comelately

Wild Horses
You've completely missed my point. I'm not talking about intention - I mean what proportion of people, if asked in the street, would say racism and sexism are good things? - but about the concrete consequences of people's actions. Questions that take a bit of thinking about, such as "Will sharing this infantile infographic about refugees, full of specious reasoning and numbers and facts that could be complete bullshit for all I know, help reduce racism?" or "Will joining in this furious Twitter campaign to make this guy I've never heard of lose his job because he allegedly said something which, shorn of all context, could arguably be interpreted as sexist, help reduce sexism?".

Living inside your social-media echo chamber, dismissing out of hand any information that doesn't fit with your pre-existing worldview and mindlessly parroting everything your right-on friends say for fear that they might suspect you of not being right-on - now that is the easy option.



Oh come on mate, do me a favour. As I already said a few posts ago:





OK, a few examples totally off the top of my head.

Hysterical irreason: Feminist groups who insist that men who oppose male circumcision must somehow be in favour of FGM, and must therefore be vigorously pilloried as vile misogynists. Or the Swedish MP who said it's morally worse for a Swedish man to rape a Swedish woman than for a Muslim immigrant to do so. Or look up 'donglegate' if you haven't heard of it. Seriously, I could go on all day.

Moral relativism: see pretty much anything Seumas Milne has ever written. People who can't accept that a country other the USA or Israel might be behind anything bad in the world and reflexively ascribe Russian attacks on Syrian hospitals (for example) to "false flag operations". People (hello zhao!) who can't even wait till the emergency response teams have finished picking up the bits of human offal following the latest jihadi bombing somewhere in Europe to start banging on about how it's all our fault, because Iraq. And so on, and so on, and so on.

Edit: I guess this is subject-creep from 'things the Right gets right' to 'things the Left gets wrong', but the two are related.
Absolving some people of responsibility because 'what do you expect?' and treating others as completely free & responsible moral agents is pretty much involved in any kind of moral system. Not sure where relativism comes into it; it does feel like a snarl word here and little else.

Who here is actually a moral absolutist?
 
Last edited:

Benny B

Active member
Absolving some people of responsibility because 'what do you expect?' and treating others as completely free & responsible moral agents is pretty much involved in any kind of moral system. Not sure where relativism comes into it; it does feel like a snarl word here and little else.

Who here is actually a moral absolutist?
I'm a moral universalist.

You could argue that liberals, in believing that all consensual acts are good, are moral absolutists.
 

comelately

Wild Horses
I would suggest that would normally be how a libertarian is defined, though between the Libertarian Party being increasingly non-voluntarist and much of the internet crowd going Pepe, there aren't many of those left.

The non-aggression principle is superficially charming, but falls apart pretty quickly upon analysis. I think somebody said it's a bit like Scientology - starts off fluffy, then before you know it you are believing in all sorts of nonsense.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
It's certainly the case that sections of the left -- particularly the campus left in America -- seem to be abandoning universalism for some strange new mutant strain. Maybe it's not so important, but then again maybe it's the ideology that (after these students grow up and assume positions of power and influence) will dominate the mainstream in twenty years time.
 

vimothy

yurp
I agree that the non-aggression principle isn't ultimately very compelling, but it's not so far from the basic tenet of contemporary liberalism (which has perhaps fused with libertarianism in some ways). Liberalism is about the autonomy of the individual and the primacy of his desires and perspectives. Without the non-aggression principle (or something like it), it's easy to see how this could stray into Stirnerism or outright fascism.
 

martin

----
Sure, but pleb-demonization is not an exclusively right-wing sport. Witness the outpourings of post-Referendum rage from metropolitan socialists and liberals at the great unwashed white provincial working classes, who clearly should never have been given a say in the first place and should probably be kept in designated kennels of some kind where a responsible adult can keep an eye on them and make sure they don't cause any more trouble.
Totally spot on. And after witnessing the crywank carnival that was the day after Brexit, I am totally done with the left. Well, until Bob Crow Brigade returns to give anyone who says "We need to talk about..." a good kicking.

Why weren't all you SJWs anti-white rasta when Spiral Tribe were on the go? Talk about missed opportunities.
 

comelately

Wild Horses
I agree that the non-aggression principle isn't ultimately very compelling, but it's not so far from the basic tenet of contemporary liberalism (which has perhaps fused with libertarianism in some ways). Liberalism is about the autonomy of the individual and the primacy of his desires and perspectives. Without the non-aggression principle (or something like it), it's easy to see how this could stray into Stirnerism or outright fascism.
Yes, but now we're into people believing in 'principles' for consequences - at which point they're not really principles, and we're into that relativist popomo quagmire before you know it.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
hmmm, not too up on this issue but... why do I get the feeling that this is less about 'hysterical feminists', and more about MRAs insisting that male circumcision is 'just as bad' as FGM and getting the kicking they deserve?
No, it's not about comparing "which is worse"*. There are feminists who insist, point blank, that any opposition to male circumcision is effectively an endorsement for FGM. It's like saying that anyone who campaigns against knife crime is happy about people getting shot.

And I should like to think we can have a level of intelligent conversation here where it is not automatically assumed that any anti-circ men are automatically "MRAs", for heaven's sake.

*leaving aside the fact that there are many kinds of FGM, one of which is exactly analogous to standard male circumcision
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
I'll have a look when I get home and post it here, if I remember. But I'm not, you know, inventing this stuff.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
@Tea - If I've missed your point, it's only because it's not very clear what your point actually IS amidst all the rhetoric.

