The social justice wars

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Post Reply
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6015
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:23 am


  • Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education - Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia -- and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post.

    These organisations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT.

    And they love war.

    While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless women, including the right to life (...) Intervention - what a polite, benign, Guardian word, whose real meaning, for Libya, was death and destruction.
John Pilger

JohnJAu
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by JohnJAu » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:34 pm

https://imgur.com/agKPiFp

Diebert's advanced humanity and David's reasonable SJW femininity.

User avatar
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2348
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Pam Seeback » Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:16 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
Pam Seeback wrote:How is keeping the goal of attachment purification/cutting front-and-centre not THE only important task of the philosopher?
Matters of the world are test of wisdom. If a person is irrational and uses logical fallacies with regard to matters of the world, then it means their wisdom is almost non-existent.

A person might believe they are wise, because they can speak intelligently on some topics, but reality tells a different story.
From the perspective of wisdom, reasoning matters of the world is the cause of irrationality (with the deluded/ignorant believing the opposite), with its contrast being reasoning why reasoning matters of the world is the cause of irrationality, aka, rationality.

Which is why engaging with those who passionately reason matters of the world (SJW's for example) keeps the world of irrationality turning. Which can, of course, if caused wisely, stoke the fires of ignorance to the point of burnout (the logical fallacy straw that breaks the camel's back) and the inevitable aha moment.

Better to push the devil into his corner than to join him in his prancing ways.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 1996
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv » Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:43 am

Pam Seeback wrote:Which is why engaging with those who passionately reason matters of the world (SJW's for example) keeps the world of irrationality turning. Which can, of course, if caused wisely, stoke the fires of ignorance to the point of burnout (the logical fallacy straw that breaks the camel's back) and the inevitable aha moment.
The people who reason about the world are a part of the world, so you are also reasoning about matters of the world when you conclude that their reasoning should be ignored/rejected.

User avatar
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2348
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Pam Seeback » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:00 am

jupiviv wrote:
Pam Seeback wrote:Which is why engaging with those who passionately reason matters of the world (SJW's for example) keeps the world of irrationality turning. Which can, of course, if caused wisely, stoke the fires of ignorance to the point of burnout (the logical fallacy straw that breaks the camel's back) and the inevitable aha moment.
The people who reason about the world are a part of the world, so you are also reasoning about matters of the world when you conclude that their reasoning should be ignored/rejected.
Reasoning that reasoning about matters of the world is a delusional / irrational activity is reasoning about ignorance and by extension, suffering, and how to bring both to an end. Those most heavily invested in belief / acceptance of the 'wise' subjective - objective 'rational' masculine naturally resist examining for themselves the truth that at its root, the rational male is THE irrational concept (belief in subject = delusion = world of illusion = suffering).

Which is why the masculine reasoning I accepts the suffering of duality- relativism as an inescapable fact and how it rationalizes its divide and conquer mentality.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2709
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:52 pm

Pam Seeback wrote:those who passionately reason matters of the world (SJW's for example)
I don't see evidence that the SJWs are using reasoning. Their conclusions are based on feelings and henids. They can't present a rational argument, which is why they are so dependent on name-calling or physical force.

User avatar
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2348
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:01 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:52 pm
Pam Seeback wrote:those who passionately reason matters of the world (SJW's for example)
I don't see evidence that the SJWs are using reasoning. Their conclusions are based on feelings and henids. They can't present a rational argument, which is why they are so dependent on name-calling or physical force.
Since matters of the world is dependent on self promotion and self promotion is dependent on attachment (feeling), the rational conclusion is that any reasoning of matters of the world is based, to some degree, on feelings. There is no denying that the extreme right or left (i.e. the SJWs) fall into the high degree-of-feelings category, this is what I meant when I used the term "passionately". It would be rational then to conclude that the "passionate" are more likely to fall prey to the use of henids, name-calling and physical force. And although the rational 'male' may not be effected by such extreme emotional attachments to the concept of self, 'he' is not exempt from subjectivity of view.

My point is that If the goal of the wise (emphasis on 'if') is to attain to the absolute then is it not the wisest course of action to refrain from reasoning that which is self-enhancing, i.e., worldly matters and instead direct one's reasoning toward bringing the suffering caused by self-enhancement to an end, i.e., matters of philosophy (the Genius forum)? I understand you believe that the Worldly Matters forum highlights one's ability to reason effectively, my question to you is: why would the Genius forum not be the ideal place to achieve this most-necessary goal?

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2709
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway » Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:11 am

Pam Seeback wrote:
Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:01 am
Since matters of the world is dependent on self promotion and self promotion is dependent on attachment (feeling)
I'm speaking of "worldly matters" in the sense of matters of the material world. For example, philosophical matters are of the mind, and worldly matters are of the physical world. The question as to who to vote for in an election is a worldly matter, since it is a matter of the physical world.

The more enlightened a person is, the better equipped they are to deal with matters of the world.
I understand you believe that the Worldly Matters forum highlights one's ability to reason effectively, my question to you is: why would the Genius forum not be the ideal place to achieve this most-necessary goal?
The main genius forum is supposed to be mainly for philosophical discussion, where absolute answers to questions can be reached, in the purely mental realm. The worldly matters forum was provided for speculative matters concerning the material world, and serves as a place to move posts to that shouldn't be on the main forum.

User avatar
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2348
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:59 pm

Pam Seeback: I understand you believe that the Worldly Matters forum highlights one's ability to reason effectively, my question to you is: why would the Genius forum not be the ideal place to achieve this most-necessary goal?
Kevin Solway: The main genius forum is supposed to be mainly for philosophical discussion, where absolute answers to questions can be reached, in the purely mental realm. The worldly matters forum was provided for speculative matters concerning the material world, and serves as a place to move posts to that shouldn't be on the main forum.
Thank you for the clarification. I will be away from wifi for a week or so, and when I return, I will post a thread in the Genius forum inspired by the above exchange.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 1996
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:02 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:11 am
The more enlightened a person is, the better equipped they are to deal with matters of the world.
@Pam Seeback, the crux of what Kevin, myself and Diebert were trying to say to you is stated in this quote in a roundabout way. Matters of the mind and the world are only distinguished in a conventional, worldly sense. The "Worldly matters" section was also created for a conventional, "worldly" reason, which became evident in the recent angry debates on all sides (to varying degrees), and also in the recent defacement attempt.

Emotions, like the urge to vomit, shouldn't be avoided. They should be seen through in the safe confines of a rational mind or at least within text-based discussions. Speaking of that, I've been writing a lengthy post since around David's comeback (and inspired by it) about humanity's collective avoidance of an "urge to vomit" and how that relates to recent events and politics. I can't say when I'll finish it though. Hopefully by the next game of thrones season, which curiously seems to coincide with rejuvenated forum activity.

Post Reply