God damn, can you please read what I actually write — Maw

God damn yourself. I have read your post and answered to it.

you had merely tried to highlight the quotes around them in order to excuse them. — Maw

Well, I assume that the whole response that people give to something should be considered. You don't think so: uttering the J-Word means you are a bigot. As I've already said, the alt-right does indeed talk of a Soros empire. Just how you talk about it is important. But if Scruton mentions Soros, is obviously he is part of the alt-right, not the traditional right.

I do love when right-wingers do this, they accuse others of "character assassination" — Maw

When the interviewer literally celebrates with drinking champagne that the "right-wing racist homophobe" he interviewed is fired from a position thanks to his interview, I think the objectives for the interview are quite evident.

Regardless, you continue to dodge the issue I brought up, which is that Scruton made antisemitic comments, which of course hasn't been disputed. — Maw

Oh I'm dodging now comments?

How about first saying that you aren't explicitly saying that he is an anti-semite and then saying he is making antisemitic comments?

That (dodging) must be that he talk about Soros Empire and jewish intelligentsia? Well, I did quote the line. Now I do agree that anything Soros has done or presumably done makes the the far-right bat-shit crazy conspiracy theorists in the way as the Koch Brothers do to the left in the US, yet that Scruton is really saying here similar comments as anti-semites is doubtful. You simply have to give the example, not just say the interpretation of what he had in mind is obvious.

What I gather is that Scruton has known personally the intelligentsia in Hungary, where he has been visiting since 1985. So is the issue that Scruton is a friend of of Victor Orban? Oh yes, a friend that Scruton describes as following to Hungarian media:

he (Orban) doesn’t have the American approach to the division of powers, that’s undeniably so.

On the other hand, he’s not the kind of demagogic tyrant that the liberal establishment in Europe want to make him out to be. He has not arrested all the judges, he allows the constitutional court to overthrow decisions of Parliament. He is a democrat, but not a liberal-democrat.

It’s a matter of degree; you can say that perhaps he throws his weight around more than most Western politicians would. And he has an oligarchic approach to civil society. But whether Bálint Magyar is right in condemning Orbán’s Hungary as a ‘mafia state’ I very much doubt. After all, has Bálint been arrested? Let’s say at least that the question remains an open one.

Now I don't make Hungarian politics so well to think if Scruton is correct or false, but at first glance the above doesn't seem as an appraisal for Orban, really. A politician that doesn't have the American approach to the division of powers, isn't a liberal-democrat and throws his weight around more than most Western politicians sounds to me somewhat critical.

Anyway, yet let's look at just what this was: This was just a typical leftist character assassination campaign, which was successful. They got their scruffy old conservative philosopher. It was indeed so successful job that Scruton's interviewer (of the interview that lead to this scandal) George Eaton, posted afterwards jubilant photo of himself on Instagram drinking champagne from a bottle with the caption: "“The feeling when you get right-wing racist and homophobe Roger Scruton sacked as a Tory government adviser.” Great example of objective investigative journalism.



You'll probably drink to that too.

I could do with some cash though. I should probably get into the biased alarmist sensationalism business. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Perhaps you should start an organization called "Muslims for Trump" and go on Fox News. :joke:

Fox News would love that (if they haven't got that person already).

1. Facts are statements.
2. Statements are generated by neural circuitry in the brain.
3. No brain- > no facts. — YuZhonglu

So now the argument has changed from "there are no facts, just opinions" to this new argument that "facts are statements, which generated in the brain". Wonder how this will change later...

Ok. Can the planet Jupiter exist without you yourself being alive? If so, can it exist without any humans being alive? If so, why would the fact of it's existence need a statement generated by the neural circuitry in our brains?

Thanks for your comments, Mr Phil O'Sophy

Unfortunately you can paint an ugly picture of Islam (and many are extremely willing to do exactly that), but then you could do that with Christianity too. I remember this Dutch documentary about the Religious Right in America with the female reporter starting her documentary with the words: "In the Netherlands where I come from, I had grown up thinking that Christians are nice, tolerant people..."

Unfortunately biased sensationalism, alarmism and spreading fear sells. Views that try to be objective and while stating the good and bad sides try to put them into perspective are found to be confusing.

Hey ssu, I would strongly recommend actually reading what I wrote prior to posting. — Maw

I did read your posting.

As I explained here, I didn't explicitly say that Scruton is an antisemite — Maw

Oh yes, you just said that his comments are an undeniable antisemitic canard and you can't imagine he has a rosy view of Jews. Again, that he in his talk referred to Jews being prosecuted in Hungary and anti-semitism being a problem there doesn't naturally matter to you. Nope, you have found your trope!

Btw folks, don't think Roger Scruton gives a fuck about any of you. You aren't required to defend his honor. — Maw

Of course not, why should he? Scruton is nearly this caricature of an old conservative British academician, whose whole demeanor can feel to many to be condescending. But that doesn't make him a spokesperson/ a front for anti-semites (or malevolent, as unenlightened defined him). As fdrake noted well, you "end up treating garden variety liberals and conservatives as far right".

And it's not about his dishonor here, it's about the ease how loosely defined accusations are enthusiastically hurled and accepted without critical thinking. I've learned that today when someone is called either a 'fascist', 'socialist', 'anti-semite' or an 'islamophobe', you really have to be critical about the accusations and really have to find out to yourself if the person truly is like that. Some might be, but typically you find out that the person is either right or left-leaning, has criticized Israeli policy or has worries about terrorism, yet aren't at all the ideological firebrands or bigots they are portrayed to be.

But the political tribalism of the present doesn't accept this view.

Use your brain, I know you have one, I've seen you use it. — Maw

You might also use it too for a while. I really enjoy your thoughtful and insightful leftist responses in the forum, which aren't the typical kind of kneejerk learnt responses people in the left typically have.

I don't know what else Scruton has said or, of course, thought about Jews, but his comments above are an undeniable antisemitic canard, as I've pointed out. — Maw

And of course as you have made your opinion about him, you don't see any reason to dwelve further, but to go along the sentence of him being anti-semite. One could easily look at from WHERE this quote is from and at the sentences BEFORE and AFTER the quote about the Jewish intelligentsia and Soros:

Ordinary uneducated Hungarians are therefore isolated from their immediate neighbours by their language. They have also been isolated from each other by the forcible division of their territory at the end of the First World War. The remnant of territory that they still enjoy is shared with a substantial minority of Roma, whose unsettled ways are often resented by their neighbours, but whose cause inevitably gathers support in the wider world. The Jewish minority that survived the Nazi occupation suffered further persecution under the communists, but nevertheless is active in making its presence known. Many of the Budapest intelligentsia are Jewish, and form part of the extensive networks around the Soros Empire. People in these networks include many who are rightly suspicious of nationalism, regard nationalism as the major cause of the tragedy of Central Europe in the 20th century, and do not distinguish nationalism from the kind of national loyalty that I have defended in this talk. Moreover, as the world knows, indigenous anti-Semitism still plays a part in Hungarian society and politics, and presents an obstacle to the emergence of a shared national loyalty among ethnic Hungarians and Jews.

Of course, those parts of the talk highlighted are not quoted, which clearly show the tendentious bashing and mudslinging the whole thing is about. You see, at least I think that usually anti-semites DO NOT talk about the persecution of the Jews and anti-semitism being 'an obstacle to the emergence of a shared national loyalty'.

But of course what actually Roger Scruton said isn't at all important, it doesn't matter for those who want to bash him and go on their attack against the 'evil right'.

How is death just an opinion?

I agree. It also distracts us from seeing people who are islamophobic, because we keep looking in the wrong direction. Islamophobe's tend to be not so vocal out of fear of persecution. They already believe in this major conspiracy that the muzzie's are taking over, and so due to the fear bottle it up. In some cases this leads to them lashing out with violent actions rather than being able to work through their prejudices because they've been isolated into echo chambers (either voluntarily or through blanket bans on social networks) where everyone tells them they're right, and offers zero intellectual engagement or push back that may have been exactly what they needed in order to free them of their prejudices and bigotry. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Good points.

