Kristian Niemietz (as quoted in your video): Why would somebody bang on about sexism? [Or] bang on about homophobia? In contexts where these phenomena are really very rare. But, at the same time, excuse them, or try to explain them away, in instances where they are actually quite frequent? Well, it makes sense if you think it as a status signaling activity. ... [it is] status signaling, not concern for victim groups. [end quote].
My opinions are my own and genuinely held. I'm not "signaling" anybody. Liars suspect everyone lies as they do. This explains Kristian's conclusion that Lefties are all lying "virtue signalers". Additionally, empathy (concern for your fellow humans beings) confuses Conservatives. So they have to come up with some other explanation. Lefties couldn't possibly have any real concern for "victim groups".
I have no doubt that you, as Niemietz states, you believe your motives to be pure. It's just a shame that you can't grant that same "caritas" as to "motive" to the people you politically oppose.
The urbanite's survival environment is much more dependent upon "others" for its' survival.
You think that rural people (conservatives) don't have empathy for others? We probably over-value self-reliance. But THAT is part of OUR "survival" environment.
quote from video: "...and just to be clear here, I’m not suggesting that people who express high status opinions are just doing that out of opportunism, I’m not saying that this is just pure signalling, that people are being opportunistic and lying and that they secretly believe something else, that’s not my argument at all, I’m fairly convinced that the people who express high status views, at that moment really do believe it, but I’d rather say that it’s more like the fact that we perceive certain styles, certain ways of dressing or talking or prefer certain styles of music as “tacky” or others as “classy”... why?... there nothing inherently tacky or classy in any way of dressing. "
btw - Since the West is built on the feminine (Europa/Io), and the female mode of sexual selection for marriage and child rearing is based upon hypergamy, why wouldn't societal "high class" signals reflect feminine values?
Why do you write "moslem" instead of "Muslim"? The Left does not give Islam a "pass". We only recognize that cultural change takes time. American conservatives don't receive such consideration because we share the same culture. There is no reason for you to be behind where the Left is. And I believe you do not think any change is necessary.
Moslem is an alternate spelling of Muslim. The words have the same meanings in all contexts, and both spellings have been in use for several centuries. Moslem was the preferred spelling until the first half of the 20th century. Today, Muslim is the preferred spelling.
So you have "respect" for Moslems, but not conservatives.
...and since we're so "behind"... I can't imagine what you think of Moslems. lol!
ps Established institutions which used the older form of the name have been reluctant to change. The American Moslem Foundation is still the American Moslem Foundation (much as the NAACP is still the NAACP--the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). The journal The Moslem World--published by the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut--is still The Moslem World.
When Baby Boomers were children it was Moslem. The American Heritage Dictionary (1992) noted,"Moslem is the form predominantly preferred in journalism and popular usage.
Do you also refer to African Americans as "Negroes" (like Franco)? BTW, you wouldn't agree that changing your own culture is easier than changing someone else's culture? Which would be why American Lefties focus criticism on American Conservatives. Yet, it seems you struggle to understand something so obvious.
No, I generally refer to them as Blacks. As for changing "our" culture, you Lefties seem to be pretty lousy at it. All you worry about is vocabulary, whilst Conservatives worry about maintaining the underlying virtues. :)
SOCRATES: And can we rightly speak of a beauty which is always passing away, and is first this and then that; must not the same thing be born and retire and vanish while the word is in our mouths?
CRATYLUS: Undoubtedly.
SOCRATES: Then how can that be a real thing which is never in the same state? for obviously things which are the same cannot change while they remain the same; and if they are always the same and in the same state, and never depart from their original form, they can never change or be moved.
CRATYLUS: Certainly they cannot.
SOCRATES: Nor yet can they be known by any one; for at the moment that the observer approaches, then they become other and of another nature, so that you cannot get any further in knowing their nature or state, for you cannot know that which has no state.
CRATYLUS: True.
SOCRATES: Nor can we reasonably say, Cratylus, that there is knowledge at all, if everything is in a state of transition and there is nothing abiding; for knowledge too cannot continue to be knowledge unless continuing always to abide and exist. But if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there will be no knowledge; and if the transition is always going on, there will always be no knowledge, and, according to this view, there will be no one to know and nothing to be known: but if that which knows and that which is known exists ever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist, then I do not think that they can resemble a process or flux, as we were just now supposing. Whether there is this eternal nature in things, or whether the truth is what Heracleitus and his followers and many others say, is a question hard to determine; and no man of sense will like to put himself or the education of his mind in the power of names: neither will he so far trust names or the givers of names as to be confident in any knowledge which condemns himself and other existences to an unhealthy state of unreality; he will not believe that all things leak like a pot, or imagine that the world is a man who has a running at the nose. This may be true, Cratylus, but is also very likely to be untrue; and therefore I would not have you be too easily persuaded of it. Reflect well and like a man, and do not easily accept such a doctrine; for you are young and of an age to learn. And when you have found the truth, come and tell me.
CRATYLUS: I will do as you say, though I can assure you, Socrates, that I have been considering the matter already, and the result of a great deal of trouble and consideration is that I incline to Heracleitus.
SOCRATES: Then, another day, my friend, when you come back, you shall give me a lesson; but at present, go into the country, as you are intending, and Hermogenes shall set you on your way.
...whilst Conservatives worry about maintaining the underlying virtues.
White Nationalist hate, White patriarchy, Christian hypocrisy and misogyny are virtues? Who knew?
BTW, I disagree that Lefties are lousy at changing culture. I'd say we are very good at it. Recent successes include the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and marriage equality.
I'd simply refer you to Book VIII of Plato's "Republic" on 'democracies'.
Then, in order that we may see clearly what we are doing, let us imagine democracy to be divided, as indeed it is, into three classes; for in the first place freedom creates rather more drones in the democratic than there were in the oligarchical State.
That is true.
And in the democracy they are certainly more intensified.
How so?
Because in the oligarchical State they are disqualified and driven from office, and therefore they cannot train or gather strength; whereas in a democracy they are almost the entire ruling power, and while the keener sort speak and act, the rest keep buzzing about the bema and do not suffer a word to be said on the other side; hence in democracies almost everything is managed by the drones.
Very true, he said.
Then there is another class which is always being severed from the mass.
What is that?
They are the orderly class, which in a nation of traders is sure to be the richest.
Naturally so.
They are the most squeezable persons and yield the largest amount of honey to the drones.
Why, he said, there is little to be squeezed out of people who have little.
And this is called the wealthy class, and the drones feed upon them.
That is pretty much the case, he said.
The people are a third class, consisting of those who work with their own hands; they are not politicians, and have not much to live upon. This, when assembled, is the largest and most powerful class in a democracy.
True, he said; but then the multitude is seldom willing to congregate unless they get a little honey.
And do they not share? I said. Do not their leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people; at the same time taking care to reserve the larger part for themselves?
Why, yes, he said, to that extent the people do share.
And the persons whose property is taken from them are compelled to defend themselves before the people as they best can?
What else can they do?
And then, although they may have no desire of change, the others charge them with plotting against the people and being friends of oligarchy?
True.
And the end is that when they see the people, not of their own accord, but through ignorance, and because they are deceived by informers, seeking to do them wrong, then at last they are forced to become oligarchs in reality; they do not wish to be, but the sting of the drones torments them and breeds revolution in them.
That is exactly the truth.
Then come impeachments and judgments and trials of one another.
True.
The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness.
Yes, that is their way.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector.
...and if you think you've "won" on those issues, you're gullible as hell.
I do not think the Left has "won" (re "don't ask don't tell" and marriage equality). I know the Left has won. That these rights will ever be rolled back is as likely as slavery returning - the Radical Redneck's fantasy. Do you also desire the re-enslavement of Black Americans?
The Radical Redneck is not a Democrat. BTW, I know you LONG for "open combat". Perhaps because you yearn to murder "libtards"? But it won't happen. Your homophobe army will be crushed by the actual army. And you'll end up dead or in prison. I say we send you to Gitmo as a traitor to America.
25 comments:
Kristian Niemietz (as quoted in your video): Why would somebody bang on about sexism? [Or] bang on about homophobia? In contexts where these phenomena are really very rare. But, at the same time, excuse them, or try to explain them away, in instances where they are actually quite frequent? Well, it makes sense if you think it as a status signaling activity. ... [it is] status signaling, not concern for victim groups. [end quote].
