|
Toplowtech posted:You display a total lack of knowledge about French history then call me an Eloi. Well, no matter how much you wish it wasn't intellectual and more actual in nature, you appear to be unable to distinguish farcical rephrasing of Ligur's statements about multiple cultures failing from po-faced seriousness. I guess the Anglo left have two things up on you- we can tell a joke and we aren't interested in replicating the totalitarian nature of capitalism. steinrokkan posted:There's nothing inherently good about diversity for the sake of diversity. Diversity at the cost of compromising universal rights and liberties is, in fact,a weakness. Actually, only having a single point of view on things is bad and maintaining that happy state of affairs requires unending violence and threats of violence to maintain. I, in accordance to what you and your little friend are doing to me, will assume that you think that this is fine and dandy, and cheer on bloodshed in the name of preventing dangerous diversity levels. Brainiac Five fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Apr 13, 2016 |
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 17:24
|
|
All while defending a feodal system that enjoyed burning and crushing people for their difference. I get it: a lot in the english speaking left have difficulty with the universality of human rights but championing regressive systems, because they allowed what's basically tribalism, in the name of "diversity" is a loving intellectual suicide.
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Actually, only having a single point of view on things is bad and maintaining that happy state of affairs requires unending violence and threats of violence to maintain. I, in accordance to what you and your little friend are doing to me, will assume that you think that this is fine and dandy, and cheer on bloodshed in the name of preventing dangerous diversity levels. Actually pretty much any institution devoted to diversity is simultaneously working on making sure that the "diverse" members conform to its norms, with the goal that so far that as far as the functioning of the institution is concerned, all members are identical. That's because the strength in diversity comes from having a broader body of people introduced and adapted to the established order of what is permissible within the scope of the given context, thus enhancing the influence of these norms. While not any single socializing influence like that may be considered total in its effect on pressurizing the minorities to be more like the majority, in a society there is an infinite number of institutions, each of which hinges its commitment to diversity on compliance with its own set of norms, which means that any person is subject to any number of overlapping sources of social pressure to be, in fact, less diverse, and only the most superficial facets of diversity, like ethnic cuisine, are allowed to persist without being labelled as deviant or anti-social. The idea of any society actually embracing diversity fully and homogeneously is, as far as I can see, a total fiction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Actually pretty much any institution devoted to diversity is simultaneously working on making sure that the "diverse" members conform to its norms, with the goal that so far that as far as the functioning of the institution is concerned, all members are identical. That's because the strength in diversity comes from having a broader body of people introduced and adapted to the established order of what is permissible within the scope of the given context, thus enhancing the influence of these norms. This post is not in accordance with our social norms so we're gonna take actions to guarantee you conform. Totalitarianism is loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This post is not in accordance with our social norms so we're gonna take actions to guarantee you conform. Totalitarianism is loving awesome. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 18:13
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Brainiac Five posted:This post is not in accordance with our social norms so we're gonna take actions to guarantee you conform. Totalitarianism is loving awesome. So you are saying that nobody ever in fact makes any demands on people to act according to prior rules?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Like, what I posted is literally post-structuralist, radical leftist critique of discourse on diversity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Actually pretty much any institution devoted to diversity is simultaneously working on making sure that the "diverse" members conform to its norms, with the goal that so far that as far as the functioning of the institution is concerned, all members are identical. That's because the strength in diversity comes from having a broader body of people introduced and adapted to the established order of what is permissible within the scope of the given context, thus enhancing the influence of these norms. America has embraced diversity. Where else do you see redheaded Germans with Italian heritage and practicing the Jewish faith? God bless America, the most diverse society to ever exist, and all thanks to our rooting in Judeo-Christian values.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:America has embraced diversity. Where else do you see redheaded Germans with Italian heritage and practicing the Jewish faith? If diversity means that you can tick a box saying "Jewish" on the census ballot, then yes, it's been achieved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If diversity means that you can tick a box saying "Jewish" on the census ballot, then yes, it's been achieved. A whole lot more diverse than Germany.