Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby WendyDarling » Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:19 pm

Why are the social engineers pushing the agenda to erase the perceived difference of identity? To create a degenerative, sick society which is easier to control.

Identity is being pushed to become more of a social construct, to be superficial as if it holds no importance. Look everyone is the same since we are being taught to think the same and feel the same which is an insidious social construct. National identities are under attack with the open borders as well as social identities of erasing cultures and histories. Importing huge foreign populations who will not assimilate completely to displace and out vote the national population, defacing monuments and buildings, changing the laws to infringe on the original citizens ways of life, their freedom of speech, their safety to have police protections, and justice, to be able to walk alone without harassment or battery in immigrant neighborhoods. What is happening is outrageous!

Truly on the surface regarding the big necessities we are alike, we need air, food, shelter, companionship, and communication, but once we surpass our rudimentary biological needs, we have more individualized and unique identities we express biologically through our highly individualized genetics.

Personal identity is immutably tied to the reality of genetics, but the social engineers seem to want everyone to refrain from sexuality or to racially blend together dissolving genetic differences as if that endeavor is not a death sentence for the future existence of mankind. In the very least it makes the aspect of controlling the masses an easier feat when you have no clear bloodline, an unstable family, no home, no neighborhood, no city or state, no country. Yes, in globalization we can become like one since everything we are is shared. But aren't we called mankind in light that there are evident biological differences between men and women and between the races, there are kinds of both, hence mankind?

Gender blending to get rid of sexual and genetic identity is already underway in the trans, gender fluid, queer, etc. community and this mentality to not claim a gender or sexual identity is spreading like a disease towards the majority who want no part in this dystopian degenerative future, that it's okay to be nothing, to represent nothing, to just exist but contribute no offspring to society, to choose to die out. Then there's also racial blending which has never been more pushed down one's throat as it is through the entertainment and media outlets today, so the racial box of crayons will eventually die out as well. What does this mean? Bigger and harder pushes for communistic globalism.

All the individuality will be bred out of society along with genetic advantages. Notice how interracial relationships are highly visible in ads and shows just as homosexual relationships are being normalized...ain't that cool, be a sheep and jump on the bandwagon the social scientists have certified that it's alright. Co-mingle and reproduce to destroy the separate genetic lines, destroy your identity and the identity of your ancestors to become nothing, to end your past, your history and throw away your future or abstain from scientifically sane and reproductive viability altogether by being queer or gay and end your bloodline that route. Either way the social engineers seem to be guiding mankind to dissolve who and what he or she is, to eventually stop existing. Is this a form of soft population control? Most certainly but it all started with the attacks against the family structures in the 1960's with the epic welfare pushes disguised as socialism but lurking in the background a communist religion, a communist underpinning, globalism in the making.

The Asians and Ashkenazim Jews will no longer be more intelligent than all others. Everyone will be officially dumbed-down. The dark skinned Africans will no longer be the strongest athletes, relegated to become mulattoes with average abilities. Asians and South Americans will gain a few inches in height while Europeans and Africans will lose a few inches in height until everyone is so similar that there won't be any perceivable differences. I said in another thread everyone will come to have brown hair, brown eyes, 5'7 (feminized men and emasculated women), 140lbs/64kg, med. brown skin color and most will choose not to reproduce as more and more young people are choosing today due to the agenda that is in full swing now. The agenda also includes destroying the family unit consisting of a mother and a father who are married and live and work on a daily basis as a team supporting the identity and well-being of their children. No dependable family structure where both biologically different parents partner in natural ways conducive to the psychological well-being of every child who has a healthy modeling of a cohesive family unit means that familial relations are tenuous, and easily dismissed as unimportant. United families can provide severe resistance against any type of tyranny, but destroy the natural family unit and the children become way more damaged leading to the world becoming unraveled as those children become adults.

There is no utopian communist globalism. Communism doesn't work, the Bolsheviks tried it and genocided more than 8 million Christians through torture and starvation. Is anyone talking about that genocide? That failure, no, we'll now call it socialism? Hide what it really is. But the same type of communism, namely called globalism or the NWO, is still alive and biding its time until every trace of perceived identities is erased and the masses are sufficiently brainwashed into thinking that differences don't count, identities don't matter, when anyone with half a brain realizes that they do.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7272
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby promethean75 » Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:37 pm

so basically what we're experiencing could even be called a sociological punctuated equilibrium, something which is being encouraged to happen to get the jump on the much slower, but inevitably more violent and therefore conducive to conflict, process of cultural gradualism. in laymen's terms, this means; all these muthafuckers will eventually run out of room and start fighting each other anyway, so we better start merging them together to prevent the big crunch. as such, globalism is doing the more reasonable thing. it's getting a grip on a natural process so to be able to control and direct it more productively. now of course nobody likes this because, for example, asians like egg noodles, neon lighted dance clubs, and stories of the samurai while mexicans like refried beans, old stucco buildings, and tales of aztec sacrifices. all these little scattered peoples across the earf got their histories which define them and give them meaning, and the thought of losing these things can be very discouraging. people need to believe that their identity extends further than what they are at this very moment; the importance of bloodline, heritage, custom, language, family and all the other stuff that embodies the things they think they are a part of, an extension of. this explains why a kid somewhere who read about his viking ancestors goes straight to the barber shop to get a mohawk. now even though his ancestral 'past' has absolutely no reality outside of his infantile, romantic fantasies, he needs to believe his life is more significant. that by wearing his mohawk and combat boots, he issues forth the spirit of his ancestors and becomes imbued with the unique power of his people. rammstein is for him what wagner was for the nazis.

but alas, evolution works forward and cares absolutely nothing about what happened a decade or century or millennia ago. therefore, in terms of 'progress', the past has no relevance other than as a record of trials and errors that everyone shares, regardless of their cultural identity. so there are no experiences for any culture that are so unique as to make them more or less human than any other culture. but we're still in the tribal stage of our evolution wherein group of monkeys x are isolated and separated from group of monkeys y. they're all monkeys... they just don't like the other monkeys and don't want to mix with em.

so the task of the evil, new world order is to herd all the monkeys into one group so that they don't kill each other prematurely before they have the possibility to assimilate. to most, this is a terrifying prospect. they're transfixed by the blue light, and stand frozen like deer in the headlights. but not us, wendy, we intrepid ones, who gaze like mad scientists much further into the future.
promethean75
Thinker
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby WendyDarling » Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:49 pm

Prom wrote
so the task of the evil, new world order is to herd all the monkeys into one group so that they don't kill each other prematurely before they have the possibility to assimilate. to most, this is a terrifying prospect. they're transfixed by the blue light, and stand frozen like deer in the headlights. but not us, wendy, we intrepid ones, who gaze like mad scientists much further into the future.

