Live data from Hacker News

The world's most toxic value system (2001)

uwgb.edu

101–110 of 209 posts

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#101
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is that a lot of honor based societies perpetuate themselves at lower levels because they get battered hard by the overarching society / more powerful external powers. People feel that they need to protect themselves and their tribes from being stomped from above. Combatting power inequality and systemic violence/abuse is probably the biggest counter to turf fights, domestic violence, etc., at least on…

Yeah I'd say it's not necessarily a case of honor based systems causing poverty. It's also the other way around. Pretty straightforward. If you make a long essay about how a belief system causes poverty you'll be demonized by the left; the other way around, and you'll be demonized by the right. Say they dovetail, and nobody cares.

> Say they dovetail, and nobody cares.

Seems that in general, feedback loops are too difficult to politicize, and so their understanding is often missing from the public discourse.

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#102

There are a lot of works on the relative impact of honor or shame cultures. I was first exposed to that concept by some of the works of Roland Muller ( http://www.rmuller.com/ ). The thesis that is favored by Christian theology is that Jesus taught forgiveness as the word of God rather than retribution (eye for an eye) which has been the prevailing response, and in so doing changed cultures that had been stagnant for…

If you are interested in the role of "honor" in American culture, and up for lengthy academic treatise filled with incredible tidbits of knowledge, David Hackett Fischer's book "Albion's Seed" is delightful. For example, here's an excerpt that stuck with me regarding President Andrew Jackson's approach to marriage:

The border custom of bridal abduction was introduced to the American backcountry. In North and South Carolina during the eighteenth century, petitioners complained to authorities that “their wives and daughters were carried captives” by rival clans.

Even future President of the United States Andrew Jackson took his wife by an act of voluntary abduction. Rachel Donelson Robards was unhappily married to another man at the time. A series of complex quarrels followed, in which Rachel Robards made her own preferences clear, and Andrew Jackson threatened her husband Lewis Robards that he would “cut his ears out of his head.” Jackson was promptly arrested. But before the case came to trial the suitor turned on the husband, butcher knife in hand, and chased him into the canebreak. Afterward, the complaint was dismissed because of the absence of the plaintiff—who was in fact running for his life from the defendant. Andrew Jackson thereupon took Rachel Robards for his own, claiming that she had been abandoned. She went with Jackson willingly enough; this was a clear case of voluntary abduction. But her departure caused a feud that continued for years.

For a cultural historian, the responses to this event were more important than the act itself. In later years, Jackson’s methods of courtship became a campaign issue, and caused moral outrage in other parts of the republic; but in the backcountry he was not condemned at the time. Historian Robert Remini writes, “One thing is certain. Whatever Rachel and Andrew did, and whenever they did it, their actions did not outrage the community.”

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#103

This is interesting. At the risk of being lambasted for this view, I've often felt that this is the issue with a lot of places within the United States. For instance, I've always considered personal interactions in the South to be largely dictated by honor. I do not think it is coincidental that the poorest and least-educated areas of the country are the same area. I think a similar problem is at play in inner-city v…

My impression is that a lot of honor based societies perpetuate themselves at lower levels because they get battered hard by the overarching society / more powerful external powers. People feel that they need to protect themselves and their tribes from being stomped from above. Combatting power inequality and systemic violence/abuse is probably the biggest counter to turf fights, domestic violence, etc., at least on…

In the past of any European country you'll see peasants being largely peaceful and the aristocracy following honor culture at its worst. Honor culture doesn't arise in response to oppression, it arises when private violence is unchecked by law. The only counter is rule of law.

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#104
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why should I care about their perspective? When we judge people, we judge them based on our own system of values (morality, ethics etc - call it whatever you like). They are basically axioms that we take for granted, and that provide a starting point for the logical reasoning process. I don't see why societies should be any different in that regard. So, yes, every time you see a statement along the lines of "soci…

>So, yes, every time you see a statement along the lines of "society X is better than Y", it comes with an implied "Based on my values, ..." But precisely because it is always there, there's no point spelling it out every time. The problem is: it isn't always there, even when it should be. Some people actually mean "Society X is better than Y in an absolute, not relative, sense."

From their perspective, it may well be - not everyone subscribes to moral relativism; it's part of those axioms.

But even then, "Based on my values ..." is implied. It just comes with an assertion that those values are universal (which, if you're a cultural relativist, you'll treat the same as well, recursively).

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#105
post #62

I'm not sure why the author lumps together so many of the attributes he does, and when he does acknowledge exceptions, rather than learn from them and understand why they exist, he simply waves his hands an says Japan wasn't honor-bound enough or not in the right way or whatever else. His examples are cherry-picked and similar examples exist in the countries he holds up as exemplars. Saudi Arabia viewed cleaning as w…

The weirdest thing was the drive by defense of the Confederate flag. That tipping of the hand was downright parkinsonian.

I’m glad it wasn’t just me that had a “hold the phone” moment there.

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#106
post #62

I'm not sure why the author lumps together so many of the attributes he does, and when he does acknowledge exceptions, rather than learn from them and understand why they exist, he simply waves his hands an says Japan wasn't honor-bound enough or not in the right way or whatever else. His examples are cherry-picked and similar examples exist in the countries he holds up as exemplars. Saudi Arabia viewed cleaning as w…

The weirdest thing was the drive by defense of the Confederate flag. That tipping of the hand was downright parkinsonian.

Was it a defense? I thought he meant that it's a sign of 'thar' that people have become so emotionally (1) attached and (2) opposed to it, when it should just be something to be seen in history books at most.

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#108

- Extreme importance of personal status and sensitivity to insult - Acceptance of personal revenge including retaliatory killing - Obsessive male dominance - Paranoia over female sexual infidelity - Primacy of family rights over individual rights And who do these values remind you of? It is especially funnysad to read this 16 year old American writing today.

#1 is at least very familiar today. It's a trait of a narcissist. 2017 should really be the year of narcissism awareness. Suddenly it's a disorder that affects us all.

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#109

I don't understand author's position. Vendetta is obviously bad. Genocide and religiois fanaticism is incompatible with western sosiety. This is obvious too. Other than that, well, sometimes it is perfectly rational to act agressively or overreact to show your seriousness or be impolite in response to some sort of behavior. It depends.

> Vendetta is obviously bad.

That depends on the value system. When human life is worth less than retaining honour, then killing by vendetta is obviously desirable and good for thar society.

Re: The world's most toxic value system (2001)

#110
Ahistorical, generalizing, self-serving and definitely not within the author's stated expertise (earth science, physical sciences, astronomy).

However an extremely interesting and brief summation of a very widely held world-view.

To me what makes it obviously wrong is the simple fact of the holocaust and of Stalin's purges. No honor culture required there. My view is that our cultures and indeed characters are like water balloons - squeeze em tight in one place and watch em pop out elsewhere.

Post reply on HN