With the rise of "Far Right Extremism" and the Right so emboldened as to storm the Capitol building, where is the Far Left's Uprising? There are forms of Left Wing radicalism apparent in the US, but none so apparently emboldened as the Right's. — Lil

Because right-winger extremism isn't largely considered a threat as demonstrated by the muzzled response by guards (some sympathetic to them) during the capital riot. Contrast this to the response of city police during Black Lives Matter protests last summer after the death of George Floyd. Easier to be "emboldened" as the Right, when the red carpet is rolled out for you.

Most modern US Leftist organization is through unionization and through local politics achieved with some very moderate success. I don't think problem lies with Leftists per se, as some members seem to suggest (I think Leftists are far smarter today than they have in decades prior), but rather lies with the colossal structures of Capitalism, ideological bulwarks, state militarization, etc.

Haymarket Books 40% off

What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848 by historian Daniel Walker Howe

Tell me more. — StreetlightX

I've almost finished, it's very interesting; the first 2/3rds provide an analysis of several pre-Capitalist modes of production including the Asiatic mode, the Feudal mode, Peasant mode, Slave mode, etc. their internal dynamics and tensions, and the subsequent development, the relationship to Marxism (the Asiastic mode and Feudal mode in particular), which are transhistorically constructed by looking at specific historical formulations and comparing and contrasting case studies (e.g. the Asiastic mode as it existed in Ancient Egypt, the Peasant and Feudal mode as it develop in early/middle Iceland and Norway, the Slave mode via Rome, South America, Ancient Greece). The last third, which I started today, revolves around structural change in the modes of productions by looking at debates involving economic determinism, superstructure/base, (not unlike Wood's discussion in Democracy Against Capitalism) and the role of religion, kinship, etc. that penetrate and incorporate themselves into ideological justifications for the mode of production they inhabit. It's been interesting to ponder the role of Christianity in Feudalism vs. the role of Christianity in modern Capitalism. Last chapter, which I am very much looking forward to reading, seems to be about the value theory as it applies to late Feudalism.

American men when they turn 55 turn into either a World War II nut or a Civil War nut

Studies On Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production edited by Andrea Zingarelli and Laura da Graca

This is one my favourite after Origins. The first essay is *chefs kiss*. — StreetlightX

Yes, the first essay was excellent, read it earlier this afternoon. Did you read Pristine Culture? I didn't really enjoy it. Perhaps in part from having read How the West Came To Rule, I found it too myopic and boring.

Man, I'm so wary of these types of faceless content creators who churn out videos that are seen by hundreds of thousands of people, mainly young and impressionable, without providing any information about who they are, their background, who is funding them, etc. The 'About Us' page on their website states that they are "two brothers from Canada". Ummm ok?...and a scroll down their recommended book page displays an odd arrangement, seemingly random assortment of books, while most revealingly, their economics section exclusively lists right-wing material from Thomas Sowell, Henry Hazlitt, Rothbard, von Mises, et. al.

I think it's worth quoting the video's main thesis, "if the creations of great artists reveal psychological and spiritual atmosphere of the times, then an honest survey of modern art must lead one to consider the possibility that modern civilization is suffering from a spiritual sickness".

I think the creator of the video is interpreting historical artistic changes with a highly shallow perspective, i.e. psycho-spiritual.

The video's creator states that "prior to the 19th century, the great artists focused on works that beautified the world and transfigured the human being," but this is true only at a cursory glance across art history. First however, it needs to be said that much of the famous Renaissance and Baroque artwork that the video's creator describes were commissioned by the church or wealthy individuals, so it is understandable why so much artwork in this time depicted a famous biblical scene or a idealized individual or "transfigured human being", etc. The market was dominated by money.

But of course, his statement is not unequivocally true. Take, for example, Pieter Bruegel's The Triumph of Death? Or the panel of Hell within Hieronymus Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights? Grünewald's Isenheim Altarpiece, while religious, has one of the most sickly-looking depictions of Jesus in art. What about Caravaggio's The Beheading of Saint John, depicting a religious event (the beheading of Saint John the Baptist) in a strikingly irreligious and brutally insignificant manner? There are numerous examples of course, showing the shallowness of his thesis.

There is in fact a lot of questionable material and analysis in this video, and I'm not sure how much I care to analyze a Youtube video essay, but I don't see any issue with humanity or religion being de-focused from art, nor do I see it as de facto evidence of cultural decline, as if Mark Rothko, Fernand Léger, or Jackson Pollack and many others could possible be offering that suggestion in their artwork. Seems like the video creator is just glib about modern art, as are many people, unfortunately.

Democracy Against Capitalism by Ellen Meiksins Wood

Sounds like you are on the verge of tears because a columnist suggested that soulless multi-millionaire political figures should face consequences for deleterious policies in the form of social ostracism. Still unclear how being ridiculed in public is an instance of cancel culture.

Also pretty weird to write his name out 6 times, not sure what that's about

Words That Mean Nothing: Our political discourse is dominated by issues that don’t exist

Succinct article that hits the nail on the head when people haphazardly use terms like "woke", "politically correct", and "cancel culture".

Meanwhile, things like poverty and inequality and death and disease and climate change and war can all be easily quantified, defined and debated in a meaningful way. When someone instead spends all their time talking about things that seem undefinable, it is probably because they find reality to be an uncomfortable topic.

I would go a step further and say that those who often do this in fact are not bothered by such uncomfortable topics

The Pristine Culture of Capitalism by Ellen Meiksins Wood

Oh my Christ you people complain about this nonsense all the time, all the god damn time, shut up, go outside, get fresh air, this is so dumb

Pretty straightforward illustration of how bullshit the 'Both Sides" approach is and a candid approach to such an interlocuter is to tell them how many Palestinians were injured/killed in a given year and have them guess how many Israelis were killed/injured in that year, and follow up if this is truly a "both sides" issue. Worked on my Grandmother!

The thing I'm most getting out of it is the power of historical materialism as a tool of analysis and critique. The kinds of distinctions it makes and how it contrasts to more liberal-democratic approaches to society and history. — StreetlightX

Sells it for me!

Biological Parents are child abusers. — Andrew4Handel

These types of anti-natalists are lunatics

Neil Davidson - How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois Revolutions? — StreetlightX

Should I buy this? I know Anievas and Nisancioglu cite it multiple times.

Portraits: John Berger on Artists by John Berger

there are quite a few inane or outright insane posters on this site — Maw

We only take you about 40% seriously so it all works out nice and tidy. — praxis

Sounds like you just included yourself in that inane/insane posters group, so that does work out all nice and tidy.

So for you it's perfectly fine to waste your time on crazy or stupid people, as long as they are above 23. — SophistiCat

For adults it's initially amusing until it quickly devolves into repetition which it typically does when one side isn't capable of having a dialectical conversation. Not amusing if it's a kid. And unfortunately there are quite a few inane or outright insane posters on this site, so it's difficult to avoid.

I'm also only maybe 40% serious about this

Personally, I think that this place could use some more young people. — thewonder

I don't mind young people on the forum; I was I think either 19 or 20 when I first joined the original PF. What I mind is wasting time with a moronic interlocutor who turns out to be in college or a Roger Scruton fan. Easy heuristic to signal that they are not worth pressing keyboard buttons over, and I value my time very much.

Actually this is a great alternative example. Rather than showing his age in his bio, he says Roger Scruton is his favorite philosopher. Can easily ignore him :up:

If I were you guys and I reinterpreted someone talking about age verification, which couldn't even be accurately enforced, to "we should ban anyone under 23 years old", I'd be very embarrassed.

No, in practice I could look at an insane post like this, look at their bio, and if they were, say, 17 years old I could happily move on and ignore them entirely.

So, It’s OK wasting your time arguing with someone if they’re over 23 years old — T Clark

That's right

Users should be required to show their age in their 'About' section, not wasting my time arguing with someone if they are under 23 years old, which I think is the case half the time.

I'm going to go commit a murder and use this as an excuse I'll let everyone know how it works out.

Do you think you can overlook the killing of 6 million people. Obviously it is relevant to the situation in the Middle as part of history. The expulsion of Jews from Israel by the Romans, the ensuing diaspora the crusades, pogroms and so on. Where did the Jews originate from and the Hebrew Language. The Jews are mentioned in the Quran.
If people killed 6 million of my relatives I wouldn't give a fig what people thought of my actions. Consider the genocide, colonialization and warring history of the rest of the world they haven't a moral authority to give or a moral leg to stand on

In this specific context I was talking about people having 8 children (or even 14) (like the case I cited earlier) and blaming the Jews or Israel for their problems. I can cite evidence that people In Gaza have deliberately had large families to outnumber the Jews. They are not having children to reduce their suffering or for the survival of an ethnicity they have simply overpopulated a finite space (like the rest of humanity is doing). You can criticise one sides actions and criticise the other sides.