And if we talk about the true hostility against muslims (and jews etc), one noticeable thing is that extreme-right terrorism deliberately uses the "lone gunman" tactics. No extreme-right organization takes ever credit of any terrorist attacks. And those who are terrorist perpetrators distance themselves from others. This strategy has been noticed for example by the FBI. This is contrary to how any loonie that decides to be a home grown mujaheddin is accredited to ISIS and make's the terrorism instantly "international".

The extreme-right also seeks to use anything that could be interpreted as being supportive to their views and naturally the left notices this. And then you people (who generally oppose anything from the right) making the conclusion that Roger Scruton is encouraging extremism.

sunknight
its strange that you would call a conservative muslim (a moral objectivist), a post-modern leftist. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Actually it's not strange. Just think of putting everything you don't like together and assume it makes a coherent entity. Eases the ranting about it.

(Oh, he got banned... of course, the tidiness of the forum is actually very nice. Thank you!)

No. What I am complaining about is that he is down-playing (as in completely ignoring) it, while up-playing the atrocities of Muslim extremists, in a way that gives comfort to rightwing extremists. — unenlightened

You then have to give the a concrete example of the downplaying or ignoring a question put to him. So the interviewer really has to ask something that Scruton really avoids. And I ought to emphasize just what the whole topic of the discussion was!

And his talk of George Soros having an Empire is similarly loose and inflammatory. — unenlightened

And how inflammatory is it to talk about the Koch brothers having an Empire or the Mercer family? And as George Soros is from Hungary, it's no wonder that he has ties to the country. Here you should really concentrate on what Scruton actually says. NOT what some alt-right conspiracy theorist alleges Scruton to have said. I assume that obviously the topic of the discussion was Hungary and it's political situation.

he is equivocally but knowingly lending legitimacy to such abhorrent ideas. — unenlightened

Ok, so discussing a topic that conspiracy theorists make their absurd theories is 'knowingly lending to abhorrent ideas'. Well, this is again an example of the political tribalism and show the inability in handling issues openly.

And it is true that muslims are persecuted by genuine islamaphobes. But I don't think its fair to conflate those who kill and torture muslims with those who wish to discuss differences in values etc. Islam encourages a discussion with the dis-believers, how else are we to call people to our religion if we stop them from talking and asking questions? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

The problem is the conflation, which makes things worst. It creates the percieved if not actual "PC-culture" environment of "if you open your mouth on this subject, you are persecuted", that actually nobody really is truly promoting. Yet this conflation of people like Scruton as being the malevolent Islamophobe / anti-Islamist spreading the gospel of bigotry if not racism simply makes things worse as there indeed are those kind of people.

No, certainly not. It's more akin to holocaust denial than holocaust promotion. — unenlightened

Certainly not? That's your answer?

OK. :chin:

What holocaust is he denying here?

Again, where is the malevolence?

I think your problem is simply that you are too much interpreting what Scruton is saying and trying to find some subtle and hidden agenda that is malevolent or something.

It's like if I start to talk about the active measures that Putin's Russia does, means that I would be a russophobe. And perhaps, as the only existing political narrative seems to be the US narrative, that I even start to speak about it I has to be that I am an offended liberal Hillary-voter that clings on to the Trump-Russia connection. Even if I wouldn't be talking about it. (That I come from a country that naturally has long been influenced by Russia simply because of geography wouldn't be the reason. And that I like Russians, have been there, now Russian and love especially their cuisine and culture doesn't matter either.)

I am focusing very narrowly on a couple of things here, but I am not alone in my criticism, and this is not a new criticism of Scruton. So my own dementia is not really a factor. My arguments and complaints are mirrored by others citing other things he has said at other times. — unenlightened

Yes, indeed there are many others.

Now I don't want to sound harsh and I do value your comments, but I think that you are showing the symptoms of the creeping political tribalism. When this tribalism takes hold, we don't even listen anymore to what actually the other side says, but just try to interpret in the worst possible way. He must have meant this, because he is on the opposite side as me. And this is an universal phenomenon.

So where can Scruton be wrong?

