User Tag List

First 142223242526 Last

Results 231 to 240 of 285

  1. #231
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    His culture/beliefs which are progressive, tolerant, non-sexist, safe, etc truly is threatened [...]
    Yet if what he hopes for happens, what he claims to protect will vanish. A nation of soldiers has a culture of soldiers.

  2. #232
    Riva
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Yet if what he hopes for happens, what he claims to protect will vanish. A nation of soldiers has a culture of soldiers.
    Yes the tolerance aspect will be lost. The rest would only slightly. (It is uneducated to believe things wouldn't change even slightly even if a massive cultural change doesn't take place.) A society of soldiers created to protect what they desire/like/admire. Will it affect the above? Yes it would. Will it destroy? No it wouldn't. At one point one has to ask oneself - which i'm asking you right now - what would one choose to do when one's beliefs/culture is threatened? Resort to nationalism or embrace obvious destruction? Or do you have a different idea altogether?

  3. #233
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    Yes the tolerance aspect will be lost. The rest would only slightly. (It is uneducated to believe things wouldn't change even slightly even if a massive cultural change doesn't take place.) A society of soldiers created to protect what they desire/like/admire. Will it affect the above? Yes it would. Will it destroy? No it wouldn't. At one point one has to ask oneself - which i'm asking you right now - what would one choose to do when one's beliefs/culture is threatened? Resort to nationalism or embrace obvious destruction? Or do you have a different idea altogether?
    Just consider how much has changed in Europe since the end of the war. A pan-European racist civil war could last decades. The consequences would be most spectacular. There would still be culture afterwards, but only one of brutes, because they would win.

    I favor assimilation. It changes all participants of the process, but I am not so fond of 'my culture' that I think it should remain as it is, much less reverse to what it was 70 years ago. I think we should uphold tolerance and the rule of law on pain of their undoing.

    Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus!

  4. #234
    Riva
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Just consider how much has changed in Europe since the end of the war. A pan-European racist civil war could last decades. The consequences would be most spectacular. There would still be culture afterwards, but only one of brutes, because they would win.I favor assimilation. It changes all participants of the process, but I am not so fond of 'my culture' that I think it should remain as it is, much less reverse to what it was 70 years ago. I think we should uphold tolerance and the rule of law on pain of their undoing.Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus!
    (1) I wasn't implying war. (2) You favour assimilation, so do I. (But it's for europeans to decide, not me.) (3) Could there be assimilation without resistance? Is mass scale armed resistance not civil war? So your solution isn't strugle free, unless a new culture is created, marketed, convince which is acceptable/accepted by all/most different ethnicities. (4) you are not a fan of your culture but I have hunch that most europeans are. (5) The best culture is a culture which upholds law and order. But whose law? The law of the lawless/barbaric/racist/sexist or the law of the prevelant? Is the law which is prevelant not lawful? Will it survive any further if the native culture is destroyed by those who have no respect to it? (6) for most immigrants who come to europe, it is the law and order that is desired the most along with its riches. I hope I don't have to point out the corelation between the two. So for you a culture which is lawful is the most desired but/and for immigrants this is what europe gives/what they seek.

  5. #235
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Just consider how much has changed in Europe since the end of the war. A pan-European racist civil war could last decades. The consequences would be most spectacular. There would still be culture afterwards, but only one of brutes, because they would win.

    I favor assimilation. It changes all participants of the process, but I am not so fond of 'my culture' that I think it should remain as it is, much less reverse to what it was 70 years ago. I think we should uphold tolerance and the rule of law on pain of their undoing.

    Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus!

    There is a bad conflation of race and culture here. Mainly because beilieves in inherent values within white genetics that I don't think are inherent in the people of an particular race. For instance where immigrants to completely 100% assimilate, would nationalists be happy? I don't think so because really the just want a scape goat for their personal dissatisfactions. I'm not completely familiar with swedes situation so I'll use the example of the U.S. people wanting to "protect our culture" really are saying that they don't want to have to put the effort in to understand or accommodate other cultures. They want everyone to be like them or it's culture destruction.

    I guess I would like an example of how certain cultures are being actively destroyed?


    I believe in preserving cultural traditions but I don't think racially segregated nations is the way to do it (or that there is even a plausible way to create race based nations. I think it would degrade into an obscene number of factions and disposed people who aren't quite x enough).

  6. #236
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    He may be delusional, but calling him delusional seems to be pointless as a persuasive measure. It seems to me that it's mostly an effort for people to comfort themselves with the idea that as long they are rational then they won't believe or do anything horrible. I think that's quite the error and just a continuation of the modernist lie that rationality can save humanity.
    I think you are bring disingenuous in this thread because your over-identification with "minority" groups who see themselves as persecuted is making you irrational, or at least, inconsistent. Your objections have shifted from complaining about calling a (now ex-) member crazy, to an (ironic to anyone who knows your views) advocacy of tolerance, to this new dismissal of rationality.

    I guess if you are going to dismiss rational argument, there is no point trying to make one, but for the benefit of those who enjoy such things, here is Karl Popper on the paradox (and logical limits) of tolerance:-

    Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
    ...
    We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.


    The whole detour into Valiant's psychiatric health is a macguffin. You know very well that people say "that's crazy!" as a verbal expression of disbelief without anticipating that their words will be taken as a psychiatric diagnosis. The things he has been saying are insane - in the sense that they represent views utterly divorced from reality as normally understood. They exhibit a kind of paranoia and militantism that we do not associate with a balanced state of mind. Of course, much of this is context-dependent - what is considered insane in one period of history is considered the norm in others. So we must take into account the fact that he lives in a liberal democracy where those ideas are very far from the norm. Whether he has acquired such views through some personal mental deficiency, cult brain-washing, PTSD, psychotic break or none of those things is really moot to the discussion. The ideas in themselves are insane and poisonous and ought to be treated in that light and not legitimised by according them an attitude of respectful tolerance. Ideas cannot claim the privileges of individuals and individuals cannot claim the right to tolerance without first extending it their fellows. This is part of the social contract that allows us to live side by side without killing each other.

    Of course it's entirely possible that Holocaust deniers are sane: the perpetrators and supporters of the Holocaust were, on the whole, sane, after all. It's possible to be clinically sane and to believe or even do crazy things. You are correct that we sometimes suppose sane people to be crazy when they do insane things but this is less because we doubt ourselves (we ought to doubt ourselves more, in fact) and more because we find it impossible to empathise with people who commit or endorse evil acts. Empathy carries within it the same paradox as tolerance, embedded as it is in the same basic psychology of the social animal that is man. Its universality can only extend so far - we cannot empathise with the unempathic, and evil requires the suspension of empathy. Whether someone is "evil" or "crazy" is just a matter of the labels we use to distance ourselves from toxicity. They also carry notions of moral responsibility and reprehensibility but even those are questionable since empathy deficit can legitimately be considered a mental disorder. Fundamentally, all we are doing is defining acceptable norms of behaviour for our species, and drawing lines around / excluding those things which are too poisonous to be allowed to persist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    Though I disagree with @Valiant 's point of view and was offended by his racist comments and was annoyed by the inaccuracies of his statement I do feel for him. Why? Because his culture/beliefs are truly threatened. When one's beliefs/culture is threatened one tend act quite defensive. Nationalism is a result of this feeling.
    What are "his culture/beliefs" and who is threatening them? Jews? Muslims? Blacks? Sane people?

    Groups such as the one he identifies with represent at least as great a threat to the culture and beliefs of the average Swede as any other. Let's not forget Anders Behring-Breivik. People claimed he was sane too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  7. #237
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
    ...
    We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

    While I don't disagree, I think there is a logical alternative: finding everything outside of humanity intolerable on the basis that it threatens our existence; but for the sake practicality and the perpetuation of justice, this alternative is a bit silly and comes around full circle into what is essentially the same paradox Popper is describing. Just a different perspective about the rational, but ultimately absurd "solution" of unlimited tolerance and how it fails as a reasonable outcome of the human condition - another demonstration of the curative function of rationality: it tends to lead us to paradoxes, which allow us to appreciate both its weaknesses and strengths, giving us solace in that problems are primarily matters of perspective.

  8. #238
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Marm, you seem hung up on the idea that if I think Valiant is mentally ill, it must automatically mean I'm not informed enough about the situation. Consider the possibility that you know no more about it than I do, but have simply come to a different conclusion anyway.

    I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about paradigms and such, but it sounds like you're suggesting something too relativistic to allow for critical thought.

    And for the record, I actually didn't call Valiant psychotic. I said he seemed delusional and paranoid, and those things don't mean someone is psychotic.

