Guilty conscience, perhaps? Do we really need to be lectured about the Holocaust by a guy whose father swore allegiance to the Nazi Party and who was an early member of the Sturmabteilung serving on the Eastern Front?
I've found Arnold to be a thoughtful and provocative speaker on multiple occasions, including this one. I appreciate the tone of his message, and I appreciate how directly he addresses his own conflicted heritage (in this video and others).
Both as a movie star and then as a politician, Arnold was a professional actor, so I take everything he says now with a grain of salt. But I found nothing in that message to object to. The same thing's been true of the last few videos I've seen of him in recent years.
You can complain about the messenger if you want, but you ought to watch the video and see if there's anything in his message that you disagree with. I'd be a little surprised if there is.
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on March 08, 2023, 08:19:03 PMI've found Arnold to be a thoughtful and provocative speaker on multiple occasions, including this one. I appreciate the tone of his message, and I appreciate how directly he addresses his own conflicted heritage (in this video and others).
Both as a movie star and then as a politician, Arnold was a professional actor, so I take everything he says now with a grain of salt. But I found nothing in that message to object to. The same thing's been true of the last few videos I've seen of him in recent years.
You can complain about the messenger if you want, but you ought to watch the video and see if there's anything in his message that you disagree with. I'd be a little surprised if there is.
I watched it. It's a nice message, but Arnold is a good actor, and as someone who is a grand child of a survivor and a child of a mother who was born in a DP camp in Germany in 1946, I don't need to take my education on the holocaust from someone who is a child of a father who played a role in it.
The sins of the father...
I know about his father, and I appreciate him doing this. 1/3 of my family was wiped out in the Holocaust.
Arnold doesn't have to do this and he does anyway. I respect that. His message is solid.
"I don't want you to be a loser.' Nice. :ThumbsUp:
I have a chunk of extended family wiped out as well. this isn's about that and he clearly says he isn't speaking to people like us. he's speaking to people that aren't us.
True, I suppose he isn't speaking to us.
My Paternal great uncle fought in the Italian Army in WW2 before being captured in Libya and spending the rest of the war in a POW camp. My Italian immigrant grandmother was (wrongly) interred in a concentration camp in the US as well. I'm allowed to still dislike fascism I feel.
Arnold isn't accountable for his father's actions he's his own person. If anything let him fight against what his father did to atone.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 08, 2023, 09:08:31 PMI have a chunk of extended family wiped out as well. this isn's about that and he clearly says he isn't speaking to people like us. he's speaking to people that aren't us.
That's fair.
I wish he had included as examples of the Hate he speaks of ISIS, Rwanda, Al Queda, and Communism maybe? Lots of good examples this day and time. Unfortunately.
It's a good and reflective video. Hopefully family and friends send it to loved ones who have been radicalized by the far right and have gone deep in the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. I'd like to think his message will breakthrough to some.
Quote from: GroggyGrognard2022 on March 09, 2023, 09:39:23 AMIt's a good and reflective video. Hopefully family and friends send it to loved ones who have been radicalized by the far right and have gone deep in the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. I'd like to think his message will breakthrough to some.
This is exactly why we can't have these conversations and post things like this video that arguably bear a universally acceptable message. What the hell does "far right" mean? How is that defined? I'm a conservative. Pretty "far right" conservative. Does that make me a hate filled racist by your definition of "far right"? "Far leftists" also are hate-filled, and yes, they can be racist conspircy theorists too. Heard of Russian collusion? How did that one age?
The questions I asked above are rhetorical. Do not answer them. I expect the discussion and any political context that has been inserted into it to end.
Thanks.
:Applause: :Applause: :Applause:
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 09, 2023, 10:25:00 AMThis is exactly why we can't have these conversations and post things like this video that arguably bear a universally acceptable message. What the hell does "far right" mean? How is that defined? I'm a conservative. Pretty "far right" conservative. Does that make me a hate filled racist by your definition of "far right"? "Far leftists" also are hate-filled, and yes, they can be racist conspircy theorists too. Heard of Russian collusion? How did that one age?
The questions I asked above are rhetorical. Do not answer them. I expect the discussion and any political context that has been inserted into it to end.
Thanks.
Clearly I've upset you and that was not my intention.
The enemy thinks if he can wipe out G's chosen he can thwart G's plan. G will protect and preserve His people and is already victorious, whether you believe it or not.
You can say a lot about Arnold, but not that he's guilty of being half hearted in his condemnation of Nazis.
JH, I think the only overtly political posts in this thread came after yours. That said, your point is taken that there is some partisan political subtext in almost any discussion of hate groups these days.
Any further discussion of that topic would take us into the Board-that-no-longer-is...
Lets face it, we've all gone over the line with each other from time to time with the back and forth. Which is pointless really because no one is going to convince anyone on the other side that they are right and everybody else is wrong. The food fights only serve to make us all look silly and have less to eat. :peace:
Quote from: Sir Slash on March 09, 2023, 11:17:39 PMLets face it, we've all gone over the line with each other from time to time with the back and forth. Which is pointless really because no one is going to convince anyone on the other side that they are right and everybody else is wrong. The food fights only serve to make us all look silly and have less to eat. :peace:
I don't know. Sometimes, in a good food fight, I end up tasting something pleasant that I never would have tasted otherwise. :pizza[1]: :Party:
Disagreements should be viewed as healthy discussion and a learning tool. They key is not to take it personally and put your ego aside. Just because one firmly believes in something doesn't mean a lesson can be learned from talking to others. As long as the lesson is used for good, not evil.
Respectful disagreements are fine, but we have decided for the betterment of the forum as a whole that topics involving politics are to be avoided. The political climate has become so far divided that disagreements were rarely civil. Although things may have become a bit more "boring" since we shut down RPFW, things have also been a lot more cordial and calm and you all know how I'm all about peace and tranquility. :evil:
In any event, we are still not permitting overt political discourse here and while there is frequently some cross-over and even some not-so-subtle quips, for the most part, I'm thankful and appreciative of the cooperation and effort you all have put into abiding by this request and keeping the forum a welcoming place for people to come together and discuss gaming! After all, isn't that what brought you here in the first place? Unless you came for my good looks and charm, or you're into midget porn and came here for Gus.
^That reminds me, I'm currently hiring for a new fluffer. Star really started calling it in the last few years.
:privatedancer:
Quote from: Gusington on March 10, 2023, 11:13:20 AM^That reminds me, I'm currently hiring for a new fluffer.
The commute from the EU is too far and working in front of the camera pays better and is more rewarding.
And unless Gus is short for Augustina or Augusta, count me out.
