111–120 of 155 posts
The shame machine has created a disequillibrium, and personally I won't miss it when societies correct. More gravely, I think there is a coming generation of young men who will also wake up one day and say, "I don't need your redemption, it has no value." And like that, they will no longer avoid or deny shame, or be governed by it because redemption is a hustle, the carrot to shame's stick. When they see that they ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think there is a coming generation of young men who will also wake up one day and say, "I don't need your redemption, it has no value." And like that, they will no longer avoid or deny shame This "coming generation" you refer towards is already present and is otherwise known as "the status quo of maleness for basically all of recorded human history".
> the status quo of maleness for basically all of recorded human history I'm pretty sure that's completely false. Consider the white feather campaign in Britain during WWI. So much of male behavior throughout history has precisely been about preserving honor and avoiding shame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think others are sensitive about a topic, does it seem right to you to make jokes at their expense?
And how do you know if they are sensitive? Are you going to ask them, or not? If not, why not? If yes, would it still be the golden rule? Or perhaps platinum rule - do unto others as -they- wish, not as -you-. What I am trying to say is that the golden rule and its applicability is far from obvious. You can consider interpreting it correctly the most basic "advanced morality" you asked about.
> Should I disregard the fact other people might be insecure about it, because I don't mind people "doing unto me" such jokes?
You seemed to show awareness that people might be insecure - so you have the information you need to exercise your judgement in this case. And every case will be resolvable if you want, via the application of reason. But this is a free will universe - you can ignore the information that you have, but then, you also know what that means.
If you want to say whatever-it-is isn't obvious, that's fine. You don't have to follow what I say. In truth, what I (or the golden rule say) isn't important - words are pliable if you want them to be and work at it. You already know what is right and wrong, what intent your actions have behind them - the words are merely decorative; an attempt to communicate.
My view is that we judge ourselves. If you think you can kid yourself and via word games so you can have you cake and eat it, go ahead - but you have been told. There is a difference between nascence and ignorance - ignorance is a choice. All the best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are elitist traps in here, somewhere. First, that a lot of people are too uneducated, stupid or uninformed to be responsible for the moral viewpoints. Hence why all blame should be foisted onto the "villainous leaders who manipulated." Second, that your (our) moral viewpoint is the advanced... and the contrary presumably degenerate or primitive. That kind of empathy isn't well received. It's condescension. At i…
This is what makes it difficult to discuss this. It's hard to do without rudely insulting people. How do you find words that are not too condescending. There is a long history of using "the people" to mean non intellectuals including it being enshrined in the US constitution. But that often does not make it clear enough for everyone to understand that we're talking about a vulnerability. Populism gets turned into a d…
At some point the “academic smarts” have to demonstrate success, otherwise people will rightfully discard them. Decades of constant failure from supposedly elite people in every possible field have lead to a reaction where people just don’t trust them no matter what they claim. Name your issue, and I guarantee someone with very good credentials who was very confident in their advocacy is responsible for its current state.
The problem isn’t that the “proles” are stupid, but rather that the educated aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are. Nearly every person I know who has poor critical thinking skills and accepts the first thing they hear without question is college educated, and there are many conspiracy theories commonly believed by educated people.
The shame machine has created a disequillibrium, and personally I won't miss it when societies correct. More gravely, I think there is a coming generation of young men who will also wake up one day and say, "I don't need your redemption, it has no value." And like that, they will no longer avoid or deny shame, or be governed by it because redemption is a hustle, the carrot to shame's stick. When they see that they ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the kind of reasoning people want to be true, as in „I’m not lazy, it’s just my perfectionism…“ Can anyone tag some name onto these shameless and shameful tribes? Because I can’t come up with anything that I would want to be associated with.
Guilt–shame–fear spectrum of cultures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt%E2%80%93shame%E2%80%93fe...
This wiki page describes the 3 negative types, and the 3 different cultures they create. The posturing types want appearance of being strong and wise, they are those pseudo-scientists and fake saints, so they create a guilt society. The vanity types want to feel morally superior to others, they enjoy creating contrived dogmas and making others navigate these dogmatic mazes, and they create a shame society. Finally, the fear types create a fear society: in the final stage of every cycle, when the strongest of the fear types are ruling the world, they create a death cult, with dark temples and other attributes.
The wiki page doesn't mention societies created by the 3 positive types, aka the "golden age" of every civilisation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of something I read recently: The majority of people who criticize virtue signaling possess no virtues whatsoever.
That seems like a completely empty and likely incorrect phrase. What exactly does it mean to you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems like a completely empty and likely incorrect phrase. What exactly does it mean to you?
That people who are against good things happening are part of the reason these good things aren't happening.
The article kinda misses a major point: > Flanagan calls shame accompanied by progressive values “mature shame” I would argue that shaming used to promote your political views is often the most damaging kind of shaming because on top of being the most divisive, it is likely counterproductive, an offputting move that damages your brand and often creates a powerful backlash against it. Now there's some subtlety here. I…
> Advanced morality about things like race and gender is complex and not within everyone's reach. "Advanced morality" - what's that? Can you teach me? Afaik, morality begins (and ends) with the Golden Rule 'do unto others'. "Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)" "Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)" https://en.wiki…
The so-called Platinum Rule is presented as a better alternative to the Golden Rule, but it should be viewed as (and relegated to) something more like "fine print". There's an important reason for this:
The Golden Rule actually promotes empathy. It gives you a simple tool for understanding situations: Put yourself in the other person's shoes and ask what you'd want. This is something that you, and others, are likely to be somewhat capable of.
The Platinum Rule, by contrast, discourages empathy (under the guise of the reverse), by telling you to emphasize difference between yourself and the other person, and making them more unknowable, more Other. It also, in practice, tends to promote suspicion, fear-of-offense, and, as a result, inaction: "I would like it if someone did this for me. But maybe they wouldn't? Maybe they'll be mad for some reason? I hear those people have strange beliefs and fiery tempers. Ok, I'll just mind my own business."
Fine, yes, in extreme border cases, it's worth pausing and considering "platinum rule"-like considerations. But even there I contend that you're better off using the Golden Rule's mantra, and putting yourself in the other's shoes; then all the second-order effects can be included in those "shoes".
In short, from an emotional perspective, the Golden Rule simply works better.
Instead the situation can be a bit like --
You're trying to build a bridge. And you have this good way to do it, using Newtonian mechanics.
And then somebody comes along and goes, "but achktually, 'General Relativity', you idiot; who let you near bridges?" Not that they themselves could possibly calculate the loads using a full General-Relativistic treatment. And then, everybody gives up: The bridge stays unbuilt, and warring camps form on opposite sides of the river.
This gets at another problem with the "Platinum Rule": It is, fairly explicitly, a way for a person to say, "your consensus about how to be good is wrong; I am better". In this way it's an elitist idea: "I'm so smart; my ethics are superior to the rubes'". The Golden Rule, by contrast, is leveling.
Life comes at you fast. You need good simple mental tools -- mantras -- that help you to cultivate the correct emotional states. When you catch fire, you don't have time to calculate stoichiometry; you "Stop, Drop, and Roll".
The Golden Rule is like that for ethics. It's one of the very few things that actually works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Advocates for diversity love all its superficial forms (skin color, gender, sexual orientation etc) and absolutely loathe the only form that matters...diversity of thought.
Reminds me of something I read recently: The majority of people who criticize virtue signaling possess no virtues whatsoever.