|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing
#5601696 - 05/07/06 04:48 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Following up an earlier post -- http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/5601629#Post5601629
-- here is an interesting take on an attitude of the effete from http://ace.mu.nu/archives/175560.php
On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing
Ray Midge:
Quote:
This, it seems to me, is the issue of our age. Does there come an implosion point when a sufficient percentage of a given society instinctively "know" their society is the most evil society ever was or could possibly be - that every freedom afforded its citizenry is, at best, a perverted, ironic hollow in its structural evil.
I wonder if this is just the way it has to be. Just some sort of grand human cycle where, when material want has been relieved, and man has been given pretty much everything they want, the society that granted such must be speared and gored because it has still somehow fallen short of perfection. That a great society necessarily births children who, wallowing in its luxuries, turn against it out of .... boredom, a means of signaling their elite status, the pleasure of self-hate and "special knowledge."
I just can't see things getting better on this front. If we don't destroy ourselves from within, we'll have rotted out the support timbers for when something outside throws its weight on us - then busy ourselves with convincing others and ourselves we had it coming. The highest decadence. What a luxury.
Actually, of course, this isn't a case of self-loathing so much as loathing of the civilization to which one belongs; liberals and lefties are quite fond of themselves. It's the America government, our national history, Western values, and their fellow countrymen they despise.
I think I've said this a couple of times before, but I'll say it again:
One of the most foolish forms of moral vanity is the determination to rival God Himself in viewing events from a truly "objective" perspective, that is, a vantage point from which the subject -- oneself -- is not given any special consideration.
We all like to imagine ourselves objective-- to a degree. We like to think we can view a situation without privileging or prioritizing our own wants and needs over the wants and needs of others -- to a degree. But only an imbecile imagines he can actually manage a perfect stance of objectivity.
And only someone suffused with moral vanity imagines he should aspire to such a vaunted perspective.
I've had this argument with a dozen leftists and hard liberals. They insist, among other things, that Americans should not be afforded by other Americans any special regard as concerns matters of life and death; they will insist, for example, that the collateral deaths of foreigners on a battlefield are just as important, if not more important, than deaths of American soldiers, and that the rules of engagement should be much more strict to avoid causing any foreign civilians harm, even if it results, as it must, in an increased death toll among American soldiers.
They do not see this as a question of American lives versus foreign lives. They only view it "objectively" as a question of soldiers versus civilians, with no weighting of soldiers' lives due to the fact they are their fellow American citizens.
Imagining they can and should remove natural human irrational and subjective sympathies from the equation -- i.e., first duty to self and family, second duty to friends, third duty to community, fourth duty to nation, fifth and final duty to all others -- they fetishize their own "enlightment" by refusing to prioritize the safety of their countrymen over non-countrymen.
The amateur webzine Slate had a good piece about an extreme form of this psychotic condition. Remember back during the "Summer of Shark" attacks, before 9/11, when all we thought we had to worry about was a spike in shark attacks (which really wasn't a spike at all; it was just a spike in news coverage) and Gary Conditt?
Some people actually chose to become, as Slate dubbed them, "shark apolgists." In a territorial dispute between sharks, which wanted to eat people, and human swimmers, who wanted to not be eaten, some biologists and environmentalists actually argued in favor of the sharks' "right" to chow down on 11-year-old boys. After all-- it's their territory. They have to eat too, right?
It was a sickening example of the Moral Vanity of Objectivity being taken to the next level -- not only are Americans not to be favored over non-Americans, but now human beings (and children, too!) are not even to be favored over non-human, non-sentinent aquatic predators.
Hey-- let's just take the fact that we're human, and have, of course, an "irrational bias" in favor of humanity, out of the equation. Viewed in "objective" terms, in which we don't favor humans just because we're humans -- viewing things as if we were space aliens, in other words, and space aliens who further don't favor the sentient over non-sentient -- there is no special objective reason to favor human children over sharks, right?
Liberals and leftists are forever patting themselves on the back for removing their natural affinities from the moral equation -- or at least pretending to -- and they praise themselves so highly for this habit that they scarcely realize what they are urging is not a "higher morality," but a moral obscenity.
If you are so far gone that you cannot privilege human beings over a goddamned shark, for crying out loud-- congratulations. You have, in moral terms, more or less removed yourself from the human race. Almost every other human being would favor you over an unthinking shark; but you do not return the favor, even out of respect for an implied compact (you favor me over the sharks, so, in return, I will favor you, even if I don't really agree with the principle behind that "humanocentric" favoritism).
And yes: If you cannot privilege your fellow Americans over non-Americans in your moral calculus -- even knowing you receive the benefit of that favoritism from the vast majority of your fellow Americans, who would of course save an American's life over a foreigner's, if they had to choose, and all other considerations being equal -- then you've effectively removed yourself from true citizenship and community with your fellow Americans.
You may be a "Citizen of the World" or a "Global Citizen," but not all dual citizenships are permitted, and sometimes you have to turn in one passport to gain another. You can be a Citizen of the World if you want, but stop calling yourself an American, and stop objecting when others question your patriotism. You reject patriotism by proud self-declaration.
Except, of course, when others note you've declared that. Then you get all self-righteous.
At some point, we just don't have the luxury of decadent philosophical inquiries as to who the real monsters are, us or them. When someone's trying to kill you, you don't have the luxury of exploring whether or not your would-be killer feels justified in his efforts at murder, or has legitimate grievances against the US or Israel, or whether there are "root causes" which mitigate his evil. You either defend yourself or die.
A lot of people in this country just don't seem to understand that. They are unwilling to simply say, "We are at war; it is time to defend ourselves." And by rejecting that simple, unnuanced, "jingoistic" notion, they instead choose death.
And not just their own deaths, of course; they choose death for their fellow Americans, to the extent they can put their desires into practice.
And while these peacocks strut about to show off the pretty feathers of their "enlightened morality," men of real morals and genuine courage are, of course, dying in order to protect them. Better men die so that they can wallow and luxuriate in their presumed righteousness and then scorn those who make their decadance, and very continued existence, possible.
**********************************************
Ace is one of my favorite bloggers. He covers topics from the serious (as above) to the absurd and often even the downright geeky. I find him entertaining and amusing -- of the political bloggers out there he has perhaps the funniest perspective on things -- but when he does decide to get serious he does a fine job. I check his site twice a day and sometimes more. If you found this essay thought provoking, you may want to visit his site yourselves.
http://ace.mu.nu/
Phred
--------------------
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing [Re: Phred]
#5601830 - 05/07/06 05:23 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
A great example of a dipshit making up stories about all the liberals he's talked to. Yes it's true, champ, we all hate America, love shark attacks, obsess over the rules of war, and flaunt our morality. My god, this bullshit doesn't even apply to my hippie socialist parents.
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
gluke bastid
Stinky Bum


Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
|
Re: On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing [Re: Phred]
#5601891 - 05/07/06 05:37 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I don't really know how to begin to respond to this, Phred, because your attack on the left is very vague and you seem to be freely associating a lot of things you don't like about leftist politics with things you don't like about people in general. But I feel I should respond because the overall jist I get from the post is that you seem to be saying that being cynical about the current administration's assertion that the war in Iraq and the impending war in Iran actually stand for anything besides economic profit is evidence of an individual's decadent self-loathing. Not only is it a low blow to imply that all of my politics are informed by immorality, corruption and self-loathing, it is also ironic given your following statement:
One of the most foolish forms of moral vanity is the determination to rival God Himself in viewing events from a truly "objective" perspective, that is, a vantage point from which the subject -- oneself -- is not given any special consideration.
We all like to imagine ourselves objective-- to a degree. We like to think we can view a situation without privileging or prioritizing our own wants and needs over the wants and needs of others -- to a degree. But only an imbecile imagines he can actually manage a perfect stance of objectivity.
And only someone suffused with moral vanity imagines he should aspire to such a vaunted perspective.
It seems that only if you are guilty of the previously mentioned form of "moral vanity" would you claim a) That you are 100% correct about everything and anyone who disagrees with you is 100% wrong, as opposed to admitting that you are a human being and maybe you might make a mistake in judgement every now and again, and maybe even the truth lies in the gray areas between the left and the right, if even such a spectrum is an accurate way to describe what politics is about as oppossed to an invention of the two party and media system. b) You understand your opponents so well that their motivations, thought processes and ideologies are transparent to you. You "objectively" understand the left, like some sort of God.
I don't have any time to go into depth about the rest of your post, so I will try and be concise. The shark issue, I will simply point out the media's treatment of the shark issue is a typical example of left vs. right sensationalism, and you should know this. The media found an example of a handfull of jackasses arguing sharks should be allowed to eat people on eco-friendly terms, and it made a great story because it is one of those inflammatory issues that people on the far left and far right like to argue over.
Why? Not because they care about sharks. But because in this culture some people are so indoctrinated into the right vs. left war that they will argue about anything, regardless of how stupid. I'm disappointed in anyone who gets caught up in such nonsense.
Extending this shark issue to one of civilian casualities in a foreign country in a time of war doesn't work. Were the same people defending the sharks defending the civilians? Can you make any link between the two issues, much less between the people arguing over each issue, that isn't based on generalizations from personal experience? You are right that people can't be totally objective, but that doesn't mean they can't try and recognize their own subjectivity.
--------------------
Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
|
OJK
Stranger

