There isn’t 100% support anymore for everything Israel does? — Mikie

Except from the Israeli or true Jew. And from me now, especially since the radical Left has unequivocally come out in support of the Jew hating, antisemetic, pro-Hamas bullshit.

Give me a break. — Mikie

Never

So suddenly the sky is falling and “Western civilization” is under attack. — Mikie

It is not sudden. The sky is alway falling in some way. That gives meaning to our lives. And western civilization is under attack, as always, from the barbarians which seek to overthrow everything that is "decent" and "good". When has this never been the case except in the postmodern world? However the sky is still falling.

Yes, now that you bring it up, quite true. Somehow was taking this for granted before as the way things ought to be. Especially on a philosophy forum. But I guess it is something significant enough to be worthy of mention. — javra

You are an excellent interlocutor. I have constantly been thinking how civil you have been with me, and I can be a bit of an instigator. It is more than worthy of mention, you might have a unique insight, on how not to turn off your interlocutor online.

As for the connection topic, I'm OK at this point with agreeing to disagree on the matter. — javra

You have given me an innocent chuckle too: something about grains of sand and heaps. Loved it.

I disagree that we disagree much on the matter. I feel like we are simply expositing various approaches on the matter as best we can. We have not been emotional or irrational reactionaries in our entire conversation.

My biggest fear now is that humanity and the earth will be decimated by the attempts to "solve" global-warming/climate-change. — Agree-to-Disagree

I understand, self inflicted decimation, so that even if all the models turned out to be entirely accurate, so that the current green revolution were the perfect solution, we will have weakened ourselves in the global arena so much that there is little hope of enforcing the green agenda on the will-be global hegemons that care little for our green agenda.

Do you by chance uphold there being a "necessary disconnection" between the actions of state sponsored officials within a democracy and the general sentiment of the average person within said democracy? — javra

I do. I don't think it is the average person that determines the government, despite the system. Whether constitutional republic or ochlocracy, it always seems to be controlled by a select few. When has the average person ever mattered? Was it Lenin who said: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."?

thank you :halo: @unenlightened also knows that I wear the laurel wreath.

I added that part about death due to what I’ve heard on the news regarding police killings. — javra

I understand that, and police have a culture all their own. Maybe there are currents of racism running through police culture, I don't know. Let us impugn all police as racists (against black people, whatever), I still do not see any necessary connection between that, and the general sentiment of the average person. Police exist in an entirely different world than the average person, and, imho, we shouldn't impugn the average person for the actions of state sponsored officials.

One could say that, in a sense, spite really is a major contributor. — Echarmion

Can we discount spite as a reasonable response? Might spite not be called for in certain situations?

My main question is: What if there were greater existential threats to humanity than climate change, would the apathy on those issues not be good reason to be spiteful over all the climate change hype?

What if the problem of climate change has less to do with human caused carbon emissions, and more to do with the natural phenomenon of human conflict, transgression, &c.? Could science even measure that?

But I don't blame you really, you are only a pawn in their game.
— unenlightened

Oh, the irony, it burns. — Agree-to-Disagree

You two are so poetical. You both move forward one square at a time, while capturing diagonally, and if you happen to begin the debate, your first move has the option to move forward two squares instead of one...like the rest of us

Does one get any rest from spite, despite a respite from spite? I mean, spite and then re-spite? Can we de-spite somebody, the way one de-worms a dog? — BC

You're onto something. I'm stuck on spite. How do I get respite? Is it like acquiring worms?

With all that said, I'm by no means one to deem Western civilization oppressive! I find it to be quite the contrary. Racism can be found in individuals everywhere (like in many a Buddhist, of all people, in Myanmar toward the Rohingya people). But, to my knowledge, only in the West was the affirmation of "liberty, equality, fraternity" made explicit with ambitions to create states that more perfectly embody this ideal. — javra

With that I can agree. Everyone holds racial prejudice, even those that genuinely consider all races equal. Prejudices of all types. The question is about which prejudices we can tolerate while respecting the core principles of "liberty, equality and fraternity/duty". Is it even possible to push the limits of tolerance?

I greatly doubt that most of the “black lives matter” people in the USA gained their perspectives from writings, or even from the media; and I instead firmly believe that most have had shitty experiences due to racism on repeated occasions (with the untimely death of loved ones here included). — javra

First, it is an indisputable truism that all racists are bitch-ass cowards that deserve a healthy beatdown. So let's get that out of the way.

If we are talking racially motivated homicide, it is pretty evident from police statistics that, whites are predominantly killing whites, and blacks are predominantly killing blacks.

Overall, most homicides in the United States are intraracial, and the rates of white-on-white and Black-on-Black killings are similar, both long term and in individual years.

Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims were killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.

In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that 81% of white victims were killed by white offenders, and 89% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.

In 2017, the FBI reported almost identical figures — 80% of white victims were killed by white offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders. — USA today

And since i live in a diversified and civilized area, there are never any people being murdered, much less over racial hatred, hence I can only go off statistics from usa today. Based off those statistics, it is obvious that intraracial homicide is much too prolific to give interracial murder any consideration until the intraracial is dealt with.

This as just one example of what I have in mind. (The politics of any given moment does not constitute a civilization ... ah, but I've already written more than I initially wanted to, so I'll cut this short.) — javra

Write more, please. You are a well-spring of fresh thought, don't cut yourself short for anybody, nor Time. I have more to add but I've been kinda swamped at the moment, however your ideas are very worthy of conideration.

You may have forgotten the "anti-" part, as in "anti-racist"? — javra

Yes, my apologies for the typo.

I'm sorry you had to experience that xenophobia. I suppose you know first hand what it's like to be prejudged because of some perceived ethno-cultural differences.

All one needs to do is look out the window a bit to see that racism of all stripes and flavors is alive and well in Western society. — javra

That is quite an exaggeration. It is the kind of thinking that this thread is meant to address. The notion that "racism of all stripes and flavors is alive and well in Western society" is known as "racial realism". This concept originated with Derrick Bell, who applied marxian critical theory to his civil rights work and has become known as the core architect of crt.

I don't think that it is a coincidence that many Leftists are echoing the ideas of Derrick Bell. Impossible to think that so many would independently arrive at such complex ideas with such uniformity.

It seems much more likely that ideas based in critical theory (like those of Derrick Bell) have been taught in top tier Western universities for decades, and adopted by myriad successful people who have gone out into western societies to evangelize and exert varying degrees of influence. Many of those ideas have come to be go-to, boiler-plate talking points of the Left, particularly when pointing out how oppressive Western civilization is.

Racism falls flatly into category (B) — javra

...

Whereas anti-murder intents are, again currently in our society, so well established that they are nearly as superfluous as the intents to breathe. I don’t respect my neighbor on account of him not having murdered anyone yet—just as I don’t respect him for breathing as he goes about his daily life. — javra

Murder is really no different than racism as a social concern. "Whereas racist intents are, again currently in our society, so well established that they are nearly as superfluous as the intents to breathe. I don’t respect my neighbor on account of him not having been racist to anyone yet—just as I don’t respect him for breathing as he goes about his daily life."

We don't consider everyone a murderer a priori, so whence the idea that people are a priori racist, ipso facto some accidental ancestry? I think someone who envisions murdering her husband every night is as close to being a murderer as a person that tells one poorly crafted racially charged joke with harmless intentions is to being a racist. Where is the outcry against the would be murderer?

Can’t think of what would constitute acceptable racism, though, this among those in category (A). — javra

What you wrote there is an Op of its own :strong: . So i will break it down as such.

I think harmless joking amongst friends that may play on racial stereotypes, like "white people can't dance" might constitute acceptable racism. It is too absurd not to be funny. The question is: where to draw the line on the comedic front. And then there is the issue of true racists using comedy as a front. It os certainly complicated.

If I may: — javra

You always may with me. But be warned, I am an irritating bastard but with good intentions :grin:

To be fair, there are also C) those who don’t give a defecation either way, going with the flow of whatever is so long as they’re sufficiently fed and such. But these utterly neutral humans don’t effect any significant influence upon what type of societal environment they live in. — javra

That describes me, for better or worse.

[Give me a bit to reread your philosophy here. It is interesting]

Now if the largest mutual funds like BlackRock or Vanguard make diversity or climate change important, it will be important. — ssu

I don't see why such powerful groups like blackrock or vanguard won't lead the way by dissolving their capitalist enterprise and dispersing their capital amongst oppressed peoples. That would make a greater impact than their false posturing and virtue signalling. After all, groups like BlackRock and Vanguard represent everything that is wrong and oppressive about Western civilization.

Where in the USA are these woke lefties tearing down and destroying anything? — mcdoodle

Iconoclasm my friend.

The Conflict Over Vandalizing Art as a Way to Protest

A list of the statues across the US toppled, vandalized or officially removed amid protests

it looks like in the USA that the right-wing Republicans are trying to tear down and destroy. [...] — mcdoodle

Does the right view all things belonging or adjacent to Western culture as a structure of oppression? Is the right seeking an all encompassing revolution that will obliterate the status quo?

What are the exact structures of civilization that the "right-wing republicans" are trying to tear down and destroy?

forever disrupting, continually avoidiing commitment, never wanting to pass any motion because they are so busy signalling to the world how right they are?

Are you saying this isn't the case? — mcdoodle

Not much of a Trumpster myself. Those are some vague assertions. You'll have to provide specific examples to what you are making reference if I am to answer honestly.

Because people, institutions and companies want to be respected and respectful. — ssu

It is prudent for an individual, company, or institution to be respected and respectful. But I wonder, why racism specifically? why is it so uniform amongst them all? Why is there no appeal to honesty or dependabilty, or anti-murder? After all, historically speaking, dishonesty and homicide are very serious issues, as much so as any example of racism. Why are such alternative measures of respectability never boasted about in such a boisterous and uniform manner as racism? What about earthquake safety guidelines, that seems like a worthy cause if one seeks respectability?

They hire a "diversity director", usually who works in the human resources. Guess who apply for that position? — ssu

I don't know, Who?

Again, Americans don't like racists. — ssu

Yes, so why all the arbitrary emphasis on racism all the time everywhere? If Americans don't like racism, why does the message always come across so accusatory? Or is it simply some lame form of commercial pandering, like: "let's tap into that american non-racist sentiment to sell more products"? If so, why all the comparisons of american race relations to Nazism? If not, what is the deal with all the emphasis on American racism?

@BC

woke liberal — schopenhauer1

That term term is misleading. Woke is not liberal by any stretch of the imagination, rather it is the activist branch of leftist ideology. It is as puritanical as right wing conservativism. It is certainly antagonistic towards free speech. And what it passes off as liberal progressivism is actually deconstructionist in nature. Progressivism implies a goal to improve on what is the case, pretty straightforward. However, the "woke" leftist views everything that is the case as a structure of oppression that must be obliterated, hence the woke version of progress is not to build and improve, but to tear down and destroy. Theoretically, it is a Leninist tactic ("the worse it is, the better") because it gives them more opportunity to highlight the failures of the oppressive state and push their illiberal agenda.

Perhaps it's simple easier to sell the idea that some cabal of leftist thinkers thought that after the collapse of Marxism-Leninism that the way into power would be through culture and education. Far more difficult would it be to tell that American institutions, both in education and in business, are so scared shitless about being called racist that they make overtures from adapting ideologies to simply parroting nonsense close to the left. All in the name of keeping good public relations. — ssu

Good point. This makes me wonder. If the latter is the actual case, and the former not, how is it that they come to be fearful of being called racist? From where does that notion of being called racist come from? Did the ceo's and directors of the myriad independent institutions and businesses all conveniently wake up one day and say to themselves: "I hope noboby thinks my company is racist."? And what is the source of those "adapting ideologies" or "parroting nonsense" that are relevant enough to integrate into a company's mission statement, and why would a company feel beholden to that source?

It appears much more orchestrated than coincidental.

I think a lot more realistic would be to assume that the left simply takes the issues that the next new generation of leftists take to heart and simply and feed them the older leftist thought. This is possible because of the political amnesia and ignorance of history. Leftist ideas and policies that have failed in the past suddenly appear to be new and fresh! And why not? People in their 30's or younger have not lived when there was a Soviet Union, when Marxism-Leninism was the official religion of the true staunch leftist. The left simply waits for the next batch of angry youth to take the streets, be they protesting the WTO, police brutality or whatever woke matter there is. — ssu

I have to agree. There is a strong line of leftist ideology, usually marxian thought, that has been developed over the past century that lays out the blueprint for what is to be Leftist activism. It is very explicit about actively and practically applying its theory in society. It has catalogued the problems, the goals, and the solutions, and has successfully fed it through the relevant institutions and media. Now we can see how all activists on the Left are echoing a uniform message (usually in ignorance of the underlying scholarship). There is no mistaking the similarity of content, only that one operates in offices, the other on the streets.

Again, hard to call it a coincidence, especially nowadays with everything we know about mass manipulaion and propaganda.

Tolerance of intolerance results in intolerance. Ergo, those who favor tolerance must be intolerant of (i.e., oppress) intolerance if tolerance is to be preserved. — javra

I love that paradox. It reminds me of the paradox of freedom, which may result in a free person restricting of the freedom of others, in which case, the freedom of restricting the freedom of others must be restricted. It seems that the more freedom is permitted, the more restrictions become necessary.

And so forth. To my mind, it’s a complex philosophical issue that can have widespread applications.

One can make of this what they will in terms of left vs. right arguments. But yes, this conundrum only affects those who like tolerance and dislike bigotry. Those who admit to being intolerant or else desire for bigotry (in their own favor of course) don’t have to address this paradox: How can one preserve tolerance in the absence of intolerance for intolerance?

All the same, civility, and a democratic civilization in general, is hard to come by in the absence of tolerance for other tolerant people who happen to be different than oneself. — javra

my point was in line with @schopenhauer1, "that anti-Western sentiment is still Western sentiment." So that when voices from the Left claim that all Western civilization is a monolithic structure of oppression, then turn and begin advocating for the "tolerance" of oppressed minority groups (relying on a uniquely Western ethic), they highlight their contradiction.

The voices on the left who are constantly screaming about tolerance do not really care about tolerance. For them, it is an effective a political weapon because it is impossible to pin down due to its paradoxical nature (as you have shown). To win the debate, they will have no trouble calling your tolerance as intolerance, and their intolerance as tolerance, or when it suits them, calling tolerance as tolerance and intolerance as intolerance.

Being constantly forced to operate within this environment, do you think you might start to take your difference from their view as an affirmation of it? Your belief that they are wrong transforms in what it was meant to be all along: a belief – instilled by your enemy – that you are different from them under the lines they themselves have demarcated. — kudos

It really all depends. If one has been given sufficiently justified reason to change his opinion, perhaps he should. But if one has only been presented with nonsensical rhetoric and ridicule, never. The left these days seems to deal in nonsensical rhetoric and ridicule, and everything they say feels scripted and phoney - untrustworthy.

Haven't you seen similar villain narratives, where a social group hints that it wants your evil to legitimate their good? — kudos

I have experienced two events in which I saw this weird dynamic. Post 9-11 and Covid. If you didn't want to bomb all the muslims, you were a traitor. If your didn't maskup and lockdown, you were a murderous troglodyte. I was both, and proudly, as you can imagine.

Still, the leftist never addresses his own contradictions, and this failure of the leftist to face its faults (not to mention the underhanded strategies it utilizes to avoid it) is all the reason anyone needs to reject the leftist agenda.

It is an inability to understand the freedom of speech space. It does happen on both sides, but the Right never claimed to be completely for "tolerance". So, the contradiction happens more on the left. — schopenhauer1

Don't forget that the concept of "tolerance" is also an oppressive Western invention, which somehow doesn't matter when they are pushing it.

The right generally has a clear red line for what it will tolerate. The left has a virtual spiderweb of constantly shifting and intersecting red lines of tolerance, all with the potential for conflict, this is why free speech is so often restricted on the Left.

Such antagonism to free speech for the purpose of enforcing tolerance is a classically bad omen. Moreover, it highlights the left's antagonism toward liberalism, after all, what is more central to liberalism than free speech?

the "Left" as opposed to "old-school liberal" tends to emphasize identity politics and political correctness over more universal agendas (usually more economics-focused, or perhaps celebrating various Western/Enlightenment-based notions developed in the 17th-19th centuries, or even being vaguely patriotic or pro (pick your Western country). If it at all focuses on the West, it is critical of the West (critical theory, and vaguely Marxist in origin). — schopenhauer1

Well stated. However, I don't think the leftist roots of the woke mob are in any way "vaguely marxist". No, the similarities between the Marxian academic theorizing and the political activism of the left is too closely correlated for it to be a coincident...it is unquestionably Marxist.

Also, there are good practical and moral reasons to support the only decent country in that whole area. — RogueAI

Can't argue with that, not many terrorist acts being perpetrated by radical Hebrews

How can you tell that their coincidence is not related to some common factor? Or maybe you are just defining these faults to be Leftism. — kudos

I don't think it is a coincidence, i think it is intentional, although many leftists may be unaware of the rationale beneath it all. If it were otherwise, I would expect them to address their contradictions head on, instead of avoiding them and changing the subject every time it comes up.

Furthermore, can the political dividing lines you are drawing not equally incite individuals to take on those roles knowingly in order to prove their difference from your side, as per some similar ethical idea they wish to abide by that belongs to the other's domain? — kudos

Im not sure. Could you give me an example of how this might appear?

I think the right has similar divisions: there are the classic conservatives who do value both free trade and classic liberal values, and then there is the right wanting to fight the culture wars and to engage in the identity humbug. Just as you have have populists on both on the right and left. — ssu

The right does have it's issues and contradictions, which definitely should be highlighted. But I see all the cultural wars originating from the Left. The Right merely joined in because it is witless. The right has no big issues with culture, there is "US" :strong: and then there are "them" :shade: It is the left that has made culture and identity into an issue. It can be traced to Antonio Gramsci, up through the critical theory of the Frankfurt School and beyond.

While the Right is championing "US" (whoever "US" is), trying to make a better world for "US" despite "them", the left is endlessly identifying oppressed groups for whom it can champion against whoever it deems as the oppressor of said group"

It seems as if your concern is with an abstract idea of freedom, but it’s halfway to inappropriately becoming about politics. You’re defining a difference, ‘I do not believe this (set of notions), and there is a group who has this ethos.’ Then adding, ‘Therefore, if you subscribe to this ethos you are a part of this group.’ It is a logical fallacy that you are likely used to seeing used against you, as it is the ‘old way’ of doing business. Just be clear that this is business and not much more. — kudos

I have nothing against the "old way". It's not perfect, but it's reliable. I have no problem calling it "just business".

Leftism is more of an orientation or disposition than a group. However, there are indeed leftist groups (Socialist International, Antifa, Democratic Socialists of America, Black Lives Matter, &c.) committed to counteracting what they see as the oppressive structures of the West.

And, I'm not saying I don't believe in the leftist "set of notions", I'm saying that I have noticed countless contradictions in that "set of notions" which make it an absolutetly untenable position. And, I am not arguing that if a person genuinely subscribes to that "set of notions" then it makes them a proper leftist, even though that is true. I am arguing that proper leftists are so deluded with their ideological obsession that they are willing to consciously ignore the unmistakably recognizable contradictions ...so much so that almost every position they occupy appears dishonest and false. For when a Leftist is called out to reconcile his contradictions, he will never address it directly, but will always change the subject in a way that projects his contradictions onto his opponent in some way. It is unfortunate, almost nothing from a Leftist can be accepted on good faith any longer.

Even my position, that I have put forth here, is never directly addressed by any Leftist (probably because, I being a reformed Leftist, understand their position better than them). It seems like they are always trying to hurl my points back at me, as if I'm the leftist holding all the contradictions...but I am only highlighting the contradictions.

I mean, after all, who does not believe in collectivism and egalitarianism? — kudos

Nobody is denying that collectivism and egalitarianism aren't viable concepts, it is how they are prioritized and the level of commitment to realizing these things that make one a leftist.

which does not help describe who you’re talking about or what the problem is. — kudos

The problem here involves a socio-political orientation that is wrought with contradictions. Namely that it criticizes western civilization for being this incredible monolithic structure of oppression, while fighting that very oppression with uniquely Western ideals like equal rights and social progress. Schop said it in the OP.

(Only the West has to abide by rights but no one else even though everyone else was basically colonized, uses the technology of the west and are forced into the post-WW2 reality of “nation-states” rather than sprawling multi-ethnic empires or tribal units that proceeded it)? Isn’t it true you can’t have it both ways, you either have universal rights and liberal principles are a thing or they are not. — schopenhauer1

There is also the contradiction in which they speak about marginalization of groups as the worst form of oppression, yet they are themselves consistently guilty of marginalizing groups they pretend to defend. There are more.

But doing this makes your argument about cultural power as opposed to knowledge or wisdom, and it is thus not really philosophy. — kudos

I didn't come up with that, I'm just trying to keep up with how leftists think. It was a famous wise Leftist that wrote:

There is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations. — Foucault

You are right, it is all about election politics, nothing more. Support Israel, and your campaign will never want for lack of funds. It is all part of what has been detrimental to US politics for quite a while now. It's the reason we get the Bushes, Obamas, Trumps, Bidens and the entire host of treasonous twats that do nothing but sandbag the American people.

One cannot help but wonder what kind of leverage the Israel lobby has for this to be the case. — Tzeentch

Ever hear of AIPAC?

“What have the Romans ever done for us?” — I like sushi

I believe they gave us the proto-codpiece

Who are these leftists, and why is their devotion to one of four two-dimensional directions make them an enemy? — kudos

These are people who have a strong commitment to collectivism and egalitarianism. In recent times, the left has taken on an adversarial disposition towards the liberal principles of freedom and progress.

The examples of recent leftist censorship and hatred of freedom are countless. But even more unnerving is its opposition towards actual liberal progress - which traditionally seeks to take whatever is the case and improve upon it, while protecting essential freedom at all cost (all in theory of course). And all the while, the Left has been secretly embracing a desconstructionist ethic (usurping the principle of freedom and deceptively calling it progressivism) that aims to raze any traditional institution that it deems oppressive - claiming whatever smoldering heap leftover to be an improvement.

Unfortunately, the damage has been done by the dishonest Leftist exploitation of liberal progress. Now, any sincere progressive movements advocating for equal rights of oppressed groups will be reasonably looked upon with suspicion of covertly pushing a subversive deconstructionist agenda.

So which is it? It's either "law of the jungle and conquer", or universal rights exist. — schopenhauer1

As if many on the left do not seek some egalitarian utopia by means of conquering the "status quo" through violent revolution. It is inevitable that in the victory of the left, it will become the very oppressor that it condemns. Simply more natural contradictions of the Left.

Again, contradiction upon contradiction. — schopenhauer1

The contradiction is heinous. Good luck getting any leftist symp to reconcile any of it. Instead, expect that they will misapply your logic and pin the contradiction on the oppressive structure of the west.

Leftist morality reduces all good and evil to oppressed and oppressor (as you aptly tied to marxism). It runs into the contradiction because it is collectivist, and it applies its relativistic morality only to groups, so that we inevitably find many of these groups to be both oppressor and oppressed. And here we see the classical moral dilemma.

Of course they try to weasel out of this with the idea of intersectionality so that they will not have to admit the evil of one type of oppressor over another, after all, an oppressor of any kind is equally evil in all cases and it is never ok to sympathize with the oppressor. The only thing more evil than the oppressor is the one that oppresses along multiple dimensions, and the more dimensions the more evil. They have unanimously distinguished the west as indisputably having more structures of oppression than any other entity in existence. But this still does not address the moral dilemma.

Because of the leftist emphasis on the group, the morality can never be localized to single cases. In other words, for example, moralizing about the oppression of women does not stop when defending an oppressed nation that actively oppresses women. No, the rights of women are supposed to be universally respected in all places, at all times - wherever oppression of women is possibile, it is relevant... no exceptions. But, alas, this is not the case.

If leftists weren't so full of shit, they would respect their intersectional logic and raise hell over the oppression of women within particular nations that are colonized. But then, this would make them, ipso facto, on the side of the western colonial oppressor, which is a big no-no. This is why so many leftists are capable of siding with a group like Hamas while entirely dismissing the plight of Palestinian women that are directly oppressed by Hamas. But then this places them on the side of the western patriarchy, which is equally evil to the western colonizer. It is perplexing.

It's all hypocrisy.