Well, is it indeed that 'islamophobia' was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood is a question that we do have a chance of finding an objective yes or no answer. He maybe wrong with that.

the wiki list I linked constitutes a real persecution of Islam, not an invention, and not a rhetorical trick. — unenlightened

But the rhetorical trick you use is that if Scuton talks about people fearing attacks by Islamists, that SOMEHOW means that he refutes the persecution of Muslims! Does Scruton say that? Where?

Do you think that an academic philosopher like Scruton would deny that Muslims have been persecuted? That makes him the 'holocaust denier'?

Again this is the typical tribalism I hate. If one talks let's say the bad things of X, then I MUST be praising the virtues and turning a blind eye on the bad thing Y has done. It doesn't make sense.

. But generally, I don't expect people who are 'somewhat suspicious' to burn mosques, attack people for wearing particular clothes, or commit random mass murder at Islamic centres.

Here are over 200 'incidents'. But some of these incidents are like, The Bosnian War, the Chad riots, the Genocide of the Rhohingya. At some point rather a long way before all these massacres, genocides random attacks and killings, 'reasonable suspicion' becomes untenable, and unreasonable fear, hatred and prejudice becomes the only possible explanation.

But Scruton is not naive or foolish or ignorant. Therefore he is malevolent. — unenlightened

I don't understand your logic, unenlightened.

What is this malevolence you are talking about?

Is Scruton encouraging to burn mosques, giving a green light for the Burmese government to persecute the Rohinda?

Here's a question for you Ilya,

How much should we pay for the military personnel in Russia and the US that sit in the missile silos and man the ballistic missile submarines? You see, if there would be an accidental nuclear war, that would have a bit effect on the economy. And thanks to that we haven't had one even if we had the Cold War, globalization has gone forward and prosperity has increased. And that we are alive is indeed very important for us. Or another example, that basically that the seas are quite safe for shipping (except few places like the coast of Somalia) thanks to the US Navy. Should the personnel of the US Navy get a bonus salary for this?

The military, as you have correctly noted, gives us through deterrence and maintaining peace a biggest contribution to our prosperity. However, the argument is very problematic as you are arguing something that is a counterfactual. You cannot price counterfactuals, something that hasn't happened. Having a military is just a cost that could be done away with if you aren't attacked.

The military is the most obvious case, but the other one's that you list have similar problems of defining just how much they contribute to something. Science itself is another good example. Even if we can have patents on intellectual property, so the clever scientist can make a buck or two, it's still extremely difficult to define how much something as basic science contributes to what. The price mechanism is directly involved with trade and the ability to measure services in monetary terms. The simple fact is that not everything can be priced easily, hence the market mechanism cannot solve everything.

Due to the mass communications, we have today, are we losing something unique in how we use entertainment and how we create it? Will all music and film become one drab and repetitive scheme where small differences in the artistic endeavor are made out to be huge leaps when in fact they’re mind numbingly dull compared to bygone eras. — I like sushi

Now this is something that I call the critical reviewer's disease.

You see, once you have attentively watched too many films and TV shows you get it. You get how the industry works and pushes the product through. You get it how the scriptwriters work. And you notice that it's done with only a few templates and that you can start to refer things like MacGuffins or noticing when some series "jumps the shark". But basically you have got the disease. You have watched too many movies and thought of them too much. Somebody who hasn't watched so much as you will find movies that you find lame and boring exiting and witty. And those films you find "interesting" and as "a breeze of fresh air" are totally confusing to the ordinary movie goer. And notice: the ordinary movie goer is actually the person that goes to the movies only few times in a year and doesn't know movies like you.

Now when talking about entertainment becoming drab, one should check if you have the reviewer disease. Then after a bit of self reflection can you be more objective about the issue.

Will comedians be driven into the ground by a stale and overly reactive audience? — I like sushi

They are already adapting to their audience. People like stand up comedians get instant response from the crowd so they likely know the direction from where the wind is blowing.

