promethean75 wrote:"whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." - nietzsche
"sometimes one must become a monster to defeat a monster" - prometheus75
![]()
I do not want you anywhere near me.
Silhouette wrote:Agreeing to disagree can be healthy for the purposes of accepting differences and moving on, but this apparent cadence just seems nothing but divisive and hostile.
Jakob wrote:I am just very grateful to not be you.
I do not want you anywhere near me.
1) it seems to me the people in countries where us/them rhetoric is accepted by all sides are also screwed. 2) you just blamed Silhouette for getting screwed, making Brits a them, who are getting themselves screwed, extending your us them even to political allies. And I am pretty damn sure the Brits are very us/them these days. 3) You're being binary. One can passionately oppose legislation and positions without being us/them. IOW you don't have to say your opponents are evil/stupid, but you can say policy Z is or would be catastrophic. One reason to do this is that demonizing tends to make people hand onto their positions even more. And where I am - an unnamed country in the EU - I have seen it make people more radical and outspoken and increased the rolls of nationalist parties. People concerned about immigration here have been categorized as racists - as if there were no economic issues involved. This reaction has been part of a huge increase in the support for a party with a clear racist background.Serendipper wrote:Silhouette wrote:Agreeing to disagree can be healthy for the purposes of accepting differences and moving on, but this apparent cadence just seems nothing but divisive and hostile.
This is why you Brits are getting screwed lol. I call this the chocolate/vanilla argument, but maybe you could give me the proper name. You're saying that because one holds the philosophy of "adversity engendering prosperity" that it's a trivial matter of preference whether or not they vote to implement it on people I care about, so I should stand idly by while they continue oppressing the poor like they're ordering their specific flavor of ice cream and I'm the bad guy who's making a mountain out of a mole hill while I watch people slaving to get by and doing without healthcare. This is like saying "Well, tossing jews in ovens is just a matter of preference and we should endeavor to get along lest we breed hostility." This fallacy must have a name.
And note the irony - here he is saying the necessary enemy is communists.So then what’s necessary…is a system, in which the good side is always winning, but never is the winner. Where the evil side is always losing, but never is a loser. That’s a very practical arrangement for a successful ongoing game which will keep everybody interested. And you must watch this in practical politics. Every “in-group” or group of “nice people”, needs an “out-group” of “nasty people” otherwise they wouldn’t know who they were! And you must recognize that this “out-group” is your necessary enemy who you need, he keeps you on your toes. But you mustn’t obliterate him; if you do, you are in a very dangerous state of affairs.
So you have to love your enemies in a sense, regard them as highly necessary and to be respected chivalrously. We need the communists and they need us, the thing is to cool it and play what I call a contained conflict, when conflicts get out of hand, all sides blow up. So why should we love our enemies? Because we need them.
Alan Watts
What would moving on be in this context? I am taking your post here as referring to this discussion, here in ILP. I sort of agree - see my post to Serendipper above - but then he seemed to be focusing in general.Silhouette wrote:I dunno guys...
Agreeing to disagree can be healthy for the purposes of accepting differences and moving on, but this apparent cadence just seems nothing but divisive and hostile.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:1) it seems to me the people in countries where us/them rhetoric is accepted by all sides are also screwed.
2) you just blamed Silhouette for getting screwed, making Brits a them, who are getting themselves screwed, extending your us them even to political allies. And I am pretty damn sure the Brits are very us/them these days.
Silhouette wrote:Serendipper wrote:Open topic for anyone with an opinion: why are some people scared that someone might get something for nothing? And these same people applaud the rich getting many things for essentially nothing, but can't tolerate the thought of a poor person getting something for nothing, even though they work their ass off for a pittance. I'd like to explore that, even though doing so will probably piss me off lol
Allow me to piss you off with the following anecdote that I recently came to be burdened with:
I was out for lunch with people at my workplace to mark the occasion of somebody in my wider department finding a new job, and a work colleague of mine who I was sitting with relayed to me, for some reason on the topic of giving blood or donating organs (obvious conversation over food :\) that her boyfriend refused to do it despite being well aware of the good that it can do. The reason? He did not want somebody "who didn't deserve it" to receive the benefit of it.
