Thoughtless cant is allowed here; I wouldn't class your post as low quality in the context of this discussion.

I'm not sure why you think it's appropriate to post with precisely the kind of thoughtless cant that one finds on Twitter, and which I'm trying to draw attention to.

I'll let the staff member who did it explain before I say anything.

Maybe you could discuss theological issues with other believers in the Theology part of the forum — I like sushi

Note that there is no theology part of the forum. On the old PF there was a religion section but we don't have an equivalent here, only philosophy of religion. Intra-religious or theological discussions are not very welcome.

Latest privileged white academic in the firing line for having incorrect views is Camille Paglia. It was only a matter of time I guess.

Art students are trying to get the social critic fired from a job she has held for three decades

Thanks, but I wasn't aware of dodging anything. I think it was a good point. You opposed two things that seemed to me unrelated, so I pointed it out.

So your point is that you're offended because a philosopher has negatively judged your sexual practice? And I'm pathetic?

the idea of caviar ... actual caviar — Benkei

I had to use google for this, which for some reason makes me feel superior.

I still like actual caviar.

Again, I see you condemning my language as trying to put something beyond reasonable debate as if calling something an obscene disgusting practice is the language that keeps things within reasonable debate. — unenlightened

This doesn't work. You're condemning a man for his views or his words, but if Scruton is condemning anything at all, it's not a person for their views or words, but a general sexual practice. Only the former condemnation has anything to do with putting things beyond reasonable debate.

Anyway, I reckon obscenity and disgust are crucial in any comprehensive discussion of sexuality, so I don't see any problem with that language.

Fair enough. My point was not particularly against you, but rather the general point that seeking to restrict women's freedom is not necessarily, obviously and uncontroversially sexist, or is not enough to justify consigning a view to somewhere beyond reasonable debate (the place you aim to put someone when you call them sexist, fascist, malevolent, etc.)

So maybe the bonkers remark was intemperate too.

The idea that the Scruton quotation about masturbation--here repeatedly and bizarrely interpreted out of context--is sexist, but controlling women's reproductive freedom is not, is bonkers.

EDIT: But I said I wasn't going to get into that. Sorry.

Existing, in my case. Anyhow, it's a false equivalency. In the case of abortion, there's a balance of rights to be considered between the unborn child (of whatever sex) and the pregnant woman. There's another life at stake. — Baden

But then, you would say that. I'm not going to get into abortion, but my point is that in both your case and in Scruton's, there are other things you think need to be balanced against the individual rights of the woman. And I think you both believe that your positions seek a better result for society.

Fair enough, although I think it's in the same ball park, and illiberal in the same way. Likewise your intemperate and uninformed rush to condemn a philosopher as extreme, illegitimate, idiotic, sexist, racist, and so on.

I am open to correction, but on the face of it, I would say that a view that wishes to restrict the role of women is a sexist view in any normal understanding. — unenlightened

Maybe, but then it's just another sexist opinion to be countered with argument. Compare: at least a couple of liberal-leftish members here are in favour of existing, or even more extensive, obstacles to getting an abortion. Me, I happen to think those obstacles profoundly restrict the freedom of women. But this is an issue for debate, not for shutting people down.

Kenan Malik in the Guardian:

Most of those who excoriated Eaton replayed parts of the interview that made his tweets look misjudged but ignored the uglier parts of Scruton’s views. Like Eaton himself, they seemed more interested in feeding the outrage machine than in illuminating debate. So we have a curious situation in which Scruton is sacked for his comments, there is ire at how his comments were presented by an editor on Twitter, but little discussion about his actual views, their context or consequences.

Part of the problem is that the conditions for fruitful public debate involve many elements, some of which may seem contradictory: a willingness to be robust in one’s critique while also being charitable in interpreting our opponents; refusing to portray opponents as simply “evil, pernicious and wicked” while also not ignoring that which is so; being committed to free speech but also to a kind of speech that allows debate to flourish.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/21/david-lammy-roger-scruton-rush-damn-our-opponents

I think this is about right. Having read a few of Scruton's books, I would defend him as a subtle and humane thinker. However, I wouldn't defend his long-standing anti-immigrant views or his anti-anti-smoking writings, and I often disagree with him, e.g., on sex, politics, and music. But mostly I'd want to see these things addressed in debate, certainly not with offence-finding witch-hunts, misrepresentation and banishment beyond the pale.

:rofl: :cry:

I see. Kinda feel like replying but we're off-course already.

gets used as a device to bash 'witch hunt' leftists on the head with — fdrake

Isn't that to be expected of an article that explicitly bashes witch hunt leftists?

Thanks, I should've linked to it.

Yes, in fact I would want to extend Fisher's criticism to cover all political interventions, not only the intraleft disputes that he addresses in the article. It's possible he wouldn't agree with me on that, I'm not sure.

I don't think the passage is particularly sexist, unless you interpret any disgust in response to female masturbation as sexist. Scruton believes that all masturbation is obscene, whether male or female. Treating one's own body in that way, as a mere object, is obscene in his view, hence "the obscene display of her body". He thinks male masturbation is disgusting too, but it's not possible for a man to masturbate "during the act of coition" so the clearer case of the obscenity of masturbation intruding into the sacred act, as he sees it, of sex between a man and woman is female masturbation.

His views are fairly reactionary on this subject. He regrets the sexual revolution, which was a movement that I think was largely a good thing, especially in the way it expanded sexual freedom for women. So in the end his views do probably imply a more traditional role for women, that is, a restricted one. But this is a legitimate political position--traditional conservatism--rather than simple sexism or misogyny.