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:So you are saying that nobody ever in fact makes any demands on people to act according to prior rules? I don't believe I wrote that at any point. I will write that your obsession with labels over contents ("this is a radical leftist critique" etc.) is suggestive that you aren't capable of recognizing that declaring yourself opposed to diversity means you are willing to commit violence against anyone who differs, up to and including killing them, because you can conjure an infinite array of semantic figleaves to hide behind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I don't believe I wrote that at any point. I will write that your obsession with labels over contents ("this is a radical leftist critique" etc.) is suggestive that you aren't capable of recognizing that declaring yourself opposed to diversity means you are willing to commit violence against anyone who differs, up to and including killing them, because you can conjure an infinite array of semantic figleaves to hide behind. Jumping to conclusions: always a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I don't believe I wrote that at any point. I will write that your obsession with labels over contents ("this is a radical leftist critique" etc.) is suggestive that you aren't capable of recognizing that declaring yourself opposed to diversity means you are willing to commit violence against anyone who differs, up to and including killing them, because you can conjure an infinite array of semantic figleaves to hide behind. Nobody has said anything about being against diversity, just that the usual definition is a shallow conceit to the majority rule, increasing overall conformism with the elites, and that one must be critical about what aspects of any potential genuinely diverse (bottom up diverse) society must be protected by restrictions to make it sustainable, to prevent it from self-cannibalization. You brought up that stupid French argument, which opened this can of worms of a society disintegrating into permanent war due to a supposedly "diverse" national make up. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Apr 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Jumping to conclusions: always a good idea. If you are not willing to use force, the prohibition on being a Goth or Muslim or whatever cannot be enforced. If you can't enforce it, it doesn't exist as a prohibition. If you get someone who continuously resists the prohibition, the force required to maintain it will eventually become lethal. Thus, to oppose diversity is to accept that you are OK with shooting someone for repeatedly listening to Joy Division or keeping halal. If you are uncomfortable with this, either dehumanize yourself and face to bloodshed, or admit that diversity is better than the alternatives. Or be intellectually fraudulent, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:If you are not willing to use force, the prohibition on being a Goth or Muslim or whatever cannot be enforced. If you can't enforce it, it doesn't exist as a prohibition. Isn't all political power backed up by the implicit threat of force?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:If you are not willing to use force, the prohibition on being a Goth or Muslim or whatever cannot be enforced. If you can't enforce it, it doesn't exist as a prohibition. That is an incredibly naive view of things. I guess it depends on what you consider to be diversity. Since listening to Joy Division or eating food (which I specificall mentioned!) hardly constitutes a challenge to the ruling structures, those aspects of differentiation will likely not be subject to strict, overlapping social control by them. What I consider diversity, however, is the ability to construct a complete communal political self, and or the ability to abstain from this communal identity and become politically independent without becoming silenced and ostracized. And such forms of social diversity are not currently possible for the vast majority of people who could benefit from them, neither in Europe, nor in America, no matter how much we use diversity as a slogan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Superbus MAS posted:Isn't all political power backed up by the implicit threat of force? Well, state power is. There are forms of political power that don't rely on force, but they are much less able to compel people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That is an incredibly naive view of things. I guess it depends on what you consider to be diversity. Since listening to Joy Division or eating food (which I specificall mentioned!) hardly constitutes a challenge to the ruling structures, those aspects of differentiation will likely not be subject to strict, overlapping social control by them. What I consider diversity, however, is the ability to construct a complete communal political self, and or the ability to abstain from this communal identity and become politically independent without becoming silenced and ostracized. And such forms of social diversity are not currently possible for the vast majority of people who could benefit from them, neither in Europe, nor in America, no matter how much we use diversity as a slogan. Hey, you sack of poo poo, what was all the Popperian crap about "threats to human rights" about, then? If you're not a two-bit philosophical hustler, you're exactly as I categorized you- focused on forms and devoid of content. The perfect brandvocate, empty of knowledge. Anyways, you've also managed to get this one wrong because the critique doesn't say anything about the desirability of or even the depression-fueled inevitability of this state of affairs. Keep trying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Hey, you sack of poo poo, what was all the Popperian crap about "threats to human rights" about, then? If you're not a two-bit philosophical hustler, you're exactly as I categorized you- focused on forms and devoid of content. The perfect brandvocate, empty of knowledge. Anyways, you've also managed to get this one wrong because the critique doesn't say anything about the desirability of or even the depression-fueled inevitability of this state of affairs. Keep trying. Could you please write something approaching an actual response instead of incoherent rage posts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Could you please write something approaching an actual response instead of incoherent rage posts? That was an actual response. I questioned the linkage between the argument that your buddy started with and the one he's promulgating right now. I said that he's either being dishonest or quite simply doesn't understand what the difference is. I then pointed out that his argument is also misrepresenting the actual position, so in conclusion, go drop dead in a shed, Fred. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Thus, to oppose diversity is to accept that you are OK with shooting someone for repeatedly listening to Joy Division or keeping halal. If you are uncomfortable with this, either dehumanize yourself and face to bloodshed, or admit that diversity is better than the alternatives. Or be intellectually fraudulent, whatever. Critisicism multiculturalism doesn't make someone a nazi you slippery slope loving shartwagon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Critisicism multiculturalism doesn't make someone a nazi you slippery slope loving shartwagon. Nice insult, very cutting. Anyways, you don't have to be a Nazi to be OK with shooting people for thinking the wrong things. In fact, Karl Popper specifically wrote an entire book to argue that being willing to murder people for dissident beliefs is in some cases necessary to defend against Nazism. And, ethically, it's hard to disagree with him. It's just that when you start saying "being monocultural is good" or "being multicultural is bad", you are not only denouncing the Roma, the Jews, the Muslims, etc. but also Goths, punks, emos, metalheads, etc. etc. because they too are cultures that are not THE culture, the monolithic entity that is good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Nice insult, very cutting. Anyways, you don't have to be a Nazi to be OK with shooting people for thinking the wrong things. In fact, Karl Popper specifically wrote an entire book to argue that being willing to murder people for dissident beliefs is in some cases necessary to defend against Nazism. And, ethically, it's hard to disagree with him. It's just that when you start saying "being monocultural is good" or "being multicultural is bad", you are not only denouncing the Roma, the Jews, the Muslims, etc. but also Goths, punks, emos, metalheads, etc. etc. because they too are cultures that are not THE culture, the monolithic entity that is good. I don't think you understand how satire works, but in the meantime feel free to slide slide that slope straight outta the thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:I don't think you understand how satire works, but in the meantime feel free to slide slide that slope straight outta the thread. I'm sure noted racist Ligur was being satirical, or noted dumbshits steinrokkan and blowfish were being satirical, or noted ???? you is being satirical. Maybe you think Karl Popper was being satirical? I don't know. Maybe you got "satirical" and "serious" confused somewhere? So, in any case, I like this line of thought. Certain cultures are more acceptable than others. Perhaps this correlates to a measure of value for the culture in question! Thus, we can talk all we want about how multiculturalism has failed to force the Muslims to dress the right way without also concluding that it's time to pummel some steampunks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm sure noted racist Ligur was being satirical, or noted dumbshits steinrokkan and blowfish were being satirical, or noted ???? you is being satirical. Maybe you think Karl Popper was being satirical? I don't know. Maybe you got "satirical" and "serious" confused somewhere? That's incredibly cool!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm sure noted racist Ligur was being satirical, or noted dumbshits steinrokkan and blowfish were being satirical, or noted ???? you is being satirical. Maybe you think Karl Popper was being satirical? I don't know. Maybe you got "satirical" and "serious" confused somewhere? Steinrokkan made some excellent points. If you don't agree with them, try to argue on the same level without raging so your argument doesn't sound like uneducated strawmanning and logical fallacies. Here ya go http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Baxta posted:Steinrokkan made some excellent points. If you don't agree with them, try to argue on the same level without raging so your argument doesn't sound like uneducated strawmanning and logical fallacies. No, he did not. He made an argument where he took a basic principle to extreme, absurdist ends, and when that failed to make me break down in awe at his genius he went to misunderstanding what other people have written. All because he wants a monocultural world but is too cowardly to accept the price of it. Just like you are too cowardly to accept the price of having a monocultural nation. That price is paid in blood, and if you are not willing to acknowledge that, then you lack moral courage completely and totally and the culture you believe is totally worthless because it has failed to instill that in you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
And that's why it's totally ok for me to act like a twat!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:And that's why it's totally ok for me to act like a twat! If you can't be an rear end in a top hat to self-important cowards and hypocrites, who can you be a jerk to? Certainly, you can't say that you're being pleasant to me, so...