If you're (all of a sudden) interested in the concrete consequences of people's actions, then you should be looking at the damaging consequences of the actions of those who ride roughshod over the rights of others (eg looking at the consequences of someone like Lionel Shriver being allowed to spout right-wing rubbish in the name of freedom of speech - given that big name authors' opinions do have clout), rather than being obsessed with a few silly stories about accusations of cultural appropriation that have been, well, silly.

I would understand your being so angry at the "social media echo chamber" people if they were somehow having some real effect on you, but they're not. Why do they matter so much to you, other than as people to work out your anger upon? Attacking them won't make the world better either.

Hysterical irreason - I haven't heard of any of these. But you're sounding like you're very confused as to the direction/s in which discrimination has operated throughout history, and how this has been totally driven by 'hysterical irreason'. It's like laying the onus upon the (very recent) pushback to discrimination to be totally levelheaded/rational, whilst the original centuries of discrimination were crazed, paranoid, hysterical lunacy. 'Slightly' unfair and victim blaming in the main, don't you think?

Moral relativism - Here you have a point (which I recognised with my initial reply to the thread). As I said, many prominent left-wing parties have regrettable judgment internationally, in their rush to support regimes that either (i) declare themselves socialist, but couldn't be less so/are not any longer or (ii) are simply anti-American. The unfortunate fact is that most governments are pretty abhorrent, and the ones that aren't are generally snuffed out pretty quickly by one of the Big Three - and any decent left internationalist policy would speak plainly about this.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Absolving some people of responsibility because 'what do you expect?' and treating others as completely free & responsible moral agents is pretty much involved in any kind of moral system. Not sure where relativism comes into it; it does feel like a snarl word here and little else.
I'd have thought this was a screamingly obvious case of moral relativism, i.e. the relative moral severity of a crime - in this case rape - is is dependent on the native culture of the perpetrator.

But I'm actually pretty ambivalent about this particular instance. I mean, I genuinely can't decide whether it's an egregious example of the racism of low expectations, or a courageously honest admission that the culture in large parts of the Muslim world is wildly misogynistic in ways that most Europeans can't understand. (That said, I probably wouldn't be too chuffed if I were a Swedish rape victim seeing my attacker get a lighter sentence because he was born in Kabul rather than Stockholm.)
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
There are feminists who insist, point blank, that any opposition to male circumcision is effectively an endorsement for FGM. It's like saying that anyone who campaigns against knife crime is happy about people getting shot.
Is your point that....what is your point? That someone who identified as a feminist once said something ridiculous? Also, what about hearing about all the crazy things men have said about FGM - could you compile some of those, cos I bet the list is longer?

"courageously honest admission that the culture in large parts of the Muslim world is wildly misogynistic in ways that most Europeans can't understand" - yep, in Europe men willingly gave women all the rights they now enjoy, of course. Saying that Europeans can't understand wild misogyny is silly.
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...iddle-east-its-not-islam-race-or-hate/256362/ this is interesting, as attempts to historicise always are

it's also important to be clear that even the EU thinks that 'Violence against women is “an extensive human rights abuse” across Europe' https://www.theguardian.com/news/da...st-women-european-union-physical-sexual-abuse
 
Last edited:

comelately

Wild Horses
I'd have thought this was a screamingly obvious case of moral relativism, i.e. the relative moral severity of a crime - in this case rape - is is dependent on the native culture of the perpetrator.

But I'm actually pretty ambivalent about this particular instance. I mean, I genuinely can't decide whether it's an egregious example of the racism of low expectations, or a courageously honest admission that the culture in large parts of the Muslim world is wildly misogynistic in ways that most Europeans can't understand. (That said, I probably wouldn't be too chuffed if I were a Swedish rape victim seeing my attacker get a lighter sentence because he was born in Kabul rather than Stockholm.)
1. You listed this under 'hysterical irreason', rather than moral relativism (Not that it was either). Kinda speaks to my point about snarl words.

2. You might want to pick an example that you actually want to stand behind firmly, unless your intention is to just get as much Breitbart schtick in as possible.

3. Yeah, your reading of her statement as inherently relativistic is fundamentally misguided. There is nothing in her statement which doesn't align with general notions of mitigation within our own western culture. Not relativism.
 
Last edited:

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Totally spot on. And after witnessing the crywank carnival that was the day after Brexit, I am totally done with the left. Well, until Bob Crow Brigade returns to give anyone who says "We need to talk about..." a good kicking.
Crywanking is not an exclusively left-wing sport...one prominent figure on the left has been kicked daily since June 23 for NOT caring enough about Brexit...what's his name again...
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
I know this isn't university, but I feel a citation is called for here.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/27/circumcision-ruling-germany-muslim-jewish

Women's rights groups and social policy makers also condemned the decision, but for the reason that it would have the effect of putting male and female circumcision on the same footing, when they were "in no way comparable", said Katrin Altpeter, social minister in the state of Baden-Württemberg.
They might have a quarter of a point if FGM wasn't already illegal in Germany, but it is, and has been for decades. People have been sent to jail for it, which is more than be said for the UK, AFAIK.

Is your point that....what is your point? That someone who identified as a feminist once said something ridiculous?
It's not just "someone" though, is it, it's people speaking on behalf of pressure groups. And it's a fairly widespread feminist position.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
1. You listed this under 'hysterical irreason', rather than moral relativism (Not that it was either). Kinda speaks to my point about snarl words.
They're hardly mutually exclusive.

2. You might want to pick an example that you actually want to stand behind firmly, unless your intention is to just get as much Breitbart schtick in as possible.
Lol, whatever. 'Breitbart'? I feel it's only a matter of time before I'm 'basically Hitler'.

Not relativism.
It's a fucking textbook example, what's wrong with you?
 
Top