Literally holding out on a readily available opportunity to potentially save a random person's life, and he would rather forego the possibility of doing good to someone "who did deserve it" for fear of doing good to someone "who didn't deserve it" - not least explicitly elevating his own sense of "who deserves what" to the level of deciding life or death. I was so shocked I couldn't even confront it at the time, and still haven't. When you're dead, your organs being transplanted literally means nothing to you & giving blood costs so massively little compared to the costs that it can save another. Even the cowardice of "I don't like needles/it makes me squeamish" or simply "I don't like the idea" is far more acceptable, but he's not even saying he has any other objections to the idea than his own ultimate moral judgment.
Obviously he sees this decision as morally decisive and just. Probably many would agree or at least feel sympathy for such a stance but this is tribalism even beyond the grave - quite something else. I imagine that the severity of such a position while he's still alive is more the motivation: I see over-simplicity and clarity even to the stupid, at the expense of all nuance and sympathy quite regularly looked up to in politicians. The emulation of such behaviour no doubt grants a feeling of being in the possession of such value and being worthy of dealing it out with an inflated sense of discretion - it surely only appeals to the self-righteous naracissist.
Another anecdote I have from a Trump supporting Leave-the-EU voter with no life plans and fantasies of owning vast wealth like a super-yacht (he's young at least), is that upon my mentions of everyone being richer under my dual currency model, he remarked that he doesn't want everyone else to be rich, just him. It reminded me of a comment by Christopher Hitchens in reference to those who believe in Heaven and Hell that "One of the pleasures of paradise is surverying and relishing the torments of the damned". There's the Zizek joke about a genie who appears to a Slovenian farmer and tells him "I will do whatever you want to you, just remember I will do to your neighbour twice as much" and the farmer replies, "Take one of my eyes", which sums up this mentality very nicely, where certain people who may nonetheless really want to be successful, they will sacrifice this so long as it means that others lose even more: they want to succeed but more importantly they want others to fail.
3) You're being binary.
One can passionately oppose legislation and positions without being us/them.
IOW you don't have to say your opponents are evil/stupid, but you can say policy Z is or would be catastrophic. One reason to do this is that demonizing tends to make people hand onto their positions even more.
So then what’s necessary…is a system, in which the good side is always winning, but never is the winner. Where the evil side is always losing, but never is a loser. That’s a very practical arrangement for a successful ongoing game which will keep everybody interested. And you must watch this in practical politics. Every “in-group” or group of “nice people”, needs an “out-group” of “nasty people” otherwise they wouldn’t know who they were! And you must recognize that this “out-group” is your necessary enemy who you need, he keeps you on your toes. But you mustn’t obliterate him; if you do, you are in a very dangerous state of affairs.
So you have to love your enemies in a sense, regard them as highly necessary and to be respected chivalrously. We need the communists and they need us, the thing is to cool it and play what I call a contained conflict, when conflicts get out of hand, all sides blow up. So why should we love our enemies? Because we need them.
Alan Watts. And note the irony - here he is saying the necessary enemy is communists.
So how does one deal with someone like Jakob, who clearly has no problem demonizing. Everyone who disagrees with him here is genocidal. heck, even your post above can imply that his team is genocidal nazis.
Once you limit your sense of the other to the them categorization, you are not recognizing your involvement in their very existence.
It's cutting off the arm that offends you.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:What would moving on be in this context? I am taking your post here as referring to this discussion, here in ILP. I sort of agree - see my post to Serendipper above - but then he seemed to be focusing in general.Silhouette wrote:I dunno guys...
Agreeing to disagree can be healthy for the purposes of accepting differences and moving on, but this apparent cadence just seems nothing but divisive and hostile.
I can't really see what to do with Jakob. He is calling you a genocidal thug. What would moving on look like?
I don't have an us them based on politics with him. I don't consider myself a socialist. I find his posts just calling out for mocking, as posts. Though now I am tired of that.
This part was me shifting to spiritual. You are losing out because you can't see how you are involved.Serendipper wrote:Karpel Tunnel wrote:1) it seems to me the people in countries where us/them rhetoric is accepted by all sides are also screwed.Come on Serendipper. You were talkign to a Brit, they also beat the Nazis. We are all dealing with problems related to the groups you are fighting here. YOu made it sound like the Brits have problems, presumably Brexit, because they are like sil. The US has Trump.Probably why us won and them nazis didn't.2) you just blamed Silhouette for getting screwed, making Brits a them, who are getting themselves screwed, extending your us them even to political allies. And I am pretty damn sure the Brits are very us/them these days.You could say that it is problematic and show why. I can help you with diplomacy, whihc would be very funny.Sil's my friend, but I don't know how to put it delicately.3) You're being binary.Again, I see many people getting screwed, including all Western nations, presumably whichever one you live in. The generalization was confused, but British are very US them.So? You sound like Phyllo now. Either my friends are getting screwed or they are not... and they are.One can passionately oppose legislation and positions without being us/them.Hello. He wasn't talking about voting. As I said elsewher and above, you can fight legislation without saying the opponents are evil/stupid. Or, at least, some can.How does one be opposed without being us/them? Do you vote to oppress the poor or do you not? If so, you're one of them; if not, you're one of us.IOW you don't have to say your opponents are evil/stupid, but you can say policy Z is or would be catastrophic. One reason to do this is that demonizing tends to make people hand onto their positions even more.Um, no. I didn't say you wEre evil or stupid. I am not sure you are paying attention. I hope that doesn't seem demonizing. Not paying attention to individual posts, like mine here. Maybe the project has gotten too big.So you're demonizing my us/them position making me hang onto it even more lolSo then what’s necessary…is a system, in which the good side is always winning, but never is the winner. Where the evil side is always losing, but never is a loser. That’s a very practical arrangement for a successful ongoing game which will keep everybody interested. And you must watch this in practical politics. Every “in-group” or group of “nice people”, needs an “out-group” of “nasty people” otherwise they wouldn’t know who they were! And you must recognize that this “out-group” is your necessary enemy who you need, he keeps you on your toes. But you mustn’t obliterate him; if you do, you are in a very dangerous state of affairs.I was pointing out that Watts was saying be chivilrous and respectful. YOu can listen to him or not. I think Watts is fallible. I'd be happy if you thought so too. You also shifted to the problems, slavery, cancer, as if these were what Sil was suggesting one must accept. He was talking about demonizing one's political opponents. You could demonize slavery and cancer all you want.No need to obliterate cancer? We will always have enemies. Watts was talking about the universe in general needing good and evil in proper proportions lest it get boring or lest evil destroy the whole thing. I'm fine with evil so long as it doesn't go overboard and start hurting people I care about. You're advocating that "rejoice in slavery because it could be worse" attitude Phyllo was selling on another thread that Sil pointed out as fallacious: relative privation.So you have to love your enemies in a sense, regard them as highly necessary and to be respected chivalrously. We need the communists and they need us, the thing is to cool it and play what I call a contained conflict, when conflicts get out of hand, all sides blow up. So why should we love our enemies? Because we need them.
Alan Watts. And note the irony - here he is saying the necessary enemy is communists.But clearly he was identifying with the capitalist nations.He said communism would fall apart on its own because it's essentially one giant corporation and exceedingly inefficient. I don't think he recognized that the capitalists were the problem. He said he wasn't an economist and apparently didn't read any of Chomsky's work.So how does one deal with someone like Jakob, who clearly has no problem demonizing. Everyone who disagrees with him here is genocidal. heck, even your post above can imply that his team is genocidal nazis.
Once you limit your sense of the other to the them categorization, you are not recognizing your involvement in their very existence.
