I think this is inevitable result of the fact, that modern leftism from its philosophical foundation leans much more into pathos/ethos as modes of argumentation as opposed to logos. It is considered valid to accept that there are "other ways of knowing", things like "lived experience" are okay form of debate and affiriming/celebrating various identities and rewarding proclamation of excess privilege give one more social points. However this can also create a very stressful environment in case of infighting or disagreement. As much as conservatives talk about "cancel culture", the phenomenon exists even more strongly inside the movement.
This is where ethos type of persuasion comes in, being on the other side of critique for insufficient commitment can be highly damaging psychologically, compounded by potential loss of all the whole support network to boot in case you get banned/ostracized. As an example one can use latest kerfuffle around Young Turk's Anna Kasparian for her comments on violent crimes, but there are other stories of let's say detransitioners and other pariahs from the movement now living outside. The thing is, that once you are booted from the movement then you are marked as "rightist" which keeps the movement pristine and happy place at the first glance.
Also as somebody else mentioned, this behaviour exists on the right in form of religion and in case of various specific subgroups. I am sure that let's say if you waded into some MGTOW message board venting your frustrations, you will find a lot of support and positive reinforcement over there. The difference is that these spaces are mostly marked as "extremists" and pushed to the darker corners of the internet as opposed to let's say and outright misandrist radical feminists which are fully mainstream.
This reminds me of endless discussions around the term woke which was first adopted by woke crowd as a positive label and suddenly overnight it turned into right-wing slur "somehow". As for cultural Marxism, this was also something adopted by the left. Just one example, in this paper named Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain. And from the "praises" of the paper it is obvious that Cultural Marxism term was viewed at the time in positive light. Here is one example:
“Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain fills an especially acute need in the contemporary reassessment of the social roots and cultural contexts of avant-garde academic movements. . . . Dworkin assembles a convincing historical narrative of how a seemingly provisional reaction to the crisis of British welfare capitalism in the post-war period developed into a coherent and compelling subtradition of European Marxist social theory. . . . Dworkin’s new study manages to both creatively historicize a familiar—yet often misunderstood—recent academic and political formation as well as raise pressing methodological questions that cross the major disciplines of the human sciences.” — Alex Benchimol , Thesis Eleven
Cultural Marxism itself is a cornerstone of Western Marxism, a branch distinct from Marxism-Leninism. It has to be understood that Marxism itself is by definition not static but dialectical philosophy that "evolves" until socialism leads into utopia - that is the "permanent revolution" concept: as soon as powers at be settle down creating their own power structures with their own contradictions, the revolutionary wheel has to turn again to revolt in order to resolve those contradictions. As soon as history uses the revolutionaries to move forward into progress, it discards them.
Specific cultural part was developed especially by Antonio Gramsci, who investigated why revolutions in late 1910s and early 1920ies failed in the west. His conclusion was that the main obstacle was so called cultural hegemony. He focused on the dialectical opposition of so called base/infrastructure vs superstructure in cultural and not only economic production. It is culture created by superstructure that reproduces capitalism and gives rise to so called "structure" to society. And in accordance with Marxist ideology the society reproduces the structural ideas, which create the society which create the idea and so forth. You may have heard of some of those "structures" and related theories - that were developed by later Critical Marxist or Identaritarian Marxists - here in CW thread: patriarchy, white supremacy, cisheteronormativity and so forth. That is the relevance of Cultural Marxism to gender.
georgioz
1yr ago
Your heroine version of heroine's journey definitely fits Captain Marvel movie. Now I had some discussions around Galadriel character in latest Rings of Power TV show. Some people defend it as hero's journey:
-
Galadriel had her brother die tragically
-
Galadriel is now raging and obsessed with revenge which is her flaw
-
Galadriel listens to the call for adventure to find Sauron and enact her revenge on him at all costs. And she has success finding various clues about him
-
Galadriel is too hardcore, pushing everybody away from her due to her single-minded focus on revenge, this is her flaw
Now there are some not so subtle hints that the character of Halbrand is the Sauron and he will use her rage to actually enact his plan. Which will cause Galadriel to almost lose everything. Then she gets rid of the flaw, gives up the whole "warrior Guyladriel" shit and becomes protector/enchantress Galadriel from the books. Now I'd actually love this arc, although I would definitely had it described differently. It would be good if in prologue Galadriel was not warrior-princess but more measured wise woman. Only death of her brother driving her to embrace the flaw.
