Comment author: Viliam 02 April 2016 08:24:19PM *  2 points [-]

Cultural Revolution = SJWs + "Lord of the Flies"

Imagine the current student protests, except that they would happen during a revolution, so instead of getting teachers fired you could simply hang them and no one outside the school would really care. The accounts of Cultural Revolution that I have read were pretty much this.

Cultural revolutionaries had the options that SJWs currently don't have. (Similarly how current neo-Nazis don't put people into gas chambers, because they don't live in an environment where they would be allowed to build the gas chambers. That doesn't make them mentally different.)

Comment author: Lamp 02 April 2016 08:54:31PM 0 points [-]

I never said the SJW's don't wish they could do the things the cultural revolutionaries did.

Comment author: Lamp 02 April 2016 06:39:31PM 10 points [-]

Also, two of your recommendations are.

Our top political figures can make powerful, courageous and politically unpopular statements that all Muslims are not to blame for this attack, and that we should not radicalize the rest through unthoughtful policies. We can reach out to Muslim leaders who condemned the Brussels attacks and work together against the radicals.

Of course, this is what western leaders have been doing for the past 15 years, and it doesn't seem to be working. Turns out Muslims are more inclined to get their theology from their own imans then from western politicians, and reaching out to "moderate" Muslim leaders results in Muslim leaders that are moderate in English but radical in Arabic.

Comment author: Lamp 02 April 2016 06:04:47PM *  3 points [-]

So you wrote an article that starts with a false premise, namely the implicit claim that the primary cause of radicalization is western police presence. It then proceeds to use numbers you appear to have taken from thin air in an argument whose only purposes appears to be signalling "rationality" and diverting attention from said false premise. It final reaches a conclusion that's almost certainly false. This is supposed to promote rationality how?

Comment author: Lumifer 02 April 2016 04:35:29AM -1 points [-]

tries to include at least one "good German".

And do you believe that in Iliad all Trojans are fully bad guys and gals..?

Comment author: Lamp 02 April 2016 05:08:58AM *  1 point [-]

There's a major difference. A "good German" is one who doesn't need killing and in fact helps you kill "bad Germans". From the point of view of the Iliad a "good Trojan" is one who exhibits heroic virtues, of course, that makes it especially heroic for a Greek to kill him.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 April 2016 03:11:09AM *  0 points [-]

Yes, and look at the implicit morals that the fiction assumes.

Yes, and..?

You didn't have to go that far back. Pretty much most WW2 fiction books assume the peak of morality is to kill as many Germans as possible. So?

If you restrict to the ghetto classes.

Do rednecks qualify? What about white trash? X-) Or let's go global. Do you think Chinese peasants are particularly sophisticated people? India's slum dwellers?

Comment author: Lamp 02 April 2016 04:03:17AM 0 points [-]

Pretty much most WW2 fiction books assume the peak of morality is to kill as many Germans as possible. So?

Most of the WW2 fiction I've seen, at least from the Western front, tries to include at least one "good German".

Do you think Chinese peasants are particularly sophisticated people? India's slum dwellers?

I'm not familiar with the details of either of those populations, but from what I've heard they'd need a lot less "ideological belief" to to get them to engage in violence against out groups.

Comment author: Viliam 01 April 2016 10:07:46PM 4 points [-]

There seem to be similarities in behavior to the "Cultural Revolution", such as rebelling at universities, and requiring teachers and classmates to toe the line or publicly apologize and/or get fired, etc. (I don't know if the similarities are sufficient, or if this is more or less a standard pattern for every political movement.)

Comment author: Lamp 02 April 2016 12:51:37AM 2 points [-]

Well, the cultural revolutionaries didn't simply fire those who wouldn't toe the line.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 April 2016 12:31:05AM 0 points [-]

In that case, you appear to have no idea how most people behave.

I'll take your opinion under consideration.

Well, not really.

the Illiad

Fiction.

Arabian knights

Ain't no such thing.

the bahavior of modern gangs

And what percentage of modern society is a gang member?

Comment author: Lamp 02 April 2016 12:48:59AM 0 points [-]

the Illiad

Fiction.

Yes, and look at the implicit morals that the fiction assumes.

