Multiheaded comments on Open Thread, August 16-31, 2012 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 15 August 2012 03:25AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (313)
Tags: open thread open_thread

Comments (313)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Multiheaded 24 August 2012 06:46:55PM *  0 points [-]

Concerning Singapore and why the "traditionalist" conservatives and the atheist alt-right really ought to split on their attitude to it (as of now, they all seem to think that it's a nice clean place free of all that liberal insanity):

You know how Lee Kwan Yew has occcasionally been complaining about the "crass materialism" around him in his latter interviews and such? The loss of nice, cozy traditional values? Well, I think that he hasn't fully comprehended what he has been ushering in, culturally speaking. Behold. BEHOLD AND WEEP! Right out of trashy dystopian sci-fi... hell, it totally reminds me of this classic music video (at 3:10).

And here some Catholic woman is trying to pin this shit on leftism. Can't she see that old good Universalist morality is her only surviving ally against such horrors? (Rhetorical question: I understand that the less insightful conservatives simply lump all formally irreligious societies together as The Other. But the brighter ones should see how this is much worse than leftist academia.)

May God have mercy on our dirty little hearts.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 August 2012 08:48:12AM *  2 points [-]

Can't she see that old good Universalist morality is her only surviving ally against such horrors?

Mainstream Western Universalist morality has no objection to that video except that its tacky.

Comment author: Multiheaded 25 August 2012 09:37:57AM *  -1 points [-]

I don't believe this is so. Most any liberal professor type - hell, most lefties I know - would flip their shit around the phrase "manufacture life" or earlier. Maybe I'm too rosy-eyed, but I really can't see them remaining unperturbed. In theory, those lyrics manage to tick off just about every sacredness/profanity box of stereotypical liberal mentality. (I'll run a poll!)

They might not put much stock in family, but they sure as hell believe in parenting, upbringing, etc, and will at least see that an ad for breeding that doesn't even mention parenting or parental love is critically, fundamentally wrong. (Also, the gut reaction to social control of intimacy/sex. And other feelings along these lines.)

Comment author: [deleted] 25 August 2012 10:16:32AM *  6 points [-]

Right. It hits their sacrednss/profanity boxes in such minds but they can't articulate a rational argument against it based on harm or fairness. Remember they think they don't have the former box. The typical universalist mind faced with something that fits sacredness/profanity latches on to the nearest rationalization expressed in the allowed stated values to resolve the cognitive dissonance. Such rationalizations then live a dangerous life of their own sometimes resulting in disturbing policies.

To analyse the example you've provided, if I'm right we should be seeing in the moderately educated mind a search for a rationalization that fits this shape:

a company with quiet aid of government promoting this might cause harm or unfairness

I think the following does so nicely:

having babies is bad because it hurts the environment and the world is overpopulated anyway

This is ironically part of the environmentalist memeplex that is elsewhere propped up mostly by purity concerns. As evidence of this I submit the most liked youtube comment to the video.

Heh, clever and well-written song. Catchy too! :D

But, it's just the government and capitalism being on a flawed infinite-growth-based system at fault here. There's nothing wrong with some shrinking populations with how overpopulated the world is getting. If anything, there needs to be more adoptions. Everywhere. And way less baby-making.

Reading this can't you just hear the cogs turning in the person's head? Of the real reasons rooted in tabooed sentiments, only the bolded pro-nurture sentence remains, the charge has been successfully transferred to "babies bad for Gaia!". Inspect some of the other comments to this story on Youtube and other sites, you will see this particular rationalization consistently win out among the Brahmin and wannabe Brahmin.

Comment author: Multiheaded 25 August 2012 01:15:20PM *  -1 points [-]

Damn right. Hmm, looks like I should post your last PM and my reply in here for kar... I mean, for the public's benefit.

[Konkvistador messaged me:]

Orwell is dead

and soon Žižek and Chomsky will follow.

You put your hope in the decentness of Universalism as a replacement for Christianity.

I don't endorse that position because modern Universalism seems to be suffering more or less the same malaise that killed its predecessor.

I don't know what will happen next.

[I replied:]

You put your hope in the decentness of universalism as a replacement for Christianity.

No, I put my hope in the fact that it is Christianity, mostly intact or even refined under the surface. It was led astray not by immorality but by a philosophical and epistemic error - the folly of rationalization, the is-to-ought thing, "deriving" preferences from "pure reason", being ashamed of making a seemingly arbitrary stand on an issue, assuming the inevitability of their particular "progress"; you see what I mean.

The irony is that most branches of "Christianity" that remain openly theistic, like Catholicism, still retain many advantages such as better-maintained Chesterton's fences, but not because they're a better living fork - they merely remained a century or so behind the "core", Universalist Christianity, and see no other way to advance. Either they'll become fossils unable to handle new reality, or they will keep following in Universalism's footsteps without the vision or the imagination to adjust the course.

I hope that, should this single big error of Universalism be somehow mended - not necessarily or solely through a return to theism - then we can have the good things back and filter the really bad ones. This is why I'm looking into the relationship between the radical/totalizing/"core" current in Christianity and its Gnostic/less-worldly side. As I was beginning to say, I see this "1968 counterrevolution" as the former voluntarily surrendering to the latter in the face of the Left's Orwell-like fears. However, the resulting paralysis of the Left led to a vacuum of power, where the Right are kept away from institutions by the Left's massive aura of influence, yet the New Left is unwilling and afraid to approach any really important matters. It's not about some mysterious lack of "personal responsibility", "accountability", etc - there were plenty of unaccountable but good rulers. It's about the psychology of it, turning inwards instead of forging any sort of a path.

And, speaking of that last one:

(I can't resist mentioning Evangelion yet again. I'll do a full, detailed look at its place in historical and political context one day. Malaise is certainly its central theme.)

Comment author: MileyCyrus 25 August 2012 03:29:41PM *  7 points [-]

Downvoted for sharing PM's without permission.

Edit: See Konkvistador's reply.

Comment author: [deleted] 27 August 2012 06:02:40AM *  4 points [-]

Up voted for enforcing a community norm.

I already messaged Multiheaded and explained this to him before you posted. I want to emphasise he now has my permission to post that particular PM.

Comment author: Multiheaded 29 August 2012 01:03:50PM *  0 points [-]

[I already apologized, damnit, and he said it wasn't a problem!]

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit