121–130 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That people who are against good things happening are part of the reason these good things aren't happening.
Being against showing off shallow acts of goodness done only for clout is not the same as being against good things happening.
But I assume they're strongly correlated.
I.e. people who are against virture signaling want to get rid of it, because they got nothing to signal, and it makes them look bad in relation.
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…
That is one possibility. Another is wu wei, passive denial of benefits, malicious compliance, lying flat.
The householder role stops working? Practice renunciation and take the monastic path instead. People will be upset that you have made yourself useless to them, but you're completely within your rights.
(This is not really spiritually good, since it comes from a place of contempt, of course. But it's where, "fine, fuckit" gets you.)
Multiplied across a whole society, however, this does of course lead to sagging GDP and reduced living standards.
It's a little like the West's approach to Russia or Iran. Force is off the table? Ok: "You will no longer receive any gains from trade. We'll see who can last longer."
This is roughly where heterosexuality was in 2020, I fear sometimes. But, with everyone finally emerging from their houses now, I think they may appreciate other people more now. We'll see if it lasts.
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…
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…
That's not only demonstrably false in lots of cases, it also doesn't advance discourse because now we're talking about potentially fictitious people with potentially fictitious beliefs that we just try to infer, instead of constructively arguing concrete points of view.
I claim that it's perfectly legitimate to think that certain other people are ill-equipped to make certain decisions. I believe in democracy because it is the least bad alternative, not because I somehow believe in the miraculously truthful insights of the general public.
More concretely, there's opinions that I disagree with but I respect that they are valid positions to be held, and there are opinions that I believe to be held out of ignorance. I don't know why I shouldn't be able to think that, and if other people want to believe that I'm ignorant, well they're free to do so and that doesn't affect my judgement generally (unless it comes from someone whose opinion I respect, of course).
That's of course different from the question of whether you should let people know that you think they're ill-informed. I agree that stating that overtly will probably not win you any sympathy.
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…
> ...an extended nursery of deceptions produced by subtly fabricated narratives, designed to subjugate their identities... Parklife!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's context-dependent isn't it? The same joke can be harmless fun in one context, and a cruel jab in another, eh? "Do unto others..." isn't a compressed file that expands into generic rules for every situation. (If life was simple enough to be covered by a set of generic rules we wouldn't have evolved these huge calorie-guzzling brains on the ends of our spines, eh?)
That's exactly my point. Understanding the dependent context can be considered the "advanced morality" the parent post asked about.
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…
> they will also likely discover the power of force That is one possibility. Another is wu wei , passive denial of benefits, malicious compliance, lying flat. The householder role stops working? Practice renunciation and take the monastic path instead. People will be upset that you have made yourself useless to them, but you're completely within your rights. (This is not really spiritually good, since it comes from a…
Wu Wei is a core part of Taoism, and translates (very) roughly along the lines of "following the way of nature" or going with the flow.
It most definitely is not nihilism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You are still being incredibly condescending. The people you mock don’t view themselves as “academically handicapped” and they voted for Trump because they thought he was smart, not because he was rich. 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…
That’s a big claim to make without offering any examples.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they will also likely discover the power of force That is one possibility. Another is wu wei , passive denial of benefits, malicious compliance, lying flat. The householder role stops working? Practice renunciation and take the monastic path instead. People will be upset that you have made yourself useless to them, but you're completely within your rights. (This is not really spiritually good, since it comes from a…
Just to speak to a common misconception - this is not what Wu Wei means. Wu Wei is a core part of Taoism, and translates (very) roughly along the lines of "following the way of nature" or going with the flow. It most definitely is not nihilism.
Whether what I'm describing is nihilism I'm not sure, but it might be. ("No True Nihilist"?)
Certainly what it is is passive.
It seems easy for renunciation to go bad, to become a degenerate, contemptuous, and self-indulgent thing.
Maybe the idea from Hinduism (as I understand it, and translate coarsely) is better: Always put yourself out there, and do care about your execution, but don't be attached to the results. That might be a better way to avoid suffering without encouraging depressive (passive, inactive) behaviors?
The conservative would struggle with: How does one "go with the flow", if the flow goes over the falls? How does one go with the flow and with Nature, if, in the short term (where we have to live), the flow seems to be against Nature?
And how do you deal with all the nasty game-theoretics of it while keeping your decency? Do you really just keep turning the other cheek, or do you need some proportionate response strategy from Repeated Games?
I'm really not sure.
I think part of the answer has to be wanting less, materially. Maybe that's a thing that a couple can do, together, because they get something more valuable in return, e.g. a family.
But I'm just thinking aloud.
I think this is why I like Ecclesiastes so much. "You're not alone: This guy in the Bronze Age had the same struggle, and wrote it all down, honestly." (He didn't reach all the conclusions that the Buddhists did, of course.)
shrug
I should go do something useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, the commenter I replied to had not mentioned trans-people vs biological men, or anything. They just said men vs women and left it that. See my point?
So how you want the game to work is that you expect me to defend myself against being called bigoted or yield to your ideology. That's how you are propagating your perspective?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to speak to a common misconception - this is not what Wu Wei means. Wu Wei is a core part of Taoism, and translates (very) roughly along the lines of "following the way of nature" or going with the flow. It most definitely is not nihilism.
Thanks. To zeroeth order I understand it as "the power of inaction", but clearly the connotations are supposed to be much more positive than in my earlier usage. Whether what I'm describing is nihilism I'm not sure, but it might be. ("No True Nihilist"?) Certainly what it is is passive. It seems easy for renunciation to go bad, to become a degenerate, contemptuous, and self-indulgent thing. Maybe the idea from Hindui…