It's cutting off the arm that offends you.Narcissists cannot learn because in order to learn they would first have to be wrong and that isn't possible.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Come on Serendipper. You were talkign to a Brit, they also beat the Nazis. We are all dealing with problems related to the groups you are fighting here. YOu made it sound like the Brits have problems, presumably Brexit, because they are like sil. The US has Trump.
2) you just blamed Silhouette for getting screwed, making Brits a them, who are getting themselves screwed, extending your us them even to political allies. And I am pretty damn sure the Brits are very us/them these days.You could say that it is problematic and show why. I can help you with diplomacy, whihc would be very funny.Sil's my friend, but I don't know how to put it delicately.
3) You're being binary.Again, I see many people getting screwed,So? You sound like Phyllo now. Either my friends are getting screwed or they are not... and they are.
One can passionately oppose legislation and positions without being us/them.Hello. He wasn't talking about voting. As I said elsewher and above, you can fight legislation without saying the opponents are evil/stupid. Or, at least, some can.How does one be opposed without being us/them? Do you vote to oppress the poor or do you not? If so, you're one of them; if not, you're one of us.
IOW you don't have to say your opponents are evil/stupid, but you can say policy Z is or would be catastrophic. One reason to do this is that demonizing tends to make people hand onto their positions even more.Um, no. I didn't say you wEre evil or stupid. I am not sure you are paying attention. I hope that doesn't seem demonizing. Not paying attention to individual posts, like mine here. Maybe the project has gotten too big.So you're demonizing my us/them position making me hang onto it even more lol
So then what’s necessary…is a system, in which the good side is always winning, but never is the winner. Where the evil side is always losing, but never is a loser. That’s a very practical arrangement for a successful ongoing game which will keep everybody interested. And you must watch this in practical politics. Every “in-group” or group of “nice people”, needs an “out-group” of “nasty people” otherwise they wouldn’t know who they were! And you must recognize that this “out-group” is your necessary enemy who you need, he keeps you on your toes. But you mustn’t obliterate him; if you do, you are in a very dangerous state of affairs.I was pointing out that Watts was saying be chivilrous and respectful. YOu can listen to him or not. I think Watts is fallible. I'd be happy if you thought so too. You also shifted to the problems, slavery, cancer, as if these were what Sil was suggesting one must accept. He was talking about demonizing one's political opponents. You could demonize slavery and cancer all you want.No need to obliterate cancer? We will always have enemies. Watts was talking about the universe in general needing good and evil in proper proportions lest it get boring or lest evil destroy the whole thing. I'm fine with evil so long as it doesn't go overboard and start hurting people I care about. You're advocating that "rejoice in slavery because it could be worse" attitude Phyllo was selling on another thread that Sil pointed out as fallacious: relative privation.
So you have to love your enemies in a sense, regard them as highly necessary and to be respected chivalrously. We need the communists and they need us, the thing is to cool it and play what I call a contained conflict, when conflicts get out of hand, all sides blow up. So why should we love our enemies? Because we need them.
Alan Watts. And note the irony - here he is saying the necessary enemy is communists.But clearly he was identifying with the capitalist nations.He said communism would fall apart on its own because it's essentially one giant corporation and exceedingly inefficient. I don't think he recognized that the capitalists were the problem. He said he wasn't an economist and apparently didn't read any of Chomsky's work.
I have no idea what Mags has been saying. It seems to me Sillouette has been arguing against conservatives quite steadily. I doubt banging Jakob on the head will help, not if that means insulting him.Serendipper wrote:He and Mags are both expressing outrage at the "Labour Party" not representing the working people, but instead being conservatives in disguise. They should do something other than bend over and allow it. At least bang Jakob on the head for propagating an ideology that facilitates exploitation.![]()
Then insulting might seem like the appropriate tool when it's not.Tact has never been my strength![]()
About people getting screwed? That's not the topic. We can have that topic also...And what are you doing about it?
That doesnt mean its good to call them that. Feel free at anySure, I suppose I could, but in this particular case, the proponents are evil/stupid. I mean, science says so.
