The first thing you might be wondering is "why is this not in the above section?". For most people, obviously men and women are different. There are biological differences based on hormones and genes. But I think what is different is a subtle and key distincter that makes this much less of a forceful offense, and more of a subtle one.
I will use this quote of yours as I think that "not all men/women" defense discounts it. To give an olive branch, men and women have the same ontological value as humans. I would even go as far as to say that from my view they should all have the same virtues: both men and women should be for instance patient, kind, diligent etc.
However I think this really discounts the huge differences on average between men and women, which really make the difference. I like how I think Andrew Wilson put it: while men and women should aspire to the same virtues, there are different consequences and these virtues have different hierarchies. If for instance if an alien changed all women who would stopped to be chaste tomorrow and fucked around, we would end up with bunchload of unwanted pregnancies with everything that follows. If the same goes with men (and they would not become violent), then we would probably end up with more tissues spend jerking off and some sluts having exceptional revenue that day. The same goes for instance if all men suddenly got lazy and nobody would show up at work: the society would stop working, stores would not get supplied, electricity would fail and so on. If all women stayed at home the situation would be bad, but not as much.
There are real differences in primary duties between men and women - and again not ALL men and ALL women, but on average there is meaningful difference and if it is ignored, it can have far reaching consequences and saying otherwise is standard Lewontin's Fallacy
There are studies showing that women are more interested in things and men are more interesting in people. Men are more effective in physical strenght and violence than women. Men are more suitable to adverse situation ranging from stress (being less anxious) to physical stuff (e.g. being able to be a roofer in Arizona summer, where women would literally die from heat stroke). Women are more interested in socialism and flattening the hierarchies, men are more comfortable with competition and following orders. The quintessential male organization is the army, the quintessential female organization is the sewing circle/quilting bee. And you see it in real life from voting patterns, different mating strategies and everything else.
I think it is not healthy to view the relationship between men and women as adversarial by necessity, but in modern world it was forced to be. Women compete with men on all levels from individual relationships via individualism to corporate sphere to politics. Men and women are not interchangeable, they have different duties and they steer institutions such as marriage or motherhood, organizations such as Army or corporations and even whole societies toward different goals. Helen Andrews has great speech about that here
georgioz
13hr ago
I'd add that New Atheism is also failed metaphysics and epistemology. I also agree that it was a substitute for hamartiology and to some extent narrow axiology. However in a very funny ways it adopted the overall cultural flow of other philosophical traditions, ranging from hermeticism to humanism to naive empiricism, namely that you can get to "The Truth" by critique and negation. All you have to do is to identify the Big Bad (e.g. religion), remove it, and then everything will be "better".
Of course there is no grounding for what better means, what is "The Truth" or anything like that. What happened next is the search for the replacement. Sam Harris tried to tie it to Secular Humanism, utilitarianism and the rest of it. This is the same what Big Yud and Alexander tried to do in their own way reviving Quine with addition of quantum physics and a lot of parables and stories. I see a resurgence of some new grey tribe attempts at philosophy, mostly going for some sort of idealist monism be it Sean Carolls "universal wavefunction is all that exists" or Max Tegmark mathematical realism or computationalism of Joscha Bach. These are all some sort of RETVRN to previous philosophical traditions dated even to presocratics, but instead of "all is water" or "all is flux" we now have these new monadic entities. Only they are even stupider as they want to have legitimacy of empiricist tradition without addressing arguments from Hume or Quine. Of course there are other splinters, including roundabout return to religiosity and Christianity, the latter of which I consider a more robust paradigm.
However significant part of the crowd was captured by the thrill of the hunt and went over to Critical Theory tradition, it just provided other Big Bads after the original project failed. That is why I sometimes called these philosophizes as theological conspiracy theories - they evade all the hard questions just assume that things can get better if we tear down "bad" things around us.
So New Atheism failed, because in the end it was always broad tent "anti-something" coalition and there were internal fractures regarding where to move next.
What victim. A moron who lets some random chick snort ketamine from his dick before gangbanging her with his 3 equally moronic friends? I am sorry that I do not have much sympathy for such a victim. Neither do I have sympathy for said chick who voluntarily went into such a situation. I am not thinking of any of them as some victims.
Like I said, everybody is an asshole in this story. Or am I supposed to be male or female feminist who thinks of a college men and women like that as "kids having fun" and at the same time as unthinking victims of systems of oppression who are just bunch of atoms in motion inevitably dancing to the tune of power structure of Patriarchy, Rothchilds, GloboHomo power brokers and TechBros who beamed subliminal messages about ketamine orgies into their empty heads via TikTok? I dont think so.