Registered: 06/08/03
Posts: 10,629
|
Re: On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing [Re: Phred]
#5601939 - 05/07/06 05:52 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The problem with that article is that the author assumes that everyone feels the same invented small-minded group affinity that the author feels for the citizens of his own country.
If someone asked me whether I value the life of a fellow citizen of my country over the value of the life of a frenchman, an Afghan or a Nigerian, I wouldn't be denying my basic human instinct to say that I value them equally. I don't feel any such instinct to deny. I don't buy in to nationality on the same level that the author does.
Also, the shark analogy is ludicrous and offensive enough to seem like satire. It is possible to value human life over animal life based on sentience rather than sentimentality. That could be argued to be coming from the biased position that sentience is a desirable trait, but that position is defensible. Unless the author is willing to indulge some eugenicist argument over the mental capacity of foreigners, the analogy is embarrassing.
Also, using "we're at war" as an excuse to further an agenda when it was that same agenda that started and continues the war is a horribly, horribly flawed way to construct an argument.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing [Re: OJK]
#5601985 - 05/07/06 06:02 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Also, using "we're at war" as an excuse to further an agenda when it was that same agenda that started and continues the war is a horribly, horribly flawed way to construct an argument.
And here we come to the fundamental divide; the essential reason for the split in worldviews -- some people refuse to acknowledge we are at war. The fact that the war wasn't started by the West but by the Jihadis makes it no less real.
Of course if you deny the reality of the ongoing war you will come to erroneous conclusions. No matter how intelligent one may be otherwise, if one starts from an erroneous premise one will necessarily end up in the wrong place.
Ace's commentary presumes readers are capable of recognizng the simple fact that we are at war -- through no wish of our own -- and takes it from there.
Phred
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing [Re: Phred]
#5601996 - 05/07/06 06:06 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The fact that the war wasn't started by the West but by the Jihadis makes it no less real.
Which "Jihadis" started the Iraq War?
--------------------
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing [Re: Silversoul]
#5602015 - 05/07/06 06:12 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
let's not
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing [Re: Silversoul]
#5602016 - 05/07/06 06:12 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
All of them.
--------------------
|
OJK
Stranger

Registered: 06/08/03
Posts: 10,629
|
Re: On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing [Re: Phred]
#5602048 - 05/07/06 06:25 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Using "we are at war" to further a war-mongering agenda is ludicrous.
Currently, the United Kingdom is "at war" in the sense that it has troops serving in Iraq. We are also "at war" in the sense that we a target for Islamic terrorists , which I believe you see as being a kind of war.
If I subscribed to your argument, I would support the troops in Iraq using deadly force to defend themselves against suspected threats, civilian or otherwise. I would support the continued presence of UK troops in Iraq. I would support increased pressure on and hostility to Islamic states that support, endorse or are not critical of terrorism. I would support greater police powers to deal with the threat of terrorism, greater checks on muslim immigrants, increased powers to ban dangerous muslim organisations.
I could go on, but I think that the type of action I'm talking about is fairly clear.
However, not only do I believe that all of those actions are unjust, I also genuinely believe that all of those actions will fuel the enemy is this "war", that by promoting injustice in the name of safety, those who feel the impact of the injustice will promote violence in the name of freedom.
For a government to use war to justify anything is suspicious in the extreme, because of government's ability to control, manipulate and fabricate war.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing [Re: OJK]
#5602062 - 05/07/06 06:29 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Ace is not a member of the government. He is a person.
--------------------
|
OJK
Stranger

Registered: 06/08/03
Posts: 10,629
|
Re: On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing [Re: zappaisgod]
#5602091 - 05/07/06 06:36 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
But he is furthering a war-mongering agenda. Holding American lives to be worth more than Middle-Eastern lives is a war-mongering agenda. Supporting American troops knowingly endangering civilians to save the lives of other American troops is a war-mongering agenda.
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing [Re: Phred]
#5603916 - 05/08/06 03:10 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Ace's commentary presumes readers are capable of recognizng the simple fact that we are at war -- through no wish of our own --
Who do you believe you at war with?
|
gluke bastid
Stinky Bum


Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
|
Re: On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing [Re: Phred]
#5604384 - 05/08/06 09:53 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: And here we come to the fundamental divide; the essential reason for the split in worldviews -- some people refuse to acknowledge we are at war. The fact that the war wasn't started by the West but by the Jihadis makes it no less real.
Phred
On the contrary, I would argue that a lot of us who have oppossed the war since Bush started talking about it have heightened awareness of the war over American citizens who support it by default, just because they are more interested in the NBA playoffs than actually being critical of Bush's rhetoric.
Perhaps an even more fundamental divide is the question of who started this war. From my point of view, the US could have avoided a war in Iraq, and we would not have been any less safe. You talk about the Iraq war as if it were them or us, and I just don't see it that way. I see it as a situation in which Bush used fear to support a war effort that ultimately has to do with our economic safety as oppossed to our actual safety. It it really was a case of Iraqi soldiers coming after America than yes I would clearly value american life over Iraqi life and may even take up arms to defend my country.
However you have to understand I think the entire war is based on lies and speculation, so I don't see any reason why anyone needs to be dying. I see Iraqi civilians not as enemies but as an innocent people getting caught in the crossfire between two corrupt world powers who don't give a shit about the value of their lives, just the oil in their soil.
The fact that the 9/11 terrorists were Islamic fundamentalists does not implicate the entire muslim world.
--------------------
Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing [Re: Phred]
#5604448 - 05/08/06 10:20 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I find that most liberals do not fall into the category of person described in the article. It seems to me that most liberal that post here are not stuck on hating their country, but want to see their country improve. While there obviously are people who fall into the former category, I don't believe that it is anywhere near the majority.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist



Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,587
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing [Re: Silversoul]
#5606303 - 05/08/06 07:34 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: Which "Jihadis" started the Iraq War?
Osama Bin Laden Saddam Hussein Ronald Reagan George Bush Sr. George Bush Jr. Donald Rumsfeld Dick Cheney The French The Russians The Americans Chickenhawks Zealots
They can all be lumped together as "Jihadist Crusaders".
-------------------- Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ (•_•) <) )~ ANTIFA / \ \(•_•) ( (> SUPER / \ (•_•) <) )> SOLDIERS / \
|
EquilibriuM
dream stalker

Registered: 07/17/05
Posts: 2,323
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: On the Exquisite Decadence of Self-Loathing [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#5606496 - 05/08/06 08:30 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Baby_Hitler said:
Quote:
Silversoul said: Which "Jihadis" started the Iraq War?
Osama Bin Laden Saddam Hussein Ronald Reagan George Bush Sr. George Bush Jr. Donald Rumsfeld Dick Cheney The French The Russians The Americans Chickenhawks Zealots
They can all be lumped together as "Jihadist Crusaders".
-------------------- HELP!!!!!!!!!
|
|