The task of the New World Order is to decrease the population and one sure fire way is by herding all the different kinds of animals together which will inevitably lead to the unnaturally premature deaths of many of those animals. We are different for reasons that are not as superficial as you jest and there will always be divides that become oceans between groups of dissimilar peoples.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7272
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby Silhouette » Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:54 pm

I can give this one a go, but let it be known that the views expressed henceforth do not necessarily reflect my own (disclaimer! :D )

So in Ethology and behavioural sciences, there is such a distinction as tournament species versus pair-bonding species. Another concept is kin selection which I'll get to in a bit. The names are fairly self-explanatory: tournament species have high sexual dimorphism, there's high competition between males for mating rites with as many females as possible and often a single breeding male must fend off all competition by force - evolution is geared towards physical superiority in males hence the dimorphism (difference in size and shape between the sexes) which isn't selected for in females, and sex is neither commital nor exclusive. As you can imagine, pair-bonding is the converse, where sexual dimorphism is minimal, and monogamous relationships form long term. The advantage is the offspring have two parents equally invested in bringing them up right: more concentration of resources into quality as opposites to the quantity oriented approach of the tournament species, but at least the latter mostly pass on the best male-supplied genes (though there is sneaking and cheating success from the non-alphas). Both work, one isn't better than the other, but each can work better depending on what species you are at the time.

As you will guess, humans are somewhere in the middle, but more relevant to this topic - they may be tending towards pair-bonding, with lower sexual dimorphism i.e. less competition to reproduce bringing male shapes and sizes closer to the females because bigger stronger physicality is less necessary.

But as promised - to "kin selection". What does this add to the overall picture I'm painting here?
This is the preference to sacrifice more for those with whom you have genes in common - that is to say cooperative behaviour is heightened given that selection is in favour of those with genes who help each other collectively pass on not only their own copies but the same copies in others. But this is where it gets interesting: artifically imitating similarity provokes the same response in what's called "pseudo-kinship" - think "uniforms", religion and nationalism: some token by which groups can identify as similar like kin are to one another, but on a scale much larger - fostering much more wide-reaching cooperation.

Now contrast the pair-bonding strategy and pseudo-kinship with the notion of "civility".

It is civilised to not perform violence but instead to cooperate - and all this nonsense I've been going on about comes together to sufficiently explain this phenonmenon of "erasing the perceived difference of identity".

I find it tends to be much more accurate to couch such trends in scientific theory than to accuse sickness and corruption. Are pair-bonding, pseudo-kinship cooperative strategies necessarily a degeneration? Nietzsche would class such a thing as "décadence" and the emergence of "the Last Man" or Untermensch. Game Theory would identify evolution as an "infinitely long game" - genes don't win or lose, they just need a winning long term strategy, and the internet is lessening the degree of "imperfect information". The more everyone knows what everyone else knows, the less risk there is, and no players may have a winning strategy. It makes sense that we tend towards conformity and uniformity.

Another possible outcome might be that we are tending towards more of a "swarm" type species, with all our "workers" living to invest in the queen, except the queen is an ideology rather than a physical ruler, from which we have moved on in terms of Historical Materialism.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3797
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:53 am

The heterosexual family unit has existed for absolutely all of human civilisation so is in precisely no danger of becoming extinct anytime soon
The single biggest danger to the planet is actually overpopulation even though not everyone is born of parents in a monogamous relationship

Most men are straight and most women are straight and so their natural sexual partners will be each other including their long term ones
The fact that LGBT people are now more open here in the West does not affect the birth rate for heterosexuality is so dominant anyway
The human race is not going to suddenly become extinct just because gays and lesbians choose not to have children [ though not all do ]
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby promethean75 » Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:05 pm

I find it tends to be much more accurate to couch such trends in scientific theory than to accuse sickness and corruption. Are pair-bonding, pseudo-kinship cooperative strategies necessarily a degeneration? Nietzsche would class such a thing as "décadence" and the emergence of "the Last Man" or Untermensch.


but he'd also admit that a degree of baseness and mediocrity is necessary to sustain a civilization, so such instructions are not meant to be prescriptive for everyone. had he the scientific knowledge we now have in modern evolutionary biology, he'd probably not object to this relatively new evolutionarily stable strategy as being an indication of degeneracy. and there again, he'd not judge one kind of morality by the standards of the other. so the 'last man' contra 'ubermench' debate should be about dividing those who recognize and accept what is necessary in evolutionary process, and those who simply are that evolutionary process (material to be worked on).

today, the classification of the 'last man' is reversed; those perennial conservatives and romantic sentimentalists who are afraid to allow evolution to take risks, to experiment, to move freely and unhindered by history. in short, those who hold on to 'old ideals'... these are the last men. formerly, though, these types were the ubermenschen; once upon a time the great risk and experiment was to attempt to establish a foundation for conservative values among a wanton and disorganized society (e.g., the origination of the monogamous family unit for the purposes of passing on wealth through inheritance [engels]). another example... 20th century german ideology... well fascism in general, this was the last great expression of the ubermensch. and with this failed attempt also died any notion that would justify the authority and privilege of a ruling class over the masses. in other words, there are no more noble and spiritually evolved ubermenschen above and beyond the majority that act to give society direction, goals and substance... something that was possible only while countries were economically and culturally isolated (the 20th century pre-globalism stage).

only the bourgeois exist now, a gross embarrassment to the concept of the ubermensch. in turn, the concept of the last man has lost its certainty and become just as obscure. today, most who'd like to think of themselves as ubermensch are in fact just rogue last men, so to speak, who believe they stand above the mediocre simply because of their purposeful disassociation with them.

to be the ubermensch today would require someone to be so radical, so unique, of such an exceptional nature as to not possibly be mistaken as neither a version of all the former failed attempts at it, or its current farcical incarnation as the bourgeois, that it would almost be incommunicable and unidentifiable by ordinary eyes. only the ubermensch can know the ubermensch... and when talking of the ubermensch, speak only to the ubermensch.

yes, may i speak to the ubermensch, please? hello?

fuck i musta dialed the wrong number.
promethean75
Thinker
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby Meno_ » Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:09 pm

Actually You forgot the right from the wrong number, and I must say, I regret that, we could have had such splendid conversations. LOL

In fact the evolutionary experimentation is well and good within the deterministic agenda of the ape's totally behavioral lack of self recognition , for the ape can not repeat the small child's retention of his own image.

That , perhaps is due in a large part by politocal machinations of game play in the politocal agenda , between true and fanciful ideas. Those ideas are the modern equivalent of micro managed biologic experimentation , more effective and convincing.
Normative ethics is so easy to fake in the laboratory! It really works to overcome the hypocracy by the use of contradictive but imaginative . synthesis.
It's achieved by partially differentiating appearance from reality, then promising another level of presumptive assumption upon to base another 'new- level of 'reality' of political correctness. This method works on the progressive agenda, but dissolved into general apathy on the way down.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4945
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:45 pm

The liberal elite aren't liberals, not in the classical sense of the word, nor even in the modern sense.
Classical liberals want free markets (privatization, flat and low taxes), real modern liberals want socialism (nationalization with socialization and unionization, low taxes on and lots of welfare for the working and middle classes), whereas the liberal elite want privatization or nationalization without socialization and unionization, low taxes on and lots of corporate welfare for the upper class.
We're too big to fail, they say, which's another way of saying you're too small to succeed.
They want flat and high taxes and lots of regulations for small and big business, because they know small businesses can't afford them, meanwhile big business can circumvent them much of the time, allowing them to corner the market.
They want cartels, oligopolies, not free-markets, nor socialism.

Classical liberals either want you to identify as individuals first and foremost, or they don't care what you identify with, real contemporary liberals want you to identify with humanity first and foremost, or they don't care what you identify with, they want to de-emphasize and downplay differences and are opposed to discrimination against any and all groups, not just some groups, any and all, whereas the liberal elite want you to identify with some group first and foremost, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, gay, straight, man, woman, etcetera, and then constantly stoke hatreds between them.
They say some groups are intrinsically hostile to others and privileged, that the state ought to discriminate against some on behalf of others.

I don't necessarily take issue with economic migrants, but they flood our lands with illegals and refugees from impoverished and war-torn countries to cheapen labor while they hide in their gated communities.
They say it's good for the economy, they say we owe it to them to let them in, for we went to war with them.
But if cheap labor is good for the economy, for the working and middle classes that is, which's the real economy, not GDP, than why have a minimum wage at all?
Meanwhile the people always oppose war, so long as they haven't been lied to about what the reasons for war are (no WMDs, no ties with terrorists, false flags, etcetera).
It's the politicians, banking, military and industrial cartels that take us to war.
We fight their wars for them and receive the fallout.
And to that you can add offshoring.

So who or what are the liberal elite?
Are they fascists?
While fascism comes closer to describing them than liberal, they're not fascists either, because yes even fascists have ethics, they believe in class collaboration, establishing conditions so it's both hard to rise up, and fall down the socioeconomic ladder for both the rich, and the poor, whereas the liberal elite want to widen the gap between rich and poor exponentially.
It's gone beyond that, they want to reduce the population by at least 90% with the soft-kill and enslave the remainder.

So what are they?
I have two answers.
One, they're sociopaths.
Sociopaths don't care about ethics or ideology, they want what they believe is best for them and their families and they don't care about you and yours.
Two, they're Zio-fascists.
They want what's best for Israel, especially its elite.
The ruling class by far and away are disproportionately Jewish.
The Jewish people identify with the outsider, the freak, the geek, which's in part why there's so much love for minorities, and hatred for the majority, the other parts being divide-rule, and soft-kill, in the case of transsexuality at least (trans has been shown to more than halve life expectancy and not be entirely genetic or prenatal developmentally rooted, not by a longshot, and yet they want to expose prepubescent minds to its poison)
But on the other hand, they're very clannish, clever and wealthy.
They believe the outsider is not only equal, but often superior, more noble, and powerful.
Their comic books are filled with characters very intelligent and powerful, yet also hated or mistrusted, forced to conceal their identity.
You could say this is the Jewish contribution to liberalism, if you want to call it that, third wave liberalism, if you will, whereas classical liberalism (liberty, individualism) and 2nd wave liberalism (equality, humanism) was more our (white people's) contribution.
But by and large Jews don't practice 3rd wave liberalism in Israel, it's for non-Jews only.

The elite wears many masks.
They wear conservative masks, progressive masks.
They want 50% of the population warring with the other 50%.
Controlled opposition + divide and rule = the elite playbook.
While the elite is somewhat fluid, families sometimes rise and fall, some of these families and institutions have been ruling us for centuries, even millennia.
They've gotten really good at it, and new elites like a Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg must support the agenda, or at least not oppose it, if they want to survive.
While not all elites are total scum, the vast majority of them are.
If we fight hard enough, sometimes we can improve our lot, and they'll be forced to cave to some of our demands.

These people aren't like us, they have a different culture, a different ethics and ideology, or lack thereof, a different religion and science even.
The elite know things about the world we have no clue about.
I don't feign to know exactly what they do, but I have some ideas.
Just as they wear political masks, they wear cultural ones.
They come as Christians, feminists and so on, just as hunters will wear the hides of the animals they mean to slay.
Last edited by Gloominary on Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:13 pm, edited 11 times in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby Gloominary » Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:25 am

While some ideologies may be better than others, I believe the issues we face are more the result of corruption on top and apathy on the bottom than ideology.
Most ideologies practiced with integrity would be better than what we have today.
The elite call themselves liberal, because they're supposed to be some combo of 1st (liberty, individualism) and 2nd (equality, humanism) wave liberalism, but what we have today is a perversion of liberalism.
Of course they want libertarians warring with egalitarians, nationalists warring with globalists, they want the races, religions and sexes warring.
They want the working and middle classes at each others throats, overlooking the 1 10th of 1%.
Our problem is less with any ideology or race, and while a disproportionate number of them are Jewish, it's certainly not all or even most Jews, our problem is more with these families, and until we figure that out, really see passed the left-right paradigm, I mean really instead of only feigning to, we'll never break out of the infinitesimally small box they've encouraged us to lock ourselves up in.
It's these families, it's not liberal.
Last edited by Gloominary on Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby Gloominary » Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:43 am

While I'm not saying all ideologies are equal, I am saying it's less about what ideology a politician professes, and more about who's funding them.
Ideally we ought to start re-educating ourselves and others, protesting, forming, joining and voting for third parties, but if that doesn't work, eventually this thing will collapse.
While I'd prefer to see the right combo of libertarianism and socialism, if it came down to it, and I was forced to choose between fascism and this, whatever you want to call it, 3rd wave liberalism, covert, liberal, reverse or Zio-fascism, where Jews, other minorities and women are propped up at the expense of whites and men in our nations, I'd choose the former.
What they lack in land and numbers they make up for by being clever, clannish, wealthy and subverting our liberal democracies.
And by manufacturing or subverting revolutionary uprisings.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:25 pm

Silhouette wrote:So in Ethology and behavioural sciences, there is such a distinction as tournament species versus pair-bonding species.
As tending towards pair bonding, though not as monogamous as some animals, humans might over extremely long periods move towards less dimorphism. But then, this would happen via natural selection. What's happening now is much shorter term changes coming via nurture. And in many cases imposed. IOW in some subcultures being traditionally male - let's leave that fuzzy, because I will bet it is fuzzy in the diversity of applications - can actually be treated negatively if you are male. I've lived a lot of time in extremely progressive environments and done peachy, but it seems like something new is happening. Of course being male and being traditionally male have nurture aspects and some of what is happening can be seen as trying to counter bad nurturing, but it seems to be going much further than this, nowadays. Where even referring to he and she or boys and girls is seen as negative, and various traits are trying to be stamped out top down. Not in the old way where girls might be discouraged from showing aggression and boys from crying, say, but almost the opposite, especially around the males. There are innate tendencies in the sexes and this seems to be being fought against.

And I still don't quite get why drag queens are ok, since it seems like blackface but with women.

And then transpersons - which by the way I support - is also supported by the same groups in society who are very interested in reducing sexual dimorphism and seem to think it is all cultural.

What then does it mean to feel you are really a woman inside? Why couldn't those feelings be male ones?

This movement is nto as powerful as say the church was or homophobia was in early periods in our history. But it is gaining strength and it seems often just as loopy. IOW I don't think the right is just barking at nothing.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1941
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:32 pm

Classical liberals can be individuals but modern liberals are fundamentally group orientated and diversity of opinion is therefore not tolerated
That is opinion both within and without the group and some opinion is not even allowed to be expressed and so can be countered with violence
Violence that denies the freedom of alternative views even if in all other respects they are not acceptable and this gives liberalism a bad name

Nowadays the word liberal is a term of abuse for the right just as fascist is a term of abuse for the left and each side gets tarred with the others brush
It seems to be that any issue is presented as a simple binary choice without any real attempt to understand the subtleties between all possible positions
All ideas should be freely explored within the spirit of open debate but instead the default position is the tribal mentality and so this naturally dominates
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby Gloominary » Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:41 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:Classical liberals can be individuals but modern liberals are fundamentally group orientated and diversity of opinion is therefore not tolerated
That is opinion both within and without the group and some opinion is not even allowed to be expressed and so can be countered with violence
Violence that denies the freedom of alternative views even if in all other respects they are not acceptable and this gives liberalism a bad name

It's common to divide liberals into classical and modern or contemporary.
I was aiming for something a bit more nuanced.
I divided them into classical or 1st, 2nd and 3rd wave liberalism, sort of like how feminism is divided into 3 waves.
1st wavers (libertarian, individualist) are against political discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex and so on, but they're not against economic or personal discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex and so forth.
2nd wavers (egalitarian, collectivist) are against any and all political, economic and personal discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, etcetera.
3rd waves (elitist, collectivist) are only against the racial, religious majority and men discriminating against minorities and women, they're in favor of minorities and women discriminating against the racial, religious majority and men, or you could say, they're anti-white and anti-Christian, since they don't seem to be pushing this shit in non-white and non-Christian liberal democracies such as Israel, South Korea and Japan.
2nd wave liberalism isn't all bad, but 3rd wave liberalism is intolerable.

Nowadays the word liberal is a term of abuse for the right just as fascist is a term of abuse for the left and each side gets tarred with the others brush
It seems to be that any issue is presented as a simple binary choice without any real attempt to understand the subtleties between all possible positions
All ideas should be freely explored within the spirit of open debate but instead the default position is the tribal mentality and so this naturally dominates

In my view, modern, mainline liberals, and neocons for that matter are basically fascists.
economically they're classic fascists, classist against the working and middle classes. Socially they're liberal or reverse fascists, you could say, they're racist, religionist and sexist against whites, Christians and men.
It's okay for non-whites to discriminate against whites in majority white and non-white countries, it's okay for non-whites to want to preserve and protect their heritage in majority white and non-white countries, but it's not okay for whites to discriminate against non-whites, it's not okay for whites to want to preserve and protect their heritage.
They're anti-1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and so on amendments.
They're chickenhawks, warmongers, imperialists.
They show nothing but contempt and disdain for democracy when the people don't vote the way they want them to, hence the conspiracy theories and false accusations made against, not only Donald Trump in the US, but Matteo Salvini in Italy, Viktor Orban in Hungary, hence the stalling of Brexit, hence the 1953 Iranian coup d'état.
Last edited by Gloominary on Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:27 am

Not necessarily all liberals, or socialists for that matter, but mainline liberals, and neocons to be fair, are basically fascists.
They only differ from fascists in that they're globalists rather than nationalists, and anti-ingroup and pro-outgroup, but still they pit some groups against others, very much like fascists, so let's stop calling them liberal.