I’ll quote a 2011 blog post from an Australian Catholic social conservative author who is also critical of the Manosphere:
This is by no means a Catholic critique at all. There are two completely different ways of how modern feminism or even modern thinking breaks down intersexual relationships. The first one is that the basis of Catholic teaching is not some maturity or anything like that, our morality is Virtue Based. Both men and women should strive to be virtuous: humble instead of prideful, chaste instead of lustful, generous instead of greedy, kind instead of jealous, balanced in moderation instead of gluttonous, patient instead of wrathful, diligent instead of slothful. Above all these virtues we have Christian love, caritas as guiding principle. There are of course other virtues such as courage or wisdom which are subsided in there. The point is that Christian ethics is Virtue Ethics, it is not utilitarianism or harm reductionism - it is centered around personal virtues related to deification and individual relationship toward God and other people.
Catholic anthropology follows this in sacraments. In baptism, a child is introduced into a community where mother, father, godfather and godmother take responsibility to educate the child toward these virtues in form of caretakers utilizing methods of discipline and consistency to teach the child. This results in first communion around age of 7 o 8, this tracks the ability to discern between good and evil, the child is capable of sacrament of confession and to decide on what is good and evil. From there there is the period of theological grounding for child's decision making, the parents are there as teachers with the child having more autonomy to explore these realities. The child is a catechumen and this period ends around age of 15-16, where he is considered and adult but still to be mentored by other people, including parents and the community.
Now the point is that in terms of maturity, by age of 16 you as a Catholic should be fully aware of what is Christian moral teaching, what are vices and virtues and live you life accordingly. There is no eternal "kid" mentality where somebody can be 28 and still "exploring" as some forever university student, it is preposterous. You can be 17 or 18 years old and preparing yourself for marriage and taking care of children in the same loop. Maturity is not about wealth, "responsibility" in terms of being a manager of team of 50 people or anything like that. While this is of course one way to grow, it is by no means implied in catholic teaching. You are mature as long as you posses ability to discern good and evil and as soon as adult Christian you know the doctrine to live virtuous life. The catholic teaching of responsibility is stemming from subsidiarity, by age 15-16 you are fully capable of thinking and managing yourself, and you are preparing to take care of your closest family such as husband/wife and even children and whole community. But this is reciprocal, The Church is proper way to live Christian life and the community is helping everybody till their last days. The process of deification is a lifelong process where the whole community including your priest is helping you in this endeavor.
When Hymnowitz points to the Star Wards nerds, all I can think of is the "mature" female SATC equivalents. I admit that men sitting in mom's basement jerking off to online porn are pretty shallow, but so are the women who spend their lives shopping for bags, clothes whilst riding the carosel waiting for the enabling supplicant whom will provide them with lifestyle to which they are accustomed.
That is not lack of maturity, these young adults are mature enough to have capacity to understand what is going on. It is lack of virtue. You can be 80 year old alcoholic bum jerking off on your pissed matrass doing stupid shit. We do not think that such a person did not mature, they are just lacking virtues.
I am reminded of the usual reddit "Am I the Asshole" threads. What usually happens is that in any given story everybody is an asshole in there. It ties to a very good article of jugaad ethics, which uses the Indian word of tying the new to the old one as a workaround, such as having a donkey or a bull trying to tow a modern car. This is what happens when you tear down Chesterton fence and observe the aftermath.
What I see lately is percolation of various worldviews into ethical system informing morality, which ultimately has reach toward law as law is "minimum of morals". One of them is the overarching result of various forms of physicalism - there is no free will, we are all just atoms in motion, sometimes imbued by various outside sources and "systems" of oppression. So a psychopath murdering her own children has no true agency - it is all failure of systems that did not provide help. And at the same time there is visceral need to put some personal blame somewhere, there has to be some agents - even unwitting ones - perpetuating some systems. Like in this example - we are talking about minutiae of what constitutes a "consent" and who has ability to clam systematic influence as opposed to agency.
It is a car crash waiting to happen, where some people are for the first time confronted with their worldviews and moral presuppositions colliding with reality. If anything, it is fascinating to watch.
I think it is quite the opposite. The Culture War is more alive than ever. There still are woke progressives although they want to rebrand to Woke 2.0 silently distancing themselves from some of the more stupid stuff, but it is still there only bubbling beneath the surface. You have revival of Christianity either in form of true conversion but also silently in form of "cultural Christianity". You have other stuff especially in Europe with regards to rising popularity of Mumdani style socialism, you have literal Islamists popping up more often as Muslims especially in Europe get more power.
In terms of policies you have age old stuff like immigration or wars. But there are various interesting issues rising up, like for instance the gender wars stemming from huge divergence of voting patterns between men and women which are driven by completely different worldviews as attested by Lindsay Clancy trial. You have Palestine vs Israel conflict creating strange bedfellows between progressives, Islamists and alt-right agreeing on who is the source of all evil in the West.
