If you think about it, most human activity outside of eating, drinking, sleeping, defecating, and friendship is a gigantic and unnecessary waste of time. — Thorongil

You forgot sex. Other than that, a moment of rare agreement.

He's not the universe, he's a very naughty boy!

(That goes for all of you)

I tend to think technological shifts will make many of the debates we have now irrelevant and dislodge us from our most basic anthropological moorings. The structure of the family and reproduction, and the way basic human relationships are carried out, is about to topple, for a number of reasons. — The Great Whatever

I'd agree to this extent: If it comes to the point where technology produces for men an equally or more satisfying alternative to natural sex then the whole dynamic gets pushed off its axis and we could end up in a very odd place.

Hard to disagree with that. I do see the danger of failing to recognize the distinction you pointed out and so abetting the kind of oppression we set out to oppose.

In general there is an odd tendency to see sex as preferably 'free market' in a context where most people despise an unrestrained 'free market.' This is, no surprise, dependent on whether you benefit from the freedom of the market (and let's not kid ourselves, sex is a commodity with a class structure built into it). — The Great Whatever

Yeah, and it's interesting to speculate further on how it pans out. Regardless of the outcome of the election, this reproductively disadvantaged cohort aren't going anywhere and their relative numbers are likely to increase as the wealth gap increases and technology advances. As polygyny is an inherently unstable form of sociosexual organization, certainly in a democracy, it may turn out to be the bug in the system of the neo-liberal enterprise that leads to its demise. My tentative prediction is that we are either headed towards authoritarianism in the states (with a Trump or equivalent at the helm), in which the gap is actually likely to balloon and then burst in serious social upheaval, or the US reverts back to a more enforced egalitarianism like social democratic Europe that reduces the wealth gap and thus the reproductive gap. You then get a kind of irony where what is most in the Alt-Right's interest is something like the Bernie Sander's revolution. The caveat here is that that only applies to the economics. A social-conservatism with more emphasis on families, reduced levels of divorce, and less licentiousness would also suit. Not sure though of the extent that those two can be combined.

There is no major world religion which claims that sexual partners should be promiscuous or otherwise be unfaithful to one another for example. None. So why do you think different cultures, different religions, in different time frames have always agreed upon this? Chance? No - it's because these values have been perceived to be true for human beings - or at least for MOST human beings. — Agustino

They've tended to agree on these values for very straightforward evolutionary reasons. It's in men's reproductive interest not to be cuckolded. Those that were would tend to nurture the genes of more cunning rivals and fail to pass their own on. Hence the evolved tendency in men to value faithfulness and fear promiscuity in their female mates. The virgin / slut dichotomy is built in to the male psyche. As for women, it should be obvious that promiscuity in men is a threat to their and their offspring's monopoly on men's resources. You don't need any transcendental magic to explain this stuff.

and my account password (BadenRocks) — Hanover

Surely, "BadensRocks" would be closer to the bone. O:)

Well, it's certainly very easy to demonstrate that we are not always (if ever) a unified whole, that is that the word "I" itself can be misleading and so too the question, "Who are you"? (when "you" is meant in the singular). It's perfectly rational, for example, to say "I am hungry" (i.e. express a desire to eat something) but at the same time to say "But I don't want to eat because it will make me fat" (i.e. express a desire to be physical attractive / healthy). In other words we can desire to eat and desire to not eat simultaneously without fear of contradiction because we are modular beings; we are made up of drives that all compete to be the "I" that acts. And maybe human consciousness is just what happens when an animal develops an advanced mechanism to deal with these competing drives. So, if you ask "Who are you?" I might say something like "I am a conglomerate of competing drives that expresses itself in the singular only as a matter of convenience". (I mean I might say that unless I was anywhere other than a philosophy forum. :) )

Some people will inevitably fare better than other socially and your issues don't sound intractable to me. Sometimes social skills, like many other skills, are simply a matter of practice, of putting yourself in that situation too regularly to allow yourself so much time to dwell on how you did. You'd be surprised at what you (or your unconscious self) can figure out when you give it the time and space to do so. So, I don't think you can think your way out of this, you need to act your way out of it, and find a way to switch the thinking off. I say this from personal experience as I was fairly insular in my twenties and getting a job that forced me to put myself out there in front of people on a daily basis helped significantly. Thinking itself never did.

It can also be seen in the European left-liberal attitude to Muslims, who become to them another monolithic group of victims with characteristic grievances. To these "progressives", the poor little Muslims can hardly be blamed for their rage against the West, and criticism of ISIS is deemed to be Islamophobic (an extreme example perhaps, but it did happen: NUS motion to condemn Isis fails amidst claims of islamophobia). — jamalrob

Yeah, I've heard Zizek talk about this, the denial to the right of the minority even to be morally wrong as a disguised form of racism. I tend to agree, and the NUS seem to have thought themselves into a hole on this one. On the other hand, the progressive attitude can have the positive effect of combating the creation in society of a group that it becomes socially acceptable to discriminate against.

So, TGW gave his tinfoil hat speculation on BLM, I'll give mine on the Alt-Right. I see a relationship between the rise of the Alt-Right and the continually diminishing reproductive prospects of the poor white male. This goes back to the libralisation of American society in the past half-century and the associated steady movement away from monogamy and towards polygyny in the form of serial monogamy. (As serial monogamy allows older richer men of status disproportionate access to younger women's most fertile reproductive years - i.e. one rich man monopolises the pre-menopausal years of several women in sequence and in the process denies access to them to poorer males - it's effectively indistinguishable from polygyny). So in concert with the widening monetary wealth gap caused by neo-liberal economic policies, you get a widening of the reproductive wealth gap. Add to that recent advances in technology that allow more mobility in the dating market - giving women more choice than ever concerning their potential mate - and the movement of desirable females up the wealth and status ladder is exacerbated. The result of this is the creation of a huge cohort of reproductively frustrated lower status males, i.e. a recipe for social upheaval. And this is what it seems to me the so-called Alt-Right reflects, a channeling of the repressed frustrations of this increasingly reproductively diminished group with the nationalism, racism and xenophobia being used as a way of cementing group bonds, and also a regression away from the social contract that has so badly served their needs.

1) Take some fear and hate
2) Sprinkle it with vanilla essence
3) Mix it up during the Obama administration
4) Add some coconut frosting
5) Put it on the Alex Jones show.

Et voilá, the Alt-Right fruitcake.

I read one Bukowski book where he described his life as a postman. May have been his first. Really liked it.

On love, I offer this quote from the medieval poem Roman de la Rose:

"Love is a mental illness afflicting two persons of the opposite sex*. It comes on people through a burning desire, born of disordered perception, to embrace and to kiss and to seek carnal gratification."

Or for an even more cynical view, just read a book on evolutionary psychology.


(*A little out of date here).

Meh, I've seen you do worse in POR. :)

Those who believe that Israel needn't worry about its existence due to its support from the US also believe that the US shouldn't be supporting it, which means that those same people aren't terribly worried about Israel's existence. — Hanover

My opinion is that as long as Israel needs support to defend its existence, it should get it. If the US weren't in the picture, Europe should do it (the only caveat would be that no country should expect absolute unconditional support). So, I, for one, don't agree with the analysis.

And... I'm... officially done trying to explain anything to a European. — Mongrel

You weren't trying to explain stuff, you were trying to vent. There's a difference.

I'm well aware of Trump kissing Putin's backside. But he's not going to win. And nothing he says matters much anyway because he has no underlying principles. So, even if he did win (which he won't) he would probably flip flop on that like everything else as soon as someone smart told him what a dumb idea it was.

8-)

Not certain why this post is getting personal to be honest. I've done my best to stay as civil as possible considering my strong opinions on the matter and knowing we don't see eye to eye on this. — Benkei

I don't know. As one of the "like minded folks", I thought that by Hanover's standards this comment wasn't particularly harsh (I checked it against the list I keep under my pillow).

Happy to help those in need. But note that it's not really a history lesson seeing as it's about the present. Call it a lesson in common sense, and significantly less patronizing than this:

Meanwhile you folks sit there apparently not even comprehending what the word "defense" means (that appears to be true of Benkie anyway.) — Mongrel

Britain and France have nuclear weapons, Mongrel. Europe is not helpless. The only potential major threat is Russia, which is extremely unlikely to risk a nuclear war by invading Western Europe. So, we don't need the US as badly as you seem to suggest. Also, it's in America's strategic interest to keep NATO going as a bulwark against Russia, which keeps Eastern Europe protected. The US won't be going anywhere in the forseeable future.

in truth it might be that democracy (at least to the extent everyone receives equal rights) and survival are incompatible. In a democracy, you have to begin with the idea that everyone is supportive of the state at some basic level. It would be suicide to allow subversive elements access to power. — Hanover

Isn't that similar to the sort of hyperbole that fascists spout to push their anti-democratic agendas? "All this democracy, it's just too dangerous!" The fact is that as long as America is standing behind Israel, it can be as democratic as it wants. It may be less secure in some sense, I'll grant, but its survival won't be an issue. As it is the danger is that it will drift further and further away from Western democratic values towards the values of the more extremist regimes it considers its enemies. That's another kind of death, and a more realistic danger, I would think, the way things are headed.

(Edit: Cross-posted with Benkei)

You know what I'm talking about, the chip on your shoulder about us Europeans not loving the US enough for all it's done for us.

The end result of the US intervening with aid and eventually entering WWII was it becoming the richest and most powerful country in the world. By far. So, it worked out pretty well for you from a purely selfish political and economic perspective. Even if it hadn't, this harping on about ungrateful Brits would be completely irrelevant. Sapientia didn't personally ask the US to intervene so he has zero reason to factor the fact that they did into this conversation, which you seem to want to steer towards making swipes at anyone from a country that you think isn't sufficiently grateful for America's munificence. Well, sorry but we're quite aware in Europe that what America does, it doesn't do out of some deep moral sense of obligation, but out of pure self-interest. Despite the PR. Just like pretty much every other country on the planet.

There is a tyranny of the minority which is overlooked. If one is having a dinner party for 20, and 2 of the invited guests announce gluten intolerance and veganism, their dietary requirements/preferences are likely to skew the menu significantly. Some shelters in Minnesota specify "no pork" in the donated meals they depend on. The chances of an observant Jew or Moslem eating at a shelter are not zero, but are statistically very small. "No pork" rules out a host of familiar foods which pork eating clients enjoy. — Bitter Crank

That seems wrong to me too, but it bears almost no relation to the burqini issue because the majority lose nothing by allowing burqinis to be worn. A more apt analogy for what's happening here would be the majority forcing the Muslim/Jewish minority to eat pork, which is something I presume you would be against.

f it is acceptable for many countries to say, "women must be covered up", and various other things, why is it unacceptable for many other countries to say "women must not be covered up"? — Bitter Crank

To say that "women must be covered up" is acceptable for them but not for us because it's an unnecessary restriction on personal freedom that flies in the face of modern secular values. Us trying to control how women dress in any way is to follow them down that path. Why should we do that? Are we in a competition to see who can be the most backward here? Aren't we better than that? I mean you've now got French police patrolling beaches and harassing women wearing a type of dress that consists basically of a swimming suit with a hat. It's ridiculous (not to mention insidious in that it mirrors the actions of religious police in Islamic countries like Iran).

The only sensible arguments for banning particular types of dress are practical ones. For example, in the areas of security or communication, e.g. at a bank, no burqas or motorbike helmets or anything that obscures your face. Makes sense. For nurses, teachers, legal witness, no burqas because they inhibit communication in situations where it may be vital. Also makes sense. But the burqini ban in particular is an example of a measure with no practical rationale; it's simply an unjustified attack on a culture, a form of collective punishment driven by fear and ignorance. In other words, the type of law that erodes not protects modern secular democracy.

The idea of debate is to engage with those who disagree with you, not to call them names and run away.

It's also not like there's a single monolithic political view among Jewish Israelis. — Hanover

To link back to the original conversation, this and the previous comment illustrate why political positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are separable from the issue of anti-semitism. In fact, it's usually the anti-semite who ascribes some monolithic political view to Jews - generally an avaricious or malicious one.

Except that there isn't any consistent political view shared by Jews. — Hanover

Or religions in general. One of the distinguishing factors between a religion and a cult I would say.

OK, the superman has spoken :-| . Anything to add to the actual conversation here?

A necessary but not sufficient condition, maybe?

Thank you. And I hope @Thorongil responds in kind to your offer of a civil conversation.

I didn't mean this thread to be anything else than to share situations that break your heart. Whatever else that has been read into it, was projection. Sometimes I just like to whine. X-) — Benkei

Well, you did say "Vent your frustration". At least that's what I decided to read into it. O:)

Some interesting stuff there. I'm not sure I approach the news primarily for information though or that I need the media to change for my benefit. I see it more of an anesthetic. I don't drink or play video games or read Manga, so I'm bit short on vices and news media fills the gap.

Having said that, there's no doubt in my mind the world would be a better place if Alain de Botton replaced Rupert Murdoch as de facto head of global media.

You're conflating an individual with the country he happened to be born in. But I'm sure @Benkei can speak for himself on this.

Benkei comes from a country that is not contributing its fair share to NATO. I have no idea why he's concerned about solving underlying problems. — Mongrel

I don't get the connection here at all.

Help the kid in front of you. — Mongrel

That kid went to hospital and was released after treatment to my knowledge. The emotional trauma was probably worse than the physical in his case, I can't imagine what the long term effect will be.

