How Dangerous is Postmodern Cultural Relativism?

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Both Plato and George W Bush were both roughly at SD-Blue, but just focusing on thier SD-level is to miss the vast differences of complexity and depth between these two individuals.

That's true. The same applies to historical events, ideologies and sociopolitical movements. For instance, people often like to label Ancient Greece and the like as Orange. They might not appreciate the extent to which the philosophical and scientific advancements in the early and late Antiquity and Middle ages were tightly interwoven with religious and mystical schools of thought.

Edited July 13, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[DocWatts]

12 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

That's true. The same applies to historical events, ideologies and sociopolitical movements. For instance, people often like to label Ancient Greece and the like as Orange. They might not appreciate the extent to which the philosophical and scientific advancements in the early and late Antiquity and Middle ages were tightly interwoven with religious and mystical schools of thought.

Very true. The most advanced thinkers from Athens might have been considered all of the various city states in Greece as equals, but they still would have seen Greek Culture as superior to that of 'barbarian' (ie non Greek) peoples.

Likewise, a forward thinking Medieval European might have embraced everyone who subscribed to thier version of Christianity as thier brother, but would have considered anyone who subscribed to a different religious tradition as ignorant and abominable.

The beginnings of a truly worldcentric paradigm did not emerge until the Enlightenment.

[Emerald]

On 7/9/2021 at 6:08 AM, StarfoxEpiphany said:

One thing that always perplexes me about progressives is how much they like to stereotype and show open hatred toward rural people.  I'm sure you think you have good reasons for not liking them.  Primarily, that it gives you an excuse to behave poorly. Bad behavior is fun, right?

Well guess what, there's also lots of reasons to stereotype and dislike all sorts of groups.  You see why people like you are a problem?

 

Actually, most progressives are pretty against stereotyping against working class folks. Though of course, wealthy progressive folks, as I've experienced, can fall into classicism just as easily because they just don't really understand what it's like to struggle with money.

But I don't really understand how you see what I said was against rural people.

Is it because I said that I have commercial swampland in Florida to sell you if you're gullible enough to think people are offended because of the phrase "black coffee"?  

By the way, I am a "rural person" from a blue collar family, who lived until adulthood in a small working class Central Florida town. And my dad's side of the family are all from rural Georgia. We would all very much be considered rednecks. And until very recently, I was very much a part of the working poor.  

So, don't even talk about the shaming of "rural people" to me. 

[Emerald]

On 7/9/2021 at 6:42 AM, UDT said:

 

@Emerald Talking about censorship and cancel culture has no touchpoint with this! Its ridiculous!
Ive repeated multiple times. 
You see you call me a homophobe (defamation) so anything I´ve written about the actual topic (which is censorship and freedom speech) is now forgotten. I am the enemy who is not to be listened to. 
 

Number one, I never called for anyone to be censored.

Number two, you're not important enough to be canceled. 

Number three, what you asked is obviously homophobic.

Number four, it's important to call a thing what it is. If we see a duck, let's call it a duck. If we see homophobia, let's call it homophobia. 

Number five, if you're too sensitive to handle the homophobic things you say being accurately labeled as homophobic, then either own your homophobia and get less sensitive to being called out or just don't say homophobic things. It's your choice. 

[Roy]

How dangerous is Neo-liberal American capitalism ?

[Akemrelax]

I don't agree with your assessment of postmodern relativism. But yes, there are dangerous to it, I just don't think you are quite on point. 

I had tried to point out the problems with relativism and gender, but people misinterpreted it. Then Leo made a video about gender saying basically the same thing and got lauded for it. (This actually happens quite a lot on the forum). 

Progressives get identity wrong. This can negatively effect you individually if you get too attached to identities. Watch Leo's video he explains the problem with relativism quite well:

 

[Loving Radiance]

13 hours ago, Roy said:

How dangerous is Neo-liberal American capitalism ?

Asking the real questions here

[UDT]

@Emerald what are you talking about? What a bizzare reply ?  

Edited July 21, 2021 by UDT

[bejapuskas]

@Akemrelax @Akemrelax  Progressives maybe get identity wrong if you look at identity from your spiritual paradigm. But then progressives usually do not kill people because of their identity, that is why we say they make progress, because this currently happens in every society. People hating each other because of race, gender, religion... Criticizing them is of little to no use. You're attached to your privileged identity.

 

[Epikur]

1 hour ago, bejapuskas said:

@Akemrelax @Akemrelax  Progressives maybe get identity wrong if you look at identity from your spiritual paradigm. But then progressives usually do not kill people because of their identity, that is why we say they make progress, because this currently happens in every society. People hating each other because of race, gender, religion... Criticizing them is of little to no use. You're attached to your privileged identity.

