There is a Romanian phrase, used when someone abuses a certain issue, which can be paraphrased along the line of, “Easy with the Western Culture down the stairs.” If you rush too much, you may break whatever you are rushing with, is the meaning. I feel that recently this is the case with Western Culture in the Culture/Social Justice/Whatfuckingever wars that do not seem to go away.
There are two facets to this. Well let’s not go to binary, like gender there are a million facets to this. One is that the CW/SJW thing is often little more than a massive distraction, a lot of noise to drown the signal, keep the participants busy while corrupt politicians keep doing corrupt politician shit. On the other hand, it cannot be fully ignored, because aspects of it are very dangerous. One of the main components of this was/is the late/great Western Culture. I will address this, sort of, kind of, with plenty of to be sure and wimpy language.
So let’s get ready to a-rumble… in the ehm Red (Pinko sometimes) corner we have the Progressive Left. In the Other Red corner we have the various flavours of the alt right. In the middle we have the enlightened alt centrist; the self-described non regressive left; the modern right; the cosmotarians; and a few odds and ends. In the end, we have the battle of progressives versus literal Nazis. And western culture is at the forefront, it is the gloves, if you will.
To start with, let’s go to Wikipedia, because why not. “Western culture, sometimes equated with Western civilization, Occidental culture, the Western world, Western society, European civilization, or Judeo-Greco-Christian civilization, is a term used very broadly to refer to a heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief systems, political systems and specific artifacts and technologies that have some origin or association with Europe.”
So, as we can see, Western Culture is a very expansive category. It can mean many things to many people (for some The Sistine chapel, for others The Chive and the invention of the bikini), then and there, now and here. This is why I am rather wary of overusing it as some generic all-encompassing term in a debate. We must defend western culture is the rallying cry. Which one? Which parts of it? To what ends? These are questions I feel we need to keep in mind.
Just as a side note, I find the construct Judeo-Greco-Christian rather silly, and one of the things that annoys me about some modern conservatives. For most western history this was not a thing, as Christians were highly divided until recently and Jews have a long history of not being on the best terms with the mighty western culture. There is no single unified Judeo-Greco-Christian tradition. Yes, various flavors of Christian and Jew contributed to the development of the ideas behind the West, and the culture obviously developed in the context of religion. But this is not enough for this construct.
I might state that I am not religious and I see little worth to attaching so called western values to a religion or other in the present, especially since a number of the enlightenment people who developed these values, while most likely being religious themselves, did not approach philosophy from a religious angle. Judeo –Christian means in modern speak not Muslim and sometimes not secular, and it is an attempt to try to co-opt all sorts of people as a collective. It is, as we say in Romania, an ostrichcamel.
Now, for a second side note, let’s get subjective, as the various warriors are wont to do. You may not have noticed, but I am a Romanian. As such, I am somewhat at the fringes of western culture. Romania was not traditionally part of it, or not fully, at least. Always scurrying along the edges, looking in. An eastern orthodox nation heavily influenced by Russian and the Ottoman Empire, the habits, mores, traditions are different. We were of course part of Christendom in the premodern era, and had elements of western and eastern culture. And many a times the leaders wanted more, Romania was always on a long slow path to being more of a part of the West. When joining the EU many said we joined Europe.
With all that said, I can say I admire many a thing about western culture, and as a modern Romanian I consider myself part of it. But I do not like to look at it as a uniform thing. As a libertarian, I like liberty and individualism. As a human I like security, prosperity and everything that comes with that. And I like the parts of Western culture that promoted those things, many then, most if not all, other human cultures. I am also critical of elements of Western Culture that did the opposite.
I do not like mindless worship of anything, including culture. And I do not like nostalgia about some long lost ideal past. There was never such a thing. All cultures need improvement and everything needs criticism. Humans, and their societies, are hardly perfect. And it looks to me like all these western culture warriors only use it as a rhetorical tool and little else.
The free speech war is a good example in this regard. One should not think rightists want to preserve free speech when they did not in the past. Just like the true face of the left free speech movement was seen after they thought they could get speech they didn’t like banned. It is also good to notice that, while free speech was a value of Western Culture and vigorously defended by many in the past, it needed vigorous defence precisely as it was constantly under attack by elements of the same culture.
One issue is that, as a libertarian, you often are accused of wanting to go back to sometime in the past because you want a reduction in taxes regulations and general involvement of the state in the economy. This is due to the fact that leftist arguing 101 is to scream racist at people, and they constantly try to equate thinking that the regulatory environment was better in the past, that the whole society was better, and that you want all aspects of that society including the racism and discrimination. This is false and should be countered, which why it is important to phrase arguments properly beyond the western culture thing.
Me, I do not want to go back. I do not like the phrase going forward either to be honest. But, to take the standard analogy, going forward on the wrong road is not a good idea. I want to go down the road to more liberty. If this implies certain aspects to be more like they were in the past, it is not going back, it is going toward liberty. If I find things wrong in the past, but OK now, I want to keep them. If there was something wrong then and wrong now, I do not want to “move forward,” I want change towards liberty. But I do not appreciate keeping things as they are just because that’s how they are. If they are wrong, they must be changed.
Everyone thinks repealing laws they don’t like is progress, but repealing laws they do like is regressive. Which is natural, let’s not stop progress towards my goal. But switching targets is not regressive in itself, even if I don’t like the targets. The trick to improvement is to keep the parts that are good and change the ones that are not. Change for the sake of change is not always desirable. And not everything new is good.
With all the previous caveats, I do believe that western culture is up there with the best that human achieved, lacking as it may be. I do not judge the past based on the future, and while there are things in 1800 I find wrong, it does not in any way invalidate western culture or the achievement of those people, mostly white men who sometimes owned slaves or maybe didn’t think women should have equal rights.
Free markets and capitalism brought the biggest increase in human prosperity in history. Of course this does not mean that some industrialists did not treat their employees poorly, although governments did have something to do with constant meddling. But this does not take away the achievements of capitalism, nor does it mean that without the big government of today, conditions would have remained like in the 1800s. Society and ideas evolve, views and attitudes improve. And above all, economic and technological growth moves things in the right direction, despite what government or some of the worse industrialists would want. You do not need the benevolence of the capitalist to improve worker conditions; the market does that just fine if you let it be. But I do not glorify the 1800s.
I believe that the best development of the West was individualism and individual negative rights. This led to liberty and values that lead to a successful life. Through the tumultuous past, I see ideals of liberty as a fine wire weaved through, moving things the right way. There probably is an English expression for this but I can’t figure it out.
