Society/Culture Hypocrisy of the left and right

[Snake_Baker]

Maher gets it.

"Emotional hemophiliacs"

Brilliant.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Maher is an establishment pony sell-out & has been for years.

Bloke snorts way too much cocaine off high-priced hookers navels at the playboy mansion.

He once stood for something.....Those days are long gone.

Peterson is not doing himself any favors coming onto this clown's show.

At least with Maher, you got the hypocrite bit right.

 

[Reynolds Number]

We're going to see a lot of hypocrisy within the next 24 hours.

 

[Fire]

if Bill Maher looks like an establishment sellout, then you might just be an extremist.

 

[Procrastinator35]

if Bill Maher looks like an establishment sellout, then you might just be an extremist.

He doesn't just look like one....He is one.

Lets not hedge our bets here is drawing a false line between seeming & actuality.....If you have a show on MSM, then you simply have no option other than to toe the establishments line....Otherwise, it's adios amigos.

Maher is a total corporate sell-out.....Period!....Any bloke who advocates drones - in order to back Obama - that kill 90% innocent victims, has zero moral integrity.

 

[scoman]

Wasn't sure were to put this but this thread looks good enough. We are all hypocrites although I am directing this at the left. Inspired by the Melbourne comic having a crack at Anzac Day (perhaps this is her credo?):

I don’t give a rats about and won’t respect anything or anyone that has come before me (except maybe a few of the rebellious types that told the establishment to get nicked).

I challenge everything and anyone in authority because nothing is more important to me than my rights (except maybe the rights of the latest minority group I am championing on facebook).

I reject my own heritage and am abhorred by the conduct of my forefathers regardless of the fact that their actions have contributed if not created the lifestyle I now enjoy (except for Great Aunty Barb who married a Chinese migrant, but was widowed at 35 and went on to single handily raise five children and adopt three more while volunteering every week to visit the elderly from her church…… wait a second did I just say church? Nup she is evil too).

I reject God because the idea of serving or acknowledging something more important than myself is beneath me (except Buddhist Gods and possibly Alah and Aboriginal dreaming stuff because that’s pretty cool and cultural and edgy and stuff. Don’t worry that doesn’t contradict anything).

I reject the Western way of life despite enjoying the privileges it has afforded me (Please understand I really would like to live in Somalia or Syria or Afganistan and get out of this crap hole…. honestly. I’m just not sure the coffee would be the same).

I reject our defence forces past and present despite the fact I might not even be here without their personal sacrifices (if only social media was around in 1943, we could have defeated Hitler and the Japanese with a hashtag or filter).

I reject people willing to make real sacrifices in their own lives to ‘serve’ (because I serve too at the soup kitchen 'most' Thursday nights. Last week I even had to put my phone down for 30 seconds to help butter some bread rolls. Cost me at least 30 likes on Insta).

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

That's the kind of s**t that belongs in the hypocrisy of the left thread.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

There is absolutely an argument to be made about sensitivity being privileged over debate. But let's not pretend it's a left/right thing. Gi ask whichever comedian shits on anzac day today if they are receiving nuanced, unemotional debate back.

It's not universities Jordo; it's the media and their love of the spectacle. One only has to look at this forum. Tabloid media shits out some nonsense, and the emotional hemophiliacs (nice term) on this board bleed to death. There is a pipeline connecting the new left and the alt right to commercial media. They provide the spectacle (usually about race/gender) and the media eats it up. They get talking heads like Bolt or Yasmin on, and they get ratings/clicks and the ad dollars come in.

And Jordy is prone to the odd meltdown. He does not like criticism.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You are correct in pointing out the media, but it doesn't start and end there. Who is priming that susceptible audience? The new left didn't happen by accident, whilst the moronic aspects of the right has been present for centuries.

This stuff is prevalent in the loonier aspects of western universities and increasingly prevalent in politics. I only had a discussion last week with a couple of professors that are frustrated by the ridiculous expectations and blame shifting associated with contemporary young students, which is facilitated by an unrealistic bureaucratic shift.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Where microaggressions really come from: A sociological account

Posted by Jonathan Haidt in Civility, Social trends

I just read the most extraordinary paper by two sociologists — Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning — explaining why concerns about microaggressions have erupted on many American college campuses in just the past few years. In brief: We’re beginning a second transition of moral cultures. The first major transition happened in the 18th and 19th centuries when most Western societies moved away from cultures of honor (where people must earn honor and must therefore avenge insults on their own) to cultures of dignity in which people are assumed to have dignity and don’t need to earn it. They foreswear violence, turn to courts or administrative bodies to respond to major transgressions, and for minor transgressions they either ignore them or attempt to resolve them by social means. There’s no more dueling.