Well, here you seem to have finally noticed what I have been saying. It's not much of a defense, but I appreciate it seeming like you read what I wrote.You're saying "us/them" is a dangerous philosophy, which is demonizing. And I agree it is dangerous, but I often do dangerous things. At least I recognize I'm treading on fine lines.
I was pointing out that Watts was saying be chivilrous and respectful. YOu can listen to him or not. I think Watts is fallible. I'd be happy if you thought so too. You also shifted to the problems, slavery, cancer, as if these were what Sil was suggesting one must accept. He was talking about demonizing one's political opponents. You could demonize slavery and cancer all you want.
I didn't know that Jakob is a nazi. If the nazis make up a large percentage of your population, I htink it is a bad strategy to demonize them. POint out the evil of their acts, yes. Fight against their legislation, their lies, their acts.Are we to demonize nazis or not?
Nope. You can call the acts whatever you want. You can loathe t hem emotionally and tear them apart rationally. the acts, the policies the legislation. But I don't think demonizing a large percentage of the population will help. And I do not see it helping in the country I am in or bakc home in the US.Should we accept that particular political opponent or not? You're appealing to the same chocolate/vanilla argument that being a nazi is simply a preference that everyone should respect.
Strawman.Being a cancer cell is simply a preference that everyone should respect. Being a germ is a preference that everyone should respect, so disinfectants are immoral, chemotherapy is immoral, and liberating jews from concentration camps was immoral; the nazis had a right to exterminate the jews, afterall, since it was their preference. Well it's my preference to disagree with your preference that their preference is merely a preference
So you have to love your enemies in a sense, regard them as highly necessary and to be respected chivalrously. We need the communists and they need us, the thing is to cool it and play what I call a contained conflict, when conflicts get out of hand, all sides blow up. So why should we love our enemies? Because we need them.
Alan Watts. And note the irony - here he is saying the necessary enemy is communists.But clearly he was identifying with the capitalist nations.He said communism would fall apart on its own because it's essentially one giant corporation and exceedingly inefficient. I don't think he recognized that the capitalists were the problem. He said he wasn't an economist and apparently didn't read any of Chomsky's work.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I have no idea what Mags has been saying. It seems to me Sillouette has been arguing against conservatives quite steadily. I doubt banging Jakob on the head will help, not if that means insulting him.Serendipper wrote:He and Mags are both expressing outrage at the "Labour Party" not representing the working people, but instead being conservatives in disguise. They should do something other than bend over and allow it. At least bang Jakob on the head for propagating an ideology that facilitates exploitation.![]()
About people getting screwed? That's not the topic. We can have that topic also...And what are you doing about it?
but Serendipper the bleeding topic was
YOU said 'that's why you Brits are getting screwed'
I think that is a ridiculous thing to say.
All sides in britain are very us/them like these days. So that's Brits being all nicey nicey is not why they are being screwed.
and...
people are not being nicey nicey in the US and they are getting screwed.
That's about time number 3. YOu could have the decency to respond to that point, or not.
That doesnt mean its good to call them that. Feel free at anySure, I suppose I could, but in this particular case, the proponents are evil/stupid. I mean, science says so.
to respond to what I'm saying.
Well, here you seem to have finally noticed what I have been saying. It's not much of a defense, but I appreciate it seeming like you read what I wrote.You're saying "us/them" is a dangerous philosophy, which is demonizing. And I agree it is dangerous, but I often do dangerous things. At least I recognize I'm treading on fine lines.
I was pointing out that Watts was saying be chivilrous and respectful. YOu can listen to him or not. I think Watts is fallible. I'd be happy if you thought so too. You also shifted to the problems, slavery, cancer, as if these were what Sil was suggesting one must accept. He was talking about demonizing one's political opponents. You could demonize slavery and cancer all you want.I didn't know that Jakob is a nazi. If the nazis make up a large percentage of your population, I htink it is a bad strategy to demonize them. POint out the evil of their acts, yes. Fight against their legislation, their lies, their acts.Are we to demonize nazis or not?
