I do not doubt at all that you arrived at whatever positions as a result of some thought. But it doesn't mean your positions are sacrosanct or never need reevaluations. And such reevaluations never take place in discussions in this journal. It is understandable, of course - no one comes to LJ to think too much, we just come to hang out with those whom we like and who share our ways of thinking. Or to tell others that their ways of thinking suck. Which is why bringing evidence or logic into your journal is a losing strategy. It has the effect of no lulz and gets little attention. At best, you reply with a catchy one liner as you always do, largely ignoring the content. These are the rules of the game that you have yourself established. But it is not because of that that we disagree.
I disagree with your evaluation of the mainstream as indecisive and therefore wrong. Once again, if all or most men were decisive enough to fuck all the young women they could lay their hands on, that would in your opinion constitute a fresh change from moderate indecisiveness. If the Israeli military were to level the Gaza strip with the ground, eliminating Islamic militarists, that would be a nice break from moderate routine. Moderation is the result of balanced interests. It has its downsides (e.g. no one gets to be king of the hill, some of the interests are stupid - the usual issues in democracy), and a configuration of a moderate majority and strong-headed minorities who think they're the shiznit appears to be stable over time. It doesn't mean I can't try to redeem the mainstream in the eyes of some members of said minorities, or, in the very least, to engage in some investigative journalism of my own.
P.S. I did not read the article you linked to before making the last comment.
Or, if you'd like a catch-phrase, I simply think that both you and Wright display moderate to strong anti-democratic tendencies. While such views are definitely a part of life, it may be a good idea to characterize them as what they are. You have your postcolonial feminist religion, he has the Catholic Church. Note that I am not at all saying the truth is somewhere in between. To me you are both forces to be opposed, as part of the right of a democracy to defend itself.
But it doesn't mean your positions are sacrosanct or never need reevaluations. And such reevaluations never take place in discussions in this journal.
...
You have your postcolonial feminist religion, he has the Catholic Church.
And this is where you show that you are an inferior troll. The superior trolls with whom I once sparred at least took the time to search my LJ's archives and seized on earlier statements that, in their opinions, contradicted later statements. Of course, they saw this as evidence of inconsistency on my part (having a slightly different agenda than you have) rather than an evolution of belief. For fuck's sake, I was an anarchist five years ago. I was a Zionist 15 years ago. A Catholic is always a Catholic, unless he converts to a different religion or abandons religion altogether.
On a related note, I might add that while Wright is fully entitled to hold his misguided and irrational beliefs in my utopia (though he would, of course, not be permitted to act on some of his beliefs by, say, physically restraining women who want to have abortions and forcing them to give birth), not only would his utopia constrain my physical and mental freedom, but also, his worldview condemns me to an eternity in Hell. But hey, we're both Nazis, amirite?
I disagree with your evaluation of the mainstream as indecisive and therefore wrong. Once again, if all or most men were decisive enough to fuck all the young women they could lay their hands on, that would in your opinion constitute a fresh change from moderate indecisiveness...[blahblah blah]
I said nothing of the sort. I said that it is more honest, not more right. Most moderate Zionists, in their heart of hearts, wish for Palestinians to all quiety leave whatever scrap of land they themselves covet. Sure, they don't want to kill innocents, but by definition they want a Jewish state, and it's unfortunate that somehow unwanted bodies ended up in the place they want it. This is a less effective belief than the extremist Zionist position, and probably less likely to result in a whole bunch of dead folks, but if you look at settlement expansions during Oslo and so on, it's not even necessarily a difference of degree.
Moderation is the result of balanced interests. It has its downsides (e.g. no one gets to be king of the hill, some of the interests are stupid - the usual issues in democracy), and a configuration of a moderate majority and strong-headed minorities who think they're the shiznit appears to be stable over time.
Like a twice-daily broken clock, you almost hit on the Overton Window theory here. If you followed this train of thought to its logical conclusion, you would realize that extremist assholes like me are not a threat to democracy but rather necessary for its very continuance. After all, had we commies not threatened violent workers' revolution back in the day, you'd have never ended up with universal health care.
Freedom is a difficult concept, especially in the ways in which it relates to other features of society. I am not sure what the point of your statement to the effect that your utopia allows for more of it is.
Point about democracy needing intolerant assholes conceded. The weird thing, however, is that intolerant assholes are often wrong. The other weird thing, is that I really don't want to occupy that niche politically while being somewhat prone to extremism in temper. Needless to say, I am radically against propositions of the form "Marxism is what you have to arrive at once you've thought about things long and hard enough". No, Marxism, for many people, is what you arrive at once you give up hope of ever truly integrating into normal human society on all of its imperfections. I dread such fate. I have a complicated history of relationship with normalcy, and that you do too is the reason I was, and am, drawn to your journal. But I must avoid the fate of the other loonies who became Marxists.
What's hilarious is that, from the perspective of a detached, objective observer, I integrate much more comfortably into normal human society than you do.
Career: well, you are two and a half years older and you work as a high school teacher. Before that you were working rather low-paying jobs and doing some free-lance stuff. I have the option of working as a high school teacher, and perhaps will have the option of working as a programmer of sorts, although I'm beginning to doubt that I want to do that. Before that I was teaching part-time privately. You've done more work during your life, and I've definitely been latent for long periods.
Financial stability: I don't have much money now, but I've mostly supported myself for the past 5 years. I've never been in debt. I would say I am pretty stable, although I am definitely not rich.
Long-term relationships: Men typically start later. I have started later than most men. I've never had what you might call a long-term relationship. There was something that lasted for about half a year, but it was a bit weird. I feel myself to be in constant transition, and I am not sure I want to take anyone along for the ride at this point.
Social networks: You have more friends and you socialize more. Many of your friends are on strained terms with well-being, but aren't we all. The one thing I am somewhat proud of is closely knowing a good number of academics and graduate students, as well as IT professionals and engineers, but that reflects my social inclinations, not my degree of integration.
I think the categories you propose deal with "stability" more than with "normalcy". Not to say that stability is not a large part of normalcy. Here are a few I would add:
Mental health: I have never been on medications. This may reflect a cultural difference: we Russians don't do SSRI's nearly as much as you North Americans, but I don't think it is limited to that.
Family: I am on good and close terms with all my immediate relatives without exception.
Overall, I think that you are both better integrated and more of a control freak about integrating. I'll give you an advantage, but I'm not sure it is huge.
Of course, "a Catholic is always a Catholic..." sounds extra amusing in the context of Wright, who is a relatively recent convert. Basically, I don't see what meaning that whole paragraph can carry.
The moderate position is intellectually lazy because it averages out positions rather than critically examining them. Let's take three different scenarios.
1. Alice proposes 100% taxation. Bob proposes 0% taxation. Both of these positions are extreme and impossible to implement. Cecily, a self-declared moderate, argues that taxation should be 50%. This is probably still an unreasonable answer to most thinking people, but it's closer to a feasible solution than either Bob or Alice have.
2. Darshika says that 2+2 is 4. Eli says that 2+2 is 5. Freddie says that 2+2 is 4.5. I say that this is fucking ridiculous; one "extreme" is correct, and one "extreme" has been reading 1984 as a how-to manual again.
3. Abortion. You can't compromise on abortion and still be intellectually and ethically honest. Either you believe that abortions should be legal and available to any woman who wants one (but, of course, no one should ever be forced to have an abortion), or you believe that no one should be allowed to have one. The moderate will still try to average out these positions, usually by disallowing abortion under any circumstances but rape, incest, and the life of the mother (slightly to the left moderates will propose panels of doctors, include a health exception, or disallow late-term abortions). But if the life of a fetus is precious and valuable, it is that regardless of whether a woman has been raped or whether she just wants to be a size 2 again. And if a woman is a full human being entitled to control her own body or destiny, she is that regardless of whether she makes moronic lifestyle choices.
In short, I can't believe you cited vox_diabolica as an example of rationality. He was a massive joke in philosophy for being a complete illogical moron on an alarmingly frequent basis.
Moderation can be intellectually lazy. It isn't always such.
I completely disagree that abortion is an entirely polarized issue. I don't think the way of reasoning you propose is very useful. Things in society are very interconnected and contextual. It is probably not in the best interest of society that all individuals maximize their personal happiness, for instance. That's why 4% of bull elephant seals perform over 88% of all copulations. The very way in which you wish to view society, the discourse, if you so like, is problematic. I am not anti-abortionist, but I don't think that "a woman is entitled to control her own body or destiny", because, in a society, nobody ever is. Your fantasies of full freedom, in short, don't impress me much.
I am not familiar with vox_diabolica's history in the philosophy community, I don't read it. I thought that particular entry was not bad.
I wish to add that I don't see why granting women the right of abortion under all circumstances will imply that women will be capable of controlling their destinies significantly more than otherwise. Human destinies are very intertwined.
I'm not asking what happens if both (a) the fetus is precious and (b) the woman is entitled to control her body.
I've mentioned this before, but in the middle ages in Christian Europe if it was thought that the mother was at serious risk during giving birth, there was a practice of drilling into the baby's skull and later extracting it by parts. Apparently, medieval Europe had its share of moderates.
I'm saying that in order to reach a compromise people should have frameworks that allow for it. Your framework does not. I don't think you are particularly concerned with a compromise, either. You tend to be, in theory, a my way or the highway type of person. In real life of course you are abnormally compliant. I think there might be a compensation issue there.
I am not interested in a compromise on this issue. Either one views me as a human being regardless of the contents of my uterus, or one does not. In real life, I can't punch fetus-people in the face without going to jail, so of course I'm going to be a bit nicer.
Some people are worth more as gender-neutral humans than they are as gendered subjects. For others it is the other way around. I don't want society to be dominated by either.
There was a study some time ago regarding racially mixed workplaces. In workplaces where around 30% of the workforce was black and 70% white, the white people tended to perceive their workplace as "mostly black."
In education, as the performance of girls in maths and sciences has caught up with the performance of boys, there is suddenly an outcry that "boys are falling behind!" Similar panic occurs when the percentage of women in higher education rise above the percentage of men, even though a) women make up more than 50% of the population, and b) men are still more likely to find higher-paying jobs after graduating.
Women have historically had fewer rights than men. As women begin to gain more rights and social privileges, one sees the outcry from men that "ZOMG FEMINAZIS ARE TAKING OVER AND MAKING THE WORLD A MATRIARCHY." Which is ridiculous, when even the radfems are talking about gender equality. But the gains made by a disadvantaged group are perceived as a net loss to the privileged group, so one shouldn't act too surprised.
I think that the gains made by women are not only perceived as a loss, but de facto are in some cases. Overall, I tend to think the influence of feminism on society has been positive, but it doesn't mean some men did not actually lose some power in the process, and it doesn't mean some women could not be relatively better without it. I, for example, happen to know quite a number of men who turn to third-world countries in search for women who are easier to deal with. I don't know if this is a result of western women having higher demands or whether it has always been more or less this way. I also know many intelligent women who wish they didn't have to work so much. It doesn't mean that going back to the good old times is possible or desirable. It just means life is complicated, and the tendency to ignore this is... well, complicated too, I guess.
But what I was initially saying is that for some men and women, being taken as men and women is preferable to being perceived as civil subjects. Pretty women and masculine men can, though obviously don't have to, fall into this category. For a fat programmer guy, of course, being judged by his compliance to the masculine ideal is anathema. In reality, of course, people are judged by both, but I think the dichotomy is useful. In particular, a desirable woman with access to resources (perhaps those of a man) may very much cherish her femininity in the traditional sense - and this depends on the desires of men -, while other women to whom womanhood as such gives little advantage may stress the civil aspects of life and the importance of treating women as humans first and women second. Apropos, there are indications that men's preferences in partner selection are shifting towards giving more weight than before to finances and less to looks.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
I disagree with your evaluation of the mainstream as indecisive and therefore wrong. Once again, if all or most men were decisive enough to fuck all the young women they could lay their hands on, that would in your opinion constitute a fresh change from moderate indecisiveness. If the Israeli military were to level the Gaza strip with the ground, eliminating Islamic militarists, that would be a nice break from moderate routine. Moderation is the result of balanced interests. It has its downsides (e.g. no one gets to be king of the hill, some of the interests are stupid - the usual issues in democracy), and a configuration of a moderate majority and strong-headed minorities who think they're the shiznit appears to be stable over time. It doesn't mean I can't try to redeem the mainstream in the eyes of some members of said minorities, or, in the very least, to engage in some investigative journalism of my own.
P.S. I did not read the article you linked to before making the last comment.
no subject
no subject
...
You have your postcolonial feminist religion, he has the Catholic Church.
And this is where you show that you are an inferior troll. The superior trolls with whom I once sparred at least took the time to search my LJ's archives and seized on earlier statements that, in their opinions, contradicted later statements. Of course, they saw this as evidence of inconsistency on my part (having a slightly different agenda than you have) rather than an evolution of belief. For fuck's sake, I was an anarchist five years ago. I was a Zionist 15 years ago. A Catholic is always a Catholic, unless he converts to a different religion or abandons religion altogether.
On a related note, I might add that while Wright is fully entitled to hold his misguided and irrational beliefs in my utopia (though he would, of course, not be permitted to act on some of his beliefs by, say, physically restraining women who want to have abortions and forcing them to give birth), not only would his utopia constrain my physical and mental freedom, but also, his worldview condemns me to an eternity in Hell. But hey, we're both Nazis, amirite?
I disagree with your evaluation of the mainstream as indecisive and therefore wrong. Once again, if all or most men were decisive enough to fuck all the young women they could lay their hands on, that would in your opinion constitute a fresh change from moderate indecisiveness...[blahblah blah]
I said nothing of the sort. I said that it is more honest, not more right. Most moderate Zionists, in their heart of hearts, wish for Palestinians to all quiety leave whatever scrap of land they themselves covet. Sure, they don't want to kill innocents, but by definition they want a Jewish state, and it's unfortunate that somehow unwanted bodies ended up in the place they want it. This is a less effective belief than the extremist Zionist position, and probably less likely to result in a whole bunch of dead folks, but if you look at settlement expansions during Oslo and so on, it's not even necessarily a difference of degree.
Moderation is the result of balanced interests. It has its downsides (e.g. no one gets to be king of the hill, some of the interests are stupid - the usual issues in democracy), and a configuration of a moderate majority and strong-headed minorities who think they're the shiznit appears to be stable over time.
Like a twice-daily broken clock, you almost hit on the Overton Window theory here. If you followed this train of thought to its logical conclusion, you would realize that extremist assholes like me are not a threat to democracy but rather necessary for its very continuance. After all, had we commies not threatened violent workers' revolution back in the day, you'd have never ended up with universal health care.
no subject
Point about democracy needing intolerant assholes conceded. The weird thing, however, is that intolerant assholes are often wrong. The other weird thing, is that I really don't want to occupy that niche politically while being somewhat prone to extremism in temper. Needless to say, I am radically against propositions of the form "Marxism is what you have to arrive at once you've thought about things long and hard enough". No, Marxism, for many people, is what you arrive at once you give up hope of ever truly integrating into normal human society on all of its imperfections. I dread such fate. I have a complicated history of relationship with normalcy, and that you do too is the reason I was, and am, drawn to your journal. But I must avoid the fate of the other loonies who became Marxists.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Not saying, before you protest, that these are all things that should be valued or held as a measure of one's success as a human being.
How did we get to these sad subjects?
Career: well, you are two and a half years older and you work as a high school teacher. Before that you were working rather low-paying jobs and doing some free-lance stuff. I have the option of working as a high school teacher, and perhaps will have the option of working as a programmer of sorts, although I'm beginning to doubt that I want to do that. Before that I was teaching part-time privately. You've done more work during your life, and I've definitely been latent for long periods.
Financial stability: I don't have much money now, but I've mostly supported myself for the past 5 years. I've never been in debt. I would say I am pretty stable, although I am definitely not rich.
Long-term relationships: Men typically start later. I have started later than most men. I've never had what you might call a long-term relationship. There was something that lasted for about half a year, but it was a bit weird. I feel myself to be in constant transition, and I am not sure I want to take anyone along for the ride at this point.
Social networks: You have more friends and you socialize more. Many of your friends are on strained terms with well-being, but aren't we all. The one thing I am somewhat proud of is closely knowing a good number of academics and graduate students, as well as IT professionals and engineers, but that reflects my social inclinations, not my degree of integration.
I think the categories you propose deal with "stability" more than with "normalcy". Not to say that stability is not a large part of normalcy. Here are a few I would add:
Mental health: I have never been on medications. This may reflect a cultural difference: we Russians don't do SSRI's nearly as much as you North Americans, but I don't think it is limited to that.
Family: I am on good and close terms with all my immediate relatives without exception.
Overall, I think that you are both better integrated and more of a control freak about integrating. I'll give you an advantage, but I'm not sure it is huge.
Re: How did we get to these sad subjects?
no subject
no subject
The moderate position is intellectually lazy because it averages out positions rather than critically examining them. Let's take three different scenarios.
1. Alice proposes 100% taxation. Bob proposes 0% taxation. Both of these positions are extreme and impossible to implement. Cecily, a self-declared moderate, argues that taxation should be 50%. This is probably still an unreasonable answer to most thinking people, but it's closer to a feasible solution than either Bob or Alice have.
2. Darshika says that 2+2 is 4. Eli says that 2+2 is 5. Freddie says that 2+2 is 4.5. I say that this is fucking ridiculous; one "extreme" is correct, and one "extreme" has been reading 1984 as a how-to manual again.
3. Abortion. You can't compromise on abortion and still be intellectually and ethically honest. Either you believe that abortions should be legal and available to any woman who wants one (but, of course, no one should ever be forced to have an abortion), or you believe that no one should be allowed to have one. The moderate will still try to average out these positions, usually by disallowing abortion under any circumstances but rape, incest, and the life of the mother (slightly to the left moderates will propose panels of doctors, include a health exception, or disallow late-term abortions). But if the life of a fetus is precious and valuable, it is that regardless of whether a woman has been raped or whether she just wants to be a size 2 again. And if a woman is a full human being entitled to control her own body or destiny, she is that regardless of whether she makes moronic lifestyle choices.
In short, I can't believe you cited
no subject
I completely disagree that abortion is an entirely polarized issue. I don't think the way of reasoning you propose is very useful. Things in society are very interconnected and contextual. It is probably not in the best interest of society that all individuals maximize their personal happiness, for instance. That's why 4% of bull elephant seals perform over 88% of all copulations. The very way in which you wish to view society, the discourse, if you so like, is problematic. I am not anti-abortionist, but I don't think that "a woman is entitled to control her own body or destiny", because, in a society, nobody ever is. Your fantasies of full freedom, in short, don't impress me much.
I am not familiar with vox_diabolica's history in the philosophy community, I don't read it. I thought that particular entry was not bad.
no subject
I'm not asking what happens if both (a) the fetus is precious and (b) the woman is entitled to control her body.
no subject
Good. Because you can't have a half-abortion.
Propose an intellectually honest compromise that could satisfy both sides of the abortion debate. Go ahead. I'll be here waiting.
no subject
I've mentioned this before, but in the middle ages in Christian Europe if it was thought that the mother was at serious risk during giving birth, there was a practice of drilling into the baby's skull and later extracting it by parts. Apparently, medieval Europe had its share of moderates.
I'm saying that in order to reach a compromise people should have frameworks that allow for it. Your framework does not. I don't think you are particularly concerned with a compromise, either. You tend to be, in theory, a my way or the highway type of person. In real life of course you are abnormally compliant. I think there might be a compensation issue there.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
In education, as the performance of girls in maths and sciences has caught up with the performance of boys, there is suddenly an outcry that "boys are falling behind!" Similar panic occurs when the percentage of women in higher education rise above the percentage of men, even though a) women make up more than 50% of the population, and b) men are still more likely to find higher-paying jobs after graduating.
Women have historically had fewer rights than men. As women begin to gain more rights and social privileges, one sees the outcry from men that "ZOMG FEMINAZIS ARE TAKING OVER AND MAKING THE WORLD A MATRIARCHY." Which is ridiculous, when even the radfems are talking about gender equality. But the gains made by a disadvantaged group are perceived as a net loss to the privileged group, so one shouldn't act too surprised.
no subject
But what I was initially saying is that for some men and women, being taken as men and women is preferable to being perceived as civil subjects. Pretty women and masculine men can, though obviously don't have to, fall into this category. For a fat programmer guy, of course, being judged by his compliance to the masculine ideal is anathema. In reality, of course, people are judged by both, but I think the dichotomy is useful. In particular, a desirable woman with access to resources (perhaps those of a man) may very much cherish her femininity in the traditional sense - and this depends on the desires of men -, while other women to whom womanhood as such gives little advantage may stress the civil aspects of life and the importance of treating women as humans first and women second. Apropos, there are indications that men's preferences in partner selection are shifting towards giving more weight than before to finances and less to looks.