Another potential version of this character arc using your heroine arc:
-
Galadriel is the bestest ever: the wisest, fairest, smartest and best warrior out there. She is pure
-
Galadriel will have her wings clipped in some future episode, maybe being tricked by Halbrand/Sauron and other male characters who will be successful at putting her down.
-
Galadriel will fail to attain as much success as before with this tactic.
-
Galadriel will be in the end forced to use actual force to save hobbits and other main characters. Only to be chastized for it so she returns to her pacific ways
-
Saurons takes advantage and kills loads of people - including weakling men that held her down
-
Galadriel is pissed, picks up her sword and decapitates sauron Arya Stark style in 5 seconds
-
All the men who offered any criticism will bend their knees to her and proclaim her as the true Elven Warlord for the end of times
-
The End
I am actually "looking forward" to seeing where the show moves with her story.
I think there is one part of the article that was ascribed as a quote by MacAskill, which to me is key component of the flaw of progressivism:
“Imagine what future people would think, looking back at us debating such questions. They would see some of us arguing that future people don’t matter. But they look down at their hands; they look around at their lives. What is different?”
This to me is very similar argument that woke movement and other progressive movements employ: you are a dinosaur, future generations will view you as aberration because you cannot oppose inevitable forces of history. In fact this is a very basis of many Hegelian philosophies - including Marxism, Marxism-Leninism and later Western Marxist strains. The moral action will be evaluated only backwards from some future idealized man: be it New Socialist Man, or some future immortal transhuman or whatnot. This MAN is the ultimate judge of morality, but we do not know what he will think. So the next best thing is to help creating him, we need to "do the work" to move dialectic process one notch further ushering this abundant future. And what sucks is that we do not even know what exactly to do to usher this utopia, you have to believe in the process of ushering it. You need to do the work and commitment, sublime yourself in the process and if what you come up with fails it only means you need to try harder next time. The utopia is all-important and even if uncounted billions perish in the process, it will all be worthwhile in the end if you save uncounted trillions and quadrillions.
And it makes sense even for rationalists and especially Yudkowsky given that he thinks so much about Roko's basilisk. Let's lay foundations: there will be superhuman AI in the future, the only question is what AI will be out there. Rationalists want to usher a "good" AI basilisk, that will share their values - any other AI basilisk will sentence them to hell. This is all or nothing proposition, which is a very similar theme to those of Critical Theorists or Woke Crowd. Either our progressivism succeeds in ushering utopia, or fascists/racists/patriarchy or any number of bad acronyms will prevail and rule.
Doing that would kind of require doing the Nietzschian thing of acknowledging power, political violence, etc. and working with it in the debate, which I feel like is probably a step too far for most politicians. But I think specifically that rather than debate competing visions, there's room for a thinker to basically just deconstruct modern "critical theory" on its own terms, argue that it is self-contradictory and unlikely to do anything but breed new forms of political violence and power imbalance.
This paradox is something that Critical Theorists acknowledge themselves - the paradox being that once the oppressed gain power they can become the new ruling class. However this is not a bug, but a feature - Critical Theorists are not afraid of contradictions and paradoxes, in fact contradictions only reveal that there is more work to be done between Theory and Praxis. The idea even in older strains of Marxism was that it is not bourgeoisie that is the final boss of the revolution, the final boss is the proletariat itself. However the belief is that once the oppressed class(es) gain full consciousness, they will dissolve themselves voluntarily to usher the utopia without oppression. If they do not do it, then it means that another literal revolution of dialectical process needs to take place, the consciousness was not achieved, the "true" communism was not tried. In fact the whole idea of creating socialism as precursor to full communism was to speed up the dialectical process inside permanent revolution framework.
For instance Theodore Adorno stated that “[o]ne may not cast a picture of utopia in a positive manner”. However the feeling of oppression is the sign of a prison that prevents utopia to realize. So endlessly criticizing all forms of oppression is a process to get rid of all the obstacles, utopia will be realized and crystalized through negative thinking. This is the literal basis of "Critical" in "Critical Theory" - to endlessly hunt for and criticize and denounce oppression everywhere all the time, in order to announce the new world.
Now one key difference in modern woke leftism as opposed to old Critical Theory is that there is a "hope", which Paolo Freire described in his Pedagogy of Hope. This is an older idea by Gramsci that the consciousness can be taught, Freire formalized it in his version of "education" which actually means the political education into revolutionary consciousness. So there is still a lot of denouncing going on, but now there is a "positive" thing activists can do - multiply themselves by roping in new generations of activists into the program, with the hope that even if there are no concrete steps to follow into utopia, the next generation of revolutionaries with refined consciousness will get us there.
georgioz
1yr ago
Interesting, to me it seems that the conflict is now not between so called "left/right" but as Steve Bannon said years ago it is between populists (be it national or socialist) and for lack of better word the "technocrats" who want to rule through "expertise" of bureaucratic apparatus.
I a not really comfortable being "in debt" to other people, even friends. So if somebody is a designated driver I always offer at least gas money, if somebody gives me a gift I feel the pressure to reciprocate ASAP, if somebody invites me for a dinner I need to plan dinner of my own to invite that person to and so forth.
Later in my life I found out that especially an unsolicited gift is one form of manipulation, it seems that a lot of people are hardwired to count it as a status game so I guess I want to return the favor on my own terms rather than waiting if this other person ever wants to "call in the favor" for something more. Interestingly from my observation there are loads of people who do not have this at all and they are comfortable to just receive without giving back. It is not that I have any issue if it is the other way around and my gifts/favors are not reciprocated, but it seems strange to me.
georgioz
1yr ago
I would never visit a prostitute, not as much because of morality but more because of myriads of STDs, some of which are highly infectious and very hard to get rid of such as Herpes/HPV viruses against which you cannot protect even with condoms. I sincerely believe that it was STDs that historically made prostitutes "unclean" and made them verboten in loads of cultures/religions. One prostitute infected with syphilis could wipe out half of a small town. In fact, apparently 20% of men in London caught syphilis by the age of 35 despite overall culture denouncing this behavior.
georgioz
1yr ago
Not exactly forums, but I do comment under various bloggers on older platforms or on substack as well.
georgioz
1yr ago
Populism does not have to be without program or theory. One of the first recorded establishment vs populist clashes was that of Optimates vs Populares like Gracchi brothers in ancient Rome. Populists can have intelligent and well read champions and specific program like land reform, tax reform or election reform in case of aforementioned Populares.
In case of Bannon he named Sander's crowd who called for socialized healthcare, education and overall larger redistribution is one form of populism inside Democratic party, MAGA nationalism with things like subsidizing domestic industries employing workers can be used as populist strain of Republicans.
There is truth to this, but I think it is overstated. America radically overhauled our immigration policy in the 1920s. The specifics were often silly, but one of the goals was to give time for immigrant communities to assimilate. And it worked!
This time is different, even for US specifically. Lets look at this graph from this pew article.
The current level of immigration in USA is almost reaching historical highs from 1900 as percentage of population (Sweden has even larger share of foreign born population than USA). The difference is that in 1900 the US fertility rate was around 4.0 while it is 1.7 now (coincidentally Sweden also has 1.7 fertility rate now) and even that fertility is already driven by immigrant population to significant extent. The level of immigration from 1980 till 2018 is absolutely unprecedented and it is probably about to continue growing. If this trend continues for another 2 or 3 generations the situation will be unlike any time in history.
Another thing is that I'd say capacity of the West to assimilate immigrants is at all time low due to two main reasons. First one is the technology - immigrants have unprecedent ability to communicate with people back at home. You can have daily videocalls and access to all the media you want as opposed to a few letters a year. Second reason is cultural: the multicultural push is exactly opposing to what was happening in USA after 1920ies where new mass media had explicit push to get rid of "hyphenated Americans" and have only Americans. The new ethos in the West is to do exactly the opposite: promote foreign cultures and demonize indigenous white population and their culture as uniquely racist and bad.
Richard Hannania had an interest point on gay marriage yesterday. He like me has trouble making a direct attack on gay marriage.
I think there is no need for attack on "gay marriage", mostly because either gays were duped or "gay marriage" was just another in the long line of attacks on the very concept of marriage, I'd say even a paltry one compared to no-fault divorce proliferating in the society.
In fact I think that gay marriage only showed what was happening in the broader society for some time already, we do not have marriage - a sacred bond between man and a woman before god supported by the rest of the society morally and culturally. We only have "registered partnership", something like a special version of LLC that can be created and dissolved on a whim, with specific bankruptcy laws aimed at distributing wealth as well as children between the partners. In many cases the traditional marriage vow of - I take you to be my lawfully wedded (husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part - does not have value of breath spent to utter it, the vow can be broken in a few hours to laughter of wedding witnesses, especially if one party was "duped" somehow into believing such a nonsense.
I'd hope that by now people would be more knowledgeable of all the language games played out there, the words seem to hold some residual power despite having completely different and sometimes opposite meaning. There are other examples out there, often distorted by (mostly left) to suck up the power of the original concept. In the CW space there are myriads of such words like racism or violence up to basic words like man and woman. At a time to me it looks like some strange magical ritual, where people really believe in social construction of reality, as if words can expand their meaning beyond the practical limit inside the communication, that they will retain their original explanatory and cultural power, only with some toxic appendix feeding off of them invisible to the society at large somehow. Just repeat the mantra like "2022 marriage is real marriage" and the very fabric of reality changes to accommodate your wish. It does not work like that.
This may be hard to explain to somebody seeped in certain type of culture, but for other people the themes are grating and obvious to see. What did Galadriel do? As with all feminism Galadriel is perfect example of what if gender swapped would be seen as "toxic masculinity" only written badly. She is bitchy, disrespectful and overall pain in the ass. She constantly mansplains to everybody her point, like the "you have not seen what I have seen" to Elrond, a character who was literally out there fighting Morgoth. She is always angry and her solution to problems is either violence, or angry demands to speak to management to do her bidding. Her scene with Regent Murielle was one long cringe pissing contest. She is for some reason instantly liked by important characters like Elrond, Gil-Galad or Elendil for no reason despite her acting like a bitch - in case of Elendil even threatening him with dagger for which he conveniently shows her Numenorian secrets in their library or whatnot.
But there are other stupid and self-serving cameos in the show so far. One of the "original characters" showrunners invented was Elendil's sister (I won't bother looking her name), in their own words to "introduce some feminine energy into the family" or some such. And her main cameo in the show was bragging that they accepted her to the university or something like that. It is so on the nose and stupid beyond belief, but I guess for some people it is absolutely normal writing.
georgioz
1yr ago
Not exactly "hip" or "rock concert-esque", but when I was believer I liked going to Latin Catholic mass. The advantage was that instead of old grannies singing hymns in their broken voices they employed local choir with organ, so the musical parts were more tasteful in my eyes. Latin rites also captured the original feeling, and it is not as if I did not know all of them by the rote anyway. The readings and preaching was in local language for convenience. Overall I think this was the best balance for me, but I like choirs so there is that. But it was definitely more solemn and not lively.
