or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread - Page 22

post #316 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

This is quite good and drives home the point that the conflict between the West and Islam is more of a minor skirmish than a clash.

The actual battle lines are drawn up between the universalism itself and it's discontents, with the former slowly routing the latter for at least 200 years. The type of universalism (sub in progressivism for a more familiar, narrowly defined term that still gets the point across) that was unleashed by the Calvinits has been an extemely successful mind-virus, and when paired with any type of democracy it trends toward totalizing state-expansion.

The invented positive-rights, indoctrination and enforced thought control pushed by public institutions, and dismantling of any future time-orientation in favor of current consumption-- all spiraling out of control in a purity signaling spiral (this is the locus of the Islamic immigration debate)-- is what half of the (mostly inarticulate) country is rebelling against.

Capitalism is a factor to the extent it enables universalism to take hold through increasing wealth and living standards. But calling capitalism a subsut of universalism is getting the correlation backwards. Capitalism isn't much more than a darwinian process that takes off when a minimum of trade and property rights are allowed. E.g. as the rest of the world has gotten on board and slowed US median wage growth, the pushback against universalism has gained momentum.

Universalism by itself isn't truly a philosophy but a characteristic of some philosophies. Capitalism and Socialism are both Universalist philosophies and they also share a cult of progress, meaning the socialist order that I would favour can also lead to environmental meltdown if left unchecked. Progressivism if meant in that way may indeed be what some groups are reacting against.

Not sure what you mean with purity-signalling. If you want to say that what people here call “political correctness” is the major problem of our times I strongly disagree. As for positive rights, I’m guessing you’re making a comment in the same vein. Capitalism is a child of Auguste Comte (of positivism fame) as much as anyone else so not sure where you’re going exactly, suffice to say that what you are describing and the minor role you assign to it goes completely against what I was discussing.

From a conservative point of view you should definitely get out of the capitalism+conservatism works mindset and maybe read some Christopher Lasch (you might have read the culture of narcissism) if you haven’t already done so. He’s not a conservative per se but he has interesting things to say about social mores and capitalism. Orwell also has something to bring in that case with his Tory Anarchism and concept of common decency of the working classes. Our current system will destroy every one of those locally anchored, traditional cultures and mores, it goes toward eternal movement, social climbing instead of transmission, fluidity, an encrochaement of the market in every area of living (even reproduction) and a transgressive attitude toward all values,

I am not a conservative myself but believe the leftist forces have basically abandoned a “socialist” revolutionary project in favour of social progress, something that is entirely compatible and even favourable to capitalism if a proper analysis is conducted, meaning there is truly no alternative, just a circus of pro/anti illimited social change.
post #317 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

To Fuuma’s point— that no one here has bothered to articulate ‘American culture’— Islam has suddenly become acceptable in the US and Europe because there is no agreed-upon social identify against which to contrast it. Pre-WW2 these countries identified strongly as Christian, white, nationalist, with some enlightenment-inspired optimism. None of those qualities are currently in fashion, to put it mildly. If any national identify was pushed during my K-12 education in the 1990s, it was some vague idea of multicultural universalism. And in that frame, Islam is a positive good.

This is what I was getting at in another thread, just not as succinctly. The dilution and eventual mocking of native culture is necessary to foist a far left agenda onto the population. Part of that is bringing in new voters, because it's easier than changing the minds of generational Americans and as minority populations grow they can be pitted against traditionalists through identity politics. Once those populations become large enough, seemingly sane ideas like having border security are now sketchy topics for conservatives because they run the risk of alienating large groups. 16% of the population being Hispanic would not necessarily create problems, except one political party makes a living by trying to manipulate them into believing things that are almost certainly harmful to the well being of the country. Because the cultural crevasse between Muslims in the middle east and Americans is far wider than that of any other comparison, I'd hate to see what would happen if democrats applied this tactic to gee I don't know, 65,000 refugees plus the current population that they intend to grow as much as possible.
post #318 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post

Universalism by itself isn't truly a philosophy but a characteristic of some philosophies. Capitalism and Socialism are both Universalist philosophies and they also share a cult of progress, meaning the socialist order that I would favour can also lead to environmental meltdown if left unchecked. Progressivism if meant in that way may indeed be what some groups are reacting against.

