/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5024497]

>everyone is equal and X doesn't make me a bad person
>and there are people who do Y who are bad people


Has anyone ever noticed how the things the tumblr generation describe as being a "bad person" (racism, homophobia, anti-globalization, anti-fat shaming, ect.) are generally left-capitalist political opinions that have nothing to do with someone as an individual or individual action and so on, while opinions about personal actions or individual virtues are ignored or seen as 'judgemental'.

It's interesting how we've managed to distance ourselves from any concept of "bad/good" on a personal level, while creating a way to 'other' anyone who opposes capitalist ideology.

Where someone to say that sleeping with as many people as possible is a virtue, at least that would create a goal which one could strive towards or oppose, but with modern morality the individual is entirely alienated from his actions so long as he supports the ruling class and so on. Miley Cyrus is simply a capitalist tool which opposes any true morality in favor of an entirely slave driven one, even the extreme Christians at least have a concept of the individual empowering themselves through ideology, while modern ideology only sees the individual as a means to empower itself.

Does going out make you a bad person? Does going to church make you a bad person? It seems that morality is now tied to essence, where "one is a racist, therefor he is bad", rather than action where "one acts in a racist maner therefor he is bad" and suddenly, two thousand years after our lord and savior Jesus Christ freed us from original sin, we feel sin creeping out of our lived experience and back into our very essence as people, at least so far as you oppose the mainstream ideology.

Reality is of course a matter of public opinion, so when one says "Miley Cyrus has a better grip on reality than all of you" it of course implies that "Reality has a better grip on Miley Cyrus than all of you".

[Anonymous No.5024524]

Interesting ideas, OP. I'll think about this some more.

[Anonymous No.5024532]

>>5024497
Some solid insights, however I fail to see how the contemporary notion of a 'bad person', such as your example of racism, is an anti-capitalistic perspective. I would rather argue that we accept and promote equality at all costs, so any action which implies a hierarchy is morally wrong; to say someone is a sloth implies a hierarchy that fit and healthy people are 'better' than those who aren't. Since going out and having sex every night doesn’t create a hierarchy then it’s okay. However to suggest someone is a ‘slut’ creates another hierarchy and therefore slut-shaming is seemingly wrong and one who partakes in it constitutes a bad person

This notion of hierarchy is the modern world's boogey man and attempts to destroy it at every opportunity. Of course I don’t think that man can exist without hierarchies and that its natural for us to distinguish in everything we do. Although I also do think that moral hierarchies exist, it takes much effort to defend such a conception.

[Anonymous No.5024535]

>>>/r9k/12152747
Original thread. Neckbeards on /r9k/ couldn't appriciate it so I thought I'd post it here. Any contemporary writings on this trend?

[Anonymous No.5024536]

Nigga are you writing a book on the deontology of Miley? Because I would be okay with that.

[Anonymous No.5024546]

>>5024535
http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Walgreen-Foundation-Lectures/dp/0226776948

I find this book by Strauss does a great job at explaining the rise in political and moral epicureanism.

[Anonymous No.5024552]

>>5024532

>Since going out and having sex every night doesn’t create a hierarchy

Uh, yeah it does. It creates a hierarchy wherein those who go out and have sex every night is perceived as more acceptable than those who don't. And such hierarchy certainly exists in our culture and one would be fool to deny it - even if many do.

[Anonymous No.5024557]

>>5024552
hahaha, Oh I know it does, but people who would argue such as miley did would never accept that.
It's definitely a banal hierarchy and unfortunately quite powerful nowadays. Although people who partake in it would never admit to the negative consequences of their actions

[Anonymous No.5024561]

>>5024532
>Some solid insights, however I fail to see how the contemporary notion of a 'bad person', such as your example of racism, is an anti-capitalistic perspective
From my point of view it seems that racism/anti-racism is generally seen in terms of globalization and immigration, both which tend to benifit the ruling class. When it creating social norms/casts through media and social interactions it's generally not seen as racist.
For example, someone refusing to higher black people or complaining about mexican immigration taking jobs is generally seen as racist, thus bad, while a director representing the "token black guy" as a trained monkey who's good mainly for break dancing, speaking in 'slang', and being a comidic sidekick to the white hero wouldn't raise an eye. Same with how American prison systems can use black people as slave labor over trumped up drug charges without it being seen as racist, but as soon as someone reflects this attitude as a personal opinion ("black people should be slaves") they themselves are demonized as a horrible deviation from society.
You make a good point about hierarchy though, however it seems like the crusade for hierarchy destroys all chance for positive, life embracing, hierarchies while completely ignoring economic hierarchy, which I find discomforting

[Anonymous No.5024568]

I think the abandonment of sets of arbitrary standards of good/evil, right/wrong, fair/unfair has left modern society grasping for the few unequivocal truisms left.

You need to have things that are sins not just to your group, but universally valid sins. This is why discrimination, bigotry and racism went from virtues to vices. You were supposed to hate Catholics, Italians, and communists to be good. now you have to tolerate them so you can force them to tolerate you.

and all the time what we really want is somebody its okay to hate.

[Anonymous No.5024569]

>>5024552
/r9k/ pls, you should be judged for being too undesirable to get a girlfriend.

[Anonymous No.5024580]

I'd rather be educated, thoughtful and original, and be called a racist or bad person for it, than ignorant, thoughtless and trite, and considered 'good'.

>So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.

[Anonymous No.5024581]

in a permissible society, badness is determined rhetorically and will result in a case which has greater power than another, for the time being. laws only exist to extend the lifespan of such rulings of badness. anything, especially something without laws protecting it, is subject to change. things that are matters of personal opinion or life choices are easily decided upon by individuals and subsequently more can partake in changing the collective stance of it. the current communication ability of anyone with internet is vastly larger than anything in the past, change will occur very often and quickly.

[Anonymous No.5024584]

>>5024568
>and all the time what we really want is somebody its okay to hate.

enter the straight white male

it's completely alright to hate him. in fact, he IS the society-approved object of hatred today

[Anonymous No.5024587]

I'm not racist, but the idea of an unwhite Europe really bothers me. I don't want France to be 50% Arabic for the same reasons I don't want Tibet to be 50% Han. Shit, I'm generally liberal and I couldn't give a shit if Canada becomes predominantly Chinese since it's stolen land anyways, but I really wish Europeans would stop important thousands of Muslims. Especially my "homeland" of England.
Voicing that opinion apparantly these days will have me labelled as a racist though.

[Anonymous No.5024588]

>>5024568

lol you are definitely supposed to hate catholics today (real catholics, not progressive catholics, but even progressive catholics would get shit by association). you could probably sum it up in tolerance for everything but intolerance, which seems to be a relatively new thing, perhaps inspired by the rise of the right and the problem of dissenting opinion.