The Clintons are fascists, the Obamas are fascists, but so were the Bushes.
I'm not saying every democrat and republican is a fascist, Denis Kucinich and Ron Paul weren't fascists, but the majority of them are.
Donald Trump checks some boxes, but not others.
He's not racist, religionist and sexist unlike his opponents, he's not anti-democracy, 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments, also unlike his opponents.
Unfortunately he is a corporatist, naturally he supported the wall street bailout, lowered taxes for the upper classes more than the lower, and appears to be fomenting war with Iran.
Last edited by Gloominary on Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby Silhouette » Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:51 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:As tending towards pair bonding, though not as monogamous as some animals, humans might over extremely long periods move towards less dimorphism. But then, this would happen via natural selection. What's happening now is much shorter term changes coming via nurture. And in many cases imposed.

Who says it's not happening via natural selection? The "imposed" and "shorter term changes" might be symptomatic rather than causative, perhaps of something that's been going on for a longer period of time. Natural selection can happen fast in reaction to acute changes in environment - which we most definitely have seen in recent times, even if they're not necessarily changes that one might immediately associate with the topic at hand.

Just throwing around ideas here - not saying anything for sure.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:IOW in some subcultures being traditionally male - let's leave that fuzzy, because I will bet it is fuzzy in the diversity of applications - can actually be treated negatively if you are male. I've lived a lot of time in extremely progressive environments and done peachy, but it seems like something new is happening. Of course being male and being traditionally male have nurture aspects and some of what is happening can be seen as trying to counter bad nurturing, but it seems to be going much further than this, nowadays. Where even referring to he and she or boys and girls is seen as negative, and various traits are trying to be stamped out top down. Not in the old way where girls might be discouraged from showing aggression and boys from crying, say, but almost the opposite, especially around the males. There are innate tendencies in the sexes and this seems to be being fought against.

It would be an "Appeal to nature" fallacy to argue that something is better because it is natural. All advancement is a kind of rebellion against nature, though it is always nature in some form in the end, so just becomes the new nature. Not saying that's what you're doing.

Perhaps I grew up at a time just before this whole issue grew into what it seems to be now from various sources I pay attention to. I don't come across it at all in my own life really. I imagine I'd do fine if I did, though.

"Bad nurturing" might appear to be an issue - I'm assuming you're referring to things like single parenthood being on the rise, lack of father figures and family stability etc. I'm tempted to argue that this is just different nuturing conditions, and not necessarily bad. In the sense that it causes destructive mental issues it's bad, but even then this is arguably just an introduction to new challenges in the absence of natural predators and wars. Natural selection has perhaps moved towards favouring those who can mentally handle or even prosper from a disintegrated family unit. Where this leads isn't necessarily bad just because it's different.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:And I still don't quite get why drag queens are ok, since it seems like blackface but with women.

I see the analogy though I think the reason blackface is a thing is because it conjures up less savoury times, attitudes and practices in history in more severe way to drag queens. I guess drag queens might be associated with times when females were represented by men due to female exclusion from certain activities, which is seen as oppression but the scale doesn't really match with how bad former states of race relations used to be. Plus, I believe drag queens are seen as "hot" in the eyes of many females, and they're associated with the gay scene etc... To an extent it's perhaps analagous to how the Bible condemns eating seafood far more than homosexuality, but the former is overlooked and the latter exaggerated due to popular attitudes that people have anyway.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:And then transpersons - which by the way I support - is also supported by the same groups in society who are very interested in reducing sexual dimorphism and seem to think it is all cultural.

What then does it mean to feel you are really a woman inside? Why couldn't those feelings be male ones?

I support doing whatever the hell you like with your own life so long as it's not interfering with others doing whatever the hell they like with their own life. Being trans or whatever doesn't affect other people's ability to do their own thing, it just offends sensibilities - which is ironic because people against non-binary sexuality tend to be the ones arguing against feelings influencing things. It's the type of feeling that makes the difference: the right are allies with fear and anger, amygdala stuff, and the left are allies with empathy and temperance, anterior cingulate stuff - and they are against what the other is for.

The trans argument though, I don't get. Do whatever you want, sure, but there seems to be an inherent contradiction in the reasoning.
Either it's against a gender binary, to justify the fact that aspects of gender can overlap and that you can be "trans", or it reinforces the gender binary through the desire to specifically be on the other side of the binary.
Moreover, a lot of the changes that are made in transitioning are circumstantial to current fashions, like long hair, make-up and wearing styles of dress in the case of the binary female, which has nothing intrinsically female to it - it's only superficial.
And whether you feel like your gender spans across the traditional binary or if there is a binary and you feel like the other gender, then coming to terms with how you feel internally is your true identity. Your outward appearance is what you're given whether tall, short, ugly, attractive, and you can modify it whatever you want but it only affects the first impressions of other people who aren't you - and they will come to identify you as "you" regardless of how you express your self and regardless of what your chromosomes are. Any expression you think of is only an interpretation of what's inside too, it's not a true representation of it whatever you come up with. Identity begins as a social construct interacting with what you've got, but issues with this don't resolve by manipulating others - if you're trans, you're trans however you look.

No doubt I'm being insensitive out of ignorance to how it feels to actually grow up and live trans, perhaps someone can resolve any confusion I might have.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:This movement is nto as powerful as say the church was or homophobia was in early periods in our history. But it is gaining strength and it seems often just as loopy. IOW I don't think the right is just barking at nothing.

I don't think it's barking at nothing either, the right bark at all change. Whether their barking is justified is up for debate.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3797
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:16 pm

Silhouette wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:As tending towards pair bonding, though not as monogamous as some animals, humans might over extremely long periods move towards less dimorphism. But then, this would happen via natural selection. What's happening now is much shorter term changes coming via nurture. And in many cases imposed.