But Like I say even if you think someone own a piece of land (something I think is metaphysically impossible) that doesn't mean you can do what you like on it such as overpopulate it increasing children's hardship — Andrew4Handel

Honestly baffling how people like this can possibly function day-to-day in real life.

Additionally discloses how untenable the Zionist line that only one side of this conflict is a "terrorist organization",despite whatever Olympic-level mental gymnastics will be conducted to justify this and similar attacks that are aired live. — Maw

Some gold medal Olympic Gymnastics right here

Do you actually believe your actions here make even a tiny difference? — Judaka

It's actually fucked up, I admit, because myself, @180 Proof and @StreetlightX and several others are legitimately the only people in the world capable of ending conflict in the Middle East, and yet instead of doing so we just routinely ridicule others on the Internet.

Are you sympathising with the Palestinians because of what Israel is doing or because literally 2-4 people on an obscure philosophy forum think it might be justified? — Judaka

You just articulated sympathy with Palestinian plight here. So what excludes you from this psycho-analysis of intent or are you just more upset by people calling others by mean names over people denying apartheid, moral atrocity, etc. ?

If you were even trying to change their minds, you wouldn't talk the way you talk. This is the crux of the problem — Judaka

All about tone, not content. — Maw

hmmm

Philosophy Forums hasn't been as good since the original shut down around 2016/17 (as I recall) and a majority of users didn't transition over. This is a general internet trend, as forum based communication (particularly niche topics) was gradually replaced by scaled social media communication (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) that could contain their own niche topic groups. Also need to take into account newly popularized ideological currents, and cultural wars that sprung from the internet around this time and hasn't faded.

This thread is really ugly, the usual suspects are really just going hard on the name-calling, insults and hyperbole. Just like the Trump thread a while back,I do more or less agree with their main view. In this case, Israel is an apartheid state, centred around the idea of being a "Jewish" state. The evidence on their systematic oppression and institutionalised racism is crystal clear. "Self-defence" can't be the label given toa one-sided massacre and it's not as though Israel isn't partaking in the escalation which gets things to the level of violence. One doesn't need to know "all the facts" to come to these conclusions.

Nonetheless, we've got posters in this thread who have little interest in doing anything except feigning moral indignation, virtue signalling and just trying to drag others through the mud. There are some interesting conversations to be had about this situation and you'd think a philosophy forum might discuss them but this thread is about as bad as it gets. The very same people who are generally being retards on this forum, back at it again, many of them moderators - or at least streetlightx.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines

The guidelines on this site are a complete farce. No need to like me or care about what I think, just read the guidelines and try to match them to this thread to see its quality. — Judaka

Look at what they say in the first paragraph (my bolded emphasis): "yes Israel is an apartheid state, yes Israel engages in systematic oppression and institutionalized racism" etc. ..then looks at who they critically target (my italicized emphasis), "This thread is really ugly. The usual suspects are really just going hard on the name-calling, insults and hyperbole." Not people defending or unconcerned for moral atrocities that they agree are immoral!, but people saying mean things to others. That's liberalism folks. All about tone, not content.

Nonetheless, we've got posters in this thread who have little interest in doing anything except feigning moral indignation, virtue signalling and just trying to drag others through the mud. — Judaka

Here's a thought: just because you are incapable of sympathy doesn't mean everyone incapable of it, and therefore are "virtue signalling" or "feigning moral indignation".

This thread is really ugly, the usual suspects are really just going hard on the name-calling, insults and hyperbole. — Judaka

Looks like the veracity of my comment here strikes again.

States do not have a right to exist.

I think I can one up you here with when my copy of Zizek's First as Tragedy, Then As Farce fell out of my backpack on to the security belt in full view of the TSA agent at the airport a number of years ago.

The woman's name in the video is Ruth Wisse, a professor at Harvard who is also known for her conservative views. Unsure what the event she spoke at was.

Not sure, the person whose Twitter it was might have deleted it