Maybe you’re just surprised that someone who’s done those jobs can write and spell.

It feels very patronising of me to make that list.

And why should I have to show you credentials to talk about the common man?

Are you satisfied?

Come on.

However I have to say it seems extremely patronising to do what I’ve just done.

the credibility to pontificate on his life. — T Clark

I’m hardly pontificating on his life.

However if it makes any difference you I’ll give you some of my work history:

Worked on a construction site

Worked as a cleaner at a girls’ school

Drove a van delivering mail

Cleaned out animal compounds at a marine park


I don’t think this proves much, but hopefully it satisfies you.

Yes - it can be condescending, arrogant and disrespectful. — Possibility

Of course it can be used that way. But I’m not using it to be “condescending, arrogant and disrespectful”. So let’s drop that angle and continue with the discussion in the terms it’s meant.

First - Have you ever worked for a living? Where you actually had to live off what you made? — T Clark

What is it that makes you ask this?

Of course I’ve worked for a living. Does that satisfy you?

I’m not your enemy here.

What ignorance and arrogance?

And if I give you my work history would you believe me?

Have any of you ever worked for a living? — T Clark

Oh, don’t be so boring and sanctimonious.

I tend to interpret the ‘common man’ as simply a lack of self-reflection. — Possibility

Yes, imagine you would. It sounds like you’re saying that ‘the common man’ doesn’t know who he is and what he’s doing and why. Consequently someone else must do it for him.

From an essay by G. K Chesterton. The Common Man

“To put it briefly; it is now the custom to say that most modern blunders have been due to the Common Man.  And I should like to point out what appalling blunders have in fact been due to the Uncommon Man.  It is easy enough to argue that the mob makes mistakes; but as a fact it never has a chance even to make mistakes until its superiors have used their superiority to make much worse mistakes.  It is easy to weary of democracy and cry out for an intellectual aristocracy.  But the trouble is that every intellectual aristocracy seems to have been utterly unintellectual.  Anybody might guess beforehand that there would be blunders of the ignorant.  What nobody could have guessed, what nobody could have dreamed of in a nightmare, what no morbid mortal imagination could ever have dared to imagine, was the mistakes of the well-informed.  It is true, in a sense, to say that the mob has always been led by more educated men.  It is much more true, in every sense, to say that it has always been misled by educated men.  It is easy enough to say the cultured man should be the crowd’s guide, philosopher and friend.  Unfortunately, he has nearly always been a misguiding guide, a false friend and a very shallow philosopher.  And the actual catastrophes we have suffered, including those we are now suffering, have not in historical fact been due to the prosaic practical people who are supposed to know nothing, but almost invariably to the highly theoretical people who knew that they knew everything.  The world may learn by its mistakes; but they are mostly the mistakes of the learned.”

I don't see leftist politics as postmodern. — Coben

No, nor do I, though they have got into bed with post modernist thought and found themselves, possibly unintentionally, far removed from their original constituency.

Nor should it be assumed that the common man votes for the right. For many years the political left represented the immediate concerns of the common man, like wages, working conditions, and general social issues. But it was the right that represented their deep seated values, like family values, institutions, morals, etc.

I can’t help thinking that the common man is looked down on by people (who I’m reluctant to define: inner city, whatever) because his life just looks so ordinary to those who need constant stimulation, constant new experiences and as a result constant change. And yet it’s the ‘ordinaryness’ that’s behind his survival against all the ‘isms’. Whatever you people might think, he is a survivor. I don’t know why his values are so shunned.

Yes, of course. I don’t know why I asked.

It is pretty much inherent in postmodernism, though some adherent may not be consistent about it, that people cannot possibly tell other what is better for them. — Coben

Of course you’re right, but that does not mean it isn’t happening right now. Refer back to my quote about the Australian elections.

I started what you quoted with 'one aspect' I later gave a couple of examples of how postmodernism, in more charged areas does not necessarily go against 'the common man'.. — Coben

I understand that. I just felt that a definition needed to be a bit broader.

common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress. Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. — Brett

The common man would most assuredly be for the first part of this quote and against the last part. Those post modern ideas are a direct threat to their view of life.

And this description includes attitudes that the common man has. Skepticism about progress, rejection of many grand narratives. The common man is often cynical of politics in general. And certainly critical of the grand narratives of modernism.... — Coben

I think there are more things about modernism the common man would be comfortable with than not, as your quote indicates. Though I might not agree with his being critical of the grand narrative.

Because the common man and post modernists share some dislike of modernism doesn’t mean they wish to share the same bed.