[Anonymous No.5024589]

>>5024584
Fair point

[Anonymous No.5024592]

>>5024497

can we just admit that miley is a disgusting human being and move on?

there is literally nothing appealing about her and there never was. I went to high school with girls who blow her and a lot of other 'starlets' out of the water in every conceivable way. I'm sure most people did

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.5024603]

slave morality is nothing new

[Anonymous No.5024606]

this is slave-morality at its finest

the slave classes demonize the character and morality of the ruling caste, and develop their own character and morality in opposition to this despised caste

>THEY are bad, these rulers and powermongers; WE, who are their opposite, are just what is good!

[Anonymous No.5024611]

>>5024587

It bothers the majority of whites. You really think there are many white people who can drive through a city and see nothing but entire stretches of curry houses (seriously, why do you need a curry house every 5 yards or so? how did the 'curry mile' even become a thing?), hijab shops, the modern corner shop and the endless mobile phone rackets and not feel like a stranger in his own country?

[Anonymous No.5024618]

I think the Soviet Union scared the Consequentialism out of us, as well as the fact that recent power politics seems to play around the idea of a 'moral high ground' as a way to demonize the collective other, and consequentialism is in direct contrast to this idea.

Because of this, virtue ethics are on the rise, which place the emphasis on the individual instead of the act. But I also believe deontology plays a role here, because in multicultural 21st century liberal capitalism, there are certain unspoken rules that we're meant to abide by. What I dislike so much about present day virtue ethics is exemplified by the tumblr generation you described in your OP; 'unethical thoughts', as though someone is a worse person than you are because you've decided to label some idea as taboo. A lot of it revolves around standing on a moral high ground, it's not even a question of reason so much a question of being vilified.

[Anonymous No.5024621]

>>5024611
So when will they curb the immigration rates? I mean, immigration for economic benefits is such a short term and all around poorly thought out plan. Or is this is? Will it become Eurabia?

What are the chances of UKIP gaining power? Or the equivalents in other countries?

[Anonymous No.5024627]

I recently said in a class that I didn't think Muslims belonged in Europe and I was in support of Serbia over the Muslim Bosnians and they all cried racist and said any religion could live in Europe.

[Anonymous No.5024629]

>>5024621
>So when will they curb the immigration rates?

When do you think?

[Anonymous No.5024631]

>>5024621
>So when will they curb the immigration rates?
They're supposed to rise. Sweden wants the other European countries to start taking more immigrants in.

[Anonymous No.5024637]

>>5024631

sweden is a lost cause

i don't think a country has been so badly destroyed by immigration since the mongol incursions

[Anonymous No.5024638]

>>5024627
This was in the US.

[Anonymous No.5024639]

>>5024627
>any religion could live in Europe.

Any religion can live in Europe. But any immigrant should not be allowed in Europe as easily as they are now; there need to be limits, and when they do come in they should embrace the culture of the country to a certain degree.

[Anonymous No.5024641]

>>5024618
The tumblr generation knows nothing of virtue ethics.

[Anonymous No.5024644]

>>5024631
Unfortunate.

>>5024629
Nah, fuck off. Muslims encourage anti-Jewish sentiment. If anything Israel would want to prevent their lifeline from becoming too Muslim.

[Anonymous No.5024650]

>>5024641
Not virtue ethics in the true sense, but approach to ethics closely resembles a bastardized relative to it.

[Anonymous No.5024653]

>>5024629
>Europe
>Jews
Only about 0.3% of Europe is Jewish. The rest... left a few years ago.

Captcha: merchant ssalanx

[Anonymous No.5024657]

>>5024644
>Muslims encourage anti-Jewish sentiment

Which is why jews secretly love them.

[Anonymous No.5024659]

>>5024644

That's an acceptable trade-off.

You need to understand that Sweden is basically a test case for the rest of Europe.The people who control these immigration laws know that Muslim immigrants are a universal negative for everyone else living in the country, but they do bring many benefits and create a substantial voting block.

But what a bad conscience places like Sweden must have is to be judged from the fact that it is forbidden on pain of criminal charges to mock or question immigration.

[Anonymous No.5024661]

>>5024657
Oh man. I'd love to hear you explain further. This is going to be fascinating.

[Anonymous No.5024666]

>>5024653

>numbers matter more than extent of influence

jews are a class of pseudo-nobility. they don't need large numbers and never have

[Anonymous No.5024668]

>>5024661

It's just a play on the jewish victim complex. It's so ingrained in their identity, if someone wasn't seen to be persecuting them I imagine they'd need to invent them.

[Anonymous No.5024673]

>>5024668

Much like the left, who actually do invent the victims they then run to rescue.

[Anonymous No.5024683]

>>5024668
That was much less imaginative than I was hoping. If I'm to assume (tell me if I'm making an ass of myself in this assumption) that you believe the influential Jews in Europe and the state of Israel of one faction, they already have more than enough persecution going on from Muslims countries.

[Anonymous No.5024696]

>>5024661

The Jews don't care what the Muslim immigrants think or bring to the table. Jews are not afraid of Muslims or Arabs in principle, because in practice they are just another useful minority to break up and break down concentrations of white gentile power. This is what they do and what they've always done. They take measures to introduce as many non-whites as possible to wherever they are living, not because they want to ruin the area (that would be like pissing in their own sandbox) but because they want to insulate themselves from persecution at the hands of whites, who historically speaking have been their major enemy, and this of course is because they are intelligent enough to see Jewish political and social engineering in motion and object to it.

Sigmund Freud and other psychoanalysts sought to characterize antisemitism as a form of neurosis or mental illness, but in reality, it is the Jewish identity that suffers from disorders, insofar as it feels itself in constant danger of perishing. As a race, they feel a collective sympathy for their own plight and want as much as possible to preserve themselves against other races, even at the expense of these. That's why Jews have always practiced eugenics and continue, in most Jewish communities around the world, to encourage it and especially to discourage miscegenation between Jews and non-jews, even as they preach race-mixing as a desideratum for the rest of manking.

[Anonymous No.5024698]

>/pol/

Please, you're distracting from quality discussion by making this about the jews.

[Anonymous No.5024707]

>>5024532
Reminds me of that short story about the forced equality, with the weights on people and masks and shit.

[Anonymous No.5024708]

>>5024696
Okay. I would like to hear of other examples where Jews have purposefully imported non-whites.
I also disagree with the premise that whites are still percieved as their greatest threat. At this point, with American neo-conservatism and the desire the preserve Jerusalem, you'd think they would be allies now. The Muslims pose a much greater and real threat.

[Anonymous No.5024713]

>>5024568
i read an article in the eighties called "never trust anybody over thirty...thousand a year" which made a good case that money was privilege and race, sex, religion, age, were incidental. Thoughts?

captcha: capital rpysmen

[Anonymous No.5024714]

While it is true that something like severe, deeply-rooted racism is not intrinsically unethical, it is highly irrational, and can be not unreasonably taken to be a sign of general irrationality and of being a drain on society. But you're right: no belief is, in itself, immoral, even if it is linked to immoral or otherwise inconvenient behavior.