It appears to me that pop culture has been going through a dry spell lately too. In past decades we’ve had heavy metal, punk, reggae, rap, rave and the progression of various boy/girl bands. The only thing I’ve noticed over the past couple of decades to happen is the event of DJ culture ... but musically I cannot honestly say I’ve heard much that is distinct nor heard of anyone talking about a new type of music genre - in past decades they’ve been dry spell too and maybe my age is showing but I cannot think of anything equivalent arising like punk, rock, rap, or rave ... maybe we’re just not distanced enough from it yet? I would view the 90’s as being predominantly about rave/dance culture with a little of the Nirvana “Grunge” and a general appeal toward a more visual MTV popularity (where music videos became extensions of the actual music in an of itself). — I like sushi

So I guess you haven't listened to country rap or hick hop as it's called. :razz:

I would say earlier, especially in the 70's and so on popular culture and fashion were very homogeneous. Last remnants of these people following slavishly some look and attitude with no individualism were in my view the 'hipsters'. And producing and distributing music was in the hands of record companies, hence pop music had only a few global pop stars. Now I can buy music from the websites of artists and there is a plethora of music available which is served to me by algorithms finding similar music I like. This of course makes it a highly diverse field with various subcultures. Perhaps only the actually teenagers, who are starting to listen to music for the first time are conservative in still behaving in the old mold and follow 'superstars' of the day, hence go with the old norms.

What else are the EU supposed to do? Deny the request and have us leave without a deal? They don't want that. — Michael

Of course, IF the EU would be a genuine federation which would behave as real sovereign state, it would have the option to basically shove the Brexit up the UK's ass sideways as a warning to any other state considering leaving the Union. It would then try, first and foremost, to take away the position of the City of London enjoys in the financial markets. The evil money laundering London banks would be a nice populist discourse. And have that no-deal Brexit if the UK doesn't submit. It could possibly lure Scotland to remain in the EU by promising that if Scotland would want independence it would be immediately recognized by the EU and the new country would automatically inherit the position of the UK. Imagine the talk then of the Anglo-Scottish border from over 300 years ago being erected again.

Of course the above is totally ludicrous and crazy. The EU would not and could not act like that. And this just shows that the EU isn't at all one coherent entity or actor like the United States of America. And hence the above shows how the discourse of "Brussels" taking power away from it's members is nonsense: the EU simply doesn't have the ability to truly control it's member states. The idea of a tight federation is not only wrong, it is detrimental. The European Union cannot be anything else than a confederation of independent states.

The EU benefits if there is some agreement on trade between the UK and its constituents. Instead of disrupting trade unnecessarily due to a hard Brexit, they've opted for a delay. That is still making a choice. — Benkei

The EU benefits with the UK being in the EU. So we will continue to October... to only then perhaps start the final (?) transfer time for Brexit.

So, I guess I should be asking how many British here will be eagerly voting on the EU elections in May? Will Nigel Farage, one of your present EU Parliament members be running for re-election?

I wonder how many years will the UK be leaving the EU.

Thinking about the incident further,

I think is academic philosophers make terrible government officials. Scruton isn't an official, but just sitting in one committee or more (haven't researched the backstory more), makes you one. Once having that committee seat however unimportant, free speach does go the drain. You are talking as if representing the British government in this case. And naturally someone like Scruton will speak his mind bluntly even if angers Hungary or China (or people think these sovereigns are angered about the comments) as it surely angers those who are in the left. I assume this incident won't be seen in this light, but the narrative will be that this is an example on how conservative speakers are attacked today. Another example of this is Jordan Peterson and Cambridge University rescinding a two month employment after a student union protested about it. All I can say that people shouldn't engage in what they criticize, hence the victimhood card shouldn't be used here.

Well, hopefully (and likely) the bogus accusations don't effect Scruton status. And likely they will just increase interest on what he says. I think he makes a good point especiallly about the humanities. Humanities should be against the kind 'scientism' that does lead to nonsense when applied to the humanities.



No islamophobia, anti-semitism or hate speech here either.

I've listened to some lectures and speeches that Scruton has given. I don't think he is at all anything like an anti-semite. Just a traditional conservative British academician. Of course this was a political move and Scruton was already critisized when he was appointed to the political position.

Tells how restrained and Limited public speech has become today. Shows the reality.

So this is dragged to October.

So then (or later) a later date is given when Brexit actually happens, I think.

Again EU is showing it's inability to do anything.

I apologise for the delay in fixing my link. Please try it again. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Saw this earlier, btw. Really sad to look at how Seattle has changed from my childhood in the early 1980's. It was a really nice city back then.

It tells how the US has a problem in basically doing the correct thing and how a liberal city can make things worse: first, the hysteria against any social programs that would intervene in the "freedoms" of the individual or any program depicted as socialist makes it extremely difficult to implement them. Secondly, the permissive "liberal" policies are then unable to handle crime that comes with a drug epidemic and simply turns into denial.

Are you happy to know you will die? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I nearly died last year. Happy about every day that I have lived after that. The real thing that would have sucked is that I have two young children and loving wife, who I wouldn't want to become a widow at her age. My own mother died when I was 17 so I can relate somehow to the loss of a parent. I can imagine how it would have felt if I would have been 12. As my daughter is 6, she wouldn't remember so much about me later.

Death is more about the people you leave behind, the one's who you are important to. They are the one's that are affected. People might be religious and believe in Heaven or some kind of afterlife, or be atheists and conclude that in death your body goes into recycling and your thinking simply ceases to exist. Have it one way or the other, it's same the people who live that mourn, not the people dead.

Old people can genuinely want to die: they have lost all their friends, they have seen it all and being old when you cannot do anything can be boring. I don't shed much tears for them. It's when young children die that gets to you. That is really sad.

I'm willing to grant that Islam itself is not the problem, but we can't deny the obvious superiority of life in the US than in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or even Pakistan and those people's reliance upon their religion to support their continued way of life. — Hanover

I don't think all Saudi's have it so bad.

ou seldomly don't hear (from Christians) that Islam and Christianity are Abrahamic religions you mean. — Anaxagoras

What you hear about is of a Judeo-Christian heritage from Christians.

Perhaps some Finnish Bishop might talk about both being Abrahamic religions, but then again he (or she) is here a semi-official here as there is no clear separation of Church and state.

You think that Muslims should be judged for being Muslim rather than as individuals? — Judaka

No. Just as Christians shouldn't be judged as Christian, but as individuals.

My point is that the beliefs of a Muslim, by it's definition of a muslim being an adherent of Islam, means that they follow their religion. Hence your statement earlier is illogical.

In political discussions I am often labelled a "liberal" because I mostly favor a progressive agenda. But I insist I am NOT a liberal...which is a label. I am satisfied to offer my views on anything...and prefer that those views not pigeonhole me with a label. — Frank Apisa

Giving labels to other people and then attacking the worst stereotypes of the followers of that "ism" is an easy method to circumvent actual discussion. It's quite luring to do this. Just think your own actions if you, as a mostly progressive person, would have to make small talk with a person who would start with saying "I voted Trump in the last election".

Nobody starts small talk with a stranger like this anywhere. If the other person is totally on the opposite side, the situation is awkward. Of course it shouldn't be so, if we truly would be open to ideas of others and respect each other.

I believe that Muslims should be judged for what they believe and do and not the religion they follow — Judaka

And we have a winner for the "Illogical statement of the day"-competition.

My question is this: Should such a large part of the economy really rely on military technology production and maintenance. — christian2017

The US can live with a huge military industrial complex easily. It is not detrimental like it was to the Soviet Union: people aren't poor in the US because of the military industrial complex. Also it should be noted that at least earlier a lot of innovations came from the military-industrial complex that have benefited the peace time society.

Does it make sense to spend so much money to protect our soldiers from the enemies weapons when i would argue its our own society that has indirectly led to their death? Thoughts and opinions. — christian2017

This reasoning is a bit confusing. Why wouldn't you give the best medical treatment when you are able to give it in wartime? First and foremost, one has to notice the huge leaps that military medical treatment has gone through and that the US enjoys air superiority in all it's wars (which enables quick MEDEVAC by helicopter). Just look at the statistics of soldiers wounded in the Iraq war compared to the fallen, for example. The death toll would be multiple times higher if the war had been fought in the 1940's.

And suicides? As this is about veterans, the question of more about present day society than the military.