Who says it's not happening via natural selection?

I would. The changes are happening way to fast to be caused by selection. Homophobes are dying out. People judgmental of transpersons are dying out? The very idea of transpersons is really recent on the scene and I cannot see natural selection having had the time to affect which people survive and then even if such specific attitudes of tendencies of attitudes can be naturally selected for with a species with such a plastic neural system.

The "imposed" and "shorter term changes" might be symptomatic rather than causative, perhaps of something that's been going on for a longer period of time. Natural selection can happen fast in reaction to acute changes in environment - which we most definitely have seen in recent times, even if they're not necessarily changes that one might immediately associate with the topic at hand.

Just throwing around ideas here - not saying anything for sure.
OK, lol, I can hear it as tossing around ideas, then.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:IOW in some subcultures being traditionally male - let's leave that fuzzy, because I will bet it is fuzzy in the diversity of applications - can actually be treated negatively if you are male. I've lived a lot of time in extremely progressive environments and done peachy, but it seems like something new is happening. Of course being male and being traditionally male have nurture aspects and some of what is happening can be seen as trying to counter bad nurturing, but it seems to be going much further than this, nowadays. Where even referring to he and she or boys and girls is seen as negative, and various traits are trying to be stamped out top down. Not in the old way where girls might be discouraged from showing aggression and boys from crying, say, but almost the opposite, especially around the males. There are innate tendencies in the sexes and this seems to be being fought against.

It would be an "Appeal to nature" fallacy to argue that something is better because it is natural.
Sure, but that's not my argument. (and note your new explanation would not fit well with the rapid natural selection argument in the first part of this post) I would argue caution deciding that we should tweak sexual dimorphism. Doesn't mean I wouldn't have laws against rape even if chimps rape, say. And on what basis are we deciding these things? What scientific basis that the produced society would be good or better? Why not, for example, let kids exhibit those aspects they have, and focus on restricting behaviors we consider bad. But it goes beyond that and even, now, includes contradictory messages. Some behaviors that are now considered good in girls, but aspects of the progressives, are considered bad in boys. After all the fight to allow women to be assertive and not be cut out from their own full range of natural tendencies, now we want to cut down the ranges again, but in a new way.


All advancement is a kind of rebellion against nature
Not for me. For me advancement has come via allowing all urges and emotions to be felt and expressed, regardless of whether they were supposed to be male or female. Of course certain acts that these might have led to I have not performed, but the personality, attitudes, ranges of emotions, etc. that all has led to advancement. I can't see the advantage of new boxes and I certainly didn't support women allowing themselves the full range of expression and men there's to find out that we must be all partial in a new way.

"Bad nurturing" might appear to be an issue - I'm assuming you're referring to things like single parenthood being on the rise, lack of father figures and family stability etc. I'm tempted to argue that this is just different nuturing conditions, and not necessarily bad. In the sense that it causes destructive mental issues it's bad, but even then this is arguably just an introduction to new challenges in the absence of natural predators and wars. Natural selection has perhaps moved towards favouring those who can mentally handle or even prosper from a disintegrated family unit. Where this leads isn't necessarily bad just because it's different.
I couldn't connect with this part. I don't have an issue with single parent parenting, say. I do think it's better if children are close to adults of both sexes. I think that helps navigate life, where one encounters both sexes, but that's the first I'm thinking of it. I am not really thinking sociologically in that way.

I see the analogy though I think the reason blackface is a thing is because it conjures up less savoury times, attitudes and practices in history in more severe way to drag queens.
Yes, there is a difference in degree, but I can't see in kind. A lot of drag aims at hyperfeminine women who would fit in in the fifties where women were more decorative that fully human.


I support doing whatever the hell you like with your own life so long as it's not interfering with others doing whatever the hell they like with their own life. Being trans or whatever doesn't affect other people's ability to do their own thing, it just offends sensibilities - which is ironic because people against non-binary sexuality tend to be the ones arguing against feelings influencing things. It's the type of feeling that makes the difference: the right are allies with fear and anger, amygdala stuff, and the left are allies with empathy and temperance, anterior cingulate stuff - and they are against what the other is for.
That's fine. I am not arguing that we should stop them, as I said. I am saying that the underlying philosophy is confused. It is a crime to misgender someone in some places. YOu must take that person as a woman if that person was born a man but is now woman identified. However women and men are not different. And to have ideas about what a woman is or is not is sexism. There is a confusion at the heart of this, a philosophical flailing.

I believe in past lives. So for me a woman finding herself in a male body, is not a problem. For having such 'supernatural' beliefs that are at the same time not Christian I get every side on me.

It's like I am supposed to pretend that drag is not sexist and we are only our bodies and there are women trapped in men's bodies.

On some level there is a lot of denied fear, and now I am focusing on the part in the Left. They are throwing out a philosophical mess, and because they are scared they don't notice it, and get fucking ripped and call one evil, sooner or later, if you point this out. I have had this experience.

Once I was in a room with some young activist types and a transperson. The activist types and the transperson were on me for what I was saying around these issues. The transperson then got really pissed and said something assuming I would be against trans operations and transgenderism. I said I was not. The leftists, often with a lot of anger at religions and anything that smacks of them, of course believe that we are bodies there is nothing like a soul, etc. I then explained that I do think there are transpersons and that they should have the right to change, etc. And I explained why based on my ontologies. The transperson absolutely accepted that and said I was right on the nose on that one. Had no problem with souls - not really the concept I would use, but going for shorthand here - and felt even more accepted by my take. The young lefties were not sure what to make of the whole thing, but continued to eye me with distrust.

You know the political climate these days. I generally shut up. Because both sides are so utterly knee jerk and condemning that dialogue is nearly dead. And I don't just shut up about my takes on political and social issues, but also on metaphysical ones. Because everyone is so binary these days - huh, that's ironic. Don't be binary about sexual categories or sexuality categories, but be binary about who is good and evil.