Be a good person. Educate yourself. Earn your keep, have stable relationships, raise you children right (should you have any), and be charitable to the less fortunate. Help your neighbours, family and friends – as long as they deserve it. Be fair, be just. Do not initiate violence. Drink good scotch. Don’t dress like a clown. This is all a part of western culture that must be not only kept but enhanced. We don’t have enough of it. But it is not necessarily exclusive to western culture and it was not, sadly, an overwhelming component of it.
And here lies the problem that makes me somewhat more favorable towards the pro west-cult people than The Others. The right try to make of western culture something that it was not, and some sort of sacred cow. The progressive left, and even worse the postmodern left (yeah yeah I know the word postmodern gets thrown about a lot, but I believe it applies), the SJWs of the world are in fact a much bigger threat. They do want to tear down all elements of western culture. Which is stupid. It is more than stupid, it is insane. Tearing down everything means there is nothing worth keeping. This is utterly ridiculous, as they were quite obviously the most successful nations, even when it comes to the stuff leftist claim to care about such as tolerance, secularism etc. And being collectivists, they want to tear down individualism. This can only lead to disaster.
Why are these people so suicidal insane? It is hard to tell. Human nature one would suppose. They are so desperate to push their idiotic economic ideology, that they just don’t care what they destroy doing so. How someone may think this is a good idea is baffling. Fiat Socialism, pereat mundus, I suppose. Red or dead. Communism or bust.
The moderate left is timidly fighting back, and more and more. This is not just the YouTube sphere of the so called non-regressive left, but more of the mainstream. There is of course the vestige of the non-prog left, which does admit some value to western culture. These people are, of course, literally Nazis.
A very thoughtful piece on a complicated subject, clearly written by a Nazi who doesn’t see the world in extreme, black and white terms.
Well said Kevin!
And I agree with you Pie: individual rights and freedom over everything else.
What does this make you, fellow glibertarians?
I’ll get back to you once my orphans dry me off after my swim in my pool of gold coins.
Wash this!
I want to go down the road to more liberty.
I’ll travel with you.
Great piece, Pie!
Thanks. Sadly the road seemes snowd in and freezing cold
*holds up sign reading “anywhere but here” and holds out thumb for a ride*
Antarctica, Greenland, and the far north of Canada are all anywhere but here.
*stops Unimog to pick up hitchhiker*
At least the road to more liberty isn’t crowded.
Oh, wait.
Funny you say this, because I just had a discussion recently with a proggie that told me he was for more liberty as long as that liberty validated and supported his dogma and beliefs. After all, he was a right-thinker, unlike the other barbarians that can’t see the wisdom in Marx’s pile of shit.
This is where “I don’t give a shit” comes in like we discussed earlier. It does not come easy if you weren’t wired that way, but once you figure it out life becomes so much easier.
Only went there with one proggie after I realized the asshat never argued out of any semblance of good faith but was always out to find some technically to claim victory when they had no argument to make. Most of the time though I love running circles around them and watching them melt like the snowflakes they are. Most will act as if they gave it a good fight, but they know they got owned. That is why I often say proggies react to logic and facts like vampires do to sunlight, holy symbols and holy water, and to garlic…
Seconded.
Why would I want to take advice from a Nazi like you Pie?
Because i can get you racially pure big breasted wimminz
OK, done.
Count me in too.
Iron Guard, when they’re Romanians they’re called Iron Guard. Which is a better name anyway.
I prefer the legion of the archangel Michael to get some orthodox mysticism in with the fash
Here’s some pure Western Culture. So much so I may have to buy one just for the lulz.
https://archive.is/fSDmC
In my youth I was a staunch defender of Western culture. I wore little denim outfits, cowboy boots and a cowboy hat. The Lone Ranger was my fucking hero.
Then, we moved from Texas to Indiana, and the kids in my grade were making fun of me and how I dressed. So I gave it up.
No no European Western, sophisticated, not US Western aka redneck
*menacingly clicks spurs while glaring at Pie*
The term ‘redneck’ (this, coming from a limey) was something I understood to mean poor white people from East of the Mississippi – the Scots-Irish early generation settlers and indentured servants from before the Civil War.
By the time their grandchildren started to migrate in volume, those guys were just Americans.
EDG on his first day of school.
Was expecting this
http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wvxu/files/styles/x_large/public/201612/a-christmas-story-09_edited.jpg
Much better.
We need to teach our children cooperation and mutuality, and God forbid they ever have any fun.
Tug of peaces. Bleah
This has to be satire. Tug of Peace? A game where nobody wins because there is no competition?
Would a “Tug of Peace” be like “Go away! ‘Batin’!” ?
Inquiring minds want to know…
No, that’s the Tug of Love
Announced by a guy with a stutter.
from the World Peace game
There was no mention of administering a strong sedative first, not sure how this will work.
All the same, I’ll try this when I teach the 4-5 year old kids’ sunday school class next.
EVERYBODY SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP AND EXEMPLIFY PEACE!
BOH-RING.
greeting one another by looking each other in their eyes, shaking hands, and saying ‘Peace be with you.”
I remember being pleasantly surprised when I went to Mass in Germany, and they didn’t do the “share your germs as a sign of Christ’s peace” thing in the Mass.
Always scurrying along the edges, looking in.
Just like those shady Jews!
Lagavulin, FANTASTIC choice.
But a Romeo…dog crap. I suggest to these humble readers to go out and smoke a Padron (any vitolo) in honor of the passing of the single greatest cigar maker ever, Jose Padron, who died last week. Nicaraguan Puros with the most amazing maduro wrappers. (Even the naturals are aged). And if Lagavulin isn’t your style try Laphroig, Ardbeg, Bowmore, Talisker, Isle of Jura…I could go on.
Ohh and SP nice up down buttons, thanks.
I don’t smoke. DON’T YOU PEOPLE READ THE ALT TEXT?
Cigars are icky, ’tis true. I especially like how your mouth still tastes awful the next day. Yuck.
Pish. Cigars and scotch go together like monocles and tophats.
That post was way too long for my coffee deprived brain to finish, so here is some anti-gun historical revisionist derp for you.
A new history argues that the Second Amendment was intended to perpetuate white settlers’ violence toward Native Americans.
Its 19 46 a good hour for a thoughtful post
Oh, so gun ownership was responsible for America becoming a place where the threat of foreign invasion is virtually non-existent and people can make a good living in our robust market economy?
Wow, this lady is the best 2A advocate I’ve heard in a long time!
And, as usually, utterly no comprehension of the state of international affairs or how the world would look if Russia or China were hegemonic rather than the US.
It makes it so easy to dismiss trivial thinkers when they happily out themselves as ahistorical morons.
utterly no comprehension of the state of international affairs or how the world would look if Russia or China were hegemonic rather than the US.