Campbell and Manning describe how this culture of dignity is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to respond to even the slightest unintentional offense, as in an honor culture. But they must not obtain redress on their own; they must appeal for help to powerful others or administrative bodies, to whom they must make the case that they have been victimized. It is the very presence of such administrative bodies, within a culture that is highly egalitarian and diverse (i.e., many college campuses) that gives rise to intense efforts to identify oneself as a fragile and aggrieved victim. This is why we have seen the recent explosion of concerns about microaggressions, combined with demands for trigger warnings and safe spaces, that Greg Lukianoff and I wrote about in The Coddling of the American Mind.

Later this month I will write a blog post laying out the implications of this extraordinary article. But first I want to make the ideas in the article widely available. It’s a fairly long article, so I provide below an outline of its main sections with extensive quotations from each section. My hope is that you can read the text below and get 80% of the value of the article in just 7 minutes.

In what follows, all text is copied and pasted directly from the published article, [except for comments from me, which are in brackets.] I have also bolded the lines that are most important for understanding the phenomena described in The Coddling of the American Mind. The key idea is that the new moral culture of victimhood fosters “moral dependence” and an atrophying of the ability to handle small interpersonal matters on one’s own. At the same time that it weakens individuals, it creates a society of constant and intense moral conflict as people compete for status as victims or as defenders of victims.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Here’s the full citation: Campbell, B., & Manning, J. (2014). Microaggression and moral cultures. Comparative sociology, 13, 692-726.

http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-come-from/

 

[Snake_Baker]

people.ku.edu/~mjlandau/docs/Sullivan_competitive%20victimhood_JPSP%202012.pdf …

 

[Snake_Baker]

"The worst body counts of the twentieth century were perpetrated by people who believed that they were doing what was necessary to create a Utopian society, whether this reflected a left-wing vision... or a right-wing one"

http://portal.idc.ac.il/en/symposium/hspsp/2010/documents/21-baumeister.pdf …

 

[PLODDER22]

All I've found is if you're extremely partial regarding politics you're bound to be more of a hypocrite, just look at our politicians and social media. I'm sorry I haven't got more.

 

[RupieDupie]

"The worst body counts of the twentieth century were perpetrated by people who believed that they were doing what was necessary to create a Utopian society, whether this reflected a left-wing vision... or a right-wing one"

http://portal.idc.ac.il/en/symposium/hspsp/2010/documents/21-baumeister.pdf …

Utopian societies are masturbation, every person just needs enough personal autonomy to eke out their own bit of meaning and existence.

I wrote something about this in the What are you reading thread? - the naturalist & artist Becker, who accompanied Burke on his expedition across Australia, was moved along by the orders and whims of Burke who (with other stakeholders) turned the expedition into a common foot race against Stuart to see who could reach the Gulf first.

Available to Becker was a vast unexplored interior and a wagon full of scientific and artistic instrumentation. Yet all that potential died in a tent reeking of faeces and flies.

This is what an agent is subjected to under the current Australian “utopia” - masturbatory fantasy - of the big four banks, telecommunication & power monopolies and queer parliamentarians. All that potential, everything currently available, yet most of us are working an inane job (common footrace), doing dumb s**t so we can pay greedy whoresons rent, power, telecommunication bills etc

The plight of Becker perfectly describes the average modern Australian, ordered to do dumb s**t, and eventually dying of dementia and senility in the filth of our own incontinence.

 

[ShanDog]

Bit nihilistic. Those shiity jobs are a means to an end, and a means that is a whole lot nicer than most alternatives we've had to do as a species. It's what you do for the rest of the day that matters.

 

[Mofra]

people.ku.edu/~mjlandau/docs/Sullivan_competitive%20victimhood_JPSP%202012.pdf …

'Competitive victimhood' is an apt title for more than a few of the threads on here.