I hate writing "That's not what I said." — Mongrel

You wrote this:

"A humanitarian intervention would remove Assad from power. No country in the world is going to take on that mission, though. What we're basically going to do is turn our backs on our brothers and sisters in Syria. This is what you have to consider when you condemn humanitarian military intervention. Turning away is fucking bitter. "

I don't think it's unreasonable or uncharitable to interpret this as a proposal that humanitarian military intervention to remove Assad is the course we should take and at least part of the solution to the problem. But fine, I stand corrected. Let's move on.

I have no plan there, but I spent about six months last year reading several books about contemporary Islamic issues and how they're rooted in the histories of the various Islamic communities in the world. The view of some Islamic scholars is that Islam has a natural affinity for democracy and would flourish in secular societies. The bonus is that a secular government would resolve a quagmire surrounding Sharia. — Mongrel

We already have stable democratic Islamic countries like Malaysia, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. But maybe I'm missing your point. In any case, the issue in the Middle East is largely about the sectarian Sunni / Shia divide. That's a layer of difficulty on top of any affinity or aversion to democracy / secularism.

Again I say: you're diverting attention from the victim. That kid probably needs stitches. Where are his parents? Who is making a list of survivors so people can find their relatives? Do they need money? — Mongrel

I thought we were talking about the macro issue here of humanitarian military intervention not the specifics of how to help this particular child. In other words, solving the "underlying problem" that Benkei alluded to in the OP.

You are diverting attention from the victim. — Mongrel

I was highlighting the fact that from a government / media perspective, the victim will remain invisible until he or she serves a purpose. That's where individual consciousness / conscience comes in.

But sure, let's get to talking about solutions. You say humanitarian military intervention and the deposing of Assad. Tell me how that could work in a context where Iran, Russia and Hezbollah are supporting Assad? How wouldn't it escalate the conflict and cause an even worse humanitarian crisis? Tell me how the Shia population would accept a government by the Sunni? Tell me how democracy would spring from the cesspool of ideology there? Outline your plan. As for me, as far as I can see the only possible solution is to push again for ceasefires when it comes to Assad vs the rebels and then talks i.e. a diplomatic de-escalation on that front while maintaining military action against ISIS who are probably immune to diplomacy.

I'll tell you what bothers me, Mongrel. The face of that child linked to in Benkei's post is a face I have been seeing for the past 15 years. It's a face I saw before the invasion of Iraq, a face that drove me on to the streets to protest that war and to be driven to almost despair to wonder why others couldn't see it too, or could but didn't care. I didn't need CNN or the Guardian to show it to me now like it's something new, as if this and worse hasn't been happening every day in the Middle East since the Iraq war started. I needed them to show it from day one. I needed them to show it during "Shock and Awe" when the great Western public was celebrating the mass entertainment that was the media coverage of that war. I needed them to show it in Gaza where hundreds of kids weren't lucky enough to be pulled from the rubble. Not now, not simply because major geopolitical foes of the US are responsible, not simply to give the false impression that America and its allies have grown a conscience. This is a face that should have been burned into the mind of everyone with the remotest scintilla of imagination and empathy from the beginning. And the fact that it wasn't, that that is who we are, is the problem..

I was trying to understand what that point was — Mongrel

It's not a given that humanitarian military intervention will live up to its name.

The problem in Syria does not stem from geopolitics. — Mongrel

I didn't say it did originally, but geopolitics are involved now.

A humanitarian intervention would remove Assad from power. No country in the world is going to take on that mission, though. What we're basically going to do is turn our backs on our brothers and sisters in Syria. This is what you have to consider when you condemn humanitarian military intervention. Turning away is fucking bitter. — Mongrel

Remove Assad, how? Without making things worse? And I'm not condemning humanitarian military intervention in a blanket way. It worked in Bosnia as far as I'm concerned. What I'm condemning is the use of the term to cover strategic maneuvering that results in a worse humanitarian crisis than there was to begin with. As was the case with Iraq. Outline for me a credible plan that would involve a real humanitarian military intervention and I will be 100% behind it. So, I'm not for turning away as long as a) The action has purely humanitarian goals and b) has a realistic chance of working.

@Thorongil in his interaction with @Sapientia seemed to think his use of the term was unproblematic. I was arguing it's not. The fact that he would consider the invasion and occupation of Iraq as "absolutely" a humanitarian military intervention makes my point. And, yes, it is extremely frustrating to try to untangle what the best thing to do in Syria would be, and what would constitute a humanitarian intervention as opposed to a strategic one where Russia, Iran, the US, Saudi Arabia and co. are just playing geopolitics with the locals' lives.