when you talk to pacifists, it actually usually doesn't generally come down to self-interest - or at least not anymore. conscription isn't a serious threat, and hasn't been through the course of most peoples' lives.
maybe that's the disconnect. maybe people are still interpreting pacifism through the lens of conscription. and, i guess you see a 75 year old protestor from time to time, right?
but, my experience with pacifists is that it's derived from the philosophical position that change is impossible. this has strong eastern roots in most pacifists i've spoken to, even if they don't really understand it entirely. but, you see it in native american philosophy, as well - and it has a kind of lost lineage in greek philosophy through the eleatics (parmenides and zeno), too. but, if you start talking to them, what becomes obvious is how conservative their pacifism really is. and, if it's a consequence of the idea that change is impossible, as it so often is, then what could be more conservative than that?
Monday, January 30, 2017
and, to clarify a point that is underlying my critique, but that i haven't made in this space, or at all for a while: what is driving the refugee push is not left-wing. it's noblesse oblige; it's the white man's burden. it's charity. it's faith through works. all of this is not described using terms like liberalism, socialism or even progressivism but encapsulated perfectly in the term toryism.
let's go back to the basic human nature question. if you believe that human nature is fixed, which is the condition that defines conservatism, then you would look at these wars in the middle east as an unending quagmire. you may acknowledge the role of imperialism in the abstract, but you would deny it the defining role. you would instead argue that war is endemic to the region, it will never end and you just have to get people out - because "human nature". all of the things about charity and nobless oblige would then follow from the inherent superiority of western culture, and the obligation to do something to help the lesser peoples.
but, all of this thinking is foreign to leftists. to begin with, leftists believe in self-determination as a corollary of the flexibility of human nature. it then follows that leftists reject the concept of charity in favour of wealth redistribution, because we demand self-determination. this insistence on the human condition as malleable also implies an inherent concept of revolutionary insurrection, or at the least reformism if the situation is already not so bad.
the end result is that while conservatives will support resettlement programs, liberals and socialists will actually support arming the refugees and telling them to take control of their own fate. it's a fundamental difference between the left and the right.
now, the situation on the ground is a mess, and you can't take the media narrative at face value. but, the reality stands. the leftist approach to syria is to support the insurrection; insisting on resettling refugees as a kind of benevolent charity is inherently right-wing.
what the contemporary right, personified by trump, is doing is just irresponsible. and, we can see that neither liberals nor conservatives support it. rather, his base is described by this apolitical nihilism...
my own view is that some aid should flow into the region, particularly for children caught in the mess. but, at the end of the day, the syrian people are going to have to win the fight and that's what the foreign policy should be centered around.
let's go back to the basic human nature question. if you believe that human nature is fixed, which is the condition that defines conservatism, then you would look at these wars in the middle east as an unending quagmire. you may acknowledge the role of imperialism in the abstract, but you would deny it the defining role. you would instead argue that war is endemic to the region, it will never end and you just have to get people out - because "human nature". all of the things about charity and nobless oblige would then follow from the inherent superiority of western culture, and the obligation to do something to help the lesser peoples.
but, all of this thinking is foreign to leftists. to begin with, leftists believe in self-determination as a corollary of the flexibility of human nature. it then follows that leftists reject the concept of charity in favour of wealth redistribution, because we demand self-determination. this insistence on the human condition as malleable also implies an inherent concept of revolutionary insurrection, or at the least reformism if the situation is already not so bad.
the end result is that while conservatives will support resettlement programs, liberals and socialists will actually support arming the refugees and telling them to take control of their own fate. it's a fundamental difference between the left and the right.
now, the situation on the ground is a mess, and you can't take the media narrative at face value. but, the reality stands. the leftist approach to syria is to support the insurrection; insisting on resettling refugees as a kind of benevolent charity is inherently right-wing.
what the contemporary right, personified by trump, is doing is just irresponsible. and, we can see that neither liberals nor conservatives support it. rather, his base is described by this apolitical nihilism...
my own view is that some aid should flow into the region, particularly for children caught in the mess. but, at the end of the day, the syrian people are going to have to win the fight and that's what the foreign policy should be centered around.
at
21:35
see, this is a good idea.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/canadian-ceos-urge-trudeau-to-take-rejected-u-s-tech-workers
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/canadian-ceos-urge-trudeau-to-take-rejected-u-s-tech-workers
at
20:53
put succinctly: i refuse to treat muslims differently than i treat christians, just because most of them happen to be brown. sorry. you're still bigots. same shit, different toilet.
at
19:42
you just have to understand that "religious tolerance" means something very different to a militant atheist than it is does to a theistic multiculturalist; what it means is tolerating those fucking idiot ignorant savage religious buffoons until they can pull their heads out of their asses and enter the 21st century. if you want to call me a supremacist of some sort, it's like arguing that i'm a newtonian supremacist for arguing for the abolition of aristotle - it's true and everything, but you're missing the basic point that atheism is, in actuality, an advancement and step forward beyond religion. you can believe in progress without being a racist. you might even then call yourself a progressive.
i would do no such thing. i'm an anarchist. religion is oppression, so muslims are the oppressors. and, if you disagree then you're the oppressor, too. and, if you think that's absurd then tell me when the last time you saw a female imam was, or when you saw a gay marriage in a mosque. these aren't even in the stage of debate. we need to start to have these discussions before i can see your religion as something that should be accepted and respected, rather than merely fucking tolerated...so long as you do it by yourself and don't force it on anyone. and, yes - christians are the oppressors, too.
and, you can yell and scream and get mad and break stuff and stomp your feet around in circles if you want, but it doesn't make you less wrong.
that said, don't misunderstand me - i'm not going to get in your way. i support the bill of rights. i believe in the rule of law. i hope the constitution upholds itself - in a court of law, mind you, rather than through the intimidation of ochlocracy. just, don't expect me to stand up for a bunch of homophobic, misogynistic bigots - and don't expect me to react to the hypocrisy of your anger at me for calling a spade a spade.
i would do no such thing. i'm an anarchist. religion is oppression, so muslims are the oppressors. and, if you disagree then you're the oppressor, too. and, if you think that's absurd then tell me when the last time you saw a female imam was, or when you saw a gay marriage in a mosque. these aren't even in the stage of debate. we need to start to have these discussions before i can see your religion as something that should be accepted and respected, rather than merely fucking tolerated...so long as you do it by yourself and don't force it on anyone. and, yes - christians are the oppressors, too.
and, you can yell and scream and get mad and break stuff and stomp your feet around in circles if you want, but it doesn't make you less wrong.
that said, don't misunderstand me - i'm not going to get in your way. i support the bill of rights. i believe in the rule of law. i hope the constitution upholds itself - in a court of law, mind you, rather than through the intimidation of ochlocracy. just, don't expect me to stand up for a bunch of homophobic, misogynistic bigots - and don't expect me to react to the hypocrisy of your anger at me for calling a spade a spade.
at
19:38
it would do the opposition well to realize that this is the substantive policy that you're not supposed to notice when you're distracted by the racism.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/trump-signs-executive-order-to-slash-federal-regulations/article33824754/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/trump-signs-executive-order-to-slash-federal-regulations/article33824754/
at
18:32
i don't deny that it's a terrorist attack or that terrorism is an issue for local law enforcement.
but, that doesn't mean that the government requires more rights to spy on you with.
...or that their mandate has in any way shifted.
but, that doesn't mean that the government requires more rights to spy on you with.
...or that their mandate has in any way shifted.
at
10:54
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)