 

[Mofra]

"The worst body counts of the twentieth century were perpetrated by people who believed that they were doing what was necessary to create a Utopian society, whether this reflected a left-wing vision... or a right-wing one"

http://portal.idc.ac.il/en/symposium/hspsp/2010/documents/21-baumeister.pdf …

Basically the further away from the centre someone is, the more likely they are to be a lunatic. Definitely see the merit in this argument.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Basically the further away from the centre someone is, the more likely they are to be a lunatic. Definitely see the merit in this argument.

What is the political philosophy that undermines both of these highly flawed philosophies?

Libertarianism: The universal rights and freedoms of the individual, resulting in the complete disassembly of group think, and its resulting mobilisation of political thuggery.

The anarchists were right all along.

 

[Gethelred]

What is the political philosophy that undermines both of these highly flawed philosophies?

Libertarianism: The universal rights and freedoms of the individual, resulting in the complete disassembly of group think, and its resulting mobilisation of political thuggery.

The anarchists were right all along.

All you needed to say.

 

[Snake_Baker]

All you needed to say.

It's true!

Less government = better society.

 

[Gethelred]

It's true!

Less organisations insisting they know better than individuals = better society.

EFA

 

[RupieDupie]

Bit nihilistic. Those shiity jobs are a means to an end, and a means that is a whole lot nicer than most alternatives we've had to do as a species. It's what you do for the rest of the day that matters.

Not really, working to maximise personal autonomy, while still maintaining a society, would naturally lead to most economic and societal models, like, for example, a constitutional democratic capitalist society.

People would be more than happy to work for reward under such a society, and additionally work would form part of their personal autonomy / philosophy / meaning. The people would drive the market based on their needs. There would be opportunities.

The reality though is;

In a society where big business, bribery, corruption, lies, a US media mogul and monopolies rule, like in Australia, the worker is just a slave and are not rewarded through their work (by being able to afford a house for example) and are only working to be able to afford to pay bills, petrol, rent etc

Additionally the people who work, only do the menial s**t that generate these thugs more munny that they cannot utilise.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Where microaggressions really come from: A sociological account

Posted by Jonathan Haidt in Civility, Social trends

I just read the most extraordinary paper by two sociologists — Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning — explaining why concerns about microaggressions have erupted on many American college campuses in just the past few years. In brief: We’re beginning a second transition of moral cultures. The first major transition happened in the 18th and 19th centuries when most Western societies moved away from cultures of honor (where people must earn honor and must therefore avenge insults on their own) to cultures of dignity in which people are assumed to have dignity and don’t need to earn it. They foreswear violence, turn to courts or administrative bodies to respond to major transgressions, and for minor transgressions they either ignore them or attempt to resolve them by social means. There’s no more dueling.

Campbell and Manning describe how this culture of dignity is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to respond to even the slightest unintentional offense, as in an honor culture. But they must not obtain redress on their own; they must appeal for help to powerful others or administrative bodies, to whom they must make the case that they have been victimized. It is the very presence of such administrative bodies, within a culture that is highly egalitarian and diverse (i.e., many college campuses) that gives rise to intense efforts to identify oneself as a fragile and aggrieved victim. This is why we have seen the recent explosion of concerns about microaggressions, combined with demands for trigger warnings and safe spaces, that Greg Lukianoff and I wrote about in The Coddling of the American Mind.

Later this month I will write a blog post laying out the implications of this extraordinary article. But first I want to make the ideas in the article widely available. It’s a fairly long article, so I provide below an outline of its main sections with extensive quotations from each section. My hope is that you can read the text below and get 80% of the value of the article in just 7 minutes.

In what follows, all text is copied and pasted directly from the published article, [except for comments from me, which are in brackets.] I have also bolded the lines that are most important for understanding the phenomena described in The Coddling of the American Mind. The key idea is that the new moral culture of victimhood fosters “moral dependence” and an atrophying of the ability to handle small interpersonal matters on one’s own. At the same time that it weakens individuals, it creates a society of constant and intense moral conflict as people compete for status as victims or as defenders of victims.

Does threatening to make someone cry count as a microaggression?

 

[WA ROO]

Bloke snorts way too much cocaine off high-priced hookers navels

You post this like it is a bad thing