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No, he did not. He made an argument where he took a basic principle to extreme, absurdist ends, and when that failed to make me break down in awe at his genius he went to misunderstanding what other people have written. All because he wants a monocultural world but is too cowardly to accept the price of it. Just like you are too cowardly to accept the price of having a monocultural nation. That price is paid in blood, and if you are not willing to acknowledge that, then you lack moral courage completely and totally and the culture you believe is totally worthless because it has failed to instill that in you. This is why you can't be taken seriously. I didn't say anything about any of that. You literally made it all up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Baxta posted:This is why you can't be taken seriously. I didn't say anything about any of that. You literally made it all up. Pardon me for assuming white Europeans are human beings capable of following the thread of a conversation or understanding implications. I will not make that mistake in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:That was an actual response. I questioned the linkage between the argument that your buddy started with and the one he's promulgating right now. I said that he's either being dishonest or quite simply doesn't understand what the difference is. I then pointed out that his argument is also misrepresenting the actual position, so in conclusion, go drop dead in a shed, Fred. The answer to your question is contained in my posts. A society that values a deliberative form of governance that I implied must be critical not only of the efforts to curb its liberties, but also about the efforts to enhance them in order to safeguard itself from being hijacked by authoritarians. You are right that there's nothing that should lead one to believe diversity as we implicitly understand it within liberal democratic systems is a desirable state of affairs, and I made it abundantly clear in my posts, which you apparently didn't read past their opening sentences, and I also mentioned the main features of the current problems and the basic concept required to overcome them. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Apr 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
In case you got this far, I'll recap: In the current system, functional units of social systems fulfil certain functions, among them is the aggregation of people under their authority and formulation of their needs, as well as paths to achieve these needs. Since the institutions charged with these functions in areas of vital political significance are under state control, the population is by and large required to strip itself of diverse facets in these areas in order to be successful in them. In other words, state-sanctioned organizations decide on the limits of diversity in each social context where power and politics are considered, and these limits are compounded by coexisting with each other in the space a single functioning human must occupy. What we then have is a state of affairs in which individual identities are "uploaded" to the elites, assessed, and given an authoritative agenda of becoming more conformist in order to achieve a political agency of one own. What we should have, however, is something in the shape of deliberative democracy. So instead of the current model of of taking the diverse, aggregating them into a social object for the higher level of social hierarchy to approve and then ruling over them through social institutions til they are integrated according to the elite wishes, we would see a system in which each social subject is preserved with its agency (by making the decision making process a more free-form, less vertically structured collaboration of interest representatives), and governing organizations are created in a pro tempore fashion on a broad, discursive basis and designed to be always open to change based on emerging and transforming identities. However, this deliberative process is by no means an anything-goes sort of affair, it is actually critical that it maintains its critical (ha) faculties and its ability to formulate a legitimate blocking criticism of destabilizing proposals. The difference is that this blocking is achieved through argumentation between peers rather than by adhering to structures with historical legacy of political bias. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Apr 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The answer to your question is contained in my posts. A society that values a deliberative form of governance that I implied must be critical not only of the efforts to curb its liberties, but also about the efforts to enhance them in order to safeguard itself from being hijacked by authoritarians. You are right that there's nothing that should lead one to believe diversity as we implicitly understand it within liberal democratic systems is a desirable state of affairs, and I made it abundantly clear in my posts, which you apparently didn't read past their opening sentences, and I also mentioned the main features of the current problems and the basic concept required to overcome them. Well, out of the gate you start off with reversing the meaning of my post. I said that the current state of affairs where compliance is forced is not treated as an idealized or inevitable one. It's like, I'm starting to think it would actually kill you to respond honestly. And yet, that's not discouraging me from