 

Sometimes progressives get too greedy and things backfire.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-stolen-revolution-iranian-women-of-1979-1.5048382

[sholomar]

I was tempted to start a thread here asking people what they think of equity. Do people think giving equal outcome without equal effort is a healthy solution to cultural problems?  I haven't spend a ton of time here yet but enough time to know there's lot of progressives with ideologies I don't necessarily agree with but that's alright.

 

Edited July 23, 2021 by sholomar

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, sholomar said:

 Do people think giving equal outcome without equal effort is a healthy solution to cultural problems? 

You gotta be more specific than that.

[Danioover9000]

@sholomar

4 hours ago, sholomar said:

I was tempted to start a thread here asking people what they think of equity. Do people think giving equal outcome without equal effort is a healthy solution to cultural problems?  I haven't spend a ton of time here yet but enough time to know there's lot of progressives with ideologies I don't necessarily agree with but that's alright.

 

   No, not quite.

[Gesundheit2]

I'm not sure if it's related at all or if someone said it before, but imagine going to jail for telling a person that they're fat

Edited July 23, 2021 by Gesundheit2

[DocWatts]

21 hours ago, sholomar said:

I was tempted to start a thread here asking people what they think of equity. Do people think giving equal outcome without equal effort is a healthy solution to cultural problems? 

Problem is, that's a straw man characterization of SD-Green.

What the vast majority of SD-Green actually wants is actual (rather than empty lip service towards) Equality of Opportunity.

Which involves creating Support Structures so that people who are born in to highly inequitable circumstances both have a chance to participate in society and live a life of dignity.

Just creating a Meritocracy without mechanisms to give those born in to an unfortunate circumstances a chance to catch up so that they can compete is not true Equality of Opportunity.

A good analogy is a game of Monopoly where one player starts the game with ten thousand dollars and a bunch of properties in thier name, and another player starts twenty turns in after most of the properties on the Board have already been bought up by the other players.

In no way can the remainder of the game be said to be an actual Competition in any reasonable sense of the word, since who is going to win and who is going to lose is a foregone conclusion based on the differing conditions that each player started the game with.

While some degree in Inequity in starting conditions is inevitable because people vary in thier intelligence, wisdom, abilities, and work ethic, much of the inequity is Socially Constructed and self perpetuating because of the way our social institutions are arranged. And that aspect of it we can and should change.

Edited July 24, 2021 by DocWatts

[Harlen Kelly]

On 09/07/2021 at 5:49 PM, Arcangelo said:

the left is (way) more dangerous than the LGBTQI people

This assertion presupposes that the LGBT+ community is dangerous. How exactly are they dangerous?

Elaborate...

[Arcangelo]

13 hours ago, Harlen Kelly said:

This assertion presupposes that the LGBT+ community is dangerous. How exactly are they dangerous?

Elaborate...

Everybody is dangerous.

But now that I think about it: The transexuals and transvestites are the dangerous individuals in the LGBTQI+

Why?

Because most transexual/transvestite don't tell you they  are men. They pass as  women and find heterosexual men (H.M.) to have fun with and when the HM realizes he has been kissing a man (biologically speaking) they loose their mind (justifiable) and physically attack the transexual/transvestite.

So yeah they are dangerous, because they are like scammers: -''Hey I am nice girl'' When in reality he is a man that identifies with being a woman.

If the transexual/transvestite will come up to the HM and tell him: -''Hey I am man that identifies with being a woman, wanna have fun?'' I wouldn't be saying they are dangerous but that is not their modus operandi. So yeah IMHO they create violence by not coming up clean from the get go.

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2021 by Arcangelo

[Eph75]

So what I hear is that you fear becoming attracted to someone that doesn't match your definition of a woman, and are afraid of what experiencing the shame it would result in when realizing that you indeed were attracted, and are are capable of loving a man?

That is, until you realize there was a dick.

Yes, that probably hurts the ego. 

At the same time, wouldn't that be a beautiful realization of something representing connection deeper than surface? 

Sounds very, very dangerous - to the ego. 

Edited July 25, 2021 by Eph75

[Arcangelo]

^They are dangerous to themselves.

 

[Arcangelo]

It is a scam. You think you are buying one thing you get the complete opposite. Wouldn't you be pissed off? @Eph75

The scam is the problem, as I said: if they come up clean first I got no problems whatsoever with anyone that loves a man.

I wish 99.99% of the male population was gay TBH

No competition, more women for me, like fishing in a barrel. They will beg me to make love with them.

Peace

 

Arc