Modernism is a very intellectual movement and the common man and postmodernism share a criticism of it. At least, often they do. Sometimes, as I pointed out, the common man will agree whole heartedly with postmodernism's acceptance of their tastes as just as valid as elite tastes. — Coben

I don’t think the common man would think for one moment that the post modernist shows acceptance of their tastes. The success of low art, for instance, has nothing to do with the common man. In most cases they would be baffled by low art, or find it without value according to their outlook on life,

The complaint was about Nike's use of a flag that had more recently been appropriated by white supremacists, regardless of Ross' personal politics. — Pierre-Normand

Isn’t it possible that by doing this they’re allowing white supremacists to take ownership of the flag. Shouldn’t they resist this by actually using it themselves. If you let them own it then it will, like the swastika, become an emblem of what their beliefs and consequently be avoided as seems to be happening. This seems counter productive to me..

ONe aspect of postmodernism was the idea that there isn't high and low art, just art, which opened the door to all sorts of things not really considered art: anything from comics to soap operas to advertising to pop music. In this the common man was respected, at least un-disrespected, because his or her tastes were no longer low, they were just tastes. — Coben

I don’t think that’s enough of a description of post modernism as it relates to ‘the common man’ or anyone for that matter.

This describes it a bit more thoroughly:

“ ... postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection of the grand narratives and ideologies of modernism ... common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress. Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence.” Wikipedia

As well, I only brought up post modernism as one of many ‘isms’ the ‘common man’ has seen and go. Though it seems reasonably clear to me that the nature of post modernism would have little relationship to his daily life, or benefit, and that he’s seen many groups who know what’s better for him fall away and he still remains.

I wasn’t after what it means, I was after ‘ what next?’.

it illustrates that symbols and icons, just like words (think of the N-word, for instance) can't always be claimed by their users to mean what they want them to mean — Pierre-Normand

That’s a persuasive point and if it means that words can’t always be claimed by their users to mean what they want them to mean then what next?

don't think suicide as being irrational. Some might even say that suicide is the result of an overly-rational mind. — Wallows

The response to the intolerable situation of suicide might be a rational decision but it’s a decision based on a lot of pressure which wouldn’t seem to allow much room for calm objective thinking.

I think it’s truly fitting that Kaepernick should turn around and bite the hand that feeds him. They deserve each other and hopefully they will neutralise each other. Nike tried to play a very subtle game (not so subtle). What now?

Long live the common sense of the common man!

Any ideas? — Maximum7

The ability to mine time, like a quarry. Chunks of it can be transformed into solid blocks of different sizes for transport and sale. Extremely valuable, obviously and also open to a black market of unstable time. Buying units of time to add to your zone obviously have interesting consequences, as does mining and selling it.

It's the same rhetoric as back then — Noblosh

I’m not sure what you mean there. Could you clarify it?

This is an interesting statistic, though a little old.

Australian men aged over 85 have the highest suicide rate in Australia, and more than double that of teenagers, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015 data

Also, a very interesting and well written book on his experience with depression and suicidal thoughts is ‘Darkness Visible’ by William Styron.

One of the things I remember Styron saying, I think it was him, was that he had reached s point where his mind was actually in such pain that he didn’t feel he could deal with it anymore. Note that he said his mind, not his head or brain.

No, if they have the term ‘armed females’ in their name then they represent the views or condition of armed females. — Possibility

Okay. Then if they have term ‘females’ in their name then doesn’t it follow that they represent the views or conditions of females. What’s a feminist if not someone representing the views of women and only women?

Edit: okay, I think I see, a feminist is someone who advocates for women’s rights.

A new society very often forms from people who just previously went through calamity and thus i would call them hardened poor. Lets not get carried away arguing about the term i chose. Perhaps you have a better term or label to use for this discussion. — christian2017

I like the term ‘hardened poor’, I would also use ‘pragmatic’.

However, it's my guesstimate that one of these theories has a greater scope than the other. I mean one may be applicable 99% of the time and the other a lesser 95% of the time. If that's the case then people, knowingly or not, will favor one over the other. I'm trying to figure that out. — TheMadFool

Then I would chose Consequentialism. Choosing an act that has a good outcome is the basis behind the stability of our early tribes/societies and its continuing to flourish and support our development. The morals we still feel and chose to act on are those that contributed to our success. Ideas/morals that served no social benefit, that did not give tangible benefit to our growth, withered.

Edit: everything that survives has been tested.

Hardened (keyword hardened) poor people tend to reject touchy feely things like post modernism. Blue collar people although very often severely flawed tend to reject post modernism (that last sentence is my opinion so don't request an article supporting that last sentence).

A new society very often forms from people who just previously went through calamity and thus i would call them hardened poor. — christian2017

An interesting view. I suspect that what you call ‘blue collar people’, or ‘hardened poor’ may be the future.

i believe society would quickly collapse due to people no longer agreeing on moral principles — christian2017

There would probably be a new society in its place with a new order. We may not like it but it would be real. Could we still call Nazi Germany a society?

Its funny many women won't respect a man who doesn't acknowledge that anger is necessary sometimes — christian2017

Evidence for this?

“ And also women who don't like men who get angry actually will very often let their emotions spew out into anger contrary to their testimony.”

Means, what?

“Ocassio Cortez is a prime example.”

Example of what?

As a woman, if I believe I need a gun to feel safe, then there is something fundamentally askew - and it’s NOT with the world - it’s either with how I interact with the world, or how I think the world sees me. — Possibility

There’s something about this that just doesn’t add up. Your position seems to be that if you believe you need a gun to feel safe then the problem is with you, that it’s with your perception of the world. As if you’re projecting your subjective fear onto the world at large, which is not as you see it (and you comprehend this), and that it’s really a peaceful loving world and there is no, or little, chance of anyone out there with malicious attitudes ever coming into contact with you. Does it also, then, mean that there is nothing to fear out there but fear itself, that you must convince yourself that your fears are only projections and not real. Where does this begin and end?

AFA is NOT a feminist group. It is a group of women who support the right to carry guns. There’s a difference. — Possibility

If they have the word ‘female’ in their name then they represent the views or condition of females. Otherwise they’re concerned citizens. Why include female in your name otherwise.

I do find it odd that such a group exists.

Whichever one you prefer. I just want to find out which moral theory is ''most'' consistent IF consistency can be described in terms of having the least number of exceptions. — TheMadFool

The theory, if that’s what’s required, is an anthropological theory. I was involved, as I think nearly everyone was, in a conversation about morality that got quite heated because everyone began arguing over meaning, and everyone tried to prove their point, which I don’t feel like doing all over again if it’s going to be the same thing, not that I think you’re doing that. Suffice to say that, whatever we do, we know what is morally right. Which is why your ship finds it’s way to its destination.

quote="Anthony;302918"]society promotes adolescent behaviors, to be sure; anger, sexual deviance and narcissism are sanctioned)[/quote]

If some one's tone of voice betrays pretension...it may affect you, and sets in motion retaliatory thought-actions. So in order to prevent a snowballing that could lead to physical violence... — Anthony

These generalisations don’t help explain your theory, except to say that anger is evidenced in the smallest acts. Which is just a subjective view on your part, and consequently everyone is neurotic. Regarding pretensions: I imagine most people would probably be laughing inside rather than preparing to give someone a good thrashing.

Earlier I had asked you to address this view of yours. I’d still like to know.

Whether it’s suppression of repression, your thoughts are still that ‘Probably most high functioning "professionals" in the market society have anger issues.‘

You also said:

Anger is no emotion, it's the absence of it; the result of living with stored up repressed emotion. The sum total of repressed emotion=anger. People who get angry believe their emotions can't be trusted and hence deny them..
— Anthony

What do you mean by anger when you say ‘People who get angry’? — Brett

[

Maybe a good dose of anger returned might straighten them out. I don’t know if animals are angry when they square off (although they might show all the signs we classify as anger), but these displays of ‘anger’ remain that and no one gets seriously hurt. So I see our anger in a similar light. Maybe there is a neurotic anger, but maybe I’m talking about ‘healthy’ anger.

Deep depression is when anger is also repressed, — Wallows

Well that makes sense. Anger being a natural aspect of being human, but then regarded as wrong and neurotic.

Interesting, yes.

I don’t think anger can be parcelled up into the idea of neurosis.

My point about his comment on ‘professionals, is that generally I don’t see evidence of anger. They may definitely suppress their feelings of anger in certain situations, but I don’t see a display of uncontrolled anger. I don’t agree with defining aspects of human nature as neurotic. They may seem out of place in certain circumstances, but that doesn’t mean it’s neurotic. Possibly in today’s society anger management is important, but it’s not neurotic behaviour, it’s behaviour that’s now out of place in a highly populated environment.

According to Anthony, a neurosis. — Wallows

All anger?

I suspect anger to be an infantile response to some lack or desire unfulfilled. — Wallows

I suspect, though I’m no authority, that anger has a function.
If I look up the meaning of anger I find that it can be any number of things: passive anger, aggressive anger and assertive anger. Passive anger can be “giving someone the cold shoulder or a fake smile, looking unconcerned or "sitting on the fence" while others sort things out”. Wikipedia.

Looking for its function in that forest won’t be easy. So, as usual, we’ve managed to muddy the waters.