To be fair, I think a lot of fandom was primed by what is nowadays standard "fanbaiting" to look for "woke" stuff in the show. And it is there for sure, but it is overshadowed by bad writing, bad pacing and overall bad direction even. For instance there is a scene where a human woman meets black elf (they have supposed "forbidden romance" but with no chemistry) talking about attack by orcs on her village (where she decapitated an orc, slamming it on table in tavern proving the veracity of the threat). And when they get there to asses the situation the woman shows no emotion - she does not call out for potential survivors of her family or friends, she does not cry or anything like that. She just kind of goes around as if she was hardened mercenary surveilling yet another site of a massacre she got accustomed to.
What happens next is that all the elven garrison jump into a hole from which orcs came only to be promptly captured - and BTW by this point everybody knows that orcs are there. And then they make a plan - let one of them escape to alert nearby garrisons of potential threat. Because it did not occur to anybody to send a messenger back before jumping to fight orcs in a pit in the first place.
The reason why I am talking about all of this is that I think this is not a coincidence. It is not the fact that the show itself breaks suspension of disbelief by inserting some modern blue tribe/woke aesthetics into the programming. I think that the whole cast, directors, producers and above all else the writers are just sheltered blue tribe brats with no relevant life experience, seeped in their respective bubbles thinking that creating fanfictions where they insert their fantasies as well as their aesthetics is the pinnacle of fine art. It is kind of narcissist, it breaks the 4th wall where you can clearly see what characters the writers love or hate in their own life, there is no separation or thinking outside of the box. I think they seriously believe this and the result is what we see.
I think that this whole culture elevates incompetent writers and other professionals. And I am not even that opposed, for instance I quite liked the professionalism in Everything Everywhere All At Once - which had diverse cast and also some woke messaging, but it at least made sense (although ending was kind of cringe).
The President laments not only not being able to get anything done to the hysterical claims of harm but it being used to basically marginalize and remove her and other party figures
Oh, she does not understand what is going on. The idea is as follows: there are people at or near the center of a circle who hold power and then there are people "on the margins" of the circle who are oppressed by those in the center. Once all the people on the margin band together, they can collapse the circle - this is often called as centering [oppressed category] in wokespeech. It is literally described in the book Mapping The Margins by Kim Crenshaw.
So sorry Mr/Ms/Miss Kuttner. You were not marginalized for finding yourself out of the new collapsed circle - you were just de-centered. And by your inept defense you just opened the door for future criticism to bury your career 10 feet under. I am sorry for the person, but to be frank I have some level of schadenfreude here. This is exactly the shit that was happening in the past in many countries gripped by the revolution. You cannot be just an ideologue, you have to also be savvy political operator and you have to constantly have your finger on the pulse of where things are going or you are out.
Revolution eats its own and if this new challenger actually invented the whole trap for cynical purposes to gain power, I want to congratulate them on their game. They are the harbinger of the things to come.
Whatever Amazon is doing, they're doing something right. I cannot escape hearing about this fucking show from every possible outlet, social media site, and of course this culture war chessboard.
I agree, this fanbaiting was adopted by big studios at least since Ghostbusters 2016 with all female cast. The overall phenomenon of critics and showruners vs fanbase dates back to Gamergate if not even farther in the past. And while it may not be the best long-term strategy for the corporations, I think it is the best strategy for people inside those organizations: C-level executives, directors, writers and actors. Even critics are now part of the game - with the Zeitgeist being what it is, they cannot afford standing out too much if they like their career. As an example there is an upcoming The Woman King movie about African Amazonians from historical kingdom of Dahomey fighting white colonialists and slave traders. Predictably it sits at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes with 36 reviews so far, which should make it one of the best movies of all times on par if not better than movies like Citizen Kane (99% out of 127 reviews) or The Godfather (97% out of 149 reviews) and of course Black Panther which has 96% out of whooping 529 reviews.
I agree with you, there is a utility in all these controversies: it is free marketing and a very good shield against constructive criticism of the content.
Yes they did, which makes it ahistorical and hilarious. Although I do not necessarily have an issue with that, for instance I liked the movie 300 and also laughed when Leonidas had the speech about age of freedom - yeah, freedom to perpetuate slave society with arguably the highest ratio of slaves to citizens in history.
georgioz
1yr ago
I think this is where the distinction of socialism/capitalism breaks, given that in the original Marxist literature socialism and ultimately communism was supposed as an ideal against the reality of "capitalism".
In practice basically all radical left regimes collapsed into some form of what is called "state capitalism" - basically bigshots with political power call the shots and various corporations do their bidding. Of course there is also an incest with different "czars" of different parts of economy or bureaucracy using their influence or even direct ownership for political power struggle. But the state and politics have primacy, if powers at be decide to run "anticorruption" raid against your corporation or they decide to cut the corporations out of financial markets or regulate it to oblivion that is their prerogative.
The key understanding is that radicals do not have a positive plan, they have revolutionary zeal and faith that it pays off in the end. If corporations "wokewash" their revolution, that only means that "true revolution was never tried" and repeat. Filthy reactionaries won again, but only temporarily. To evaluate radical leftism by an outcome like "capitalism strong vs communism enacted" means adopting their own irrational logic. To many people with experience in such a situation across the world it is clear that these ideologies are unworkable and that having a new crop of cynical power brokers like nomenklatura is inevitable. Corrupt Chinese multibilionaires tied to political clans such as those of Xi Jinping or Jiang Zemin are a feature and inevitable result of Maoist revolution, not a bug.
In that sense rich and powerful using the new radicalism to get ahead and get wealth or power is nothing new.
I don't think this is an incendiary view, in fact it is a very conservative one. There are many researches for instance regarding polygamous vs monogamous societies and across various outcomes monogamous societies come ahead: crime rates, warmongering and so forth. Monogamous societies were in fact minority of civilizations and they to large extent limited male (and female) aggression and impulses by culture and religion. Men who have wife and children have more stake in the society and thus are less likely to cause trouble.
The problem with feminism is that they have it exactly backwards: instead of noticing how society tamed men, they see it all as some historic conflict between toxic men and oppressed women as a class. The solution was not to feminize men, it was to masculinize women as it is now ubiquitous with the new mean girlboss archetype. But I would not throw the blame on feminism, in fact it only falsely reinforces the idea of revolutionary social change by activists and movements. I think the larger part of "blame" lies at the feet of technology. The obvious one being the pill, which gave women possibility to replicate male sexual behavior without risk. But I think the more significant is servitization of economy, which gave women ability to compete with men on the same grounds.
The current calling out of toxic masculinity by feminists reminds me of current meetoo rape allegation trends. Sex positive feminists clamored for sexual liberation of women, they no longer have to be at home watched by their relatives. Break the shackles of bigoted religious sexual stigmas, go out and have sex any time with anybody you wish. Prostitutes are suddenly sex workers, porn is at leas normal acting if not outright art and so forth. However when suddenly sex became cheap and without any stigma some people - mostly men - "take advantage" of it. Now we need to somehow bring the clock back and create some elaborate system of consent and new sexual mores and culture to protect women from predators. If only there was something like that before, right?
georgioz
1yr ago
It seems to me like low birth rates are a result of people having the freedom, in accordance to their right to self ownership, to limit or delay or prevent the birthing of children, and that the resulting low birth rates are a reflection of the revealed preferences of the population.
A little bit tangential, but I think it is worth mentioning that this sentence is based on some moral rule, or axiom of "self-ownership". I notice it a lot lately, you have some philosophers creating something - like Rawl's veil of ignorance - which is supposedly self-evident and basic. And then there is some implicit belief that whatever society stems from this belief must be good and moral, because the belief is moral by default. Rationalists have the same tick in their axiology where they put "truth" and to large extent "prevent suffering" as something automatic and then designing policies around that. I think it is worth realizing that not all people necessarily share this framework. In fact, there are supposedly limits even for adherents - for instance all countries I am aware of ban selling your own organs for transplantation, which theoretically is part of self-ownership.
I also dont see any negative externality to people having less kids, its not like they are indirectly suppressing the fertility of others who desire more kids.
This is a very narrow look at externality. All societies have some social construct and defecting from it can be viewed as subversive and bad. Some people do not have such hyper-individualistic worldview of complete self-ownership and they expect some duties from members of society. Having kids and reproducing/perpetuating society that enabled your existence as may be the expectation, externality in this case is ceasing the link and preventing their kids from having similar experience. You can extend this to other avenues that require multigenerational commitment, even let's say climate change. Why should somebody expect me to do anything about it? I will probably be dead before 2100 when the bad things potentially happen. I have ownership of my body and actions and I refuse to voluntarily cooperate.
It is couple of months when through Spotify algorithm I encountered a song that I really liked for its lyrics. This was the song - don't worry, I will also publish youtube link later. I have to say that the lyrics grabbed me. Just some excerptions:
It was dark and I was supremely alone
No matter now if the compass fails again
Cause in your love I built a home
Refrain:
We're all we need, oh darling
Yeah, we're all we need, oh darling
Yeah, we're all we need, oh darling
Yeah, we're all we need
Yeah, we're all we need
You get the gist. When I listened to it on Spotify I said to myself how interesting it is to listen to popculture song that expresses woman's lovesong to a man, one does not see something like that anymore. I even said so to some of my friends/family. Only then I listened to youtube version of the song and it was about lesbian love
What I want to say is that "subverting the expectations" went right through over me. The cynical me did not even register it, to me it seems as if it all went through: this is what we had in the past and I can just pretend that this is man/woman love song and it has the same power. I ignore "the message" given the current circumstances and I can quite enjoy it. It is interesting how we went full circle when the current culture adopted old-timey tropes and they pretend to shock somebody. It is strange feeling, as if we are allies. Anyway that's all, I am interested in what you guys have to say to it.
georgioz
1yr ago
Young and Beautifu
I actually read Lana Del Ray "Young and Beautiful" Lyrics. And it to me seems like she said "I've seen the world, done it all". It is kind of defeatist music.
georgioz
1yr ago
I don't know about incompetence. The way I understand it is that Southern states do not have legal ability to deport illegal migrants - that is federal government responsibility. There are sanctuary cities up north supposedly willing to help these immigrants. So sending them over there should be win/win situation. Southerners are racists and Sanctuary cities will take up on the burden.
This BTW reminds me of a reverse situation from EU migrant crisis. Except all immigrants wanted to go to Germany/Sweden which were the countries that were most vocal about helping them. Only for the situation to be turned around with all the negotiations about quotas for migrants for different countries and so forth.
For retroactively changing worldviews, this I think is something very common in general life. My guess would be that people really think in narratives and stories. This is how humans make sense of the world, it is hard to keep track of myriads of possible worlds that could be spawned by butterfly flapping its wings somewhere in Amazon rainforest. One other area where I see it all the time is sports. You can have a great player who is MVP for five years and then if he bombs for a season you will see plethora of I knew he always sucked comments. Similarly people are also prone to overhype especially new players calling them GOAT after one season already having a narrative in their heads. In fact it often is these very same supposed fans who come hard on that player if he bombs, or even if he does something outside of the game that offends fans.
I remember one analysis of this fact mentioning that fans often project their own emotions and insecurities onto the player developing a strange parasocial relationship. If the player do well they have a kick of dopamine themselves, if the player does badly they can really get down. Inventing certain narratives especially those that externalize this pain can then serves as methods of dealing with cognitive dissonance for people. Inventing stories out of the whole cloth reduces inpredictability and thus anxiety and stress. Another one of those examples is centered around "Just World" fallacy - you have to have control over the world so if something bad happen it feels psychologically good to invent some reasons for that. Oh, she got harassed because she wore suggestive cloths/all men are pigs.
More options
Context Copy link