Nope. You can call the acts whatever you want. You can loathe t hem emotionally and tear them apart rationally. the acts, the policies the legislation. But I don't think demonizing a large percentage of the population will help. And I do not see it helping in the country I am in or bakc home in the US.Should we accept that particular political opponent or not? You're appealing to the same chocolate/vanilla argument that being a nazi is simply a preference that everyone should respect.
Strawman.Being a cancer cell is simply a preference that everyone should respect. Being a germ is a preference that everyone should respect, so disinfectants are immoral, chemotherapy is immoral, and liberating jews from concentration camps was immoral; the nazis had a right to exterminate the jews, afterall, since it was their preference. Well it's my preference to disagree with your preference that their preference is merely a preference
You are off your game. Maybe you need a break. This is not the Serendipper of even a couple of weeks ago.
OK, acknowledge nothing. Hold the line, treat my post as an enemy soldier running at you with a bayonet. Your life seems to depend on it, or you are not sleeping or something.But clearly he was identifying with the capitalist nations.
By suggesting that everyone should be assured of a minimum income?
I'll avoid you for a while. I barely recognize you. You just demonized me in this post. Not as directly, but implicitly. Giving me positions I do not have that are terrible.
See you in a couple of weeks.
My suggestion: take a break or sleep or do whatever is missing. I don't know if those are the causes but as a communication partner, now you are just like Jakob, only you put in more time on a response that is just as irrelevent.
See you in a couple of weeks.
Silhouette wrote:I'm trying to figure out the response to my last post and suspect I may have worded it badly and given the wrong impression.
Am I being read as prescribing "accepting differences and moving on" when I was doing nothing more than describing a more innocent version of what others seemed to be doing on this thread? I say "more innocent", because that's not all they're doing - they're retreating to their respective tribes, each side even more convinced of their own side's superiority than before, and implicitly establishing that reasonable discourse is now off the table. I was condoning neither the acceptance of differences and moving on, nor retreating to an emotional position of "justified" anger, hatred and intended violence.
On the other hand, I may be being read correctly as aiming to keep rationality on the table
instead of allowing an "us and them" attitude to divide everyone - since that is guaranteed to not be constructive,
Serendipper wrote:Why should I not sever myself from someone wishing to deny me healthcare? Why should I not be hostile with attacks on my person?
Serendipper wrote:What rationality? Jakob is rational?
Serendipper wrote:I'd be happy to debate him, but you know as well as I that he will run.
Serendipper wrote:KT has ran off as well. Apparently he's an "us" and I'm a "them" who is unreasonable.
Silhouette wrote:Serendipper wrote:Why should I not sever myself from someone wishing to deny me healthcare? Why should I not be hostile with attacks on my person?
Sounds pretty eye for an eye. Severing yourself is a resolution of defeat - potentially for decent enough reason, but I do not give up on people easily.
Serendipper wrote:What rationality? Jakob is rational?
I seem to remember rationality from him in the past, and there are subtle signs that he can respond with some reason to the right questions and responses - even if it's been extremely lacking as of late. I understand your reaction, but I am a stubborn mule.
Serendipper wrote:I'd be happy to debate him, but you know as well as I that he will run.
Maybe so, but there's a possibility that he might have read and considered what you said to make him run, and the smallest affect can be cumulative in the long run and is at least better than no affect whatsoever.
Serendipper wrote:KT has ran off as well. Apparently he's an "us" and I'm a "them" who is unreasonable.
KT does not seem to tolerate anything remotely hostile, or at least not reasonably balanced - he seems to take great care to stay reasonable and non-committal to any one side over another when there is reason to side either way, as there almost always is. Yes, denying healthcare is not acceptable, but we've hardly reached that point from anyone here in real terms - nobody around seems to be in any position of power, so I figure it's most reasonable to explore the ways in which other people think at the very least - even if they will not be persuaded. I find that being persuadable is the best way to persuade others - it's when you lock down and dig your heels in that others resolve to do the same, which only serves to drive people even further apart.
You have been a little more ideologically charged lately, wouldn't you agree?
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users