Damn! Ten years ago I would've jumped on that. Remember how well it turned-out when you hired me to be your Food-Tester? :hungry:
Equal Opportunity Employer! No ageism here. And no teefs...no problem!
Very well said, Jarhead.
Fixed that for you...
Quote from: Pete Dero on March 10, 2023, 11:52:53 AMQuote from: Gusington on March 10, 2023, 11:13:20 AM^That reminds me, I'm currently hiring for a new fluffer.
The commute from the EU is too far and working in front of the camera pays better and is more rewarding.
And unless Gus is short for Augustina or MV Augusta, count me out.
(https://www.mvagusta.com/images/main/brutale-xl.png)
Ummm... I can't find the Midget-Porn. Asking for a friend.
What's the password? :police:
Quote from: Sir Slash on March 10, 2023, 03:13:38 PMUmmm... I can't find the Midget-Porn. Asking for a friend.
Go to Only Fans.
Find Gusington's page.
Subscribe.
It should be there (but could be hard to find due to the midget size).
Heh, hard to find...!
Not if you know who to ask :Party:
Just curious, do tall people have porn too?
yes
Gus is a little short for a :stormtrooper2:
Aaaaaaand there it is
I wonder if there's a scientific name for when a serious discussion descends into porn as it invariably does
My family died in the holocaust to midget porn in 2 and a half pages
👏🏻
Dongle degradation?
I was going to say I just stuck with extending the short joke, but then I realized it's hard to avoid euphamisms once they get started.
We're just trying to throw the Russian bots off UCG. Right now the KGB is being flooded with images of naked Little People doing the Dirty. THAT ought to set them back a day or two. :w00t:
so much for meaningful discourse.
And intercourse.
Aren't they the same?
If they are, either you or I are doing one or the other wrong. wut
Quote from: undercovergeek on March 11, 2023, 12:12:35 AMAaaaaaand there it is
I wonder if there's a scientific name for when a serious discussion descends into porn as it invariably does
My family died in the holocaust to midget porn in 2 and a half pages
👏🏻
I watched the video right now and I should have done earlier.
I don't know if there is anybody out there that will change their mind because of this.
The haters and losers won't even come in contact with content like this.
'Social' media feed the hate and profit from it. To stay on their platform they give you more of the same content and connect you with people who think the same, locking you up in a small bubble.
Real news is something you must avoid or you could come in to contact with alternative views and maybe make you doubt yourself. And as we learned recently even real news organizations feed you lies so you wouldn't leave and kill their profit.
A professor told us in class many years ago that a lot of people believe humans are good by nature but external circumstances may turn them bad. He was of the opinion, and I'm with him on this, that many humans are evil by nature and education, family, friends etc. keep them from acting evil.
By living in those bubbles those factors are gone for the most part.
If something is wrong in my life it can't be my fault so there must be others I can blame for everything.
I think Arnold has that 'easy solution' right.
And maybe, like he says, the haters don't win in the end, but they make many peoples lives miserable while they are at it. Yes, the nazis lost in the end but millions didn't live to see them lose, and their ideas are still around.
Quote from: Pete Dero on March 11, 2023, 05:21:35 PMYes, the nazis lost in the end but millions didn't live to see them lose, and their ideas are still around.
Those ideas were around for millennia before them. I think this is compelling evidence establishing the truth of human nature.
Anyone read through the comments section of the video? That was a bit of a trip.
^I am afraid to ask what lurked in the comments.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on March 11, 2023, 11:07:56 AMso much for meaningful discourse.
Oh, I have plenty of meaningful things I
want to say, but that would only Cara Dune the thread. :buck2: I'm not complaining about that, I understand the peacekeeping goal, I'm just being realistic.
I can't even summarize what I mean. Can I at least smirk about Arnold and/or his producers using a 4-chan prank sarcastically instigated
against the conflation of political and cultural opponents as Kla/nazis? I doubt it.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 09, 2023, 10:25:00 AMQuote from: GroggyGrognard2022 on March 09, 2023, 09:39:23 AMIt's a good and reflective video. Hopefully family and friends send it to loved ones who have been radicalized by the far right and have gone deep in the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. I'd like to think his message will breakthrough to some.
This is exactly why we can't have these conversations and post things like this video that arguably bear a universally acceptable message. What the hell does "far right" mean? How is that defined? I'm a conservative. Pretty "far right" conservative. Does that make me a hate filled racist by your definition of "far right"? "Far leftists" also are hate-filled, and yes, they can be racist conspircy theorists too. Heard of Russian collusion? How did that one age?
The questions I asked above are rhetorical. Do not answer them. I expect the discussion and any political context that has been inserted into it to end.
Thanks.
I'd agree with that, the 2 extremes of our political spectrum make similar mistakes. Could we have a 3rd party in American politics and name it "The Common Sense Party" and it's dominated by a moderate platform. I get the feeling if this came to fruition, the other two parties would be obsolete and we would just have one party.......
Kind of back on topic.
All humans from all tribes and groups have at one point or another hated someone or some group. But history is full of examples, even today right now, of anti-Semitism being the kind of hate that goes beyond irrational and all explanation. It not only borderlines 100% pure evil, it exceeds it by leaps and bounds.
So if you think about why this group of people in the whole world receive such hatred that is beyond explanation what does that say to you? Israel was attacked on day 1 of it's creation, in fact within hours of it's creation. And this happened not very long after the Holocaust. You would think the world would have been accommodating but no. Instead out right violence and war.
Could this be the physical proof of the existence of something that we can't see (both evil and good)? I'll leave it there but you gotta admit it's food for thought, no?
And I beg you all, please be careful if you want to counter my theory. Use indirect methods removed several levels away from what you really want to say. You will never hurt my feelings so DM me if you want to really go off on me. Like Jack Burton always says, "I can take it!"
Quote from: W8taminute on March 16, 2023, 08:56:27 PMCould this be the physical proof of the existence of something that we can't see (both evil and good)? I'll leave it there but you gotta admit it's food for thought, no?
Food for thought? No.
It's a symptom of a macro historical problem. One of a region that gave origin to earliest civilizations and led to a very natural idealistic conflict between the areas patron gods until one became triumphant, Mostly based on a kind of survivors guilt to the stronger beliefs constantly losing in national and military conflicts to its neighbors until the southern god YHWH was promoted over the constant defeated god El and finally conflagrated into a 1st Century Jewish Rabbi's cult.
To a certain region after their experience in the Babylonian Exile and that gave birth to a nationalist religion that grew into a widely accepted one.
This is how we make myths our truth.
That....and Gus won't let you use the giant space laser. I was just gonna use it on a Saturday, Gus! It's the Sabbath. It's not like you're gonna use it on that day anyway...
Quote from: SirAndrewD on March 16, 2023, 09:50:08 PMQuote from: W8taminute on March 16, 2023, 08:56:27 PMCould this be the physical proof of the existence of something that we can't see (both evil and good)? I'll leave it there but you gotta admit it's food for thought, no?
Food for thought? No.
It's a symptom of a macro historical problem. One of a region that gave origin to earliest civilizations and led to a very natural idealistic conflict between the areas patron gods until one became triumphant, Mostly based on a kind of survivors guilt to the stronger beliefs constantly losing in national and military conflicts to its neighbors until the southern god YHWH was promoted over the constant defeated god El and finally conflagrated into a 1st Century Jewish Rabbi's cult.
To a certain region after their experience in the Babylonian Exile and that gave birth to a nationalist religion that grew into a widely accepted one.
This is how we make myths our truth.
Very interesting observations SirAndrew. You do bring up some good points, particularly the conflict between the areas patron gods and the ultimate result. I think you're on to something. I disagree with myths becoming truth but I understand what you mean.
What if, however, the truth was always the truth but we messed up and thought it was a myth?
Wait your damned turn, Robot.
The strongest-group-wins-the-myth doesn't exactly fit the Jewish situation however: even starting in the Tanahk (what we Christians call the Old Testament), much of the point to the textual collection is about how the Jews DON'T win after all but go down in flames to stronger armies with, on this theory, stronger myths. Repeatedly. And yet they're gone, but Judaism (as a religion) and the Jewish people (as a culture group based largely though not entirely on family relationships) have kept on going, despite all the persecutions and pogroms and genocides, up to and including the original topic for this thread -- so much so that the nation, per se (somewhat distinct from the religion and the family group), has itself returned from the dead at long, long last!
That's rather different as a situation from, let's say, the Romany / Gypsies as an example. They persist in their own (somewhat syncretistic) cultural group, but they don't thrive, and succeed so hard that they eventually re-establish a lost nation-state (even with plenty of help). That's at least super-rare in human history, and might be unique; much less do archaic survival groups who have been drastically persecuted over thousands of years (not only hundreds, thousands) contribute solidly to the basis of a civilization ("Western Civ") so pervasive that it even contributes to other civilization bases across the world.
The Kurds have been around a lot of centuries, and have survived a lot of persecutions, even genocidal ones, down to the present day. But they aren't a substantial basis for human civilization. W8's own Armenian group (as he's well aware) has been around a lot of centuries, and has survived a lot of genocidal persecutions, even down to the present day. But their only noticeable contribution to Western Civ (aside from Casey Kasem!) has been to pick up and help carry along the gifts of the Jews, so to speak.
These are things worth considering, not only in looking at why Jews have been so persecuted over history, and why they have survived and wildly succeeded despite all that misery and genocide, but also why (arguably) they should be protected and fostered as a cultural group (not only as individuals) where feasibly possible -- and even with risks where not feasibly possible!
It can be argued that, in various ways, this is the ultimate example (and the Ur-example, so to speak) of the strongest myth surviving to thrive. But not, overall, an example of the physically mightiest myth surviving to thrive: its value(s) don't ultimately come from the end of a speartip or the barrel of a gun, as has been amply proven over thousands of years.
:notworthy:
...putting it another way, using a very recent mythopoeic language: everyone in the world today more-or-less benefits from, and even has access to use, the Jewish Space Laser!! :ThumbsUp: (Even Nazi Germany in their own Godawful ways.) That's still true even when, sadly, we're using it against each other.
But whatever that "Space Laser" really is, it isn't simply the barrel of a gun; much less is the "Space Laer" only a side effect of having better spears or using bows more effectively. The Jews, of all people everywhere, show that in their history well enough.
Which is always worth thinking about as the oldest running holiday celebrating freedom, not only for some people but ultimately for all people, approaches once again.
Well written Jason. Thanks for that input.
WAY over my head but the Giant Space Laser I can identify with. Why do you think I make a point of being so considerate to Gus? :intrepidphasers:
:plasmagun:
Does the Giant Space Laser make the "pew pew" sound when it fires? I sure hope so...
I think it's really hard to weigh the relative amounts of "human misery" across history in any reasonable fashion. That doesn't mean that we can't try, but it does suggest that the exercise will be fraught with ambiguity and different opinions.
Jason raises some interesting points, assuredly. A number of things about the Jewish example seem most remarkable because history is full of such heinous atrocities committed against different peoples. The two things that set the Jewish experience apart seem to be, as I think Jason suggests: 1) their survival through thousands of years of history; 2) their survival as a significant element in European history of the last few hundred years, during which time Western traditions (including the spread of Judaeo-Christian faiths) have written much of what we know today as history.
I wonder, and have no idea how to answer the question, whether there are other ethnic/religious groups (in Africa or Asia or South/Central America) who have faced similar journeys and survive to this day, that we simply don't know about? (through some accidents of history or human perception)
I don't mean to suggest that there are or that there aren't. I simply don't know.
The Giant Space Laser makes whatever kind of sound it wants to. No one's going to argue with it. And by the time you hear it...it's already too late to ask, "Hey, what the hell's that sound"? :HideEyes:
The Jews story is remarkable in all of Human History because of their ability to remain one People with one common language and distinct culture despite the very many cultural earthquakes, persecutions, pogroms, and discriminations, etc. they have suffered through. Whether it's because of their Faith or just plain old damned stubbornness it's not easy to tell. But it has served them well.
lets go with sheer stubbornness as JH and my own personality show. :azn:
The Irish might come closest to a historical parallel, although they owe part of their cultural survival to a wholesale acceptance of Jewish influence and principles in modifying their culture (even though not always accepting Jewish people).
Sheer stubbornness either way, definitely helps! :ThumbsUp:
And as a general rule, the Giant Space Laser, being in space, tends not to be heard -- unless it's doing something on Earth, of course. Then, as might be expected, the effect varies, depending on a bunch of factors. :Nerd:
Quote from: W8taminute on March 16, 2023, 08:56:27 PMKind of back on topic.
All humans from all tribes and groups have at one point or another hated someone or some group. But history is full of examples, even today right now, of anti-Semitism being the kind of hate that goes beyond irrational and all explanation. It not only borderlines 100% pure evil, it exceeds it by leaps and bounds.
So if you think about why this group of people in the whole world receive such hatred that is beyond explanation what does that say to you? Israel was attacked on day 1 of it's creation, in fact within hours of it's creation. And this happened not very long after the Holocaust. You would think the world would have been accommodating but no. Instead out right violence and war.
I used to think that persecution of the Jews was somehow unique in it's extremity. In fact, this posed the most difficulty for my atheism. As it turns out Jews are not alone in being targeted with violence. I recently learned the concept of the middleman minority, a status that breeds distrust and hostility. Often the majority population gains indispensable benefits from dealing with the MM but resents them anyway.
There are many examples of other middleman minorities receiving the same hate: the Chinese in SE Asia, Igbos in Nigeria, Indians and Lebanese in different parts of Africa, Koreans in American ghettos, etc. I think that the difference in visibility and scale can be attributed to the fact that the Jews were the middlemen for
Europe. We're all probably much more familiar with European history then, say, Nigerian. Who better than a powerful industrialized nation to take hate to such a level as the holocaust. It happened in Germany, but with different circumstances it could have happened anywhere.
Quote from: JasonPratt on March 20, 2023, 07:57:14 AMThe Irish might come closest to a historical parallel, although they owe part of their cultural survival to a wholesale acceptance of Jewish influence and principles in modifying their culture (even though not always accepting Jewish people).
Sheer stubbornness either way, definitely helps! :ThumbsUp:
...
I agree, the Irish are possibly the closest analogy to the Jews regarding cultural survival, but even they run a far distant second. Consider that despite being persecuted, the Irish always had Ireland, the actual piece of ground, and that their colonization under England occurred mostly in the last 500 years The Jews were effectively destroyed by the Romans in 70-130 AD (although a remanent continued to reside in the Holy Land), so for 1900 years they had no homeland to tie their culture to. Yet, they endured. I don't think there is a historical parallel to this.
Quote from: Ubercat on March 20, 2023, 08:05:19 AMI used to think that persecution of the Jews was somehow unique in it's extremity. In fact, this posed the most difficulty for my atheism. As it turns out Jews are not alone in being targeted with violence.
Yes I can totally see how thinking the persecution of the Jews as being unique in it's extremity could pose difficulty for atheism. Let me postulate:
If there really is a G and His chosen people are the Jews then hatred for Jews in a lot of cases borders demonic inspired if not actually demonic. Why? Because the enemy does not want G's plan to succeed.
For atheism to work the hatred for Jews must be reduced to a common denominator in which all men hate each other and it happens all over the place. The Jews are no different. Then G and the enemy can completely be removed from the equation.
Killing and hate crimes are inspired by the enemy because the enemy hates mankind period. But with the chosen people he really hates them for the reasons I mentioned before.
Quote from: Ubercat on March 20, 2023, 08:05:19 AMWho better than a powerful industrialized nation to take hate to such a level as the holocaust. It happened in Germany, but with different circumstances it could have happened anywhere.
Pol Pot committed a holocaust on his own people, so did Josef Stalin, so did many others past and present.
The difference is with the Not See Holocaust of the Jews the target didn't have to be a resident of the fatherland. They just had to be Jews and exist which means worldwide. Now that's sickeningly evil that goes beyond killing dissidents and intelligentsia.
The closest modern-day equivalent I can think of right off hand is Rwanda in the 90's with the Serbs in Kosovo a close second. Maybe I've missed some though.
Quote from: W8taminute on March 20, 2023, 10:36:14 AMFor atheism to work the hatred for Jews must be reduced to a common denominator in which all men hate each other and it happens all over the place. The Jews are no different. Then G and the enemy can completely be removed from the equation.
I am an atheist and I don't hate any group of people, and as far as I know that is the case with most atheists.
It is my impression that most hate against religious groups is by other religious groups.
Quote from: Pete Dero on March 20, 2023, 01:34:50 PMI am an atheist and I don't hate any group of people, and as far as I know that is the case with most atheists.
It is my impression that most hate against religious groups is by other religious groups.
Hate, like love, is a universal language. Unfortunately some people would rather hate than love.
I'm glad you are not hateful, neither am I. But I will admit, sometimes I make mistakes and feel bad but in general I do not hate.
I'm an atheist and I hate just...all kinds of people.
Right now, my ire is mainly directed towards the dipshit cyclists who infest the road I take to work. They wear matching jerseys and they always ride 4 abreast and take up the whole road and refuse to give way.
^ :emporerslightning:
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on March 20, 2023, 03:33:49 PMI'm an atheist and I hate just...all kinds of people.
Individuals : yes (and a lot) - an entire group : no
Quote from: Pete Dero on March 20, 2023, 01:34:50 PMI am an atheist and I don't hate any group of people, and as far as I know that is the case with most atheists.
It is my impression that most hate against religious groups is by other religious groups.
I agree but would go further. I think the problem is ideology. Blindly followed beliefs enable all sorts of atrocities. Religions, which historically have caused the most problems, are merely ideology with a supernatural layer in my view. The 20th century with the rise of Communism and Fascism has demonstrated that you don't need to believe in any gods to be an asshole.
For the record, if the Jewish Space Laser is everything it's cracked up to be, it ought to be able to make the "pew pew" sound even in space. I mean, we never had any difficulty hearing blasters firing while watching an external view of X-Wings, and the sound that Phasers made in an outside view of the Enterprise were always distinctly different than the sounds they made when heard from the inside of the ship...
Uber's notion of "the middleman minority" rings a loud bell with me. I don't know enough Asian history to know if the Chinese (or their precedents) have been persecuted outside China in SE Asia for thousands of years or just the last few hundred.
I also know that the "middle men victims" were often intentionally cultivated as a tool by imperial powers who needed somebody to fill the more sophisticated roles in a society where they lacked the manpower to do it themselves, but they didn't want to let any of the locals get too powerful. The Spaniards had a long history of cultivating the Chinese as a mercantile class in the Philippines, and then turning the locals loose on the Chinese every 50 or 100 years to keep them in check.
The survival of the Jewish people throughout recorded history is a remarkable run, given how many ethnic groups have come and gone. I would argue that the Jews aren't nearly as monolithic a group today as some would claim, but I would also concede that doesn't make them any less Jewish.
Quote from: Ubercat on March 20, 2023, 04:44:17 PMI agree but would go further. I think the problem is ideology. Blindly followed beliefs enable all sorts of atrocities. Religions, which historically have caused the most problems, are merely ideology with a supernatural layer in my view. The 20th century with the rise of Communism and Fascism has demonstrated that you don't need to believe in any gods to be an asshole.
German fascists used religion during WW2.
The Wehrmacht soldiers wore the slogan 'Gott mit uns' on their belt buckle.
People around Europe were called upon (often by priests) to go and fight with the Germans against the godless communists.
In today's Russia religion is used once again to fight the demonic nations in Europe.
For that matter, Stalin eventually stopped persecuting Christians for a while to bolster defense of the Motherland against the Huns.
I don't think W8 meant that atheism requires hatred in order to work, Pete; he was replying in the context of Ubercat's statement that (once upon a time) UC's main difficulty with atheism used to be the persecution of the Jews per se. (Personally I can't imagine that being any difficulty for atheism if I was an atheist, much less the main difficulty; but it's an interesting example of different people weighing different evidence differently, especially for inductive and abductive inferences. Which is worth keeping in mind for sake of charitable cooperation at least!)
The middleman persecution complex is undoubtedly correct, and understandable, in application to many groups including the Jews, and of course is not the only basis for persecution -- nor did I ever say Jews were the only persecuted group in the world. By far they are not! Christians, to give only one of many more examples, have been and still are harshly persecuted in many nations and cultures (not restricted to other Christians though that has often happened, too). I would expect there are far more groups who have been and still are persecuted in world history than those who never have been!
What makes the Jewish people ultra-rare (and perhaps unique), as I noted earlier and as Tripoli noted again in comparison with the Irish, is that they kept what amounts to a national continuity, even when they haven't had a nation (and they have had some interesting examples of temporary nations during the Middle Ages, by the way, such as on the southern coast of what is now Ukraine, and on the southern Arabian coast for a while, as well as even a new temple in a small nation across the Red Sea in the heart of what's now Ethiopia. It's pretty great getting the Crusader Kings game to spawn those, btw! :Nerd: )
But even THAT doesn't go far enough, because their (effectively) national continuity is based on concepts and ideals which have enriched the world (in several senses of 'enriched') through being a main basis for Western Civilization, even for helping Grecian and Roman culture survive their own overthrows and extinctions -- and not only for fellow co-religionists (of the Abrahamic religious set) but for people of entirely other religions, and of no religions, and even for vivid anti-religionists. (Which is included in what I mean by the metaphor of the Space Laser.)
That is an AMAZING run. And, to tap this point again: this isn't a run based on being military winners, although they've pulled off some amazing military wins on occasion, too (however much of that was by skill, and/or luck, and/or getting support of various kinds from various places. :whistle: ) Usually the Jews, taking world history as a whole, have been repeated and even catastrophic losers by the world's standards. And yet also, despite being routine losers, also arguably the biggest winners in world history by proportion to their population over time. It might not even be close. It might not even be distantly close.
It is, sadly, typical human behavior (for various reasons), that when the biggest proportional success, even in helping the most other people to succeed, is combined with routine weakness and vulnerability, grateful protection and honor is NOT the usual result. :HideEyes: :buck2:
But I would argue it should be.
And I would at least suggest -- if only for all practical purposes! -- that any underlying reasons for such a proportionately astonishing success, across almost all of human history, should be investigated for discovery and application.
Whether that investigation would have any bearing on how to reduce human hatred of each other, which is more broadly the topic of this thread (I suppose), may remain to be seen. But if Arnold is going to bring in the Holocaust, then let us recall in relevance to who was mostly being targeted, that whatever else Hitler occasionally said about this or that religious belief, or how he used such appeals for his own power, he was adamantly opposed, and very specifically, to the Ten Commandments, which he intended to destroy out of human history forever if he could arrange it. The Ten Words certainly tended to get in the way of his regime coveting, lying, stealing, and murdering! -- among other things also relevant to the Big 10.
My father's best friend, who was a fellow History of Science professor, more than once said to me as a kid, "Today, we know tons of things about the Athenians. We know about their poetry, their art, their science, their historians. All we know about the Spartans is that they conquered the Athenians. So what does it mean to win a war?"
that really depends on the time and place doesn' it.
if the Spartans didn't do what they did when the did it the Athens might not have its history.
That's because the Spartans didn't post here. Big mistake by them.
Quote from: Pete Dero on March 21, 2023, 03:38:53 AMQuote from: Ubercat on March 20, 2023, 04:44:17 PMI agree but would go further. I think the problem is ideology. Blindly followed beliefs enable all sorts of atrocities. Religions, which historically have caused the most problems, are merely ideology with a supernatural layer in my view. The 20th century with the rise of Communism and Fascism has demonstrated that you don't need to believe in any gods to be an asshole.
German fascists used religion during WW2.
The Wehrmacht soldiers wore the slogan 'Gott mit uns' on their belt buckle.
People around Europe were called upon (often by priests) to go and fight with the Germans against the godless communists.
In today's Russia religion is used once again to fight the demonic nations in Europe.
Do you think that Communist ideology is any less poisonous than religion based ideologies? Fascists can only dream of matching their death count.
"Ideology" per se isn't the problem -- everyone has an ideology to some degree, as an overarching worldview, which is a belief system that has subordinate belief systems (not always coherent with the worldview of course, or with each other.)
It's like saying "belief" in itself is "the problem", with "religion" merely being "belief" (therefore problematic) with a supernatural layer (although not all religions involve a supernatural reality); and so Communist "belief", because it's a belief, is no less poisonous than religion-based "beliefs". (Though, perhaps incidentally, the original communists in the 19th century had some seriously and overtly Satanic religious beliefs. Marx represented a shift away from that but still had one foot firmly planted, up to the groin, in a type of Satanism.)
Now, if the problem is qualified as "blindly following" a "belief" set (or an "ideology"), compared and contrasted to not blindly following a belief (or not following a belief?), then "blindly following" could be unpacked for clarity. But if all beliefs are to be regarded (and rejected?) as equally "poisonous", then I don't know how it can matter whether they are followed blindly or not-blindly. Whereas, if some beliefs are more "poisonous" than others (whatever that means), then clearly not-blindly following a poisonous belief would be just as poisonous in effect, and maybe moreso, than blindly (at least incompetently?) following the poisonous belief. (Thus, even at a more secular level, one might quip that the facisti, like Hitler and Mussolini, failed at matching the death count of the ComIntern, by proportion of being relatively incompetent socialists! -- much as Stalin's team insisted they were!)
If, however, there are better and worse beliefs (and thus better and worse ideologies, world-views, philosophies, religions, etc.), then blindly following a better belief could easily be better than blindly (or even competently instead) following a worse belief. But blindly following even a better belief could mean incompetently following a better belief and so producing worse results, perhaps by being contradictory to the belief-set's principles (among other potential problems). Or, someone could have a good, healthy, or at least non-poisonous ideology, and be not-blind in following it -- and yet choose not to follow it sometimes in favor of a worse ideology when that seems to achieve or work toward a want the person has chosen to fulfill! After all, if there can be better and worse ideologies, then refusing to follow a good ideology and even to act against a good ideology, is at least likely to have bad results!
So in the case of Arnold's video-appeal, is he or is he not endorsing a belief (and thus an ideology) to be followed? Yes, he is, even if the contents are perhaps miniscule. If "the problem" is "ideology" then Arnold's promoted ideology must be equally problematic and his attempt at promoting that ideology should be rejected along with every other ideology in order to avoid "the problem". But this is also an ideological position and so at the very first step it self-contradicts itself as poisonous before it ever gets to even identifying (much moreso rejecting) any other ideology (like Arnold's for example) as poisonous!
To avoid self-contradiction, then: if "the problem" is bad ideology instead of good ideology (and if we agree that this is itself a good ideology to be accepted instead of a bad ideology!), then is Arnold's ideology in the video bad or good? -- and why, and to what extent? (Depending on its complexity it might be partly bad, partly good, in different ways and degrees.) Also, does Arnold show evidence of blindly following the ideology he is promoting, or not?
All this would logically require establishing first what counts as good and bad (healthy and poisonous?), thus relatively better and worse, and why. Which would itself be establishing and developing a moral or at least a pragmatic ideology!
Put more shortly: even to judge whether Arnold's promoted ideology in that video, such as it is (and whatever it can be discovered to be), is good or bad, more or less (or poisonous or healthy, which can be somewhat different from moral categories), one must already have an ideology to work with and to work from!
Do all of us share the same ideologies? Obviously not, as total sets of beliefs. Are all ideologies, and thus all our own ideologies, only poisonous? That position would itself be only poisonous and so self-contradictive. So among us all, which ideologies are better or worse, and why?
In any case -- in every case! -- each of us will be considering the ideology promoted in the video by Arnold, in light of each ideology of ours, whatever that is.
And if any of us doesn't know what his ideology is, why he has it, what it means, what it logically implies, etc. -- then such a person can only, at best, be blindly following his ideology (such as it is, whatever it is).
Which might also include Arnold: is he blindly following an ideological position? If so, or if not, how can we tell by analysis?
Yeah but we all bleed that grog color.
Quote from: Gusington on March 23, 2023, 12:56:42 PMYeah but we all bleed that grog color.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQz4p_WJ-3YaHS043A8fl-TsVryQ6HZpG6YSfC4c25TFb5PxptkF5s6VMnuiLC1xOqq-uA&usqp=CAU)
All jokes aside though, yes I agree with you.
Quote from: Ubercat on March 22, 2023, 08:45:49 AMDo you think that Communist ideology is any less poisonous than religion based ideologies? Fascists can only dream of matching their death count.
I always have to laugh when people make this argument. Yes, it's a real shocker that Nazi Germany, a nation that existed for roughly 10-12 years, didn't rack up the same body count as the Soviet Union, a nation that existed for 70 years. The mind boggles!
If we really want to go down this route, Communists can only dream of matching the death count of Catholicism over the centuries.
Nazis aren't the only fascists around. Anyway, it's a dumb thing to argue over. They're both equally evil. Any ideology held strongly enough to dehumanize people and commit genocides is to be fought against.
Comparing the death counts of different ideologies/nations/religions/empires is at best, crass and tasteless, and never ends well.
To be clear, all moral belief systems rest in certain, faith-based assumptions. I might even go so far to suggest that atheism largely amounts to putting one's Faith first and foremost in empiricism. I used to consider myself an atheist, until a friend asked me what I thought of Faith. In the process of explaining to her that I didn't have Faith, I realized I did have, but that my deity was of a different flavor. 20 years after that, I finally was comfortable to put a name to that Faith, although I still have trouble living up to the lofty standards of that Faith.
But I digress. It's fair to argue that ideologies tend to be one- or (at best) two-dimensional, whereas less ideological belief systems can live across all sorts of different dimensions, with different weightings and different intersections.
I'm hardly original in claiming that our values are much less our sense of taste--developed differently in each person, but with some common ground for most of us, and largely applied by instinct rather than by rational, empirical thinking. There's a whole school of modern psychologists who have largely confirmed that in the last 20 years or so.
I don't think there can be such a thing as a less (or more) ideological belief system. But as previously noted, I regard belief systems and ideologies as the same thing. There can be less or more detailed or developed belief systems; and less or more flexible belief systems. But those two descriptive categories are distinct: a less-developed belief system (ideology, a set of ideas) can be highly inflexible; whereas a more developed belief system (which can potentially be a
logical system of ideas not only a set) can be very flexible.
By analogy, a human body is unimaginably more complex, and also more flexible, than a rock of simple composition; and very much less flexible than a pool of pure water (which is much less flexible than the same pure H2O with extra energy phased into a gas than a liquid. And far more flexible than H2O with much less energy phased into a solid!) But natural capability does seem to require both some amount of flexibility (literally and/or metaphorically), and increasing amounts of complexity.
Yet
complexity by itself does not necessarily translate into increased
capability; that depends upon organization, among other things. For example, information theorists would argue that capability depends not only upon organization, but also upon information. Which leads into some very interesting analyses of genetic structure and consequential capabilities in all scientifically studied life forms!
Anyway, along the line of my prior discussion, that "ideology" per se is not the problem, Ubercat comes close to the reply I was nudging toward! (his original emphasis):
Quote from: Ubercat on March 23, 2023, 02:14:50 PMAny ideology held strongly enough to dehumanize people and commit genocides is to be fought against.
I will tweak that a little: people should fight against (or at least have an obviously vested interest against) any ideology that dehumanizes people, including an ideology where ideology is more important than people. It doesn't strictly matter whether someone holds such an ideology strongly or loosely, it should still be opposed. It doesn't strictly matter whether putting such an ideology into practice leads to genocide, it should still be opposed.
Now of course, someone can also take that idea and misuse it, by mistake or even intentionally, for example, by falsely claiming some people are being Nazis, especially in order to bring social pressure against them -- which would be dehumanizing those people, not incidentally.
Perhaps topically relevant to Arnold's video! But the misuse does not abolish the use (as one of the few quotes I know from Aristotle :Nerd: ).
Whereas, I am not sure there even
can be any proper use of an ideology that dehumanizes people! -- although I'll grant that in theory
portions of such an ideology might have proper use in a different ideology. Identify and remove the false portions of an idea set; and keep any true portions, to be integrated logically into a more true idea set / belief system.
To give another example, one can have an ideology where ideas are described in terms of being viruses -- which necessarily includes that ideology! And this can have some true and even useful details and applications; it's a basis (maybe the basis) of memetic theory (and thence cultural 'memes'), as developed or at least popularized by Professor Richard Dawkins. But that ideology, as a set -- certainly as developed and applied by Mr. D -- involves radical dehumanization of persons. Thus, Mr. D conveniently (and/or incompetently) ignores its implications for sake of his own personhood and ideas, including moral appeals, which he wants us to accept. Relatedly, on one hand Mr D would have us consider moral appeals to be based on what amounts to genetic itches or the passing of genetic gas (in various ways), and yet on the other hand to not regard, or rather disregard, his own moral appeals as being only the same thing! (Which, among several of his other ideas, leads to what I like to quip as Mr D Science Theater 3000 moments. :evil: ) His ideological set is somewhat flexible in some regards, inflexible in others, as could be expected of any ideology based on truth claims; but its fundamental basis is radically depersonal, which leads by extrapolation and application to radical dehumanization of persons. He only keeps a concern for persons (sort of) by an unstated importation of and appeal to a fundamentally different class of ideology, which he inconsistently but conveniently jumps back and forth to and from at a moment's notice. Logically he has an ideological set that should be substantially rejected;
but some portions of his overall set can still be demonstrably true and even useful, to at least some degree -- such as in providing a metaphorical description of how a funny picture of a "NAFO Beaver" wrecking a Russian T-90 in Ukraine might be shared and spread through human interaction! -- and so could be (maybe should be) imported into another belief system.
Source, Crossroads!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsrP1cXaUAEXnsT?format=jpg&name=large)
source Crossroads my ass, I posted that picture! :nono2:
Oh that's right, Crossroads made the joke about your wife scolding you! My fault: I was pretty tired by then after reading all that. And writing it! :grin:
Wait. Starfury posted a picture of Crossroads' wife as a heavily armed Ukrainian Beaver, and now Jason's getting debated on whose wife it really is? Huh?
Now I'm getting really confused by this whole thread.
My sense is that, if we use the terms "ideology" and "belief system" interchangeably, we've lost some subtle connotations from both words. But I also get how easy it is to blur the line between the two. It's very similar to a comparison of the words "religion" and "mythology".
I was too confused as what I was a source of, or not, in this case :doh:
I guess that's what happens when you look at beaver pics for too long :Party:
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on April 09, 2023, 03:03:38 PMMy sense is that, if we use the terms "ideology" and "belief system" interchangeably, we've lost some subtle connotations from both words. But I also get how easy it is to blur the line between the two.
Okay, what are the subtle connotations being lost between the words "ideology" (a logic or system of ideas) and "belief system"? I have agreed that both those terms can refer to what I also called "worldviews", and both terms can refer to sets or systems of ideas/beliefs which are less than worldviews (e.g. economic or government). Perhaps you mean that an ideology must be a worldview, and a belief system must be less than a worldview?
And what do you regard the subtle connotations being lost between the terms, if a system of belief is not exactly a set or logic of ideas, relating to the topic of hating other people?
After all, however "easy" it may be "to blur the line" between the two ideas, I am demonstrably very picky and detailed in thinking about ideas! -- so whatever mistake I'm supposed to be making, in equating a meaning of the two terms, doesn't seem likely to be an easy one! (Though I suppose I cannot deductively rule out that I'm making an easy mistake somewhere in regarding a system of ideas as a logic of beliefs. And vice versa! I do make easy mistakes sometimes, as illustrated in who posted the Ukrainian Beaver meme. :uglystupid2: ) Nor did you take the opportunity to easily describe the difference when saying it's easy to blur the lines between the supposed difference. (You gave "mythology" and "religion" as an example of "blurring" meanings between terms, but didn't specify if the same meanings are being blurred between the two sets of terms; and if not, then the differences being supposedly blurred by identifying the terms haven't been described yet, even indirectly.)
Meanwhile, I'm more concerned about the logical implications of ideas (or the lack of logic perhaps!), thus also for the sake of the original topic: whatever worthwhile idea was being aimed at in Arnold's video (and/or what Arnold thought he was aiming at, and/or his producers or whoever actually commissioned and designed it, inviting Arnold along for the ride.)
Upthread I quickly rejected the idea(!) that all ideologies must be hateful or lead to oppressing other persons somehow. Maybe that's supposed to be the "subtle connotation" between an "ideology" and a "belief system" in regard to the thread topic of not being hateful (broadly speaking, per Arnold's video) -- although if so, it's only "subtle" in the sense that once it's spelled out it becomes either self-refuting or simply an arbitrary addition (in the modern pejorative sense of "arbitrary") to the idea of a logic of ideas (an "ideology") compared to the idea of a system of beliefs!
Unless, perhaps, there is supposed to be something inherently and necessarily 'hateful' about a system of beliefs being logical, thus an ideology instead of only a (non-logical or illogical) system. Maybe the subtle connotation is supposed to be that a belief system doesn't necessarily involve truth claims, but an ideology does? -- which therefore means that ideologies are always competitive to some degree in mutually exclusive ways, while systems of belief don't have to be mutually exclusive to each other (not involving different truth claims)? -- and therefore being competitive, ideologies must always involve hate, thus must always lead people to hate other people, thus 'the problem' of hate is 'ideology' (compared to mere belief systems)?
Because if that subtle connotation is spelled out less subtly, I don't think it will be hard to find problems with it! But maybe some other subtle connotation was meant to be the difference between the two concepts or ideas.
However, if the problem isn't ideology per se but depersonalizing ideologies (as noted upthread), then something can be done in working out which ideologies should be avoided on those grounds and which should be promoted instead -- although unless we're going to only promote ideas, to avoid 'hate', without regard for objective truth, then at best we'll only be putting together modern mythologies in the modern sense of suggestive fantasies.
Maybe reality is ultimately depersonalizing; I don't think it ultimately is, even though temporarily so sometimes (which I have reason, not only emotions, to regard as tragic even though temporarily so).
But if reality factually is ultimately depersonalizing, then ultimately it won't be possible to avoid ultimate depersonalization of persons (even to the denial of persons ever existing at all). The ultimate depersonalization, at best, could only be managed -- perhaps! And maybe not at all able to be managed, or with very hard limits to how far it can be possibly be managed!
The problem of hating persons (including if such a problem even exists as a problem and isn't only an illusionary problem!), therefore, must depend first on figuring out what is factually true, and the logical implications of such truth; and then figuring out whatever is possible to do about the problem.
Jason, maybe the issue comes in my own reading of the two words.
My sense has always been that ideologies tend to explain things through a very limited handful of principles or ethical dimensions that can be applied regardless of the situation. Ideologies typically seem to draw their power through their simplicity.
My sense has also been that belief systems tend to be more convoluted, complex series of often-overlapping, often-competing ethical dimensions.
Of course, people almost never refer to their own belief systems as ideologies, any more than they refer to their own religions as mythologies (which I think was part of your original point). So maybe "ideology" is just a label you use to describe the other side's moral calculus after you've reduced it to very simplistic terms.
It doesn't help any that humans' ethical belief systems are VERY seldom applied in logical, rational, systematic fashion. They are generally applied very instinctually, with the justifications and carefully thought-out arguments coming later. Psychologists like Kahneman, Tversky, Haidt, and Pinker, plus journalists like Wright have been largely in agreement on that for more than a quarter-century now.
If you've not read any of their stuff, as a student of ideas, you'd probably find what they all have to say very provocative.
Are not ideologies and belief systems both a set of laws created by man? So if the answer is yes then there is no way that they could be perfect. They should not be totally trusted?
Historically, a lot of ideologies and belief systems, like a lousy archer, fall short of their marks.
Okay, I can at least corroborate, from some personal experience, the notion of "ideology" being used as a pejorative to oversimplify an opposing or at least competing belief system. I'm not sure why that term has been foisted with that job -- maybe it sounds hoity-toity or foreign, or (more likely in my personal experience come to think of it) 'ideology' = 'philosophy' contrasted negatively to 'religion' and especially 'our religion'. I do think that's a mis-use of the term, ironically reducing its own content in an oversimplified and misleading way, but I feel pretty confident from past experience that if I brought up the term "ideology" in Sunday School next week and asked the class for their opinions about it, I'd get back something along that line. 'Ideology' (for them) would be what 'those people over there do who aren't us and also are wrong in important ways compared to us'.
I can also get behind the idea that oversimplified sets of beliefs are both unrealistic, thus dangerous for real life, and also can be proportionately popular by being simple. Combine those two ingredients, and that can easily (maybe necessarily) lead to problems, including very possibly hate, although even then the connection doesn't seem to be logically necessary. I remember a very left-wing author friend of mine telling me many years ago, that the Wiccans she personally knows, or knew at the time, have an oversimplified notion of 'spirits' and might get into big trouble if spirits are real and also not all are benevolent! She's well aware that not all Wiccans think all spirits are benevolent of course, but her report is one example I can think of where popularistic oversimplification of a belief system doesn't lead to hate as a consequential problem.
Labeling such systems of beliefs "ideologies" would be borrowing a neutral synonym for "belief system" and reducing its meaning for a shorthand description of that problem. But then the same term shouldn't be used for the sake of oversimplifying a belief system in opposition to it; and yet the two applications do have some overlap! Ironically.
If one term has been applied for that purpose, then I suppose it's kind of logical to apply a synonym for the term, which looks and sounds a lot different (for identification distinction purposes), for describing "more convoluted, complex series of often-overlapping, often-competing" sets of ideas or beliefs (such as "ethical dimensions"). But what term would you use for something in the middle of that continuum? -- and, relatedly, do you regard anything to be an ideal to aspire to between those evident problems with sets of ideas? After all, some amount or level of reality is complex, so a true set of ideas might be complex in some proportion -- unless the complexity is only an illusion, which I don't think it is but I wanted to be fair about not simply asserting otherwise.
{{If you've not read any of their stuff, as a student of ideas, you'd probably find what they all have to say very provocative.}}
I don't think I've read any of their work, but I agree that "humans' ethical belief systems are VERY seldom applied in logical, rational, systematic fashion. They are generally applied very instinctually, with the justifications and carefully thought-out arguments coming later." At the very least, that's an accurate description of the reality of each human's intellectual growth (ideally to some kind of maturity) from a baby onward! It's a whole other question whether the justifications and carefully thought-out arguments involve any degree of discovering accurate ethics, and/or accurate reasons for why some ethical beliefs are true and others false.
A position that all such effort is only post hoc rationalization over merely instinctive amoral behaviors, would not be something I could coherently accept -- even where I do agree that sort of thing also happens: both the instinctive irrational amoral behaviors, which can be discovered, and rational inventions of moral codes (including as only rationalizations of the ultimately irrational and amoral behaviors).
That has a bearing on the original thread topic: Arnold seems to be making a moral appeal. If that's only any combination of irrational amoral behavior and/or rationally invented moral coding for the purpose of staying ahead in social gamesmanship, then any actual moral appeal goes floof! There might be a merely pragmatic appeal: 'you remember what happened to the Nazis and we'll do the same to whomever we call a Nazi!' But he wouldn't be appealing to the ethics of a discovered rational morality. The people he tends to be socially allied with in his personal life, perhaps not coincidentally, tend to be derogatory of the idea of a discovered rational morality; tend to be very much interested in using invented coding for social gamesmanship (including appeals to other people's beliefs in an actually discovered rational morality); and also tend to be rather emotional hateful haters when they feel like it, think they can get away with indulging in it, and/or think they can manipulate other people into emotionally reacting along with their goals (which is social gamesmanship again).
Be that as it may: substituting invented social games and/or emotional reactions to internal and external stimuli (both of which certainly and demonstrably happen, I fully acknowledge), for discovered moral grounding as a guide for behavior, does not by any principle lead to less hate.
Whether a discovered rational morality leads at least in principle (so far as people choose to put it into practice) to less hate, will depend VERY MUCH on what is being, or supposed to be being, discovered.
Yeah. Nobody's positing that it's a one-way street between instinct and reason. Kahneman won his Nobel (in Economics, of all things) for talking about decision making. His most popular book is probably
Thinking: Fast and Slow, where he explores the feedback loops between instinctual and rational thinking. Kahneman's work is applied to general cognitive processes.
Haidt looks much more specifically at ethical decision making. The best introduction to his working is
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Disagree on Politics and Religion. Both books are written for an educated layman rather than for psychologists.
Haidt and his colleagues in Moral Foundations Theory have spent a lot of time trying to figure out exactly which values overlap each other and what the "root ingredients" are of various ethical beliefs we have. Haidt admits that the model doesn't have perfect predictive value, but the model postulates six main "ethical dimensions" (i.e., single-dimensional axes for measuring the ethics of an action) that most human beings use:
- Fairness: Is it fair?
- Harm: Does it hurt anybody? Whom and how much?
- Freedom-from-oppression: Does this restrict people's ability to make their own choice?
- Respect for Authority: Does it preserve some kind of worthwhile stability or order?
- Loyalty: Does it reflect/promote some kind of group solidarity?
- Sacred: Does it make references to some overtly higher good? (this is admittedly the squishiest category, and covers everything from religious belief to environmentalism)
Not all people weight these dimensions equally, and most people instinctually use one or two of these dimensions to reach an initial decision about most situations very quickly. With enough time and patient gathering of information, they can come to change their minds. But the processing of this information is more often instinctual, so it's important to couch arguments across numerous different dimensions, rather than getting hung up on arguments that focus on a single dimension.
One of the things that I like about Arnold's outreach is that he doesn't get too hung up on the "Fairness" and "Harm" dimensions that generally represent about 95% of the arguments against the sort of extremism he's talking about.
its worth mentioning that he spends almost no time on trump. Im guessing the title is there as click bait.
the rest of the interview is worthwhile.