[Anonymous No.5024716]

>>5024707
Harrison Bergeron* , probably should have just googled it beforehand.

[Anonymous No.5024723]

>>5024683

They are one faction in the sense that they are jews, sure. I don't believe they all gather round a table to rub hands and scheme though, rather I think there's just a natural tendency to act like a snake.

>>5024696

That's pretty good.

>>5024698

lol I'm done. Please continue.

[Anonymous No.5024726]

>>5024714
I agree that racism is irrational but I also believe that ethnocentrism and racism are humanity's default status, which we developed through evolution. It's very natural.

[Anonymous No.5024735]

>>5024637
That's because you think Sweden is actually worse off than the rest of Europe. They're naive and have high RATES, but the CURRENT SITUATION is definitely worse in France, England and Belgium. Sweden's minorities haven't even emerged as interest groups yet.

[Anonymous No.5024736]

>>5024714

Racism is about as irrational as sexual desire.

[Tallis !!DxrlCMGAS2J No.5024740]

>>5024714
>racism is irrational
So slavers were irrational to be racists while it justified something positive to them?

[Anonymous No.5024747]

>>5024698

Well seeing as the Jews are largely responsible for the corruption of Western values (via the Frankfurt school), I think it's quite disingenuous to take them out of the conversation. But okay.

>>5024708

It's not just immigration. The entire civil rights movement in America was largely funded and backed politically by left-wing Jews. This is not a controversial statement, you can read about it yourself.

The no-conservative movement emerged when a large number of political Jews jumped from left to right back in the 1960's, when it became clear that the left was not going to be strongly in favor of supporting Israel against Palestine. If you look into the history of the Black Panthers, they had strong political support from Jewish intellectuals and politicians until they came out in defense of Palestine. Almost immediately, support for the group evaporated, and the FBI under Hoover put several plans into action to dissolve the party.

There are many powerful and prominent non-Jewish politicians who belong to AIPAC and other Jewish organizations. Their campaigns and livelihoods have been funded largely in part by these special interests, and it is only natural that, once in office, they pay them back by pledging unwavering support to Israel, under the pretense that it is 'a beacon of democracy and freedom' and despite the fact that Israel is in fact an apartheid state with suicidal foreign policies.

[Anonymous No.5024751]

>>5024736

So it is. Both have been shown, throughout the ages, to be detrimental.

>>5024726

And? I agree it is natural, but many things in man's nature are severely detrimental.

>>5024740

But of course. I may well believe, to my own benefit, certain totally baseless and irrational things in order to avoid facing a reality I find disagreeable - but make no mistake: these things I believe are not any more justified - they are merely more agreeable to a single individual.

[Anonymous No.5024752]

>>5024747

neo-conservative*

[Anonymous No.5024758]

>>5024736

Racism is a simpleton's discernment and order of rank. There is nothing unnatural about it, just like there is nothing inherently desirable about 'diversity' or 'integration'.

[Anonymous No.5024762]

>>5024740
So you're implying that if a belief is adopted out of a desire of self-benefit, it's rational? We're talking about the validity of an idea, not the virtue of what real world benefits it may have. You're either being intentionally daft or misunderstand the fundamental issue at play here

[Anonymous No.5024771]

>>5024747
>It's not just immigration. The entire civil rights movement in America was largely funded and backed politically by left-wing Jews. This is not a controversial statement, you can read about it yourself.
[citation most definitely needed]
Saying "You can read about it yourself" is no substitute for an actual warrant

[Anonymous No.5024774]

>>5024762
>So you're implying that if a belief is adopted out of a desire of self-benefit, it's rational?

As far as that individual is concerned, it's absolutely rational. The Jewish fear of persecution is entirely rational if one is a Jew. To the rest of us it will of course seem a trifle excessive.

[Anonymous No.5024786]

>>5024771

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#American_Jewish_community_and_the_Civil_Rights_movement

Is it really that hard to use google?

[Anonymous No.5024787]

>>5024747
The "corruption of Western values" started with the Enlightenment and liberalism, not the Frankfurt school, especially in terms of free movement and tabula rasa perspective.

Europe wants to become like America. It's that simple. Ambiguous identity, influx of labor/immigrants, big federal government (EU), etc.

[Anonymous No.5024799]

>>5024787
>Europe wants to become like America.

There's something to that. Enoch mentions it in his famous speech.

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

[Anonymous No.5024822]

>>5024774
you're muddling up the logical validity of a belief with the assertion that logical validity can somehow be altered by self-benefit. How can you not see that the two are entirely independent. You know what. I'm just not even going to bother with you

[Anonymous No.5024834]

>>5024822

The value of a particular proposition for life is what determines its 'truthfulness'; logical validity is only one particular criterion of this 'truthfulness' in the eyes of likewise particular kind of human being.

[AnelCrest !m9jxTLhLcw No.5024864]

>>5024497
>left-capitalist

[Anonymous No.5024925]

>>5024864

>tripfagging on /lit/

[AnelCrest !m9jxTLhLcw No.5024937]

>>5024925
Get back to the other shit-thread.

[Anonymous No.5024966]

>>5024937

which one? they're all shit on here

[Anonymous No.5025037]

"The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. [...] Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people."

Individuals who are weak will always adhere to the mainstream opinion, regardless of what it is, in order to compensate for their weak mind.

[Anonymous No.5025065]

>>5024587
Why does it bother you? Europe is just an arbitrary border drawn in the past. Even Kazakhstan is part of Europe.

Ethnical and cultural changes happen. If you don't understand that you have been hit by a case of nationalist myth building. The English of today are descendents of German tribes that invaded England and drove the Celts out of their homeland, migration is just as "natural" as racism.

>>5024627
You prefer the people that commit the genocide over the people that were cleansed? Why? Because they converted to a religion not your own hundreds of years ago?

[Anonymous No.5025098]

>>5025065
I don't trust the Muslims to preserve European heritage and its vast wealths of culture.

[Anonymous No.5025108]

>>5025098
But what does that mean? European heritage? Vast wealths of culture? These are all just romantic phrases used to describe a mystical perfect non "degenerate" Europe that never was. It's a myth, anon.

[Anonymous No.5025137]

>>5025098
Preserving culture is a spook. There is no meaning to it except for the people that can only identify themselves when they refer to the past. They say "may people did this and that" and get pride out of it, those people are a joke.

[Anonymous No.5025143]

>>5025137
>may
I meant my.

[Anonymous No.5025151]

>>5025108

the arabs couldn't even preserve the culture of their own golden age. what in the world makes you think they'll care about preserving the culture of European golden ages like the Renaissance?

let arabs take over Rome and they'll probably deface every piece of architecture purely out of savage impulses. in egypt there are muslim groups that want to blow up the pyramids

[Anonymous No.5025159]

>>5025137

a common enough reproach from someone who has no culture worth preserving

[Anonymous No.5025161]

>>5025065

Britons share a heritage that goes back thousands of years.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene_2.html

Historical migration has had relatively little impact. You're trying to conflate historical invasions, conquests, and immigrations with modern day mass immigration. Now, in a single year you could accommodate the majority of all historical immigration. They are completely different. What we see today dwarfs anything that happened in the past in both pace and scale.

>>5025108

"But what does it meaaaannn?"

It means we're different, and we have a right to be different.

[Anonymous No.5025163]

>>5025151
Salafist wil be salafists and they are the joke of the Muslim community. They are the people that tore down the house of Muhammad. Still, it's beside the point. Why do you care about preserving culture?

[Anonymous No.5025167]

>>5025137
without some sense of pride or identity, people fall apart.

[Anonymous No.5025177]

>>5025161
You're not going to magically become Iran just because there's a high percentage of Muslims amongst your population ("high", even). Get over yourself, Britfag.

[Anonymous No.5025194]

>>5025161
People move from one place to the other anon. That's what migration means and people will alway do that.

Who gave you the right to be different? Did Christ say that? Did one of your ancient pagan god, that you do not follow, say that?

Who decides when a heritage becomes relevant? Certainly thousands of years is nothing compared to the age of the world and the people.

>>5025167
I agree with this, I think. Still, identity does not need to be made by excluding people.

[Anonymous No.5025195]

>>5025177

Changed tactics a little haven't you? First it was British identity is a spook and a romantic myth, and now the myth is in no danger of becoming another myth so no one should worry, and anyone that notices the changes to the thing that doesn't exist should "get over themselves".

[Anonymous No.5025202]

>>5025159
Bullshit. If I wantes I too could speak of the wonders of my people, but how would that be relevant to me?

[Anonymous No.5025210]

>>5025163

Because 'culture' consists in recognizing and conceding to oneself that there are higher callings, feelings, ideas and attitudes than those one holds in oneself, and aspiring to approach nearer to possessing them. Ask any artist why culture matters, why he admires the artists of the Renaissance or the Dutch masters, or the sculptors of antiquity. Ask the Greeks why they still pronounce the name of Homer or Alexander with beaming pride, even while living in modern times where neither of these people would be very relevant.

Asking why culture matters is like asking an heir why inheritance matters, or a noble why heredity matters. Most people have little in the way of money or rank; yet they can still feel rich and proud on account of that which they share, whether by blood or by tradition, with the mighty culture of yesteryear.

[Anonymous No.5025211]

>>5025195
I'm a different guy, Mr. Proud Heritage. And I think you're full of hysterical bullshit.

[Anonymous No.5025216]

>>5025151
do you honestly fucking think that european migrant muslims are the same type as the extremist factions in egypt? your fear-conjoured vision of immigrant muslims as being barbaric, turban-wearing camelriders is hilarious and so far from reality

when cultures mix, like in europe's case in which a minority culture is being slowly injected into a larger body, both cultures adopt features of the other, and become more moderate. after several generations europe will still be the same, just browner and with more mosques next to the cathedrals

[Anonymous No.5025234]

>>5025210
Yet it has always changed and will always continue to change. The questionis not why culture matters, but why holding on the the culture of "yesteryear" matters. Do you still wear stocking and a wig? Do you still worship the nobles? Do you still speak in proto indo European?

[Anonymous No.5025240]

>>5025216

And then they'll all live in harmony as equals until the end of time, right?

Except that never has happened and it never will. Certain cultures are rich and accommodating; others are poor and degrading. Muslims will do to places like France and Britain what the Turks did to Greece. There is nothing inherently 'better' about a diverse society; in fact, the opposite is almost true. Mix different heredities together and you get are individuals with no sense of identity and no stake in anything going on around them.

[Anonymous No.5025245]

>>5025151
um. Muslims scholars preserved the classics that made the Renaissance a thing. So Muslims/Arabs have an established track record on these things.

[Anonymous No.5025246]

>>5025216
Incorrect. In 15-20 years time the situation will be at breaking point. If one introduces two diametrically opposed ideologies into a small land mass and nation-state, they will eventually become violent. Try to use an historical

[Anonymous No.5025248]

>>5025240
You sure do like your myth building, eh?

[Anonymous No.5025249]

>>5025234

The difference between wearing a wig or not and filling a city with mosques, kebab shops and the people that they belong to is pretty vast.

[Anonymous No.5025253]

>>5025240
There's always nationality (and religion).

[Anonymous No.5025255]

>>5025246
* example to prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.5025259]

>>5025240
Yeah, the Ottoman Empire really was a shadow of later Byzantium, wasn't it? And it's not like Austria-Hungary was the cultural capital of the world at any point, or that it was a thriving and powerful empire for hundreds of years. Dumbass.

[Anonymous No.5025262]

It smells like someone hysteria'd in here.

[Anonymous No.5025269]

>>5025246
Western culture and Arab cultures aren't opposites though. How can they be when wearer culture isn't even a thing and Arab culture isn't a thing either. You have written the situation down in a shortsighted manner: immigrantsvs natives, culturally advenced people vs savages, Muslim vs non Muslims. Yet this is an incorrect way to look at it.

[Anonymous No.5025270]

>>5025234

It matters because we understand that older cultures possess something that we lack or have since lost. Again, look at the artistic world. Historians dream of recreating the cultural atmosphere of the Renaissance because they understand that humanity was there in top form and could perhaps be so again. What made the Renaissance great? What made Rome great? Why do we pale in comparison to these defunct societies? Why is the European of today clearly worth less as a human being than his ancestors in their golden ages? Whether it is Homer or Christianity or science that tyrannizes over mankind, culture remains the yardstick by which we measure each age against all others, ours included.

[Anonymous No.5025272]

>just because it's arbitrary means its bad

[Anonymous No.5025274]

>>5025249
That's true, one of them is holding on to your culture, the other is restricting the rights of others based on your false sense of superiority.

[Anonymous No.5025275]

>>5025245

Those people were Persians, not Arabs: antique nobility, as opposed to ancient barbarians. There's a big difference. Muslim is not a race.

[Anonymous No.5025277]

>>5025098
Yeah, alright. What about the genocide bit?

[Anonymous No.5025279]

>>5025269
>Islam doesn't conflict with Western culture
At this point I'm fairly certain that you're a Muslim in Europe trying to rationalize your presence.

[Anonymous No.5025284]

>>5024552
virgin detected

[Anonymous No.5025285]

>>5025274
maybe i should just check my privilege and bend over for ahmed whilst he fucks me with kebabs and forces me to convert to islam

[Anonymous No.5025287]

>>5025269
can we just face the facts that islam is a religion of scum (obviously some muslims are good people). it pushes anti-western concepts and ideology, refuses/inhibits assimilation and creates division

[Anonymous No.5025289]

>>5025270
Act right and encourage the people around you to act right as well. That's the only think keeping your or anyone else's culture from thriving. If everybody lived the Golden Rule--regardless of religion or culture--the world would be a better place.

[Anonymous No.5025291]

>>5025240
you seem to be fixated on outlandish extremes. you can call my leftist outlook idealist, but your fear-born fantasy of muslims ruining europe is equally as ridiculous. the result will be somewhere in the middle, and no, it won't be perfect, but what europeans should be doing is focusing on educating the immigrants on your history and indoctrinating them. pushing back is useless, as you know, and will just stir up more chaos.

look at the italian immgration in america. a century ago they were basically considered niggers. there was violence between them and protestant whites, then things evened out and now ask any italian who they are and they will tell you "i'm an american", because there's a certain pride associated with the ground they reside on now. i think it will be the same way in europe. they'll keep their religion, but in 50 years ask them who they are and they will reply "i am french" or "i am german" etc. and they will adopt the pride and history of their hosts as well.

[Anonymous No.5025293]

>>5025269

It might be incorrect, but 'Muslims vs non-Muslims' is certainly how a large track of the Muslim world sees it

[Anonymous No.5025294]

>>5025269
Islam, which rejects female equality, homosexuality, promiscuity, the arts, usury, Christianity, Atheism, consumerism... need I go on?

[Anonymous No.5025298]

http://youtu.be/lKDeyuM0-Og

[Anonymous No.5025300]

>>5025287
> it pushes anti-western concepts and ideology,

Like what? There's a small Muslim community in the region of the US I live in. I've interacted with Muslims, nothing they seem to be concerned about seems to imply the ideology you're speaking of.

[Anonymous No.5025302]

>>5025291

That is a very optimistic outlook, especially insofar as you are expecting Arabs to behave with the same equanimity and sophistication as Italian immigrants.

>>5025289

The Golden Rule? You mean: 'never make equal what nature has made unequal'?

[Anonymous No.5025305]

>>5024561
>refusing to higher black people
You mean "refusing to hire black people because they're black"

[Anonymous No.5025306]

>>5025291
But American isn't a race. Countries in Europe have indigenous ethnicities. If Sweden is no longer inhabited by ethnic Swedes, it is not Sweden. It is now something different entirely, and something has been lost.
I do not want Europe to be majority Muslim for the exact same reasons I don't want Tibet to be majority Han.

[Anonymous No.5025307]

>>5025300
lol come to europe where muslim populations can be as high as 10% and see how nice the 'small muslim community' is.

[Anonymous No.5025308]

Why would someone even push for 'diversity'? How is it preferable in any way?

inb4 ethnic food

[Anonymous No.5025312]

>>5025308
ethnic music

[Anonymous No.5025314]

>>5025312
I said preferable.

[Anonymous No.5025317]

>>5025308
People like the idea of people from all over the world coming together and living in peace. It happened in Canada and so far it has worked.
I'm this guy >>5025306 for reference

[Anonymous No.5025318]

>>5025314
#rekt

[Anonymous No.5025325]

>>5025317
That is not "preferable" in so far as a homogenous community living in peace and a diverse one living in peace are, in terms of "peace", equal. Why is it preferable?

[Anonymous No.5025327]

>>5025306
Look man. I live in a US state called "Nebraska" and there damn sure ain't no people left here who named it that. Names come from history. Populations change through time. I'm sorry about your existential crisis.

[Anonymous No.5025328]

>>5025314
>what is opinion
in reality though food, culture, music etc. are the best things

[Anonymous No.5025330]

>>5025302
>behave with the same equanimity and sophistication as Italian immigrants.

Your lack of historical perspective is showing.

[Anonymous No.5025334]

>>5025325
I suppose because it promotes tolerance and open-mindness? I don't know.

[Anonymous No.5025335]

>>5025330

The mafia was respectable in Italy.

In America it was corrupted by Jewish intrigues and lucrative nature of prohibition.

And all Italians are not of the same stuff to begin with.

[Anonymous No.5025338]

>>5025335
Please regal us with your theories on racial purity.

[Anonymous No.5025342]

>>5025327
What on Earth does this asinine comment have to do with the fact there are ethinic groups in Europe that have been there for hundreds of years and the fact that "American" is not a race? If you integrate into America, you are American. If you move to France from Syria, you are not French. French is a race. You are a Syrian living in France.

[Anonymous No.5025343]

>>5025270
I could agree to this point, except that you do not live up to what you say. Rather than looking at the past, finding the beautiful things in them and lifing by those, you reject change of all sort, fearing that any change is an inherent step away from the correct way of lifing as practised in the past. Kinda like the salafists of Islam.

>>5025272
Do not put words into my mouth, arbitrary is arbitrary and bad is bad. What you are doing is neither bad nor good, it is ignorant. And you insist upon your ignorance.

>>5025279
It certainly conflicts with western culture, but it isn't the opposite of it. And even if it was the opposite of a western culture, which it isn't, it would still not be the opposite of all western cultures.

>>5025287
This mentality that some western Muslims have is caused by an polarisation of their religion because of poverty and a sense of not belonging.

>>5025293
>large track
Maybe you are right, I doubt it. I assume it's only the extremists.

>>5025294
Are those things your culture? Are you both a Christian and an atheist? Many of those things oppose each other as well.

[Anonymous No.5025344]

>>5025334

but tolerance and open-mindedness only matter if you already have a sizable minority population that stands to benefit from these things.

so it amounts to saying: diversity is good because it benefits diverse societies.

circular logic

>>5025338

It's not about purity. If you want to know more about that subject, I suggest you ask the Jews because they invented it.

It's about heredity. Let enough time pass and it becomes very difficult to distinguish on paper whose Italian bloodlines go back to Rome and before and whose are only a few centuries old.

[Anonymous No.5025345]

>>5024568


>universally valid sins

people need god as their ultimate object because without directing the ideology socket to dev:null they latch onto some contingent concept (like 'peace', 'justice', 'equality', 'power', or et cetera) as their ultimate object, and start trying to moralize with contingent categorical imperatives based off that, and thats where you get bad ideology.

[Anonymous No.5025347]

>>5025334
Tolerance and open mindedness can just as easily occur in a homogenous community as in a diverse one. A recent Harvard study by a liberal, no less, demonstrated that in fact trust decreases in a multicultural society *even between members of the same race*.

[Anonymous No.5025348]

>>5025335
this takes me onto another question:
is somebody a 'good' person if their job (think al capone) involves murder, violence, theft etc., but they help the community, set up soup kitchens, donate to charity etc.?

[Anonymous No.5025352]

>>5025343

On the contrary. I embrace the right kind of change. At this point it would mean rejecting much of the 'change' which has already taken place. But most golden ages have resulted from a rehabilitation and rediscovery of former golden ages. What we are doing today is retarding the rediscovery of these values and practices that made older societies so rich that we are still able to live off their inheritance today.

[Anonymous No.5025358]

>>5025342
French is not a race, it's a nationality. Race doesn't mean much. I believe you are referring to your ethnicity. Maybe Americans conceptualize these things different from Europeans, I don't really care. Either way, the land you live in is small and being affected by a global trend towards migration. I'm sure you're unhappy with that and that's cool, but it's inevitable.

[Anonymous No.5025362]

>>5025347
>>5025344
Listen fellas, I'm not arguing against you. I live in Canada and I enjoy living here. There are people from all around the world living here and I don't mind one bit. When I say I think Europe should stay white, I don't mean all Arabs should be evicted and we should bar all entrance from non-whites.

[Anonymous No.5025364]

>>5025345
>people need god so they won't seek power..
niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice

[Anonymous No.5025370]

>>5025343
Those things oppose each other to a limited extent. They don't reject the very foundation of the states in which they exist, and as such the potential for extreme violence is greatly reduced.

[Anonymous No.5025378]

>>5025344
>I suggest you ask the Jews because they invented it.

They can be a little tricky to pin down on the subject of diversity.

[Anonymous No.5025379]

>>5025358
>French is not an ethnicity
But it is. We can trace the history of the Frenc tribes hundreds of years.

[Anonymous No.5025380]

>>5025348

Objectively 'good' is a nonsensical proposition. Good in reference to what?

In reference to the people he helped, sure, he was good. In reference to the people he robbed, no he wasn't.

He may have been trying to assuage his own conscience. He may have been trying to paint a nicer portrait of himself. He may have just been insulating himself with a community of supporters. By all accounts however, you can do all those charitable things and NOT be a murderer, arsonist, criminal, and so on.

If Ted Bundy rescued a few dogs, would we consider him a good person? Probably not

[Anonymous No.5025385]

>>5025358
adding on to your post.

and based on the fact that it's inevitable, what should european countries do? fight back? fighting back only makes the minority ethnicity worse in terms of behavior and more extreme in ideology (see black people in america), and it never works in the long term (see again, america). from an american viewpoint, the europeans should indoctrinate and assimilate the new immigrants into their culture. MAKE them into swedes, french, german, etc. at least then you'd be able to retain your history and values, if not your skin color.

[Anonymous No.5025386]

>>5025352
But what makes migration bad, then? Certainly those periods of time had a lot of migration, too. It is not like the Arabs and the dutch are more different from each other than the portugees and the dutch. Multiple cultures, races and religion have lifed together without a problem until people decided to make a problem out of it. The still accept diversity, but now some kinds of diversity have suddenly become taboo.

[Anonymous No.5025387]

>>5025379
stop misquoting him you retard he said French is not a RACE not an ethnicity

[Anonymous No.5025391]

>>5024497
I agree entirely, at least from personal experience, that essentialist approaches to moral characterization have become really common. However, it isn't used simply for condemnation of 'racism, homophobia, etc. . . ' but also as a defense mechanism in support of people's own desires.

The most obvious and frequent example I can think of is when a girl is abused physically or verbally by her significant other and resorts to defending him with the typical 'that's not who he really is'. Basically, you can just ignore someones behavior entirely and idealize them to fit what you want, and presto they are good (or bad) people.

To me this 'glorifying essentialism' can be every bit as destructive as the corollary 'condemnatory essentialism'.

I suspect that this move away from the evaluation of deeds in favor of idealized characters can at least partly be attributed to the rationalization of society through utilitarian and consequentialist morality. I don't expect this type of rationalization to stop without a meaningful reintroduction of virtue ethics into the political/social spheres. I honestly think our society is actually devoid of even the language to speak or even reason in terms of virtue ethics.

[Anonymous No.5025393]

>>5025387
Okay. French is an ethnicity, not a race. Now in what way does that invalidate my point?

[Anonymous No.5025396]

>>5025379
>implying the entire French population doesn't have Moor blood in them by now
Keep dreaming.

[Anonymous No.5025399]

>>5025370
And the same goes for Islam. Or does Islam oppose atheism more than Christianity? does it oppose homosexuality more? Does Christianity not oppose Islam as much, if not more, than Islam opposes Christianity?

[Anonymous No.5025400]

>>5025335
>In America it was corrupted by Jewish intrigues
>Jewish intrigues

[Anonymous No.5025401]

>>5025364


nietzche is just one of many philosophers who engaged in the dubious tradition of inflating some contingent concept to universality, while retaining the the connotation and exosemantics the term had in its original context, causing normative double-think when this inflated term is applied to situations where it would otherwise not cohere.

linguistic abuse is the efficient cause of a great deal deleterious selection throughout history.

[Anonymous No.5025405]

>>5025379
the point is nationality and ethnicity are not about your vague social-darwinist concepts of blood history and genealogy but about culture

[Anonymous No.5025406]

>>5025385
YOU CAN'T MAKE SOMEONE INTO A SWEDE. BEING SWEDISH IS NOT A STATE NATIONALITY. IT IS AN ETHNICITY. I AM WHITE. IF I MOVE TO IRAN I WILL BE AN ANGLO-SAXON IN IRAN.

[Anonymous No.5025408]

>>5025406
so dumb

there are indian people in britain, who are brown, and are british

[Anonymous No.5025411]

>>5025408

there are indian people in britain, who are brown, and are british citizens

fix'd

[Anonymous No.5025412]

>>5025406
How about your kids born there? What kind of culture will they come up with? Do a little thinking you terrified xenophobe. Jesus, it's so neurotic in here.

[Anonymous No.5025414]

>>5025408
But they're not fucking British. They're not. They're Indians living in Britain. There is very clearly a difference. All those Han Beijing is sending to Tibet are not Tibetans, and they're ruining Tibet the same way Hinus and Mulisms are ruining Europe.

[Anonymous No.5025417]

>>5025411
>>5025414

"british" -- people of great britain

[Anonymous No.5025419]

>>5025412
I'm not a xenophobe. I live in Vancouver. 50% of Vancouver is non-white, and the same goes for my friends. I'm antiracist.

[Anonymous No.5025421]

>>5025399
Islam opposes Christianity more that vice versa
Islam opposes homosexuals more than Christianity (see gay priests)
Islam opposes Atheism more than Christianity, seeing as in Sharia Atheists are punished by death.

Any more questions?

[Anonymous No.5025422]

>>5025414
>>>/pol/


if an indian man has been in britain for 50+ years how is he any less british than these ~20 year old anons

[Anonymous No.5025424]

>>5025385
Why are the only options fighting or assimilating? Is it really impossible to just respect some degree of pluralism?

I don't really understand the idea that allowing some people to exist within the same borders as you is going to destroy your culture. Not unless your culture decides to take it up voluntarily (as with whites emulating black culture in the US), but if that's the case, then who has the right to tell people they can't voluntarily take interest in a different culture?

[Anonymous No.5025425]

>>5025417
lol but they aren't 'of' great britain. they are 'of' whatever third world shithole they came from. if you're talking about mixed breeds it gets trickier, but an immigrant will never be 'british'.

[Anonymous No.5025429]

>>5025386

Well it depends if you're looking at things in the short term or the long term.

In the short term, the native people are not going to like having to accommodate foreigners who don't speak their language, smell differently, practice a different religion, harass their women, and so on. The problem with integration in the short term is that it incenses the native people to resist, and they in turn have to be restrained with violence.

In the long term, you have miscegenation, which leads to a degradation and blending of cultures; you have significant economic impacts because the majority of immigrants are going to be lower class individuals who take up menial jobs and displace natives in doing so; you're going to have conflicts of national identity and heritage; you're going to have concessions and misguided interventions to promote 'equality' at the expense of both sides; you're going to have simmering racial tensions that crop up and break out at the least provocation (see the Trayvon Martin case); you're going to have a culture of entitlement on one side and a class of actual hard workers who support everyone else; and so on.

[Anonymous No.5025430]

>>5025425
so if a second generation indian is born in britain...?

[Anonymous No.5025436]

>>5025424
what other options are there that don't fit in with fighting or assimilating?

[Anonymous No.5025437]

>>5025401

oh boy, linguistic claptrap courtesy of a university educated buffoon

how much are you parents wasting so you can sit around and scribble trash all day?

[Anonymous No.5025438]

>>5025430
you said it yourself. 'indian'.

[Anonymous No.5025441]

>>5025436

None. You either accept or resist. You can do both in different ways but it's ultimately just those options.

[Anonymous No.5025442]

>>5025438
wow you proved yourself to just be a fucking racist retard. you literally only categorise them by race rather than nationality/birthplace. it's always 'muh blood' with you fucks. nobody is not mixed race in you absolute moron

[Anonymous No.5025444]

>>5025436
Are you suggesting pluralism is somehow impossible?
>>5025441
Acceptance is not the same thing as assimilation.

[Anonymous No.5025448]

>>5025421
>Islam opposes Christianity more than vice versa
hahaha you've obviously never met my family or anyone in the fundamentalist sect they belong to

in b4 >b-b-b-but those are just a minority of christians
true, but the fundamentalist muslims are also a minority. at least those that have emigrated to the western world.

[Anonymous No.5025453]

>>5025448
islam is more fundamental than christianity though. the average muslim has more extreme views than the average christian

[Anonymous No.5025456]

>>5025453

>the average Arab has more extreme religious views than the average Anglo-Saxon

ftfy

[Anonymous No.5025458]

>>5025437


linguistic claptrap is satans greatest tool my brother in christ, we must be always mindful of his tricks lest they work ruin.

[Anonymous No.5025475]

>>5024618
I honestly think you're overestimating the impact in the recent revival of virtue ethics. It has indeed seen a rise in academic circles and has made small waves in political theory, but our culture is still by and large very consequentialist.

What OP is complaining about is people judging according to 'profiles' of some sort, rather than actual deeds. Consequentialist morality is what allows us to paint in broad strokes and make essentialist claims towards behavior by focusing on the greatest common good rather than individual action and responsibility. If anything, what we need is a further expansion of virtue ethics in order to bring back the notion of deeds being reflective of character into the moral equation.

[Anonymous No.5025493]

>>5025448
when was the last time anyone in your family set fire to a mosque or killed muslims simply for being muslims?

[Anonymous No.5025506]

>>5024618


but the soviet union, through marxism, was thoroughly the product of enlightenment modes of thought. its consequentialism is really window dressing over its fundamentally eschatological nature (which is to say, whatever cost/consequence is acceptable if it furthers the object of ideology).

[Anonymous No.5025508]

>>5025291
>African-American.

Why does this exist then? Why aren't they simply Americans?

[Anonymous No.5025521]

>>5025508


if races wernt real how would we give them reparation buxs?

oh shi-

[Anonymous No.5025522]

>>5025508
cos americans are weird
in europe you would just call a black person "french" or "british"

[Anonymous No.5025527]

>>5025522
>in europe you would just call a black person "french" or "british"

no, we have other words for them here

[Anonymous No.5025528]

>>5025386
>portugees
>somehow better than arabs
ça me fait rire

Although personally I'm a little disapointed about how what was starting to be a good thread about values has turned into a bunch of shit about immigration. I don't have a problem with the discussion, but it would be nice to have a thread that doesn't fall into the same conversation as every other thread

[Anonymous No.5025529]

>>5025442
While both genetics and culture are a factor, the fact remains that ethnicities exist, and are tied to regions. Yes, you may be a citizen of Nigeria, but if you moved there from Cyprus, you are only Nigerian in citizenship and potentially culture. You are not an ethnic Nigerian.

[Anonymous No.5025536]

>>5025528
It's my fault, 100%. It was on my mind and for some reason I decided to hijack the thread. I'm >>5024587

[Anonymous No.5025550]

>>5025522
>in europe you would just call a black person "french" or "british"
We call them nigger here, or negro if you want to be racist about it. And even the blacks hate the arabs. I don't know what imaginary part of Europe you're thinking of, but I'll bet you live in the states

>>5025536
I pretty much agree with you in terms of immigration, it's just that it sort of spams up this thread. It's an interesting subject, but next time could you just make a seperate thread to discuss it when it gets out of hand?

[Anonymous No.5025558]

>>5025550
Yeah, I realized that after the replies started pouring in. To be honest I felt like the original discussion was more interesting. Most of the people just thought I was racist anyways, which I predicted in my first post.

[Anonymous No.5025627]

>>5024606
>>5024603
>Slave morality
But it isn't so much a morality of resentment as one of apathy. It doesn't demonize anything, just so long as the ruling power stays on top.
At least Jesus was a radical

[Anonymous No.5025672]

>>5024497
I've had similar thoughts and I find it rather repulsive. Just look at the popularity of YA series like Divergent. The entire series is about determining the essence of someone and holding that thing sacred. There is a war going on the series, but both sides value this same thing.

Anyways, it seems we've divorced ourselves from the idea that our actions define who we are and we've identified with some unseen and unknowable world within ourselves. If actions don't determine our identity, then what do our actions matter? This mentality has led to a stagnation amongst the majority of the populace where so many people are doing absolutely nothing and fail to see the logical bridge between this and why their lives feel so empty.

[Anonymous No.5025678]

>>5025627
Is Miley Cyrus a slave?

[Anonymous No.5025685]

>>5025672

Which makes me think this is why speech crimes are on the rise, not because the action itself does any harm, but because it outs the speaker as being undesirable.

[Anonymous No.5025691]

>>5025678

slave to the cock, yeah

if she had gotten pregnant around 3 years ago she would have been fine today. all that sex and no baby does terrible things to the female psyche, whatever these deluded feminists may say to the contrary

[Anonymous No.5025697]

>>5025691
Well, we'll have to sacrifice the female psyche if we wanna save the earth.

also
>implying moms aren't nutty af

[Anonymous No.5025702]

>>5025627


nah, they do a very good job of demonizing, as is inevitable (if perverted). its simple really, talk about relativism and how only judging right from wrong is wrong when it incidentally validates your conceits and insecurities, while talking about 'social consequences' and 'problematization' when it devalidates them.

[Anonymous No.5025706]

>>5025391
I agree with everything except for the last paragraph. It seems that this has come about not because of a lack of virtue ethics, but the obsession with virtue ethics. It just doesn't follow that deemphasis on the external world would come from a focus the on the external world. It comes from the obsession with unknowable black box of intentions inside us. We make act like good or bad people, but doubts are cast upon our own intentions so much from figures such as Freud how can we ever know whether we are good or bad people. The modern age of people has a great anxiety over this dilemma and I feel like and emphasis on consequentialism would actually help.

[Anonymous No.5025723]

>>5024497
I dont think it comes down to politics, its more a matter of how when we live in a historical period thats defined by decadence and self-pleasuring, we displace the guilt that comes from being kind of an asshole onto these shadows, abstract culture values that represent that which causes unhappiness, and therefore lacks any utility in such a society.

[Anonymous No.5025736]

>>5025706


they have alot of anxiety over it because they were stumbling around the idea of virtue from outside the tradition of virtue, so to speak. the results were incoherence because they were still stuck on a different paradigm.

[Anonymous No.5025737]

>>5025685
Not only that, but it I supposedly causes harm to the unseen and unknowable world within someone else. It's changed from being a violation of weak social norms to a strong social norms with punitive consequences.

See the trigger warnings on classics, etc. It's all a piece of the puzzle of this obsession.

[Anonymous No.5025740]

>>5025159
>someone who has no culture worth preserving
Americans?

[Anonymous No.5025741]

>>5025706
I think I might have responded to you, or at least someone with a similar perspective to you already here >>5025475.

I don't think there has been a major revival in virtue ethics to the extent that it could affect culture in this way. Sandel, MacIntyre, Foot, and the other virtue ethics revivalists are considered communitarians, even though they disavow the term. I think this obsession with essentialism is far more rooted in the obsession with individualism, which I think follows much more from modern political/social philosophy than Aristotelianism.

[Anonymous No.5025765]

>>5024497

>racism, homophobia, anti-globalization, anti-fat shaming

Then left-capitalist political opinions are obviously the most considerate and least sociopathic.

"It's just an opinion!"? No fuck, OP. That, sex and beer are great.

As far as 'fat shaming' goes, who are you kidding, anon. Most of the fat-shaming that goes on here isn't at its core an effort to improve society's health; many people just enjoy the suffering of others from a position of impunity.

>It seems that morality is now tied to essence, where "one is a racist, therefor he is bad", rather than action where "one acts in a racist maner therefor he is bad"

Both behavior and intention are relevant in passing judgement.

[Anonymous No.5025772]

>It seems that morality is now tied to essence, where "one is a racist, therefor he is bad", rather than action where "one acts in a racist maner therefor he is bad"

Openly espousing / opining for a view is a behavior, and certainly may influence the lives of others.

[Anonymous No.5025819]

>have nothing to do with someone as an individual or individual action and so on

?

generally someone acts in a racist manner before another person can safely say they're a racist.

also the tumblr generation doesn't have homogenised views (many are actually anti-globalization, for example, because of the exploitation involved) and i don't think miley would represent those views even if they were homogeneous.

basically idk what you're talking about but it doesn't seem to coincide with reality.

[Anonymous No.5025826]

>>5025765
>fat-shaming
I'll never understand how people came up with this.
People can only gain mass from assimilating the mass they eat, you'll become a landwhale only if you eat as much as the sea ones.

[Anonymous No.5025834]

>>5025741
I agree with your focus on individual action and responsibility, but I still maintain my position. Your position seems to reach for our actions as a rule of thumb and then overreaches for our intent. As a society we've grown to recognize the complexity of our motivations, a sentiment I agree with and know myself well enough to deny otherwise. Denying their complexity by reaching for our actions as litmus tests of what kind people we are seems to express the same obsession of the modern age with an unhealthy dose of self-deception. Yet we still cling to virtue ethics and torture ourselves with the understanding of the complexity of motivational questions that are impossible to solve with certainty. I agree that consequentialist ethics with mentality you describe is a false step. However, we must place the burden on ourselves to act in ways that are productive and accept that we may do these things for the wrong or right reason maybe some mix of the two. My point is, who cares what is inside when all that actually impacts the world and defines who you are to the world is your actions.

[Anonymous No.5025836]

>>5025834
not to deny otherwise*

[Anonymous No.5026157]

>>5025108
>>5025137

there is no difference between Vienna and Damascus right? they are both just cities, their location is just a matter of geography, and after all, all people are equal

the minor cultural differences are insignificant in the larger scope of events

[Anonymous No.5026216]

>>5025442

this is actually a really simply explained. USA, being itself the new world and a land of immigrants, traditionally recognises nationality by birthplace. In Europe, your nationality is traditionally tied to your blood (see the crimean conflict)

[Anonymous No.5026276]

>>5025834
I'm actually not totally convinced that intention is the key thing here, but, as Sandel points out, it would simply be nice to bring moral discussions back into politics and social conversations. Most utilitarian views that encourage common good in the form of pluralism seem to reject ever talking about morals because of the stigma that a pluralistic society could never reach any sort of moral consensus, and so it's just left off the table.

I don't agree with Sandel on some of his more hardlines positions, though. I do agree, for instance, that taxing pollution is probably morally superior to cap-and-trade, but I don't think solutions like cap-and-trade should be outright rejected when it's better to make a move in the right direction than to stop changes because they aren't perfect. There has to be some sort of balance between striving for the right ideals and being pragmatic. But pragmatism alone without any moral compass I believe has failed to produce desirable results.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.5026285]

>>5025627
Quite wrong, it demonizes racism and sexism, which are integral to bourgeois cultural hegemony.

[Anonymous No.5026293]

>>5026285

u mad?

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.5026297]

>>5026293
Have you actually followed the post I was replying to?

[Anonymous No.5026380]

>>5025448
Islam is the more fundamentalist version of Christianity, the worst traits of Christianity distilled into it. And at least fundamentalists aren't in charge of your country