There's no gotcha here, no case for calling out. It's time to grow up and exit the vampire's castle.

1/10 — S

Generous, I'd say.

I have told you why. Your discussions in themselves are mostly not very good, but the fact that they are so numerous--I'm guessing you post two or three new discussions almost every day--makes it a more serious problem. In my opinion, your posting behaviour dominates the forum to its detriment.

You are free to say whatever you like, but here, we make editorial decisions to maintain quality. It has nothing to do with free speech, any more than when I delete posts about embroidery.

Is there something there that you'd like to see addressed in some way? What is the threat you're referring to?

Can, I post a pic of you're implicit threat made via PM to me? — Wallows

Sure, or I can post what I wrote myself.

The "Psychobabble" one was already in the lounge area, which kind of makes it redundant to delete already — Wallows

The Lounge shouldn't just be the Wallows dump.

The problem is not only your low quality posts, but your endless stream of new discussions. I'd like you to participate in discussions started by others instead of posting new ones every day. I've been deleting your discussions and will delete more of them as they appear.

I'm a 28 year old virgin who spends their time on PornHub and the likes — Wallows

I'm not quite that desperate — Wallows

Ok

Yes, by "meeting people" I probably mostly mean getting laid. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it's not easy to get laid without meeting people. I met my wife (wife now, not then) on Tinder, and she later said she only agreed to meet me because I said I was "looking for friendship ...", which was rather dishonest of me.

I'm not a fan of Tinder. I can't stand cheesy/sexual chat up lines and "normal" conversations via text are so boring. Nothing beats meeting people in real life — Michael

Tinder is a way of arranging such meetings, not an alternative to them.

Maybe that's how it's mostly used, but it's not really my experience of it.

Anyway, there are many other apps and sites that make it easy to meet people. And that's what it's about: meeting people.

So, what have I got wrong in my perception of women? — Wallows

I think yes, your perception is conditioned, or "warped" as you say, by your circumstances. But whatever we tell you will probably not alter those circumstances or change how you feel. You need to meet some women. You know that most women do not appear on PornHub, so you already know that your perception is wrong, and in what way it is wrong.

When I was young I was unsuccessful with women, and I had a kind of bitterness developing towards women who enjoyed sex or behaved overtly sexually. All of that stuff--which in retrospect is like a poison--disappears when your life changes, i.e., when you get laid and make friends with women. But I guess these days it's easier to get trapped in porn and misogyny because of the internet.

On the other hand, also because of the internet it's easier to meet other people now. Have you tried Tinder?

:up:

But isn't it good that you have non-Muslims like George Eaton, and a few people here, to protect you from offence? :wink:

Maybe they'll say you have internalized Islamophobia.

I start to wonder about dementia — unenlightened

Reading your recent posts, so do I.

I did not enjoy being assaulted by the thought of "masturbatory diarrhea" first thing in the morning.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. It's good to know that some people who strongly disagree with Scruton's opinions are willing to be reasonable.

Yeah I mean saying that there is a "Soros Empire" formed by and around an "extensive network" of "Jewish intelligentsia" who are pulling the strings, is an age old antiSemitic stereotype through and through. — Maw

Knowing that you've seen the full quotation, I have to say that this is beneath contempt.

The idea that the term 'Islamophobia", or, more saliently, the meaning behind it is agitprop is detestably ludicrous. In fact, I think the term "Islamophobia" doesn't fully express the connotations it ought to have, as compared to antisemitism. But that's fairly demonstrative of what can and can't be discussed, as shown by the rancor expressed towards Ilhan Omar. — Maw

You attempt to push his position outside the realm of reasonable opinion, but really you just disagree with him. I happen to agree with him.

But why should I or anyone really care that Roger Scruton is losing a Government position because of this? — Maw

A predictable and thoughtless question. It's not for any personal sympathy for him or his agenda as a government housing adviser, but--obviously--because of what it shows about the state of public debate, of government, of cultural mores, and of journalism.

Anyone who thinks "The West" or "Islam" can be conceptualized as a monolith, unquestionably has a child's understanding of history and modernity. — Maw

I more or less agree with this.

That's all there is to it. — Maw

But this is wrong. Can one criticize the West as such? Can one criticize Islam as such? Even though I may have indulged in both in the past, in the end I think both kinds of criticism are pretty stupid. Notice that both of these stupid criticisms have appeared in this discussion.

They were mostly deporting poor people, whom they classified as white trash, deplorables (term from Hilary Clinton's campaign), riff raff, useless, and so forth. The ruling-class Brits hated the poor. Poverty was criminalized. Criminals were deported. — Bitter Crank

Yep. Incidentally, this was a time when the concept of race was quite different from how it is now. It wasn't about colour, or wasn't only about colour: the poor were seen by many in the higher classes as being an inferior race, social classes being regarded as reflecting innate differences.

Not especially relevant to this discussion, but relevant to modern discussions about race.

In Australia, where I presently live, the biggest problem is how men treat women. There are many good things about Australia, but this is a national disgrace. The Australian men have an international reputation for abusive treatment of women; and that makes Australian men look like creeps.

Why is this so? Most likely because the first white people in Australia were violent criminals [...] — Ilya B Shambat

Even if it were true that the early European settlers were (mostly?) violent criminals, I can't see how that would account for the behaviour of today's Australian men. But in fact, most of the convicts were sent to Australia not for violent crimes but for petty crimes, born out of poverty.

It comes pretty naturally out of what follows, I think. You treat meaning rather like a thing or a property, whereupon it seems mysterious that it could survive without a context, and how does it survive, in what form etc. I'm saying that if we just look at what we mean by meaning and especially mean, these concerns seem to miss the point.