Western and Islamic civilizations have much in common. They both have their cultural roots in Mediterranean Iron Age. They both remember Abraham, Jesus, and Aristotle. We might call them cousins, and one is not more moral than the other. — frank

Not only remember, basically it's the same God, actually. Yet you seldom hear anyone referring to the fact that both Christianity and Islam are Abrahamic religions.

The trouble I see with -isms is how we tend to become tribally identified with them, with a particular side of a conflictual divide on a question. It often seems that it ends up being more about protecting that group identity than trying to get closer to the truth. So people dig in, no matter how well the opposition argues. — petrichor

People simply assume that they know what the others think. Why listen or engage in a discussion then?

What do you think about the OP? — frank

We should start thread on why Russians and those with Russian ancestry are huge bigots, about the detrimental effect they have on our tolerant Western society, how bad and immoral the Russian society is and how superior our West European/North American values are to their values... :wink:

No really, the OP shows clearly how difficult it is to talk about differences in culture. It shows clearly that when talking about Western values and morals etc. the tone easily gets to be condescending and offensive, especially when the contrast to Islam is discussed. Actually, I've noted that when today 'Western culture/values' are generally discussed, the narrative is typically how Western freedoms, ideals and morals contrast to ISIS and the intolerance of the present day Muslim culture. The huge elephant in the room then, China and Chinese culture are totally left out from the argument as are other Asian cultures.

Not a fan of the present day PC culture, but I still uphold some level of cordiality. And in my view Western culture doesn't need this kind of pep talk.

My questions to you: do you consume this form of media, has any of the content or conversation had an impact on your worldview, do you feel it will become more prominent and do you feel it’s capable of shaping broader social conversation or will it just stay on the margins of the web? — aporiap

When I'm driving, walking, doing some ordinary house work I do listen to these podcasts you refer to. This is because +1 hour debates or lectures do take time. It doesn't have much impact on my whole World view (old dogs don't learn new tricks), yet you learn a lot from them. I also listen to various think tanks, both conservative and leftist/progressive like Brookings Institute, CSIS or Cato-Institute. Then also some University podcasts are very interesting, and for example Oxford Union is one of my favourites. Bloggingheads Tv on Youtube is another interesting format, where two persons, typically academic people talk about various issues.

I don't think the template will be a huge success, but if you want to hear what people actually have to say, then listening something longer than few minutes and that has various speakers and a Q&A in the end are quite beneficial. Many times the actual lectures can be very surprising as you see what kind of a mirage the media can paint about some people.

I think the only thing lacking is basically is that these podcasts and Youtube-videos cannot be made in "Chatham House" rules, basically the rule you can refer to what was said in the talk, but you cannot say who has said what. Especially in politics, this is a huge issue. Politicians and military personnel simply don't dare to say what they actually think in the open public sphere what they think as any their opposition can have a field day if their message can be interpreted in a bad way.

And naturally what is surely lacking is the non-public disclosure of issues. The debate that isn't given to the public and basically is secret can be the most educative and eyeopening. And this is extremely unfortunate especially in a democracy where a totally different narrative or debate emerges behind closed doors.

Anyway, I drifted off the subject, but only wanted to mention that public discourse even in our democracies is limited, unfortunately.

Ilya, you seem to just love stereotypes, just like with the "Jews and Europeans" thread.

Well, Americans have a long tradition in being bigots to each other. I was surprised that terms like "White trash" are from the early 19th Century and the term "redneck" comes also from the 19th Century. A condescending attitude toward rural people, especially the rural poor, among the urban people might be universal, but seldom is it done with similar ferocity and passion as in the US.

Does this sound correct? Is the (what I call) 'level playing field' problem an issue that can be resolved without appealing to notions like starting from scratch or tabula rasa? — Wallows

I think that there are many problem with idealist libertarianism, like with libertarians who are anarcho-capitalists.

The 'level playing field' isn't the only problem. Another problem is that when any libertarian envisages an libertarian society simply assumes defence of the state with an armed forces, hopefully made of libertarian 'citizen soldiers'. The ideological problem with this is that there seldom is anything more collective, more against libertarian individualism than the idea of an armed forces. Even libertarians don't assume that the role of the armed forces can be better solved with the market mechanism: having competing armed groups isn't good idea in any society. And when you open up the role of the government to defence, you also open up the whole discussion for everything else the government can defend.