pushing for it. steinrokkan posted:In case you got this far, I'll recap: In the current system, functional units of social systems fulfil certain functions, among them is the aggregation of people under their authority and formulation of their needs, as well as paths to achieve these needs. Since the institutions charged with these functions in areas of vital political significance are under state control, the population is by and large required to strip itself of diverse facets in these areas in order to be successful in them. In other words, state-sanctioned organizations decide on the limits of diversity in each social context where power and politics are considered, and these limits are compounded by coexisting with each other in the space a single functioning human must occupy. What we then have is a state of affairs in which individual identities are "uploaded" to the elites, assessed, and given an authoritative agenda of becoming more conformist in order to achieve a political agency of one own. Oh buddy, this is so much gabble when you could have been concise and boiled it down to, "In MY idealized fantasyland we'll shut down illiberalism without any possibility of force, by 'argumentation between peers'." See, using phrases like "adhering to structures with historical legacy of political bias" doesn't improve the intellectual content, it just obfuscates the core argument of "We can talk fascists into giving up" for the idiots who populate these threads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:See, using phrases like "adhering to structures with historical legacy of political bias" doesn't improve the intellectual content, it just obfuscates the core argument of "We can talk fascists into giving up" for the idiots who populate these threads. It's broader than that, structures can also mean religious structures. "Adhering to structures with historical legacy of political bias" is fine, sorry about your five reptilian brains.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Oh buddy, this is so much gabble when you could have been concise and boiled it down to, "In MY idealized fantasyland we'll shut down illiberalism without any possibility of force, by 'argumentation between peers'." Your argument sums up to "capitalism and patriarchy are awesome because I can buy kebab" Also I said nothing about enforcement, only about decision making, just as I said nothing about enforcement in a liberal democratic society. Sorry you are in love with the status quo so much, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
quote:BRUSSELS – Jan Jambon, the Belgian interior minister, aroused a storm of controversy in the country Wednesday when, in a television interview, he compared the Muslim terrorists who hid in Brussels for months to “the Jews who hid here during the Nazi occupation,” later clarifying that his comments pertained to "the mechanism of hiding." How do you not get this is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Merkel has given the go ahead for the prosecution of the German comedian who made fun of Erdogan over his thin skin http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-agrees-prosecution-comedian-erdogan-poem I hadn't seen the clip and it appears the link on Vimeo has been taken down. Not sure if it's satire or actual straight-up insults since, well, all videos pertaining to it seem to have disappeared from Google. The article suggests it was playing on what was or was not acceptable to say (or even true).
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 13:52
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Merkel has given the go ahead for the prosecution of the German comedian who made fun of Erdogan over his thin skin http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-agrees-prosecution-comedian-erdogan-poem If you speak German, here you go https://www.facebook.com/RecInvasion/videos/1059293567471089/?pnref=story Basically there is 2 min of introduction talking about the earlier extra3 satire and than he says "what I'm no going to read is forbidden" and than reads ~2min long poem that calls Erdogan a child porn watcher, goat fucker, girl beater, having oral sex with sheep, a little penis, gay, Zoophilia and some other poo poo. It's also important to understand that the role of the Bundesregierung in §104a is not to actually judge the merits of the case (that's the job of the courts) but to check whether the formal requirements (e.g. does Erdogan fall under the protection of §103, does Germany have diplomatic relations with Turkey, did Germany receive a note from Turkey stating that they demand prosecution etc.) were met.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Sounds like it's a good time for every other TV personality to read the poem, then. Would be quite a show if Ergodan sued them all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
I am loathe to simply sum up Merkel's actions as "welp, there goes liberal Europe surrendering to the fundamentalist Middle East again..." as I am aware that Merkel is moving to have the portion of the law that allows such prosecutions removed. However, I do wonder what it says about the state of affairs when it's even potentially acceptable to prosecute someone for saying something insulting (slander/libel aside, as I doubt this applies), whether or not it's satire. What happened to the principles of free speech? The rapid erosion of press rights and speech rights in Turkey should be a warning to Europe, I would think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 15:58
|
|