My opinions are my own and genuinely held. I'm not "signaling" anybody. Liars suspect everyone lies as they do. This explains Kristian's conclusion that Lefties are all lying "virtue signalers". Additionally, empathy (concern for your fellow humans beings) confuses Conservatives. So they have to come up with some other explanation. Lefties couldn't possibly have any real concern for "victim groups".
I have no doubt that you, as Niemietz states, you believe your motives to be pure. It's just a shame that you can't grant that same "caritas" as to "motive" to the people you politically oppose.
The urbanite's survival environment is much more dependent upon "others" for its' survival.
You think that rural people (conservatives) don't have empathy for others? We probably over-value self-reliance. But THAT is part of OUR "survival" environment.
So I must ask, why do Moslem's get a "pass" on sexism that conservatives don't merit?
quote from video: "...and just to be clear here, I’m not suggesting that people who express high status opinions are just doing that out of opportunism, I’m not saying that this is just pure signalling, that people are being opportunistic and lying and that they secretly believe something else, that’s not my argument at all, I’m fairly convinced that the people who express high status views, at that moment really do believe it, but I’d rather say that it’s more like the fact that we perceive certain styles, certain ways of dressing or talking or prefer certain styles of music as “tacky” or others as “classy”... why?... there nothing inherently tacky or classy in any way of dressing. "
btw - Since the West is built on the feminine (Europa/Io), and the female mode of sexual selection for marriage and child rearing is based upon hypergamy, why wouldn't societal "high class" signals reflect feminine values?
:)
Why do you write "moslem" instead of "Muslim"? The Left does not give Islam a "pass". We only recognize that cultural change takes time. American conservatives don't receive such consideration because we share the same culture. There is no reason for you to be behind where the Left is. And I believe you do not think any change is necessary.
Moslem is an alternate spelling of Muslim. The words have the same meanings in all contexts, and both spellings have been in use for several centuries. Moslem was the preferred spelling until the first half of the 20th century. Today, Muslim is the preferred spelling.
So you have "respect" for Moslems, but not conservatives.
...and since we're so "behind"... I can't imagine what you think of Moslems. lol!
ps Established institutions which used the older form of the name have been reluctant to change. The American Moslem Foundation is still the American Moslem Foundation (much as the NAACP is still the NAACP--the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). The journal The Moslem World--published by the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut--is still The Moslem World.
When Baby Boomers were children it was Moslem. The American Heritage Dictionary (1992) noted,"Moslem is the form predominantly preferred in journalism and popular usage.
I'm a Boomer.
Do you also refer to African Americans as "Negroes" (like Franco)? BTW, you wouldn't agree that changing your own culture is easier than changing someone else's culture? Which would be why American Lefties focus criticism on American Conservatives. Yet, it seems you struggle to understand something so obvious.
No, I generally refer to them as Blacks. As for changing "our" culture, you Lefties seem to be pretty lousy at it. All you worry about is vocabulary, whilst Conservatives worry about maintaining the underlying virtues. :)
Plato, "Cratylus"
SOCRATES: And can we rightly speak of a beauty which is always passing away, and is first this and then that; must not the same thing be born and retire and vanish while the word is in our mouths?
CRATYLUS: Undoubtedly.
SOCRATES: Then how can that be a real thing which is never in the same state? for obviously things which are the same cannot change while they remain the same; and if they are always the same and in the same state, and never depart from their original form, they can never change or be moved.
CRATYLUS: Certainly they cannot.
SOCRATES: Nor yet can they be known by any one; for at the moment that the observer approaches, then they become other and of another nature, so that you cannot get any further in knowing their nature or state, for you cannot know that which has no state.
CRATYLUS: True.
SOCRATES: Nor can we reasonably say, Cratylus, that there is knowledge at all, if everything is in a state of transition and there is nothing abiding; for knowledge too cannot continue to be knowledge unless continuing always to abide and exist. But if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there will be no knowledge; and if the transition is always going on, there will always be no knowledge, and, according to this view, there will be no one to know and nothing to be known: but if that which knows and that which is known exists ever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist, then I do not think that they can resemble a process or flux, as we were just now supposing. Whether there is this eternal nature in things, or whether the truth is what Heracleitus and his followers and many others say, is a question hard to determine; and no man of sense will like to put himself or the education of his mind in the power of names: neither will he so far trust names or the givers of names as to be confident in any knowledge which condemns himself and other existences to an unhealthy state of unreality; he will not believe that all things leak like a pot, or imagine that the world is a man who has a running at the nose. This may be true, Cratylus, but is also very likely to be untrue; and therefore I would not have you be too easily persuaded of it. Reflect well and like a man, and do not easily accept such a doctrine; for you are young and of an age to learn. And when you have found the truth, come and tell me.