    Also, while you were criticizing me for doing online psycho-analysis, you were dissecting my thinking using cognitive processes. Come now.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #239
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    (1) I wasn't implying war. (2) You favour assimilation, so do I. (But it's for europeans to decide, not me.) (3) Could there be assimilation without resistance? Is mass scale armed resistance not civil war? So your solution isn't strugle free, unless a new culture is created, marketed, convince which is acceptable/accepted by all/most different ethnicities. (4) you are not a fan of your culture but I have hunch that most europeans are. (5) The best culture is a culture which upholds law and order. But whose law? The law of the lawless/barbaric/racist/sexist or the law of the prevelant? Is the law which is prevelant not lawful? Will it survive any further if the native culture is destroyed by those who have no respect to it? (6) for most immigrants who come to europe, it is the law and order that is desired the most along with its riches. I hope I don't have to point out the corelation between the two. So for you a culture which is lawful is the most desired but/and for immigrants this is what europe gives/what they seek.
    1. He is preparing for it, valiantly.
    2. Aha.
    3. Yes, there is assimilation without resistance every day. Assimilation is not a special program; it happens naturally when people coexist and interact. I don't see people with darker skin as people of a different race. Ethnicity, too, is quite problematic. Obviously, there are people whose family history started in other regions of the world than mine, but that does not make them 'the others' unless I choose so. Reality is far too complex for any we-they dichotomy.
    4. There are constants I value, but culture is not a thing; it is the vapor of beliefs, thoughts, and actions of people living in a definite space of land. As such, it is always changing. When people complain about cultural change, I think it is not really about the phenomenon itself but about the loss of very specific things they valued. So, as long as we keep what most value most, we can change around quite a bit without significant uproar.
    5. The law we have, obviously. It is the result of thousands of years of civil and not-so-civil practice, discussion, and modification. It is not perfect, but it is better than Sharia law. And it should rule, meaning that I am against Sharia courts in this country.
    6. Alle meine Entchen schwimmen auf dem See, schwimmen auf dem See, Köpfchen in das Wasser, Schwänzchen in die Höh'.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    There is a bad conflation of race and culture here. Mainly because beilieves in inherent values within white genetics that I don't think are inherent in the people of an particular race. For instance where immigrants to completely 100% assimilate, would nationalists be happy? I don't think so because really the just want a scape goat for their personal dissatisfactions. I'm not completely familiar with swedes situation so I'll use the example of the U.S. people wanting to "protect our culture" really are saying that they don't want to have to put the effort in to understand or accommodate other cultures. They want everyone to be like them or it's culture destruction.
    There is indeed a bad conflation of race and culture. In fact, there are so many bad conflations that it seems more sensible to throw the whole ideological construct away than to clean it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    I guess I would like an example of how certain cultures are being actively destroyed?
    I am afraid you will have to wait six months for an answer from the expert. The obvious example, of course, is the Holocaust. Fortunately, it was not entirely successful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    I believe in preserving cultural traditions but I don't think racially segregated nations is the way to do it (or that there is even a plausible way to create race based nations. I think it would degrade into an obscene number of factions and disposed people who aren't quite x enough).
    Yes, it would be quite the hell on earth.

  10. #240
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    While I don't disagree, I think there is a logical alternative: finding everything outside of humanity intolerable on the basis that it threatens our existence; but for the sake practicality and the perpetuation of justice, this alternative is a bit silly and comes around full circle into what is essentially the same paradox Popper is describing. Just a different perspective about the rational, but ultimately absurd "solution" of unlimited tolerance and how it fails as a reasonable outcome of the human condition - another demonstration of the curative function of rationality: it tends to lead us to paradoxes, which allow us to appreciate both its weaknesses and strengths, giving us solace in that problems are primarily matters of perspective.
    I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

    Your "logical alternative" is neither of those things. Not everything outside of humanity threatens humanity's existence. Far from it. In fact the only thing that threatens humanity's existence at this point is...humanity.

    Paradox exposes the weakness of self-referential systems, like logic and language and law.
    A rational response to the tolerance paradox would be to declare the concept of tolerance invalid, since it is self-inconsistent. In fact, it is only paradoxical when viewed as a problem through the lens of logic. Pure rationality often arrives at highly impractical, even nonsensical outcomes.
    One has to step outside the system to resolve such problems. To employ the spirit, rather than letter of the law.
    To tolerate intolerance in the way Beorn advocates, is to "strain at the gnat but gulp down the camel" - to observe the letter of the "law" of tolerance, but neglect its spirit, thereby nurturing an intolerant society. And to neglect the spirit is not really to be tolerant at all, since at root, tolerance is about respect for life, liberty and individual differences. The spirit involves promoting tolerance of those differences, and so anything that negates or violates that spirit can rightly be prohibited without any inherent contradiction. Indeed, the only contradiction would be to tolerate such attitudes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

Similar Threads

  1. Race, Culture and MBTI
    By animenagai in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 07-10-2013, 10:27 PM
  2. Violence and Identity
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-27-2012, 10:57 PM
  3. believe and identity
    By The Machine Stops in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-10-2011, 07:54 PM
  4. [E9] Type 9 and Identity
    By DJAchtundvierzig in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-04-2011, 10:49 AM
  5. [NT] Intelligence, growth, and identity
    By Argus in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-06-2009, 10:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO