, most important thing. That’s one of your problems imo, you’re too focussed on the goal, whether it be in alaska or between the legs of a woman. Your other problem is that you have a completely distorted view of your chances, which makes a dangerous voyage that much more dangerous.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Weird, I only received notification of this comment now. I am almost certain this comment did not appear earlier in the thread, I could not see it.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Sure, but this is about offering considerable sums of money – paying for desertion, paying for proof of sabotage, paying at least market price for any equipment they bring with them. I think a russian soldier trusts, and can trust, EU states far more than a japanese soldier in WWII can trust the US government. So the leaflets of the time were far less credible.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
What truth? It’s a murky conjecture at best, lacking a clear motive. And the nationalistic pride baiting around it is so transparent. Why did they do it? I guess they just wanted to prove the greatest country on earth is a little bitch, sammy. Now what are you gonna do about it when you grow up?
I suggest you remember the maine instead.
Everything before "you’re going to have an awful end of life situation" is superfluous. Like how are a few kids who occasionally come and pity you, going to make the slow decay and daily pain of old age that much more bearable? It could be worse, they could take care of you, and you'll die knowing you ruined a portion of life of a still functioning human you love. When my grandma was in a retirement home, we made sure never to tell her that the value of her modest house had long ago been consumed by the cost, or she would have eaten the pills.
More options
Context Copy link