To me it seems not at all clear which ethos and ideology or culture will rein in let's say 20 years. Will it be the same GloboHomo technocratic coalition trying to hold the post war liberal consensus as outlined in official UN documents such as 17 Sustainable Development Goals? Will it be some sort of right wing conservative nationalist coalition? Will it be rationalist technobros developing AI overlord who will rule with iron hand of utilitarianism where everybody is hooked on some sort of UBI and robot hookers? Will it be some sort of South African style of failed country split in tribal conflict over diminishing resources in the middle of failed AI dystopia and demographic crisis?
georgioz
2d ago
That, or as the comment from the gold mine of youtube comment section put it more succintly:
She went to the Zuckerberg school for human emotions
Thanks for the link. The comment section is gold, I really liked this one:
"It took me a really long time to be able to cry on command... but check this out" single tear rolls down cheek
Or how the other comment put it:
She almost shit herself producing that teardrop
I am still laughing my ass off over it, a real goldmine in there. Also I unironically think that we may be witnessing a birth of a new hero for Lindsay Clancy's gaggle of lunatics. I'd not be surprised if a few years down the road Holmes is AOCs chosen for vice-president or something like that.
Underdetermination is exactly why reversing stupidity doesn’t get you intelligence.
I agree, that is why I wrote:
Also I agree that reverse stupidity is not intelligence, but stupidity is at least a hint of lack of intelligence.
I also agree, I'd say that in my Christian worldview there is not only lack of ontological substance of evil but also of a lie, Steresis aletheias. There is infinite way of how to be wrong, but only one way to be correct in my theology. In other theologies there is only infinite ways of being wrong without any metaphysicaly objective way of aiming toward truth, as this objective truth does not even exist.
That gets you back to a state of Cartesian doubt
Carthesian doubt was not deep enough. He did not doubt time or language for instance. His cogito ergo sum should in proper sceptical tradition be something like sgdsjvfdngfd lshgfk h lsng, only even more stupid, as he should doubt meaning of very language.
The most information you can get by rejecting paradigms is zero.
This cannot be true as there should be way to doubt your paradigmatical grounds, otherwise it is just pure dogma. In other words you are just asserting grounds of your paradigm as correct without any justification, thus basically creating a new fairy tale.
I can give a steelman position to the OP argument. I can tie it to my older post about theology, which is paradigmatic disjunction. There is famous Quine proof of Underdetermination of Scientific Theory, meaning that data are not neutral towards underlying paradigm and interpretation. Therefore you do not just have The Science™, it completely relies on underlying paradigms that select what to study, how to formulate hypothesis, how to formulate and propose theories that explain data which are dependent on presuppositions.
So in the end it is just a pure conflict theory. There is no absolute The Science™, all science is instantiation of their underlying theology and paradigm onto data. Be it Socialist Science, Scholastic Christian Science, Progressive Science or even Rationalist Yudkowskian Science. In that sense the OP just hates the Progressive Science with its own paradigmatic blind spots and correctly identifies it as a Conflict Theory with Lab Leak being one of the example. Even more prominent one was the petition of The Scientists™ to allow BLM protests in the middle of pandemic as they consider racism as greater threat than COVID-19.
Also I agree that reverse stupidity is not intelligence, but stupidity is at least a hint of lack of intelligence. Reverse of stupidity of let's say paranormal science is not intelligence, but it is not a reason not to dismiss it.
This is exactly the opposite of my conclusion. Women being "equal" means men and women compete everywhere ranging from fights who stays at home with kids to competition with women for your job position to politics and societal arrangements. Equal rights eventually means erasure of duties and related social norms.
For instance if it is a new arrangement that women have "right to be sluts", this flattens all social expectations, no slutshaming etc. Moreover this also wildly rearranges societal expectations - women no longer have duty to be chaste, which means more fights at home if husband expects such a behavior as it is oppressive and goes against "rights". Just one more thing to argue and fight inside relationship.
Or take another change - equal pay for men and women. If men and women have equal pay, this then means that in increasing number of cases women will outearn men. This should then come with corresponding change in norm of women as primary breadwinners and their duty to take care of their husbands. But at the same time women also have right to be hypergamous and expect men to outearn them. These rights and expectations are going against each other, which means clash and strife.
If men and women can be whatever they want to be, then there is nothing wrong with somebody being incel jerking off at home. He has his first amendment right to watch porn, it is no longer expected that men should marry or take care of family as it is their right not to chose so - so there is nothing wrong with somebody living in small apartment and playing videogames. To then turn and be horrified by incels choosing this lifestyle is then illogical. You are adopting traditional norms and duties while at the same time saying that abolishing these norms and duties s fantastic progress toward equality. It is crazy position.
More options
Context Copy link