And what percentage of modern society is a gang member?

If you restrict to the ghetto classes.

Comment author: Lumifer 01 April 2016 02:44:45PM 1 point [-]

I believe you meant

Your belief is mistaken.

Comment author: Lamp 01 April 2016 09:21:04PM *  -1 points [-]

In that case, you appear to have no idea how most people behave. Look at something like the Illiad, Arabian Nights, or even the behavior of modern gangs. Notice that under the implicit morality, there is nothing wrong with killing members of outgroups.

Comment author: Glen 30 March 2016 09:57:57PM *  9 points [-]

I believe the problem people have with this is that it isn't actually helpful at all. It's just a list of outgroups for people to laugh at without any sort of analysis on why they believe this or what can be done to avoid falling into the same traps. Obviously a simple chart can't really encompass that level of explanation, so it's actual value or meaningful content is limited.

EDIT: Also, looking over your list it seems that you have marked most philosophies and alternate governments as "Immoral", along with literally everything as "Pointless and Counterproductive". Anarchism, Authoritarianism, Bushido, Collectivism, Cultural Relativism, Cynicsm, Defeatism, Ecocentrism, Egocentrism, Error Theory, Ethical Egoism, fascism, Gothicismus, Harmonious Society & Scientific Outlook on Development, Hedonism, Illegalism, Libertarianism, Machiavellianism, Medievalism, Misanthropy, Misology, Moral Relativism, Moral Skepticism, Moral Subjectivism, Nihilism, Non-Atomic Eudaiominism, Opportunism, Pacifism, Sensualism, Ubuntu(!), Value-Pluralism, Virtue Ethics, Voluntaryism are all marked as "Immoral" and nothing else. I have a lot of issues with your list, but the one that jumps out hte most is Ubuntu. How is UBUNTU of all things Immoral, Pointless and Counterproductive?

Comment author: Lamp 01 April 2016 07:15:51AM *  2 points [-]

I believe the problem people have with this is that it isn't actually helpful at all. It's just a list of outgroups for people to laugh at without any sort of analysis on why they believe this or what can be done to avoid falling into the same traps. Obviously a simple chart can't really encompass that level of explanation, so it's actual value or meaningful content is limited.

Thinking about it some more, I think it could. The problem with the chart is that the categories are based on which outgroup the belief comes from. For a more rational version of the diagram, one could start by sorting the beliefs based on the type and strength of the evidence that convinced one the belief was "absurd".

Thus, one could have categories like:

  • no causal mechanism consistent with modern physics

  • the evidence that caused this a priori low probability hypothesis to be picked out from the set of all hypotheses has turned out to be faulty (possibly with reference to debunking)

  • this hypothesis has been scientifically investigated and found to be false (reference to studies, ideally also reference to replications of said studies)

Once one starts doing this, one would probably find that a number of the "irrational" beliefs are actually plausible, with little significant evidence either way.

Comment author: Lumifer 31 March 2016 02:53:22PM *  1 point [-]

during the period in question

During which period? SJ is a recent phenomenon, post-civil-rights movement for certain. And to believe the glorious Chinese utopia you had to make a real effort to not notice things.

Hey, I'm trying to explain my understanding of why leftists do what they do.

Well, there is enough evidence to conclude that at least some Maoists were, in fact, driven by the desire for power. Do you have any pointers to writings by UU luminaries where they express the idea that the intensity of emotion is a good way to distinguish whether it comes from God or Satan?

Basically, I'm curious why goody two-shoes types like UU decided to get in bed with Maoist-style people.

Comment author: Lamp 01 April 2016 02:26:27AM 2 points [-]

SJ is a recent phenomenon, post-civil-rights movement for certain.

It has predecessors go back to the early to mid 20th century. What the "recent phenomenon" you are observing is the SJWs having completed their long march through the institutions, no longer have any institutional opposition.

Do you have any pointers to writings by UU luminaries where they express the idea that the intensity of emotion is a good way to distinguish whether it comes from God or Satan?

They wouldn't, in fact most UU were somewhat uncomfortable with the whole concept of Satan.

Basically, I'm curious why goody two-shoes types like UU decided to get in bed with Maoist-style people.

There's a tope about that.

View more: Next