The trans argument though, I don't get. Do whatever you want, sure, but there seems to be an inherent contradiction in the reasoning.
Either it's against a gender binary, to justify the fact that aspects of gender can overlap and that you can be "trans", or it reinforces the gender binary through the desire to specifically be on the other side of the binary.
Moreover, a lot of the changes that are made in transitioning are circumstantial to current fashions, like long hair, make-up and wearing styles of dress in the case of the binary female, which has nothing intrinsically female to it - it's only superficial.
For example. Of course some trans persons don't change so much and just start identifying. The good part of that is they don't have to operate. I worry about shy young men - having been one - who may think 'Oh, I am trans' when in fact they are just shy or more fucking balanced, or suppressing some part of themselves to be good for whatever familial reasons, but whatever...there's no reason they can't have a penis if they want to be happy. And since some men now identify as lesbian women, the whole thing opens the door for a lot of mistakes, that happily can be undone pretty easily if you don't start having surgeons cut.



I don't think it's barking at nothing either, the right bark at all change. Whether their barking is justified is up for debate.
[/quote]I wish they barked at everything, but they don't. I have pointed this out to the right. They have great fears of being seen as anti-business or anti-military (weak), so when massive technological changes happen they are often silent or fight against measures to control corporations, use the precautionary principle in relation to new products...even when the corporations are using powers never before used. Now certainly parts of the right have been skeptical about social media and there is some balance - though I don't think either the right or the left really get the problems, and each focuses only on those aspects they in particular fear. If one points out that conservatives should be skeptical about, for examples, changes Clinton allowed in banking that led directly to 2008, there was no problem since it was all about freedom, they think.

It certainly would not solve all problems if the Right barked at all change, but they don't. Some minority part of the right and left bark will bark about any particilar new issue, but the bulk of the Right has allowed all sorts of changes - even those going against the consititution - if it seemed to fit their ideas. The left is like this also, though more likely to question corporations and military action. Point out a corporate charter was no intended to be permanent, was considered a priviledge not a right, and could be revoked if the corporation didn't act morally and legally and one draws a blank. The founders were very conscious about the abuses of, say, The East India Company and would have thought current corporate and finance industry power evil. IOW a conservative should be against lots of stuff they are silent about or even support of.

Oh, to hear their good barking.....
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1941
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby Mad Man P » Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:44 pm

WendyDarling wrote:The task of the New World Order is to decrease the population and one sure fire way is by herding all the different kinds of animals together which will inevitably lead to the unnaturally premature deaths of many of those animals. We are different for reasons that are not as superficial as you jest and there will always be divides that become oceans between groups of dissimilar peoples.


Any herding of groups larger than a certain amount is guaranteed to produce discord and conflict.

There has not existed one major city or larger settlement in all of human history devoid of conflict...
if we're not going to kill each other over skin color, ancestry, sexual orientation or religious affiliation, then we'll do it over resources, musical preference, sports teams, clothing, residence or even ear size...

This is not a new phenomenon, nor the consequence of any "new world order"... humans are tribal by nature. It's that simple.
The cultures that attempt to mitigate that tribal impulse tend to suffer less than cultures that reinforce it... and even then it's never completely mitigated, just curbed at best.

squeeze 100,000 people into any corner of the world with limited resources and someone's getting murdered over something... that's a statistical certainty.
The only group of people guaranteed to not kill each other when grouped together are the ones suffering from total paralysis... and even then I'm sure they will wish each other dead.

The alternative to grouping people together in large quantities and trying to mitigate our tribal nature is to split us up into small tribal groups and then going to war over the world's limited resources...
But we tried that already... and it lead us here, because larger groups kick the ass of smaller groups so everyone got busy teaming up and popping out babies to send to war.

Though it might be fun to restart history... if only to see if things go any differently a second time around with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in the mix.
"I'm just saying that if we want to have a fruitful discussion, we all need to know what the fuck we're talking about" - Carleas

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2524
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:31 pm

This is not a new phenomenon, nor the consequence of any "new world order"... humans are tribal by nature. It's that simple.
The cultures that attempt to mitigate that tribal impulse tend to suffer less than cultures that reinforce it... and even then it's never completely mitigated, just curbed at best.

I call bullshit on this. Multiculuralism and diversity are not strengths, homogeneity within a tribe is strength. Aggressively mixing differences together makes cities and countries into cesspools of degenerative ideologies not based on pragmatic realities. Iceland has little diversity or multicultualism and few major cities and it is serene. It's the gold standard not what is witnessed now in northern North America and Europe. Preferential racial and cultural groupings (such as Chinatown, Japantown, Little Mexico) still occur within major cities reaffirming that like people prefer like people so the fantasy that further blending will unite peoples is a downright lie. People prefer to be around people like themselves and their culture, not foreigners and foreign cultures that impede on their way of life. Sure, sure, eating Chinese is a nice change once in awhile, but I don't want to live in China if I did I would move there. Speaking of China, that is another predominantly homogeneous country with one race, the Chinese the obvious majority so there are no observable racial tensions there due to the homogeneity. China will fight globalism as will Japan and Russia. Only the nitwit leftists of the West are pushing an agenda that makes everyone's life less safe and less desirable.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7272
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby promethean75 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:01 pm

yeah i'd like to give a shout-out to my homegirl wendy with this one. it's one of her favorites....

promethean75
Thinker
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby Mad Man P » Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:15 am

WendyDarling wrote:
This is not a new phenomenon, nor the consequence of any "new world order"... humans are tribal by nature. It's that simple.
The cultures that attempt to mitigate that tribal impulse tend to suffer less than cultures that reinforce it... and even then it's never completely mitigated, just curbed at best.

I call bullshit on this. Multiculuralism and diversity are not strengths


I don't know why you called bullshit on that. I never suggested that Multiculturalism is a way of mitigating tribal impulses, I believe rather it's a way of reinforcing them.
Integration would be a means by which one might seeks to mitigate tribal impulses...
Multiculturalism instead purports that tribes can live in peace by celebrating and drawing attention to their differences, which I find to be as beautiful a fiction as it is naive.

What strikes me as odd is that you don't like it, since it results in exactly the sort of tribal segregation that you seem to be in favor of... so what's the problem exactly?
The living in peace thing not working out?
"I'm just saying that if we want to have a fruitful discussion, we all need to know what the fuck we're talking about" - Carleas

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2524
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:13 pm

WendyDarling wrote:I call bullshit on this. Multiculuralism and diversity are not strengths, homogeneity within a tribe is strength. Aggressively mixing differences together makes cities and countries into cesspools of degenerative ideologies not based on pragmatic realities. Iceland has little diversity or multicultualism and few major cities and it is serene.
It was serene until the neo-cons deregulated the finance industry and the bankers and the government fucked the population over.

This degeneracy was a kind of multiculturalism - in what was basically a socialist country - but not in the category of ethnic group or religious group, but in economic culture.

And tribes tend to be socialist or at least sharing is supported by extreme social pressure.

They may not by as dynamic as other cultures. There's the rub.

But poor old iceland got raped by Milton Friedman. (and Clinton for that matter, him being another neo-con, along with Bush, Obama and Trump when in comes to Wall st.)
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1941
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby Silhouette » Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:12 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:It was serene until the neo-cons deregulated the finance industry and the bankers and the government fucked the population over.

This degeneracy was a kind of multiculturalism - in what was basically a socialist country - but not in the category of ethnic group or religious group, but in economic culture.

And tribes tend to be socialist or at least sharing is supported by extreme social pressure.

This brings to mind not just Idealist dialectics or Materialist dialectics, but a dialectic between Idealism and Materialism.

If "the left" are winning some culture war on "how to think" then that is in the realm of Idealism.
"The right" are most certainly winning the economic war on "how to act", which is the realm of Materialism.
However authoritarian "Social Engineers" are becoming over how we think, we're still at least a hemisphere of voluntary trade of private property and wage labour according to market pricing etc. in how we act.

Perhaps this "degeneracy" in Idealism is merely reactionary: the antithesis to the thesis of Social Democracy i.e. a Capitalist Mixed Economy.

I'm sure everyone here has heard of Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History?" essay - or at least his argument that we've reached a (Dragonball-Z-style?) "final form" of human government in the form of this kind of economy.

Perhaps the degree to which "the left" have been dominated economically is merely being sublimated through a culture war out of frustrated impotence in the realm of actual reality. "Fine have the real, we'll take the realm of the imaginary" - hardly much consolation, hence why I am a leftist who doesn't follow this "cultural leftism".

Perhaps if the right were to concede ground economically there would be less backlash in such things as "erasing the perceived difference of identity"?
Rather than complaining about one side or the other in terms of thesis and antithesis, how about we look to a more harmonious synthesis?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3797
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:11 am

Silhouette wrote:Perhaps the degree to which "the left" have been dominated economically is merely being sublimated through a culture war out of frustrated impotence in the realm of actual reality. "Fine have the real, we'll take the realm of the imaginary" - hardly much consolation, hence why I am a leftist who doesn't follow this "cultural leftism".

I think this is an interesting idea and probably has truth in it.

Perhaps if the right were to concede ground economically there would be less backlash in such things as "erasing the perceived difference of identity"?
I tend to think people are being played, perhaps unconsciously, by, let's call them the neo-cons. Cause the neo-cons don't give a shit about social stuff. They can pay there way to avoid any of it that might affect them personally in a way they didn't like. I think they enjoy the hatred between social conservatives and social progressives. I think they are like the most cynical facets of the Roman Empire. They don't care. Move the mobs around, better is there are two mobs, then they never face a unified mob against them.

Rather than complaining about one side or the other in terms of thesis and antithesis, how about we look to a more harmonious synthesis?
One would think that actually looking and see if there is democracy could unify the two mobs. On this the conservatives and the progressives theoretically agree. But they see Hilary or Trump as a respesentative of democracy, and unlike most progressives I see this as much more scylla and charybdis then they do. I see Hilary as a Neo con and in fact I think she would have been more belligerant that Trump in Syria. Much easier for the supposedly liberal female president to sell a more full out war. I think that was the plan. The Left would have made noise, but they would have been heartily undercut by her categories and as their president, whatever reservations they may have had. Trump was less interventionist and still seems to be wrestling with this whatever else his vast faults are. I often think Trump was like the family's black sheep. He didn't really have the backing of most of the neo-cons, who have their plan and he is not quite aligned, but he's in the club. Like Daddy dies and the brother who's a bit cooky gets the CEO position after clever lobbying. He's on the same team, but doesn't have the whole family's trust, like the oldest sister did.

One good sign is that they are looking a bit more desperate in the candidates they've been throwing us. The right needed someone outside norms and so did the Left. They had to break the law to keep Bernie out, and I have noticed grudging respect for Bernie on the right. Many believe he was gypped, which he was, and that he had integrity, if of the utterly wrong kind. I think once Trump has had his run, perhaps two terms, it will get interesting to see how they manage business as usual with two candidates.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1941
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:50 pm

WendyDarling wrote:
Multiculturalism and diversity are not strengths

They are regarded as entirely modern phenomena but are in fact very old indeed because they were the by product of all empires
Sometimes they worked and sometimes they didnt and you certainly cannot generalise for the entire history of human civilisation

The problem with the modern version is the supposed incompatibility between conflicting ideologies
As some have no problem with trying to assimilate while others have no intention of ever wanting to

An absolute fundamental should be respect for the law of the particular land anyone is living in
As long as that is being observed then multiculturism and diversity can exist as a positive force
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Erasing The Perceived Difference Of Identity

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:06 pm

Silhouette wrote:
I support doing whatever the hell you like with your own life so long as its not interfering with others doing whatever the hell they like with their own life

This should indeed be the universal standard but unfortunately its too Utopian a concept to ever work in practice
Because for many the definition of interference goes beyond the merely intrusive and into other realms entirely

So the simple act of being offended by someone - simply for reasons of fear or ignorance - can constitute interference
That is interference with ones mental well being - which isnt really interference at all - but thats ground apes for you
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm


Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users