The next natural problem is democracy. You see, in the perfect function libertarian state, let's say something equivalent of Switzerland, thanks to the liberty in the society other political ideologies would prosper. And of course there indeed are the left-libertarians, like Chomsky. The Bernie type socialists would prosper very well in a libertarian society and they would get their socialism-light through. Just look at, well, Switzerland.

One may begin to see the whole appeal of libertarianism by those nefarious elements that promote it. — Wallows

Yet don't confuse those talking heads for the present system that portray themselves to be libertarians always to be true libertarians. For example, a true libertarian doesn't have any issue with there being trade unions, assuming they are voluntary organizations, and will accept the idea that workers can group together when meeting their employers.

Just look at how many of the so-called libertarians just loose it when you talk about trade-unions.

ssu, who seems aligned with me (and typically he's very much not, so I'm trying to get use to this) is Finnish, a progressively liberal Scandinavian country — Hanover

Lol. Indeed we Europeans can be confusing to Americans. Our right wing conservatives might seem not even to be RINOs, but some centrist Democrats if not pure pinko-liberals.

I admit, I'm probably missing something due to my own historical ignorance, but I don't understand the relevance of that to what we were talking about. — csalisbury

Well, it goes to the narrative of how NATO enlargement is explained. Was it an example of American hegemonic expansionist imperialism or had it something to do with the countries (and former Soviet states) that had been occupied by the Soviet Union not trusting Russia? Or more clearly: do you think that the war in Ukraine can be blaimed on the US? And if not fully, at least partly? That's the guilt hubris I refer to.

Wanting to kill humans for the sake of the planet is such an unpragmatic, foolish way of thinking. Impractical, nonsensical nature-orientated altruism and you found someone who's so unpragmatic in his thinking that while he wants to cull humanity down or get rid of humanity completely, he's defending his own existence with the same kind of reasoning that most other people would use. Great. — Judaka

Of course he made excuses along the lines of “suicide is an irrational decision based on his productivity as a contributor to family and community” blah blah blah. — Anaxagoras

There you have it, it is blah blab blah.

"Humans are a virus that is killing the planet" is a trendy sounding quasi-intellectual statement which people like hipsters can adhere to (even if your friend isn't one).

I think every “nation,” or otherwise arbitrary geographic delineation, is guilty of exporting it’s trauma to gain immediate benefits. — I like sushi

What do you mean by this? And how has Andorra exported it's trauma?

We know that humans are all too willing to accept responsibility for positive outcomes (even when they did literally nothing) — I like sushi

Are they in this case? Just take South Korea and America. How many American see it as a positive outcome that South Korea survived and then accept responsibility of the positive outcome? When put like this, few might disagree (and assume the Koreans would be better off with the whole Korean Peninsula under the juche-ideology). However this isn't the point. How many talk of this?

Because the way I see it the discourse just sidelines the whole issue and focuses on the intervention in Vietnam.

It would seem that it must be Chomsky himself who would be the top intellectual, which should come as no surprise. — Hanover

Chomsky doesn't even hide this.

The bigger question is whether the West has been overall shameful in its behaviors. The predominant liberal view is that it has, despite the view of the right that says it has not. The left is thought of as apologetic and therefore understanding and the right unapologetic and therefore stubborn. — Hanover

As Πετροκότσυφας pointed out, the definition of the West is quite vague and hence the question of it being shameful or not overall is a quite confusing question. Yet the stands taken by the political field here, even if a bit stereotypical, are how you define it. The sad thing is that when there is this kind of division along the political fault lines, people think that you are making a political statement when discussing the issue. Or worse, just reurgitating what the talking heads on your side have poured in your head.

I do not think one race is superior to another, or even much different. — Bitter Crank

Me neither. In fact it seems even the racists have let go of the idea of whites being so superior to Asians, which is telling (and amusing). Yet it feels like that above definition of racism, the way I interpret it also, is being replaced with a broader or another definition. Perhaps as a justification to seeing abundant racism when the old-school late 19th - early 20th Century ideas of white supremacy are quite dead.