The Christmas vs Hunting examples are, coincidentally and unintentionally when I wrote the post, good contrasting examples as you note here.

While I do not personally favor Christmas, and am one of those 'opt out' people alluded to above, as it is generally harmless.

On the other hand killing animals for fun and sport when the participants could get their jollies in a thousand other ways is needless suffering for innocent animals.

I actually do not think the consumerist behemoth of Christmas - which is what I take issue with, not the original festive season before all this bloat was added - is harmless however I think that is a lesser evil than killing for fun.

And whence do you get your cards, sir? From the future? — unenlightened

My post above I think clears that up on my position.

I think it’s reasonable to challenge arguments from tradition. If someone says something is a matter of tradition, I think the first response should be to question it. But that’s just a personal preference. Misogyny, homophobia, slavery, and many other bigotries and harmful practices are traditional. The defence that a group has always done something a certain way is not a definitive justification. And the question might be, “Whose tradition?” Is it tradition for the nobility to exploit peasants and does this make it right? Is democracy and liberalism a tradition? I’m sure many of the people who defend tradition may not be so enthusiastic about those two institutions.

When does something become a tradition and is there any agreement on how it works? — Tom Storm

This is a nice summation that gets at what I was aiming for which seems to have been glossed over in most replies I have so far.

Most respondents seem to answer as if I am attacking tradition 'just because'. The point is that heinous acts through history have been perpetrated in the name of tradition. T Clark defends hunting with his family from an typically anthropocentric perspective because it serves him and his own in group, with no regard for the needless killing of animals for one's own fun.

Why can't he and his family enjoy a board game around the fire instead?

Does the act of killing some other creature enhance the fun and togetherness? that would be a rather chilling and bloodthirsty claim to stand by.

As per the slavery example, it could be equally justified that the family is brought together with some good wholesome corralling of savage negroes to be auctioned at market.

It is about questioning what is held as traditional and asking 'can we do better'?

I do agree tradition, falling under culture can also be very beneficial. On the opposite side I chagrin the loss of culture to the throwaway society. In my opinion it is about separating the wheat from the chaff which comes from well considered analysis of these traditions and not holding any particular one as out of bounds because 'tradition'.

It isn't that it necessarily does. That would be the same fallacy as the appeal to tradition fallacy. It is that you should not automatically take tradition as proof in itself that something should stay the way it is.

Upon inspection it might well be that keeping a tradition is the best course of action, or inaction, but reason must evaluate the options to decide that, not just deciding that choice, or lack of, is right just because it has been like that up to the present point.

Example: Claim: It is better not to kill people because the bible says so.

We can agree generally it is conisdered right not to kill people, but not just because the bible says so. We can evaluate that it is wrong to kill as killing is wrong for whatever humanitarian reasons we choose. The bible just happens to agree.

Yes.

A fair question, to which I would answer "no" — Tzeentch

I shall quote Cuz D'Amato, Mike Tyson's formative trainer: "I don't care what Mike Tyson does outside the ring."

That was tongue in cheek.

Yes I see your angle is the Ghandi lead by example approach. Of course ideally the man would also be the perfect reflection of his values, but that doesn't make their work's worthless if they aren't. A rational person should analyze the merits of the body of work in its own right to see if it offers value.

What you are proposing goes against the justice system's tenets of not allowing outside elements taint a person's right to a fair trial. From what I understand they won't allow evidence which does not pertain to the particular case as it might taint the jury's opinion unduly from the case at hand. I don't know all the legalese terms for it but that is the general gist.

prominent members of this site have used it to make themselves look smarter than they really are — Janus

Can you show an example of this? Maybe that is why user Boethius seemed to reel off such long posts in short order now I think of it? :rofl:

I really hate it too on the wider internet now. How seemingly overnight everyone and their mother are casually writing "I asked chatgpt xyz" and have fully adopted it into their weltenshaung.

I can't imagine how bad things are going to get in the coming years with how quickly it has already gotten to this state. Maybe it will be like some other rapid rise cultural phenomenons where it will reach saturation point fast and peter out and get pushback/revulsion before long. The bubble effect.

What really gets my goat is being on chat for an online store and when they get tired of replying they will pas you over to AI without telling you. I quickly figured that out on livechat when pages worth of responses were regurgitated in milliseconds but over email it takes a little longer but I suspect it several times when there are no spelling errors and some general female name who is very friendly as usually you will get curt monosyllabic replies from real people as they can't be bothered with you.

Before you read his philosophy, I suggest reading his biography and then ask yourself the poignant question whether this is the sort of "man" you would take economic advice from. — Tzeentch

Is it not a case of judge the message and not the man? The same was said about Heidegger being an unapologetic/unrepentant Nazi but his philosophy still stands on its own and from what I recall had little flavour of his political beliefs.

If there is a master craftsman woodworker and you appreciate his work and later find out he is a Nazi does that make you suddenly hate his handiwork? Maybe the answer is yes, but should you, rationally?

Another example is quite a bit a bit of technology was taken from the Germans at the end of WW2. Does make the science any less valid? Methadone is one example which has enjoyed much use in the west since.

Aside: I only just noticed the OP was from 4 years ago. I wonder if the original poster has long left to pastures new, having cultivated their right wing ideals in the interim, to places like Q-anon forums. :)

Nonetheless it seems @Tzeentch has taken up the torch.

Pretty obvious to me Boethius is the disingenuine (and likely mentally ill imo) one here. How could a question so simple be impossible to answer? Instead, evasive, obtuse and…of a weasel like nature.
So much for outside arbitration. — DingoJones

No there is no problem with an opinion that differs from mine, it is still good to have others weigh in on the situation.

Although I have found Boethius very entertaining, and previously informative, when they are posting, I too am veering to your own appraisal which I have come to think due to their very erratic posting habits. There will be a large flourish of frantic posting then radio silence for weeks.

This could be put down to having a life but the strange thing I noticed is that they are still active on the forum, as it shows their status as having been here only minutes ago when I have checked for any new entertaining posts from them but it just seems like they are lurking for large spaces of time yet still absorbing the forum content.

I'm gonna guess that you're obviously suffering from not being aesthetically desirable compared to others. — DifferentiatingEgg

I think this highlights the comments boethius made above. It is an attempt to shame me for not being beautiful as being bitter, and I am sure the term 'incel' would be thrown a post or two after, which is the western boogeyman for the unsuccessful capitalist man.

It is like if anyone makes a critique of someone rich then they are just 'haters' and jealous. As if to say "the system is perfect, it is only because you are losing that you are taking issue with it".

Not buying into your whip crack attempt to make me a productive wage slave.

Similar to making fun of someone for having a cheap car like they should aspire to buy an expensive one because society says so.

This back and forth would benefit from outside adjudicators as to the claims leveled against one another rather than you two just slugging it out which is just ending up in the same claims being volleyed from one side to the other again and again.

I would agree @boethius that it is glaringly obvious you have answered the questions many times so find it bizarre it is claimed you haven't. Of course I could be accused of being biased, so it could do with some fresh impartial, as agreed to the both of you, eyes. :)

This one I'm closer to agreeing with the OP. — Mijin

Good to see some unsolicited support as I was a lone voice, except comrade boethius, on this so far. I would put it down to other respondents being under the veil of western propaganda and are more apologists for capitalism.

Your example reminds me of a documentary I once watched where it was showing how some indigenous tribe revered its old, which was highlighted specifically to contrast how the west does not. One of their rituals was shown of an old lady dressed in nothing but a small sumo style loin cloth was being rubbed down all over with some kind of oil by the younger people.

Yet another example I recall from some seminar where the lady of Italian descent spoke of strong Italian role models who were admired and were the 'alpha females' back in the mother land whereas the culture in America is to shut them away.

There's a lot of things wrong with the world, the way beauty is treated is just another one of of those problems. The only answer is there is something wrong with the people who believe it's the right way to act. Why they do it is because of human stupidity, and weakness to natural urges that would allow us to think otherwise. There is nothing truly beautiful about this way of thinking, it completely misrepresents what beauty is about--- it's completely artificial. — Barkon

Indeed, that is the Eastern philosophy flavor of explaining it. Not saying it is wrong and is a good overall synopsis.

Eugenics would be a good idea to promote good health in reproduction, it's better than treating children as a father or mother experience(like parents own the child's spirit). I quite like the idea of the Government rearing beautiful children.

I guess this is tongue in cheek?

What about the motto of the Communist Chinese reform movement: Getting rich is glorious! — BC

Interesting, but isn't that proof it was only when they adopted a mishmash of communist/capitalism which is what it is today? What are your thoughts on this take on this comment ?

I was going to say, this seems like a rather strange statement. Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Mitch McConnell, etc., along with most of the "Big Billionaires" are not remotely young — Count Timothy von Icarus

There are different forms of influence of course, but I am just discussing that which is attributed to beauty. Take any of the above and apart from Trump who people would be very excited to see just because of his celebrity, how many of those would have influence in a nightclub setting? :D They would just be seen as old creepy/boring people. Trump people would love to see because he is so outrageous and kind of transcends his age due to his personality. I don't even think of him as an old person as his strength of character transcends that.

I do agree it was an omission on my part not to mention political power in the OP.

There is also celebrity and social status which is another form. Look at the example of Weinstein and Epstein. Both ugly and gross but had influence regardless.

These are not the topic of discussion. I agree they exist and not denying them. I am just asking why society as a social norm values beauty so highly (not to deny there are other forms of social value but they are usually equally shallow).

I am sticking with the evolutionary trait run rampant, a la the peacock's tail. The nub of the question though is why has happened? With the complaints so far about the question maybe the beauty focus is a red herring, a single symptom of a deeper issue, and the question would better be modified to...why is western society at large so shallow?

EDIT: Ah of course! Not sure why I didn't see it before but my communist/anarchist knowledge kicked in and of course the answer is obvious now...capitalism! The root of nearly all of the world's ills!

I think this overlooks the huge influence the West has on the rest of the world. Most other countries of the world actively aspire to be the top dogs. Much of their tv is westernized and so too their values of what the good life is seeks to emulate western society.

Yes, this was covered in the OP. That is the evolutionary instinct. My question concerns how it seems to have been hyper exaggerated beyond the natural level.

Like I mentioned, I would maintain that it is the runaway principle. Same as how high heels are unnatural but they accentuate the natural attributes of a woman.

That explains the what but not the why. As in, why our society lets beauty and aesthetics dominate over more substantive matters like philosophy or more noble pursuits.

Take an extreme example you will not see skimpily dressed women in muslim countries under sharia. Not saying its right but that has been suppressed there. Over here we are the other extreme of licentious lustful desire.

Strange, your reply didn't show up until now, or I missed it the first time. Hard to miss your posts usually. ;)

Seems yours is the only reply on a similar track that I was thinking with most taking issue at the question itself being fallacious and misguided somehow. No surprise since we are both Anarchist comrades.

Is this the same idea that the old time stock market moguls say that crypto is a bubble?

I do find it hard to wrap my head around stock market and economic discussion, how all these theories are put forward for these ethereal (pun) tokens of value.

I don't know why it is so hard to get people to accept that western society is superficial so far. Maybe you all are very deep souls, yes it is not surprising on a philosophy forum but that does not mean it is the general rule in society and you have to have lived pretty sheltered lives to not think that.

This society teaches, off the top of my head, basically: money, fame, beauty are the major tenets of the good life.

Not sure why there is the resistance to accept that. I am positing why that is but it seems the discussion can't get going on this track yet as the main contention is that society at large does not actually value beauty which I am finding bizarre if anyone looks at mainstream media.

If you want to quibble semantics about they don't really value it then. Value in this context means whatever gets most airtime over other things. The fact it mainstream media is awash with superficial messaging that beauty = good which bleeds into the morals, or lack thereof, of what the average person esteems towards.

------> https://davidpakman.com/shows/?_sf_s=elon <------

Elon turns on Trump, Republicans nuking Medicaid
2-year-old citizen deported, Musk turns on Trump’s tax bill
Trump “doesn’t know” about defending Constitution, Tesla sales collapse
Trump kicks out Elon, influencers turn on MAGA — The David Pakman Show

Many pages of results, those are just a few example titles.

Just go on his website/channel and scroll to the timeframe it was happening and there were loads of videos.

I don't usually take an interest in current affairs much but I do like his sardonic style and find his innocent delivery of the sarcastic remarks he makes amusing of these guys he discusses.

David Pakman was doing a good commentary on this when it was happening.

I don't really know enough about economics and specifically American economics to know how accurate what he was saying was but it sounded impressive and Pakman is a stand up guy generally isn't he?

will be metered out. — AmadeusD

It is 'meted' not 'metered'.

Reminds me of how everyone online always uses 'hear hear'. I don't think I remember seeing that one written properly. :)

They're also more useful than crypto SHTF scenarios. — RogueAI

Indeed. I wonder what they will do if all the electrics crumbles but then, won't precious metals also be useless?

Won't actual goods for day to day living become currency as has been the case through history? Wheat is one example I believe or whatever is a valuable commodity for survival, not a token to exchange for it.

Don't any of these tokens preclude a stable enough society that everyone can agree on a 'valueless' item to have value to just make trade easier?

On the other hand wheat would still have value to almost anyone if food is scarce unless they were gluten intolerant. :lol:

While we have found common ground on this point perhaps you can then understand I was merely pointing out you might be better trying to communicate in the style of Feynman, who you agree is a good communicator, than say...Derrida.

This is the point I made in the first page of the Anarchism thread and was not substantively different to what I made in this thread so it was not 'hiding' and avoiding discussion as you accuse me of above. There was no need to mention you as it is the same point as what I made to you the first time, which you replied to at the time. If I didn't want you to see it I would not have written your name on a public thread on a very small forum which you would quite likely see sooner or later but I didn't see a problem writing it since I already wrote the same elsewhere, which you had already seen.

No matter, water under the bridge but you perhaps see my point better now, that it was not an attack. The Feynman analogy, which you yourself volunteered, is perfect.

I'd propose an example of good communication as Feynman as can be witnessed in the Feynman lectures.

Both Hitler and Feynman are charismatic and use many of the same rhetorical methods. The difference being Hitler is trying to manipulate public opinion to conquer the whole world and liquidate whole classes of people he dislikes, whereas Feynman is trying to convey actual truths about physics to those who are interested. — boethius

Yes I agree with this. Feynman is a great example who would not have immediately sprung to my mind.

Tbh I didn't even remember the quote or the thread above it, which I just skimmed again now.

Yes sure I agree now I read it again that I was agreeing with the point Hitler made and I did mean to agree with the point at the time now I reread the context.

As above, Hitler was a fantastic orator.

I think there is discussion to be had about charisma vs propaganda or if they are indeed one and the same. I don't think they necessarily are the same thing. There are charismatic people that do not speak propaganda but charismatic people often do speak propaganda.

I had not seen your thread until you pointed it out now. Indeed I see you have been busy with that.

I guess you are deliberately pushing the Hitler narrative to illustrate the problems with propaganda.

Lol! I forgot others had been discussing Hitler above. My mistake. I had not viewed this thread in a while since it did not 'take off'.

I was not relating the comment I made about you to the Hitler comments above. Well it might seem like that ok since I quoted it in the same post. :) Hitler was a great orator though.

I will await your picking up the other thread when you are ready.

Huh, interesting, so that is why you went silent on the other thread all of a sudden. I did wonder why you suddenly stopped commenting.

Didn't realize you were angry.

Not sure why you are taking umbrage at it. I said the exact same early on in the original thread on communism/anarchism, which you replied to at the time, and was just repeating the same as I wrote there publicly which you didn't get mad at then so isn't like I was 'talking behind your back' as you are asserting here.

It was just a comment that you have good points but you limit your audience by being too verbose except for the most determined of readers. I was interested in the subject matter so I would study your posts whereas most will not bother.

If you want your views to have an effect I think that is constructive criticism.

There is a large tract of land between propagandist and nearly impenetrable walls of text. It isn't one extreme or the other. What is the point of having discourse at all if you don't care if you are understood or not?

To resurrect this I just found this nice snippet about Corbyn by long time anarchist Noam Chomsky:

“I think if Corbyn had been elected, Britain would be pursuing a much more sane course. I think his general positions were very reasonable. And I think that’s probably the reason for the extraordinary attack on him pretty much across the spectrum, with mostly fabricated charges of antisemitism. Anything that could be thrown at him was, it was a major assault. Again, pretty much across the spectrum, The Guardian, right-wing press, ‘we got to get rid of this guy’.

“I think that’s a sign, a reflection of the fact that he had very reasonable proposals. He was also doing something dangerous, he was trying to turn the Labour Party into an authentic political party, one that’s based on its constituents, not some bureaucracy somewhere that runs it and tells people how to vote. That’s scary. We don’t want to have authentic, popular based political parties around, they could be out of control.”
-https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/chomsky-if-corbyn-had-been-elected-britain-would-be-pursuing-a-much-more-sane-course-266056/

I came to that after reading that Corbyn has started his own political party. I must say, while I have stated that the current 2 big parties are both sides of the same coin, he is someone who would make me enthused about mainstream politics.

Good luck to him. A great counterbalance to the Reform party.

Well only on the periphery but it is not hard to spot the flash tractors they drive.

Drones, maybe but tractors are a mainstay and they are already comfortable with them so the improvements are incremental, not a jarring change.

I might not know them personally but I have read online communities lately, where they air their views freely. They might not be techy themselves but lots of chatter about the latest super modified crop which they want to purchase and stuff like that.

They use machines and spraying for everything hence why I stand by my post above. I would say they no more want to give up their modern technology than the city dweller.

I did also grow up in the country before 'getting out' to the big smoke so already had that background and my mother stayed in the country so have always heard bits what she says about the community there.

I think there is an even simpler explanation available. It is that agricultural work is inherently conservative. It relies on stability, predictable patterns and yields, and only incremental improvements. The farmer has a tried and true method of sustaining life, and he will not jeopardize that method with newfangled progressive ideas. He has a strong and realistic sense of what is possible given the tangible constraints of nature that he is so familiar with. He is not going to shoot for the moon and thereby risk losing what has taken so long to carefully develop. In general he is less ideational and more concrete, whereas progressives are the opposite. — Leontiskos

Yes I agree with that however what I find very incongruous is that they hate all that 'witchcraft' that happens in the cities however they are very quick to adopt new technologies for tractors and whatever other machinery which would inevitably have been discovered in those bohemian dens of iniquity they hate so much.

It is ironic that they rail against all the integration and progress but are certainly benefiting greatly from it. Also I was shocked how technical farming is these days, not only the machinery but all the statistics and data harvesting and collating and research and all that stuff and the farmers are eating it all up to get the slightest edge on nature and of course their competition.

Lol, I believe those statements require some qualifying too.

And no doubt there are some zealous left-wing activists who go too far, — Tom Storm

Well I would say once the term woke is used then it has gone too far. In this sense I would not say there is a 'healthy' form of wokeness. :) I would say the term itself is always pejorative. Like for instance there is not a healthy form of crazy.

There are healthy Leftist views and social justice advocates but I would not call them woke.

It is funny when I hear that word because I seem to recall waaaay back in around 2006-8 or so it used to mean the conspiracy theorists. I mean when conspiracy theories were kind of intriguing to people and before the age of debunking that came after. So from what I remember woke just meant someone who looks into those kinds of things and somehow remember Jo Rogan using it in this context when his podcast was still in its infancy and niche. Have I remembered it right?

It is like the Pepe frog thing, which started as something totally innocent and got co-opted by the alt-right.

In Australia, the only people who use the term 'woke' are Murdoch journalists and oddly discordant right-wingers, from what I’ve seen. It doesn't seem to have captured people’s imagination as widely. — Tom Storm

I would say in the UK the woke term has been extremely and enthusiastically taken up by right wingers. The Daily Mail newspaper uses it it nearly every article they print. Piers Morgan loves saying it last time I would see clips of him presenting daytime tv, which was some years ago. I hadn't heard of this author the OP discusses before but just a quick search and the first results show he is aligned with GB News and that said it all for me. It has proudly self styled itself after Fox News.

I am not going to blanket claim all his views are trash because of that, like 'woke' person would :), but I will say I am heavily de-incentivized to explore him further due to that association.

I am no fan of wokeness either but I think there are more careful considerations and critiques of it from the likes of Sam Harris to name one, or Zizek, from the little I watched of the latter, but I doubt this guy will fall into that category. I suspect it will just be the usual right-wing dog whistles of cultural marxism and such.

Your experience in the UK is, of course, going to be different than someone living in the US. — BC

That is why I invoked Hypericin's post which I agreed with and assumed, perhaps wrongly but since the replies have been US centric so far thought it a fair bet, they were from the states.

My mother has worked for the council, what we also call the government, on the local level and she told me that ironically, it is the opposite here in that the farmers don't like Labour because they are more city focused in their policies while the Conservatives I suppose must at least give some more scraps to the farmers to make them for them even though in the end the latter are still looking after their old boy's club of each other, but that is true of Labour too I think. I remember that is your point made in my other thread where there is another class above which they look after in either party rather than the people.

Haha, a lot of American terms going over my head - flyover state, country mouse and political terms that are lost on me. :) Doesn't matter though; I get the gist of the posts.

Sure I just thought there have already been tangents of a similar or greater magnitude.

I get criticized on other forums for 'spamming' too many topics rather than keeping to one thread so was also conscious of that.