CRATYLUS: I will do as you say, though I can assure you, Socrates, that I have been considering the matter already, and the result of a great deal of trouble and consideration is that I incline to Heracleitus.
SOCRATES: Then, another day, my friend, when you come back, you shall give me a lesson; but at present, go into the country, as you are intending, and Hermogenes shall set you on your way.
...whilst Conservatives worry about maintaining the underlying virtues.
White Nationalist hate, White patriarchy, Christian hypocrisy and misogyny are virtues? Who knew?
BTW, I disagree that Lefties are lousy at changing culture. I'd say we are very good at it. Recent successes include the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and marriage equality.
What you call "hate" has been called "wisdom" for thousands of years.
...and if you think you've "won" on those issues, you're gullible as hell.
I'd simply refer you to Book VIII of Plato's "Republic" on 'democracies'.
Then, in order that we may see clearly what we are doing, let us imagine democracy to be divided, as indeed it is, into three classes; for in the first place freedom creates rather more drones in the democratic than there were in the oligarchical State.
That is true.
And in the democracy they are certainly more intensified.
How so?
Because in the oligarchical State they are disqualified and driven from office, and therefore they cannot train or gather strength; whereas in a democracy they are almost the entire ruling power, and while the keener sort speak and act, the rest keep buzzing about the bema and do not suffer a word to be said on the other side; hence in democracies almost everything is managed by the drones.
Very true, he said.
Then there is another class which is always being severed from the mass.
What is that?
They are the orderly class, which in a nation of traders is sure to be the richest.
Naturally so.
They are the most squeezable persons and yield the largest amount of honey to the drones.
Why, he said, there is little to be squeezed out of people who have little.
And this is called the wealthy class, and the drones feed upon them.
That is pretty much the case, he said.
The people are a third class, consisting of those who work with their own hands; they are not politicians, and have not much to live upon. This, when assembled, is the largest and most powerful class in a democracy.
True, he said; but then the multitude is seldom willing to congregate unless they get a little honey.
And do they not share? I said. Do not their leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people; at the same time taking care to reserve the larger part for themselves?
Why, yes, he said, to that extent the people do share.
And the persons whose property is taken from them are compelled to defend themselves before the people as they best can?
What else can they do?
And then, although they may have no desire of change, the others charge them with plotting against the people and being friends of oligarchy?
True.
And the end is that when they see the people, not of their own accord, but through ignorance, and because they are deceived by informers, seeking to do them wrong, then at last they are forced to become oligarchs in reality; they do not wish to be, but the sting of the drones torments them and breeds revolution in them.
That is exactly the truth.
Then come impeachments and judgments and trials of one another.
True.
The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness.
Yes, that is their way.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector.
Yes, that is quite clear.
Conservatives play the "long" game. :)
As Nietzsche has said:
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truths than lies."
"Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed."
...and if you think you've "won" on those issues, you're gullible as hell.
I do not think the Left has "won" (re "don't ask don't tell" and marriage equality). I know the Left has won. That these rights will ever be rolled back is as likely as slavery returning - the Radical Redneck's fantasy. Do you also desire the re-enslavement of Black Americans?
Do you also desire the re-enslavement of Black Americans?
No, I'm not an advocate for Democrat policies that we overturned 150 years ago through open combat. :)
...but you'd be a fool to believe that some future open combat won't overturn current policies.
btw- Wanna know why America never had a military takeover and caudillo like has happened in many other lands? No homo policies.
Even Hitler knew to take care of his "homo-military" problem.
You may want to establish a new "Sacred Band" within DOD... but IMO, you'd be in the minority.
America's ideal soldier is Cincinnatus, not Epaminondas.
The Radical Redneck is not a Democrat. BTW, I know you LONG for "open combat". Perhaps because you yearn to murder "libtards"? But it won't happen. Your homophobe army will be crushed by the actual army. And you'll end up dead or in prison. I say we send you to Gitmo as a traitor to America.
Good luck with that, Dervy.
Post a Comment