At this point I’m not sure if its this, or if they just envy the abilities of the Russian and Chinese overlords.
Those damn guns hypnotized me, man!
Well, to be fair, gun ownership does fill you with the urge to buy more cool guns.
😉
You buggers can’t resist rubbing salt in the wound, can you?
First, QC taunts me with an AR-15 lower that I’m not allowed to own, and then Fedex ain’t delivering my new toy to the FFL until tomorrow. PM!
“But, Dunbar-Ortiz argues, it actually enshrines practices and priorities that long preceded that conflict.”
Umm, duh!
“Quantrill and his men, who were famous for wielding six-shooter revolvers, became integrated into fuzzy legend of “the West.” They ceased to be seen as “bloody, murdering Confederate guerillas” and became “righteous outlaws.””
Who fucking says this? A bunch of retards in Missouri? Cause I can assure you that Kansas has not romanticized Quantrill.
The author seems to think The Outlaw Josey Wales was a documentary.
The left gets all its history from Hollywood, and all its news from late night comedy shows…
Is it a wonder they know shit?
A bunch of retards in Missouri 140 years ago, maybe. I’m guessing there isn’t a strong pro-Quantrill movement in Missouri today.
That post was way too long for my coffee deprived brain to finish
It’s not the lack of coffee. Its too stupid to finish.
My brain gets smartified by kaffee!
Kind of harsh. Pie worked really hard on his essay.
Now go apologize.
*raises finger as if to point out I am not referring to Pie’s article*
Sigh. Sorry Pie.
I demand satisfaction. Consider yourself slapped with an expensive leather glove. pistols at 500 paces
Y’all gonna need something with a shoulder stock like a Browning Hi Power or an FK Brno.
Or an X-frame revolver with bipod.
In all seriousness, I was referring to article Vhyrus linked.
I was reacting to “pistols at 500 paces”
Ah, multiple interlocked layers of miscommunication!
I mean I probably cant shoot well at any distance so 500 paces makes me safer
On a more serious note. I think society would be better off if dueling were still legal. Provided both parties agreed to the duel, of course.
The logical next step in “an armed society is a polite society”.
This is as good a place as any I guess.
Put 100 rounds through each of the new pistols yesterday. Definitely under the spell of Springfield’s EMP and EMP 4.
More microaggressions.
compact and sub-compact, no micro . . .
Depends. I think a 9mm round would count as a microagression, unlike the manly .45 ACP.
Ah, the caliber equivalent to the Godwin.
You Know Who Else issued 9mm weapons to their soldiers?
The IDF?
Augusto Pinochet?
The US Army?
.454 Casull or you’re a cuck.
I don’t like expensive calibers.
RC’s an expert at this kind of baiting.
A master, one might say.
Training wheels. I’ve only been shooting for 3 months.
Next is the Mossberg 500. Then .45 ACP 1911 at some point.
OT: Funny how this will just result in fewer women being offered jobs.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/10/yoffe-sexual-harassment-college-franken-216057
Yes. I’ve said this all along. It’s completely rational to mitigate risk.
So stupid that they won’t see this.
“But that would be WRONG, so they can’t do it!”
Much of the Obama administration’s policy was at the initiative of Biden, for whom
the issue ofviolence against women was career-defining.FTFH
Here’s my conspiracy theory:
The American Left will eventually roll out a proposal for the government to take over the hiring process. Think about it: employers choosing their employees throws a wrench into so many “progressive” schemes. Pass a minimum wage hike, and they just get more selective in who they hire. Enforce anti-harassment laws for women and minorities, and they’ll just avoid hiring these people in the first place. If I know one thing about “progressives”, it’s that they never admit that a previous law has had bad effects; they’ll just double down with more laws. Pass more and more laws until utopia is achieved.
I think there will be a proposal for some kind of federal employment agency – like a temp service, but run by the government. Employers may be given tax breaks for hiring their workers through this bureau. After a few years, they’ll come up with some phoney-baloney statistics showing how wonderful this exchange works, and float the idea of making it mandatory.
I wouldn’t call that a conspiracy theory, it sounds completely plausible.
The left already adamantly believes government should pick winners and losers…
Why not who gets work and who doesn’t? I bet you that guy Koskinen from the IRS gets the top job in that bureau as well..
Not quite a “temp agency”, but they already do offer tax breaks for hiring all sorts of special interest groups.
http://www.dli.pa.gov/Businesses/Workforce-Development/emp-tax-credits/Pages/WOTC.aspx
And reprisals when you don’t hire by quota from some examples I have seen..
Oh government, never change.
My city government has all kinds of set asides for preferred interest groups (basically, women and minorities). They proudly advertise it.
Long-term Temporary
*cocks head, whines quizzically*
They had a plan like this in the UK for a number of years. I was running a team and my boss suggested it would be a good idea to get in on the program as employers. I gave one stipulation – i was to handle the hiring – and that I was recruiting for a real job, that, subject to the guy being retained for the 24 months, that he would be made-up to full time, full pay.
So we did it. I screened a LOT of applicants, picked a good guy. Govt Office was kinda horrified we were so thorough. After about a year, I had a meeting with the got. guys and asked them about how the program was going. After some pushing (with the implication that I might take more staff) at which point, they had placed just over 60 adults (in a large town with a population of about 60,000), and that 4 adults had ‘lasted’ more than 6 months (6 months being the amount of time you had to work to ‘reset’ your dole eligibility)
So, basically, a program to keep Sir Humphrey employed, and to game the national unemployment benefit laws.
BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT
They undertook an effort to undermine due process and establish an extra-judicial kangaroo court system in the universities.
And they largely succeeded.
We have what we have today because of Obama’s people’s overreach and the destruction of the system where the rule of law is what is important.
I might state that I am not religious and I see little worth to attaching so called western values to a religion or other in the present, especially since a number of the enlightenment people who developed these values, while most likely being religious themselves, did not approach philosophy from a religious angle.
I’m not entirely sure I can sign on to that line of reasoning. Sure, they weren’t approaching things from a religious angle. Of course, the ideas they were following up on had their roots in the thinking of other people who did have a much more religious bent to their thinking. As one example, could Western thinking on individualism have ever taken hold if it weren’t for the Protestant Reformation? Similarly, while the West may have treated Jews downright shittily, it doesn’t seem to me that Western thought could have followed the path it did without the influence of Jewish thinking.
could Western thinking on individualism have ever taken hold if it weren’t for the Protestant Reformation – probably. But my point is that i admire individualism wihout attaching religious origin to it.
it doesn’t seem to me that Western thought could have followed the path it did without the influence of Jewish thinking. I agree jewish thinkersbinfluenced the west but thay does not mean there was some judeo christian framework like rightwingers claim.
could Western thinking on individualism have ever taken hold if it weren’t for the Protestant Reformation – probably. But my point is that i admire individualism wihout attaching religious origin to it.
And that’s part of where we differ on this. I’m not sure individualism, as an idea, could have emerged without the Reformation. I’m not saying that individualism has to have a religious bent to it. I’m saying that without that religious thinking, there wouldn’t be any concept of individualism to admire or not.
” I’m not sure individualism, as an idea, could have emerged without the Reformation.”
In particular, the idea that the individual did not need a broker or go-between to interact with authority. One of the great gifts of the Reformation period (and its origins pre-date Luther) was that an individual could pick up the bible, read it for themselves, and understand what God was saying. This took the structural church out of the equation. Of course, the great problem with this is that, taken to its logical conclusion, it took ALL authority figures out of the equation. So Luther abandons the German peasants, in large part because he couldn’t countenance their claim to authority.
You get the same confusion for the American Puritans: everyone is accountable to God but if they don’t do what ministers think they should, it’s a huge problem.
i think that’s more or less where my below point was going
the Western worldview where you have
“1) atomistic individuals
vs.
2) the arbitrary organs of the state
vs.
3) this “religion” stuff…. which is placed in a very special, specific box, which has certain powers but is based entirely on the voluntary support of individuals…
…that end result was the consequence of 1000+ years of christian debate and bloodletting.
basically, you don’t get from point A to point C without traveling through point B, which is that. Which is why the non-western (Islamic, Confucian, etc.) world IS the non-western world, and never managed to arrive at very similar results via different paths.
I think the thing with the west is that we’ve become a bit like fish in a fishbowl; we don’t see the water, or the bowl. we just assume its there because it should be there. I think people from outside the west would understand this point *far easier* than many people who’ve lived in the western tradition.
Magna Carta was before reformation so the seeds were there. I think this is a long discussion but my feeling is that reformation caught on because the Catholic church was no longer in sync with the values of some of the people, and sooner or later some for of reformation of the church would have happened.
“but my feeling is that reformation caught on because the Catholic church was no longer in sync with the values of some of the people”
And monarchies no longer wanted to heed the orders of Rome and they wanted to tax the church’s land holdings. Are we going to pretend like Prussia’s conversion to Lutheranism or England’s conversion to Anglicanism was anything other than political opportunism?
I mean can’t argue with fresh pussy as the best reason for the split
Amongst the leaders, sure, it was driven by political opportunism. What isn’t amongst monarchs? The peasants probably had different motivations, though.
Being persecuted by your monarch over ecumenical trivialities was probably enough.
Being told that your prayers are heard by God even when there’s no middle-men to get involved probably wasn’t a huge deal to your average Denis the peasant type, especially when the alternative was to be thrown in prison or hunted down like a dog.
there were though a bunch of grass roots protestant movements
I’m sure there were and I’m not discounting that (such as the German Peasant’s Revolt, which Luther actually opposed), but to wrap the Reformation entirely in some noble ideals that did nothing but lay the foundation for individual rights is historically inaccurate. The only aspect of liberalism that the Reformation was instrumental in was capitalism. The notions of individual rights pre-dated the Reformation by a few hundred years
Pie, most Enlightenment thinkers were Deists, and just like us Libs, came in a number of flavors. I’m willing to bet that Voltaire and Ben Franklin, while both Deists – and apparently friends, by the way – probably had some philosophical differences. But you and Bill are both right. without Protestantism and Judaism individualist thought would have had a much tougher time emerging.
I think Pie has a point though that the term ‘Judeo-Christian values’ used in conservative circles to make it appear ‘big tent’ is deliberately disingenuous and out of line with the history of religious thought and philosophical development. Probably cause they couldn’t sell ‘Judeo-Christian-paganist values’ as easily.
Back in the day, “Judeo-Christian” used to mostly mean the justice system – Impartial Judges, Testimony under oath, punishment fits the crime (eye for an eye, not a death for an eye) Equality under the Law, blah, blah, blah. Seems like it got inflated to mean “anything we consider good, since about 1000 B.C.”
I think any attempt to talk about the West without including Greco-Roman civilization is going to fall flat on its face. That said, is there a way you can talk about Christianity outside of the context of Judaism?
I think Greco-Roman civilization is Mediterranean and spreads over what is now egypt siria etc. Northern barbarians are just claiming it for themselves
The northern barbarians were given a strong claim to it when a Latin Pope crowned Charles I Emperor of the Romans.
😀
I mean, would there even be anything worth writing about the West without the development of Christianity after the fall of Rome?
Wandering bands of barbarians are fun to read about, so yes, there would have been some things worth writing about, if there would be anyone able to write. Wandering barbarian hordes aren’t big on literature.
Stop trying to trigger the Classics majors Just Say’n.
Eh, the Christians took the ideas from the ancient Greeks and Romans and wrapped it in a Jewish garb. Still, without the Church the thought of the ancient world would be largely lost to time.
This. When I was growing up, that term was missing the “Judeo” part. People began to catch on that it sounded a little exclusionary, so they broadened the (((term))).
Or added Judeo when they started supporting Israel against the muzzies
Well, ‘WASP’ went out of fashion when the papists declared they were being deliberately excluded from the “hard working classes”.
It’s all part of the (((plan))).
So my office building has two person Guatemalan janitor team. I’m assuming they are husband-wife since they have the same last name. Both of them are short, squat and have an almost toad-like demeanor, they look almost identical if you are not looking closely. So I use the men’s room and notice the janitor turn around and look at me while I utilize the facility. Going through my mind is if I ignored a sign on the door that said they were cleaning the bathroom and the female of the pair is cleaning it. Which would make me look like an ass. So I zip up and turn around.
Nope. Its the male. Just some dude watching me take a piss. That’s not awkward.
“You…uh, like what you see?”
32/5000
¿Cómo se dice eso en español?
Le gusta tu pinga viejo!
“Te gusta?”
Just call ICE.
I got a kick out of that… It sounds exactly like the janitorial crew at my work.
The man is always wearing cargo shorts, a t-shirt, and sandals with socks; the Ohio winter does not affect his dress at all.
Does the dood or the doodette have the nastier looking beard?
So the stereotype of Mexicans hating Guatemalans is true. 😉
*looks around nervously*
…Yeah.
I have not really read your whole piece after this part, but i felt compelled to stop here and raise a possible red-card.
i think its perfectly fine to run your analysis from the POV of everything before the ‘since’ without providing any further justification.
What comes after the ‘since’, however (the bolded)… i’m pretty sure borders on technically-false.
you create plenty of wiggle room with both “a number”
(how many is that? does ‘any‘ satisfy the claim?)…
….and then with the vagueness of what is meant by “a religious angle”
(merely failing to ever mention jesus or the gospels? or beginning their work with a preamble announcing that God is Dead and all ideas derived from western christendom are invalid and can be summarily dismissed?)
my reaction isn’t really a disagreement with any larger proposition you’re making; its just that my own understanding of ‘the enlightenment people’ is that many (if not most) used the legacy of Christian theological and philosophical debate as the essential precursor for rationalizing why individuals have an inherent necessity for freedom of expression and freedom of conscience, and for why religion should be separated (and protected FROM) politics and the state
Christianity could be argued to have been the sine-qua-non of the whole exercise; because it was when the debates about Christian beliefs devolved into long, fractious wars that many realized that giving religion the power of state-authority to enforce *one* version of belief was a recipe for permanent, endless conflict, and ended up validating not the most *compelling* religious arguments, but the ones with the strongest numbers and the most bloodthirsty.
i think it is hard to separate the ‘christian’ thing from anything to do with ‘Western’. they are, for better or worse, very much connected. It was said: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.” Christianity itself is one of the longest and most complex of those footnotes. You can’t ever really disconnect it or set it aside completely.
There is also the fact that all of those Enlightenment thinkers only knew about ancient philosophy, because the church propagated these writers through the works of Aquinas (mainly Aristotle) and Justin Martyr (mainly Plato). And the fact that all of these Enlightenment thinkers most assuredly read the works of Aquinas, at the very least, since he had re-introduced philosophy to the Western world.
And, to be frank, most Enlightenment thought was just ideas that the Church’s religious orders had theorized and repackaged as secular thought (School of Selmanaca, for instance).
exactly what i’m saying. all the propositions they were *beginning* with – the things they based enlightenment arguments on – were essentially propositions established within the christian philosophical tradition. The enlightenment wasn’t some complete-schism with the past, which completely abandoned christian-lines-of-thinking and was based entirely on independent arguments; it was a logical extension from it.
I agree, but hardly anyone is willing to accept that argument anymore as it is exceptionally rare to even encounter a supposedly well read person who has ever even touched City of God or Aquina’s work. Christianity lost this argument, not because it was false, but because Enlightenment thinkers demanded that it be false. Hence, why people still refer to the Middle Ages as the ‘Dark Ages’, when such a description is an invention created by Enlightenment thinkers to try and discredit all the thought developed before them, of which they owed a significant debt.
What is especially ironic, IMO, is that, among other things, the ‘Dark Ages’ produced a great advance for the propagation of knowledge: proper formatting of text (punctuation, paragraphs, spaces).
SCRIPTIOCONTINUAISAMUCHINFERIORSYSTEMTOPROPERFORMATTINGANDIIMAGINEMOREPEOPLEARELITERATETHANKSTOITBEINGABANDONEDINFAVOROFASUPERIORSYSTEM
It benefitted from a temporary lack of cultural competition.
Locked in their monasteries in Ireland, a very small number of theologians were the final arbiters of what would, and what wouldn’t constitute ‘standardized’ writing. After the Synod of Whitby, the flowering of monasticism thruout Europe meant that most written languages became subject to some or many of the literary standards that the Irish monasteries developed.
And this comes from a guy who is reluctant to give the paddies any recognition of achievements.
Uisce beatha
The only lasting contribution of the Irish.
I can only assume that after making their monumental contribution to Western Civilization the Irish went out drinking to celebrate and never stopped.
😛
“The only lasting contribution of the Irish.”
Ahem: Tullamore Dew; Red Breast; Powers, et al
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Uisce+beatha
*Hangs head in shame*
Dude! Don’t be that guy. Your one stupid fake word with no spaces breaks the threading/word wrap (on all posts) for those of us reading on our phones – requires zooming out much way too far in order to read normally.
Oh, sorry, I’m on a desktop so I didn’t even think about that. Noted for future.
I am not discounting the role of religion. All I am debating is the construct Judeo Christian values. I feel there was a patchwork of religious views and beliefs and philosophies and a process of trial and error not some unified religious base for things. – that is what I mean with a number of I am am certainly debating this in present context given that secularism is a western value and I do not like trying to bring back religion in talk of rights and values and such.
Honestly I thought this part was pretty clear “There is no single unified Judeo-Greco-Christian tradition. Yes, various flavors of Christian and Jew contributed to the development of the ideas behind the West, and the culture obviously developed in the context of religion”. SO Yes the religion mattered, but in the modern usage Judeo Christian makes no sense to me.
i wasn’t suggesting you were; the only issue i was taking up was the bolded sentence, which i think mis-characterizes what exactly the enlightenment dudes were all about.
‘did not approach philosophy from a religious angle’ is a weird way of putting it; it was, in fact, hugely central to everything they were involved with. You don’t get to any idea that “individuals have any universal rights” and that “the state cannot unilaterally assume authority we vest in god” without explicit permission of citizens…. without a whole slew of premises which rely strongly on religious grounds.
its basically a nitpick/quibble with the way you phrased that bit, and really has nothing to do with anything in the rest of your piece.
I do not like mindless worship of anything, including culture. And I do not like nostalgia about some long lost ideal past.
The good old days ain’t what they used to be.
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All centuries but this, and every country but his own
Western culture is the description about what’s different in the west than other cultures. While that may not be precise it most certainly has meaning.
You could say there’s no such thing as trucks since trucks share many characteristics with cars. There are also cars with cargo beds and trucks with back seats therefore the term “truck” has no meaning. Just because something is hard to define doesn’t mean it has no definition. And most people can easily identify a truck from a car with no definition handy.
OT: The author’s name has to be fake.
http://www.realclearlife.com/nightlife/post-weinstein-world-sex-parties-provide-safe-space-women/
Once again, who cares if this is what floats your boat; but if this is your solution to the fact there are creeps in the world, you may be a bit unhinged. Also, this just reeks of another way to rein in and try to control/suppress male sexuality. We have to put it into this highly controlled, specific context or it’s dangerous. Odd, since that is actually a very SoCon notion, except chivalry, self-restraint and marriage are replaced by sex parties. We have been cursed to live in interesting times.
Additionally, this seems carefully constructed to remove any kind of emotional involvement, at least the way she writes about it. Not valid necessarily for people in otherwise committed relationships who want recreational sex, but the way this piece is written it’s suggesting these parties not as a supplement to, but as a replacement for, relationships. Essentially treating your sexual urges as an oil change to be taken care of every once in a while. This seems very barren and unfulfilling. As the irreplaceable Allan Bloom says:
“The immediate promise of sexual liberation was, simply, happiness understood as a release of the energies that had been stored up over millennia during the dark night of repression, in a great continuous Bacchanalia. However, the lion roaring behind the door of the closet turned out, when the door was opened, to be a little, domesticated cat.”
Further exposition on my part (since no one’s responding and I like talking to myself anyway), the reduction of sexual intercourse to mere mechanics and conduction of sensation along nerves is a disservice to Kierkegaard’s infinite part of the human essence. This is another example of not wanting in despair to be oneself and living trapped in the aesthetic stage of existence. This, most unfortunately, devastates an individual by destroying any conflict between finite and infinite which is the lynchpin of the self becoming itself. It also destroys any true artistic or aesthetic impulse since the sublimation essential to such ventures is callously expelled through crude meat-interaction.
OK I’m done. This is all going into a Glibs.com piece that none of you will read and just ask for boobs. 🙁
FINE. HERE.
https://i.imgur.com/sNEHLhuh.jpg
I read it, but the tits make more sense.
Based on what you’ve written so far that sounds like an article I would want to read. But I will admit that whenever I see your avatar I can’t help but imagine that you talk like Timmy from South Park, except that you say “Tittays” (obviously), and that what is written is the transcription run through a translator.
And we take no heed of the law which says that men may not think of women, save at the Time of Mating. This is the time each spring when all the men older than twenty and all the women older than eighteen are sent for one night to the City Palace of Mating. And each of the men have one of the women assigned to them by the Council of Eugenics. Children are born each winter, but women never see their children and children never know their parents. Twice have we been sent to the Palace of Mating, but it is an ugly and shameful matter, of which we do not like to think.
Zamyatin “We” right?
Anthem – Rand
Googled it and dammit it’s Anthem. I go to box of shame now.
We go to box of shame, you mean?
It’s not spring though…
Of all of her novels, this seems like the easiest and best one to make into a movie. And yet….
Too many movies made in Hollywood that are given some variation on “paradise” as a title.
It’s a great primer on Rand; short, accessible and easy. The problem is getting folks to connect the dots from that world to the world being built by progs.
You did it yourself just now by connecting the erotically and emotionally sterile sex parties to compulsory government fertility. The general population, unfortunately, is not that sharp. It would be even easier to draw a line from Brave New World, but people seem unable to do even that.
Carson Wentz done for the year with torn ACL. Rest of NFL can rest a bit easier on the Patriots or Steelers road to the Super Bowl Championship.
The entire state of North Dakota is on suicide watch.
Well, can you blame me? He was my fantasy football QB, and I’m in the semifinal next week!!!!
*gazes warily at Roethlisberger sitting on the bench*
I read the first line and couldn’t understand how I already managed to leave this comment.
The NFC east is cursed… The Eagles are now experiencing what Redskins fans did when RG III busted his leg. I wonder if the Eagles management will be so desperate for a chance that they will make him play even when he is not ready…
Thankfully, we have better ownership and management than the WFT.
Carson will be eased back in when he’s good and ready, not before.
You should consider yourselves lucky, and so should Carson. What’s RGIII up to these days? Someone said he now sells used cars?
Well he has a foundation: http://rg3foundation.org/our-story/
And a farmhouse: https://www.realtor.com/news/celebrity-real-estate/robert-griffin-iii-looking-investor/
The RG3 issue was entirely self-inflicted, both staying in the playoff game until the ligament blew, and then rushing back the next year because he was too insecure to let Cousins start. Much of this is because he knew Cousins was better than he was.
From what I heard, it was that asshole that owns the team telling the coach he wanted that superbowl ring, so RGIII was playing even if it ended his career….
Foles took the birds to 8-2 before. I think if they tweak the playcalling to a little more Blount/Ajayi and their D stays at the level they’ve been playing, they’ll still go to the NFC championship and have a chance there.
I hate the term ‘Western Civilization’, because I think there is a significant difference between the Enlightenment that was developed in the United States versus the bastardized version that was propagated in Europe. The US took the ideas of the Enlightenment to heart and built a society with strong private property rights and expansive individual rights (notably, only the US has full freedom of speech, the 2nd Amendment, and religious accommodation). The French Revolution and its asinine aftermath forever retarded Europe’s progress. They may share customs and thinkers in common with the US, but they are no better than Canadians.
American Western Civilization with its pluralism, diversity, and focus on individual liberty is superior to the soft tyranny that Europe Western Civilization represents
The American system was largely built on the ideas of Locke and Hume, while the later European revolutions drew inspiration from Kant, who set out to disprove Locke and Hume with his series of critiques.
And Rousseau, from which much of the Utopian nonsense that continues to plague us springs.
Yes, Rousseau as well. Kant’s attack on reason laid the foundation for many other destructive philosophies though. Rousseau provided the end, but Kant provided the means. Both are asshats of the highest order.
I hear that a lot and I rather like Kant’s work on ethics. If I understand correctly, the main criticism against Kant is his discussion about the nomenum and phenomenum, correct? Or what is the main criticism against Kant?
My main criticism of Kant isn’t on his moral or ethical philosophy, but his attacks on reason and empiricism. Someone wrote an analysis of them, far better than I can explain, that traced Kant’s attack on reason and the ground work it layed through the ages up to modern identity politics. The modern “lived experiences” nonsense can be traced back to him. I’ll see if I can track it down, it is an interesting read.
“Critique of Pure Reason” is a dreadful slog and I didn’t get much out of it, but I tend to agree that it was essentially a destructive anti-Enlightenment force. However, I think Kant’s ethics are primo so it’s a push for me with regards to Kant.
I’d say Europe’s failing was that they took Rousseau too seriously, not so much Kant
You owe me a coke, Q
This will have to suffice.
http://i1.wp.com/www.bontheball.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/white-shirt-busty.jpg?resize=480%2C360
Floozy’s got too much slap on.
Can someone translate from Limey for me?
THOT got too much lipstick and blush.
You’re not supposed to be looking at her face silly!
What can I say? I’m a pervert. I look at things one is not meant to look at.
<a href="here“>For you two.
Grrrrrr.
For you two.
Our Song!
*swoon*
Not this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4QGPWLY-EM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iz0KnL3d2A
Better than a coke
And they built on what the Scholastics – criminally forgotten – taught.
Speaking of scholastic I remember reading on the old site someone – maybe Warty – re comment George Hayward Joyce Principles of Logic as a fall asleep book. It works wonders. Never got past the 10th page
But seriously, take it with a grain of sand and all that, but I learned initial about the scholastics and a lot more from An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought by Rothbard
The Mises people have always separated themselves from other libertarians by singing the praises of the Catholic Church and its contributions to the ideas of liberalism. You got Woods who converted to Catholicism, Tucker who sits on the board of the Acton Institute (Catholic free-market organization), and Murphy is super-duper religious, to name a few.
It’s a little strange
What’s weird about it? The story is right there before us.
Nor does it detract from the impact the Church had on philosophy, law and economics; particularity after the crumbling of Rome.
It’s pretty impressive and even the writers of The Enlightenment – grudgingly in some parts – acknowledge it.
I find it absurd how much effort we put into disassociating from the Church’s impact on the West.
I am fully in step with the notion that the Church had a profound and irreplaceable impact on the West’s development. I’m not disagreeing. I’m only saying that it’s odd how every other libertarian group will either discount the religious or heap praise on the Reformation, while ignoring the significant impact that the Catholic Church had on the development of liberalism. Only the Mises Institute focuses on the Catholic Church’s impact and discounts the Reformation. I think it goes along with their love of historical revisionism (also, I tend to believe that they are right in this interpretation).
I fully concur. The Reformation’s hostility to Catholicism was, in parts, misplaced and overpraised. The Catholic Church, contrary to popular belief, was not hostile to science but were actually protectors of science in an age of suspicion. I invite anyone to carefully look at Europe from the 5th century to the high Renaissance and try and come away with anything but the fact the Catholic Church was the bedrock of Western civilization.
actually from rothbard book it was shown how scholastics moved towards more economic freedom as the time went by from interest is evil to interest can be good
After the decline of the Roman Empire, I’m not sure “bedrock” is the right term.
It became the foundations of everything that was built thereafter, like the scrubbed surfaces of Hiroshima after the bomb.
IIRC, Rothbard’s comments were largely focused on the School of Salamanca, which was an absolute citadel of what we would call libertarian economic thought at the time.
“School of Salamanca, which was an absolute citadel of what we would call libertarian economic thought”
Correct. Which was part of the Dominican order, I believe.
Pie, there is no such thing as ‘the Scholastics’- that only refers to the Church’s teaching methodology. It was not a philosophical movement within the church. You may be referring to ‘Thomism’, which is the Church’s accepted philosophy based upon Aquinas’ thought. As far as the Church’s philosophical position- it remains Distributionist and still rejects the modern concepts of ‘capitalism’ and ‘communism’.
I’ll try and get LSD on here to discuss the Thomists at some point.
no such thing as ‘the Scholastics’- – some use the term… I used it because Rufus did
I used the term ‘the scholastics’ when I meant scholasticism.
Here’s an example of Church scholars helping to codify legal traditions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretum_Gratiani#Author
“no such thing as ‘the Scholastics’- – some use the term… I used it because Rufus did”
I’m sorry. My mistake. I re-read my remark and it came off more aggressive than I intended. My apologies, Pie
“After the decline of the Roman Empire, I’m not sure “bedrock” is the right term.”
BEDROCK!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5haMVR5my-s
The only thing that’s truly unforgivable is apologizing. I hope you’re sorry.
We talked about this before and I can dig up the article/thesis I posted before. There’s no denying the effect the Catholic Church had in the early/middle ages but by the time of the Enlightenment, they were much more firmly ensconced as a pillar of the state in many countries – and from that period on, had a demonstrably more generally less positive impact on the colonial periods, democratization, capitalism, etc worldwide – than the Protestant church.
Pie is correct.
“Mommy, Just Say’n is being mean again!”
I swear I’m a far more amiable person than my comments suggest.
I swear I’m about as disagreeable in person as I am on the innertubez.
*drops gloves*
I’m way fatter than my commentary would suggest.
So Hoop hooligans Sinking Ship Smoked Rye Porter is really not bad. Not fabulous, but still. Although 9% alcohol is still a bit to much for my beer, if they had made it 6%…
Mods: Quick & Dirty post up by me. Needs to be reviewed, given loving, and then set free to the harsh Glib world.
“Needs to be reviewed, given loving, and then set free to the harsh Glib world”
That’s what she said.
Almost poetic, for an Ayatollah of Rock’n’Rolla.
Just walked by the TV. The View is discussing how great an idea subsidized bulletproof backpacks for schoolkids is.
If I were a depressed housewife, I would definitely rather watch The Young and the Restless than the View. Or the Spice Network.
Victor rocks. He’s been hitting it since when, 1832?
I was an All My Chilluns fan in college. I shattered my leg and spent a summer sitting on my ass watching daytime TV. It was from them that I learned all about evil twins (makes sign of cross).
Why don’t they just make it illegal to have guns near children at schools? some sort of zone.
Make this man a senator!
And name the legislation after him.
That’s what we always do with good laws.
“The DOOM Don’t Take Gunz into Skools and Kill Kiddies Cuz it’s Bad Act”
DOOM zones would sound like there are more guns, along with stuff a lot cooler than guns.
Classic cars and cute chicks?
Mexicans, ass and blow, man.
I would be okay with the state forcing that on us.
Mostly goddamn Cacodemons.
“Flaming skills, man. Where do they come from? Then there’s FrankenHitler at the end!”
“At least I got my BFG-6000”
Would some of the guns be fuckin’ big?
and how.
Especially ones made by “Be-Har Industries, Inc.” (no relation)
Just walked by the TV. The View is discussing how great an idea
subsidizedbulletproof backpacks for schoolkids is.They almost had an intelligible thought. So very close, but that one word makes it off by a mile.
I carry a Level III plate in my laptop bag when I’m in the office since I can’t CC there. My wife has another Level III plate in her workbag, which just stays at work next to her desk. She just found out her immediate supervisor concealed carries, so she is going to start packing at the office too. Our kids are/will be homeschooled, but I would slide one of these plates into their backpacks if they went off to school.
They’re on sale now for a good price if anyone is interested. Thanks again to Vhyrus for including this in one of his Friday Firearms posts.
https://www.ar500armor.com/ar500-armor-body-armor/ar500-armor-backpack-plate.html
13×10, 1/4in thick. Fine for pistols. Rifles if the guy’s got an AR15. Good luck with 7.62. Then you have to decide what part of yourself you want to cover.
It’s gotta be what? 6lb?
My kids were told to ignore “cower in place” and to help all their friends to bust out of a fire door and run like hell in different directions.
Linky says it weights 8 pounds. Good exercise for the noodle-armed little cellphone addicts.
Gonna need more that 130 in/2 of AR500 to protect my pasty white ass, that’s for sure.
Unless the assailant is a spectacularly bad shot, in which case I didn’t need the plate anyway.
I was kinda shocked when I saw the weight of school shit my kids had when they went to High school. 20-odd pounds in a bag, basically. It’s a real stretch to call those things backpacks because there’s no weight distribution.
It’s a wonder more of them don’t end up with sciatica
It should stop 7.62, it’s rated for that at least. Vast majority of shootings are with handguns though. It’s not ideal in terms of coverage, but at least gives you a chance if you’re not carrying.
And when you get to the fun part of “Run, Hide, Fight”*, you’ll have something with heft to beat them with.
*Which still sounds like a plan for setting an ambush to me.
Liberty University put out the best Run, Hide, Fight video I’ve ever seen where the Fight portion consists of pulling out your own CC and engaging the shooter. They even included instructions on how to interact with the police after shooting so you don’t get mistakenly killed as the real shooter.
https://youtu.be/Z6xHg3VGnaM
engaging the shooter
What if I don’t want to marry them, but want to blow their head off instead?
SO what do you think of the old Voroneț Romanian church in the picture? Local Moldavians are proud of it. It has some special unique blue or something. TO be honest, non religious as I am, I always preferred small churches to huge cathedrals. Also ones that are not gilded in gold (does gilded imply gold?) I always thought that if you want to be close to God you don’t need gold and huge monumental cathedrals which distract more than anything. There was this tiny 200+ year old wooden church in my grandmas village where i felt more religious than in any of the big western cathedrals I have visited
I’m assuming the Cathedral was made during the Baroque period. This was the fashion of the time.
Did it wear an onion on its belt?
which cathedral? Santa Maria del Fiore ?
Pre-baroque, by the look of it. Fancy and decorative because IIRC it commemorated a great victory for Stephen the Great.
Architecturally, not unique – there are a number of beautiful Moldovan churches like that still in existence, from the same period.
^ This guy knows his cathedrals. I tip my hat
there was not much baroque in Romania
anyway Voroneț is not a cathedral it is a monastery church
I never visited Voronet, but it’s very similar in style (if not size) to the Resurrection Church, which I have visited,
Ever been to St. Peter’s Basilica? It’s like Disneyland.
yes
Some big fancy looking places can be impressive, but I do find myself feeling more religious when I’m not there. especially newer ones. the old ones can bring some feelings, but that might be just marveling at the architecture and impressiveness of the building in that time.
I liked this one.
that is nice.
I’m not sure they make me feel more religious, but they have the effect of making you feel about as significant as you actually are.
Even the small ones, like this – about a mile from where I lived in the UK.
When it comes to real cathedrals, I actually like this one better than the very large ones, if only for its unique footprint.
St. Giles has a special place in my heart. I haven’t been inside (yet, maybe someday). Been in the fake village at the top of the story though:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-40415434
I don’t recall any marked exclusion areas with unexploded ordinance other than perhaps impact ranges. My WAG is they don’t want civvies wandering around the fake village and finding uncollected brass, or less likely blanks (either discarded or squib) or pyrotechnics.
The most spiritual place I have ever been is sitting atop the Superstition Mountains and listening to nothing but the wind.
http://www.placestoseeinarizona.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/view-at-superstition-mountains.jpg
yeah, religious isn’t the right word. There’s something spiritual that happens. or you feel insignificant and significant simultaneously. it’s powerful.
Melk Abbey…
http://www.stiftmelk.at/englisch/
ZED DISCOVERS THE SEQUEL TO ‘WIZARD OF OZ’ IN TEMPLE OF THE ANCIENTS AND BURNS BRUTAL PROPAGANDA
Kölner Dom.
“I’m more of a “stone altar in the middle of a forest-glade, covered with the blood of human sacrifices”-type of guy”
/ur-hipster
/me hears a muted and somewhat watery ‘Ia! Ia!”
I always preferred small churches to huge cathedrals
These euphemisms are getting out of hand.
There are assumption that seem so obvious to us that they seem like they shouldn’t need to be defended. I would suggest that whenever we come across such things, we’re probably talking about culture. Culture can be thought of as something like the heritage of our assumptions, that way.
Do you assume that every individual is important?
Do you assume that people should be free to make choices about their own lives?
Do you assume that we’re all obligated to respect each other’s individual rights?
I would argue that these assumptions didn’t arise ex nihilo. Aspects of these assumptions may have arisen in other cultural traditions from time to time, but those assumption in our culture had an origin in Western tradition. They came from religion.
We had a religious tradition for two thousand years, whose central premise held that the creator of the universe came to earth and sacrificed himself so that every individual could make choices for themselves about their own ultimate destiny. Once people came to believe that the creator of the universe sacrificed himself for every individual, after two thousand years, the associated assumptions became so ingrained in the culture, so ubiquitous, we stopped thinking of them as culture.
To liberate ourselves completely from Christian thought, you’d have to convince people that you as an individual are unimportant and that other people and how they’re treated is also unimportant. Divorcing those assumptions from their origin doesn’t change their origin. We may not longer rationalize our assumptions with the observation that the creator of the universe sacrificed himself me, other, people, and our right to make choices for ourselves–so how can those things be unimportant? But they underlie most everything we do.
Whenever you see a gay atheist claim that they should be treated the way Christians would want to be treated if they were the minority, you’re see this, but it’s much deeper than that. When I talk about how free trade, small government, free speech, etc. is better, I’m making a number of cultural assumptions. I’m assuming that the person I’m talking to wants things to be better for everybody, that benefiting the few and elite at the expense of everyone else isn’t the optimal outcome, that other people’s and pain and suffering should be avoided–even if they’re our philosophical or economic competitors.
To the extent that I have problems with progressives, communists, socialists, objectivsits, Democrats, social justice warriors, techno-optimists, et. al., it is often because I find they don’t share these basic assumptions.
I find myself trying to convince these people of fundamental questions like why we should care about other people, respect other people’s agency, and value our own agency. If you can get there through econometric models, utilitarianism, and logic, well good for you. I know that can be done. But people used to assume that Jesus died for people and their right to make choices and draw the same conclusions. If people aren’t making those religious assumptions anymore, I’m not sure they’ll put the work in libertarians did to get where we are. They may end up somewhere else. I’m especially dubious about the techno-optimists, for whom the ability to overwhelm the qualitative choices of other people is a blessing and not a curse.
Thanks Pie. these rambles of yours always generate some great discussion.
[em]”Why are these people so suicidal insane? It is hard to tell.”[/em]
A complete lack of self-esteem seems to be a big part of it, in my experience. Lacking a sense of self-worth can completely warp your sense of values and the way you attempt to interact with society. What worries me most is not the SJWs and what they might do, but rather the reasons why such people came to exist, and the apparent difficulty with which even people who vehemently disagree with that philosophy struggle to express exactly why it’s incorrect/