Not sure what you mean with purity-signalling. If you want to say that what people here call “political correctness” is the major problem of our times I strongly disagree. As for positive rights, I’m guessing you’re making a comment in the same vein. Capitalism is a child of Auguste Comte (of positivism fame) as much as anyone else so not sure where you’re going exactly, suffice to say that what you are describing and the minor role you assign to it goes completely against what I was discussing.

From a conservative point of view you should definitely get out of the capitalism+conservatism works mindset and maybe read some Christopher Lasch (you might have read the culture of narcissism) if you haven’t already done so. He’s not a conservative per se but he has interesting things to say about social mores and capitalism. Orwell also has something to bring in that case with his Tory Anarchism and concept of common decency of the working classes. Our current system will destroy every one of those locally anchored, traditional cultures and mores, it goes toward eternal movement, social climbing instead of transmission, fluidity, an encrochaement of the market in every area of living (even reproduction) and a transgressive attitude toward all values,

I am not a conservative myself but believe the leftist forces have basically abandoned a “socialist” revolutionary project in favour of social progress, something that is entirely compatible and even favourable to capitalism if a proper analysis is conducted, meaning there is truly no alternative, just a circus of pro/anti illimited social change.

This may be a definitional quibble, but I find it fruitful to conceptualize capitalism as something more primordial than any philosophy or set of political value judgments. Exchange and the evolutionary dynamics of competition have emerged, at every level, under every type of political regime we’ve ever attempted. These dynamics can be politically occulted, or appended to, but no amount of political will can negate them. Looking at measures of worldwide GDP per capital since 1600, any deviation from the exponential trend is so minor as to be imperceptible. It’s a self-propelling circuit, emergent, not the construction of political philosophy.

[If you’re inclined to define Capitalism and Socialism as constructs (mainly different formalization of property rights) built on top of the emergent commercial dynamic I am describing, I’d still need a name for the thing Im describing. Hayak uses catallaxy.]

Under my frame, Capitalism (pouring gas on the market) and Socialism (putting on the brakes) are both orthogonal to deep culture. The technological progress under capitalism masks the degree of cultural degradation, helps explain why the cultural (as opposed to economic) arm of socialism has been ascendant—the conservatives are too materially comfortable to notice the cultural trend, and few people in general are miserable enough for economic Marxist ideas to get a foothold so its adherents pivot to social progress.
post #319 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post

Our current system will destroy every one of those locally anchored, traditional cultures and mores, it goes toward eternal movement, social climbing instead of transmission, fluidity, an encrochaement of the market in every area of living (even reproduction) and a transgressive attitude toward all values.

Could you explain what you do you exactly mean by that ?
post #320 of 1314
capitalism releases flows
post #321 of 1314
The means of production impose the conditions of existence.
post #322 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

I'm not shifting anything. I said that Muslims were responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks, perhaps I should have noted that the scope of those attacks is part of my analysis, but I assumed that was obvious. Do you disagree with the idea that Muslims represent the largest terrorist threat?

If abortion bombers killed three people over the course of six bombings, by your logic they are more dangerous than 3,000 people being killed in a single attack on 9/11 because 6>1. Surely you aren't saying this, right?

You started with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited 
Muslims are responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks..

That's clearly and unambiguously a claim (or yet another argument by assertion) about the number of attacks. You didn't specify where or when, of course, but both shah and I presented some numbers that refute your blanket claim, at least in the context of recent U.S. history. Then you moved on to a claim about global networks. That's what counts. And then, finally you added, "perhaps I should have noted that the scope of those attacks is part of my analysis, but I assumed that was obvious."

Yes, why don't you say what you actually mean instead of assuming that your worldview* is so persuasive that we should just all start there and agree how obviously right it is.

* - that worldview being: there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, across different continents, countries, and sects, but c'mon we all know what Muslims really are.
post #323 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post


You didn't specify where or when, of course, but both shah and I presented some numbers that refute your blanket claim, at least in the context of recent U.S. history.

A quick scan of that Wiki link you provided, from 1990 onwards (recent US history) does indeed have the majority of folks killed and injured by terror attacks in the US falling to Muslims. ELF and those Army of God fuckers were nasty too.
post #324 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

You started with this:
That's clearly and unambiguously a claim (or yet another argument by assertion) about the number of attacks. You didn't specify where or when, of course, but both shah and I presented some numbers that refute your blanket claim, at least in the context of recent U.S. history. Then you moved on to a claim about global networks. That's what counts. And then, finally you added, "perhaps I should have noted that the scope of those attacks is part of my analysis, but I assumed that was obvious."

Yes, why don't you say what you actually mean instead of assuming that your worldview* is so persuasive that we should just all start there and agree how obviously right it is.

* - that worldview being: there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, across different continents, countries, and sects, but c'mon we all know what Muslims really are.

Splitting hairs won't help you avoid the truth. The link you posted goes back to the early 19th century. Someone here suspected that you would eventually bring up the crusades and while you've managed to avoid that, using a murder committed in 1837 isn't exactly the most relevant piece of information for this discussion. My position is that Islamic terrorism is the biggest terrorist threat we face. What is your opinion on the matter?

You aren't part of this 26%, are you?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2013/26_of_obama_supporters_view_tea_party_as_nation_s_top_terror_threat



Apparently the Orlando terrorist tried to buy guns from a shop who rejected him and reported his suspicious behavior to the authorities.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/16/gun-shop-owners-declined-sell-orlando-jihadi-reported-authorities/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/orlando-shooter-turned-away-from-gun-store-owner-says-1466024932
post #325 of 1314
Thread Starter 

Members of the TP are not #1 on my list of likely terrorist actors but they're certainly in my top 10. (Don't tell budapest.)
post #326 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Splitting hairs won't help you avoid the truth.

Oh fuck off. I don't have any more time for your bullshit*. Have fun with your circlejerk with wojt and Kai.

* - everyone knows that Islamic extremism leading to violence is a problem. It's a problem that needs to be handled effectively. That's not your "truth." Your "truth" is: it's true that Muslim terrorism is the biggest, hugest, scariest problem if a) we don't define any parameters and keep chanting the mantra or b) we keep tinkering with the parameters in any which way we choose so that we can keep chanting the mantra. And so you can advocate for bullshit, useless non-policies.
Edited by erictheobscure - 6/16/16 at 2:19pm
post #327 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

The means of production impose the conditions of existence.

The weakness of orthodox Marxist analysis is precisely this insistence on the superstructure being merely a consequence of the infrastructure.

Back to capitalism, I'm pretty certain even some pretty pro-market conservatives are horrified at the switch from producer to consumer as the central definition of citizens of market democracies.
post #328 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Jesus fuck, no one is reading that shit. Five sentences tops. If you can't fucking make your point in that then your point is shit and no one cares anyway.

says the guy who published a 212-page book that's currently ranked #5,320,275 in book sales on Amazon
post #329 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post



Back to capitalism, I'm pretty certain even some pretty pro-market conservatives are horrified at the switch from producer to consumer as the central definition of citizens of market democracies.

And how could it ever be otherwise-- what purpose does the market serve? Do marxists ever opine on the teleology of the market? I know it's a mode of analysis that is far out of favor in the hard sciences, but in my industry it would be strange not to converse in explicitly teleological terms. The purpose of the firm, and every decision made therein, is to serve the consumer.
post #330 of 1314
Thread Starter 
A congress person gunned down in the US: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36550304

Wait. Wut?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread