|
U-Know! Forum » January drudion & I've had it with the Drude's xenophobic insinuations |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Bonzo the Cat 138 posts |
Edited Jan 06, 2008, 23:15
Jan 06, 2008, 21:19
|
||
|
Look, I think His Yatesburyness has a clear head on his shoulders and, without personally knowing him, suspect he is in many ways one of the more righteous dudes, certainly drudes, around. And for one, I think I can safely conclude the man's *not* a racist. Which is exactly why his constant racist insinuations begin to get on my nerves. It's almost worse to hear racist crap from a non-racist than from a racist. But let me try to explain. I don't have the energy to go through all the other drudions illustrating my point, but take for instance January's. I fully support his horror at the whole child bride issue and his constant use of such examples to illustrate that indeed, still, "woman is the nigger of this world" - a fact for which one can find ample evidence simply by watching commercials, if I may add. One cannot be enough in favour of women's rights. *Any* person's rights for that matter, don't care if it has tits. Now, read this: "No indeed, this reprobate is smiling because his is the kind of society where girls of primary school age can be taken as wives, to be sexually assaulted again and again, totally legally and without dishonour to this bigamist." First of all, it *is* illegal in Afganistan to marry anyone under 16, so who's responsible for making it so, We The Great West? Our Western Values? That's running in circles. True, you talk about "society", so if I give the drude's often dumb rants the benefit of doubt (considering his, like mine, extreme anti-religious-order-ness, which is always a good point of view), I could kind of fill this in as "the religion-inspired Taliban-tradition". But the point is, he doesn't explicitly fill it in like this and I think he does that on purpose. It is exactly the "this kind of society" where he goes horribly, etnocentrically, and xenofobically wrong. Because what it actually suggests, in the context of other drudions is: "This is the type of shit that really shows how completely backward islamic culture is and until all those pijama people mend their ways and adopt our fantastic western culture, they deserve to be hung by the nuts." There's a lot of assumptions about the drude in that pseudo-quote, so again let me elaborate by making 3 points and then shut up: 1) Yes, I know about the lack of humanist individual rights-centered revolution in many non-western cultures, and I realise that often this is a core difference. Recently it's been a very fashionable often adopted crucially non-politically correct argument amongst intellectuals. But what disturbs me is that El Drudio always kind of ends up suggesting that ours is the only way one can *ever* reach respect for individual rights. Preferably, it would help if you live at this latitude and somewhere worshipped a goddess. Apart from the utter blindness for the massive disregard for individual rights in our society (the illusion of rights doesn't mean you have them, and what about our regard for the third world individual's rights?), nor for the negative consequences of this individual-cult, what strikes me the most is his *utter* etnocentric point of view. I will bet my left testicle that the drude's knowledge about different cultures and the difference between their power systems on one hand and the people's mindsets on the other is mainly gotten from forums, readings and discussions that are all looking at any problem from his own western point-of-view. Nothing wrong with that, but his etnocentrism weakens his argument. I guess he's never been much of a philosopher anyway, but that's no excuse. I mean, fuck drude, haven't you *ever* heard of the influence of economic instability on people and societies' fundamentalist reflexes? And may I point out that much of the economically instable countries are that way (and kept) by our Friendly Latitude Humanist Revolution Respect For The Individual Great West? That's no excuse for their behaviour, but still - are you simple drude? 2) Almost *always* he aims his arrows at islam. Yes, I know he sometimes makes the point explicit by mentioning women-unfriendly societies and violations of human rights in general. Cool. But still. "Islam sucks ass" is his main message. Do you really think that women are so much better off in non-islamic cultures? Do you think that women would have gotten anywhere in our humanist revolution if this revolution hadn't been driven by an economic growth that stayed in the west for several centuries? Islam has a high visibility at this moment, but again, focusing on them, combined with his need to go against he politically correct "embrace all cultures"-wave kind of blurs the drude's vision. Related to the above point, he simply does not see any redeeming possibility in the middle eastern and islamic culture as a whole. True, as long as religion is involved with anything state-wise apart from actualy church-going, we have a Wrong. But that does not have to be the case per se. Better economy, the idea that you're getting somewhere and have something else to be proud of other than a 1500 year dead prophet may do wonders. Related to the following point, "this kind of society" kind of makes it clear that the whole thing sucks. So to the next issue... 3) The essence of my point: he generalises. Now, I have the same reflex at times when I learn yet again an abhorring fact like the child-marriages. Almost everyone has that reflex. Generalisation is one of our more essential cognitive and social processes. You imediately attribute negative actions of a any set of outgroup individuals to the superordinate outgroup. When your judgement does the same, this is called racism. Congratulations Drude, you've actually managed to deploy the same degree of insight as the US demonstrate when waging a war on any point in the axis-of-evil (the axis being a concept which the drude seemingly has wholeheartedly embraced, whith a few nuaces). The point being that, apart from not being aware that in Afghanistan marrying an 11 year-old is officially as illegal as it is here, the drude suggests by his "this kind of society" that no islamic person will be against child brides. All those beardos in pijamas are paedophiles. Pijama paedophiles, what a title! - a song about it Jules, now! Shock value 11 out of 10 and you can always cover your racist generalisation up with some statement about women rights and chit chat about how your tower bows humbly to the goddess. It remains a xenophobic over-generalisation. And then I'm not even criticising his use of emo-politics, like imagining the life of the girl, the humiliations, etc. Why not put on a maximum emo-impact pic of a torn hymen? Anyway, without emo we'd all end up fascist swine, so nothing principal against that. Still, it weakens his point. Now, I refuse to believe that a righteous dude as the drude is, can be anywhere near racist. Unfortunately, this leaves me with only two conclusions: (a) the least bad, that he is simply too dumb to grasp the complexities underlying the issues he rants about - which I find as hard to believe as his being racist; or (b) the worst, that he knows he's being less subtle than he could, but that he either thinks he makes a better point by using sloganesque rhetoric or simply believes it sounds way more rock 'n' roll, odinist or whatever to really go bashing against a culture as a whole. Well, no Jules, it just sounds dumbass, especially from you. Crucify me for it, but just as being rock n roll has never been an excuse for misogyny, it has never been an excuse for being xenophobic. Furthemore, as I suspect he's got the brain, and I know he's got the platform, and furthermore he seems to see His Course as A Mission To Bring Us Some Real Head-On Motherfuckerness, I think he should quit this dovetailing close to racism and try to make a subtle point. Skip the sideways and head straight for it for once. Arf! I'll edit a small PS here: the fact that Le Drude works with different measures for his in- than for the outgroup is nicely illustrated by his condemning Blair in this same drudion, specifically stressing that Blair does *not* represent the whole of Britain or the West. Well, I can imagine islamic people going apeshit over the picture in the same way, as they want to stress that this pijama pedophile does not represent them as a group. True, one of the issues in the islam-crisis is exactly the lack of strongly voiced opinions against ilsamic fundametalism from the islamic side, though I am equally convinced that this has a lot to do with media focusing on the negative issues. I mean, would a picture of a perfectly balanced islamic country inhabitant who condemns and fights fundamentalism and misuse of power/religion make a cool picture? No. But I disgress. The point is, this nuance in the ingroup, which he completely fails to see (or at least doesn't show it) in the outgroup, is a typical psychological process, which is analogous to "infrahumanisation", i.e. seeing outgroup people as having less subtle emotions as you or your ingroup members. Cope is on a dangerous slope. |
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Jan 06, 2008, 22:37
|
||
Is Julian turning into the Feathered Serpent? I hope not...
|
|||
dodge one 1242 posts |
Edited Jan 06, 2008, 23:50
Jan 06, 2008, 23:46
|
||
Do you stand for anything? Or do you only stand against those willing to take a stand. I think that Julian was only making an individual point in this matter. What comments could you safely make regarding children being taken as unwilling victims of a society unwilling to see any other viewpoint, unless seen through outdated antiquity? It would be an atrocity to witness such violation of children in "ANY" society. Lighten-up! P.S. : Not for nothing, I think the fact that the Photograph itself is a UNICEF photo of the year speaks volumes.
|
|||
|
mole 210 posts |
Jan 07, 2008, 07:44
|
||
|
There's a witch hunt coming, screaming out on it's rebirth There's a crusade coming, Hellfires back here on earth See the light in their eyes shine, listen to their words like swords The Christian militia is marching now There's a witch hunt coming, born out of all the American fears There's a new purge coming, an inquisition for all of us here Hold onto your sanity as best you can While some Hitler claims to speak for the Son of Man The Christian militia is marching now Hatred makes the adrenaline flow Stir up the fire watch it grow Everybody loves a righteous cause Old lives forgotten in holy wars Everything forgotten in holy wars There's a nightmare coming, shut up your doors close your mind There's a nightmare coming - Born Again, born again blind The girls show the way, then show us their legs With American showbiz razzmatazz With sex in one hand and a gun in the other, Christ returns The right-wing respectable clampdown clan Find their figure head in a holy man Here come the Christians an hysterical mob Worshipping the Devil in the name of God Worshipping the Devil in the name of God
|
|||
|
mole 210 posts |
Jan 07, 2008, 07:53
|
||
|
Julian you were born in the west and have been conditioned by the west You are in no position to condem or criticise the middle east for their culture or way of life however extreme it may appear to you. You are becoming blinkered and no better than th christian missionarys who sorgt to destroy the heathen and pagen relgions of our ancestrial past You have been indoctrinated by 50 years of living in the west. Who are we (you) to condem somthing, just because it is not accepted in the west or beccause you do not understand it. What is right and what is wrong? It depends which side of the fence you are on. I like your Odinist approach to life and your analysis of earth energys and mother earth but quite frankly I think your attack on cultures that are differnt to yours quite narrow and even contradictory to your past teachings
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 07, 2008, 08:28
|
||
|
What is right and what is wrong? It depends which side of the fence you are on. Oooh, now you've really got me confused. Sounds like there is no such thing as wrong and anyone who hazards an opinion to the contrary is small-minded and unjustly riding roughshod over the rights of another to see it differently. Is there no such thing as a heinous crime then? An intelligent computer might see it that way, or a Martian, but not human beings, surely? We're not wired that way. Some things ARE wrong in human terms and they aren't rendered so by Western brainwashing, they've always been wrong whether the culture in which they occur recognises them as wrong or not. They're actually easy to define - they always involve a victim for whom those outside that culture feel compassion.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 07, 2008, 09:08
|
||
|
PS, I think what I'm trying to say is that culture doesn't define wrongness, humanity does, and criticism of certain things isn't cultural imperialism it's an affirmation of something far more profound than mere cultural attitudes. Defending those things on the grounds that critics of them are merely displaying Western bias is a cop-out.
|
|||
|
Bonzo the Cat 138 posts |
Jan 07, 2008, 09:52
|
||
|
This is the classic argument against anyone trying to avoid slogans: dodge one wrote: Do you stand for anything? Yes, I stand, just like the drude, for a battle against religion or any other system used as a tool for suppression of individual rights by a select group of power hungry (though that group is probably larger than you think). What I shall never do however, is vaguely condemn a society or make insinuations of a general kind which tend to focus on the general culture of the people involved, rather than on the act, which does rarely *result* automatically from the culture. Child marriage does not "rusult from islam", just as women's circumcision does not "result from islam" - which is however the general tenure in many of Cope's drudions. And, as I said, it not only weakens his argument, but immediately puts a stamp on any member of that society. Now I know, we all know Cope is a goody. We all know we're on the left, ey? But does that mean we can throw our own principles overboard? Arf!
|
|||
|
Bonzo the Cat 138 posts |
Edited Jan 10, 2008, 09:59
Jan 07, 2008, 10:04
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: What is right and what is wrong? It depends which side of the fence you are on. Oooh, now you've really got me confused. Sounds like there is no such thing as wrong and anyone who hazards an opinion to the contrary is small-minded and unjustly riding roughshod over the rights of another to see it differently. Is there no such thing as a heinous crime then? An intelligent computer might see it that way, or a Martian, but not human beings, surely? We're not wired that way. Some things ARE wrong in human terms and they aren't rendered so by Western brainwashing, they've always been wrong whether the culture in which they occur recognises them as wrong or not. They're actually easy to define - they always involve a victim for whom those outside that culture feel compassion. Absolutely right, nigelswift. Just as one should not condemn a culture for the number of power hungry man that misuse some of its concepts, one should not automatically have any respect for every part of another culture. First of all, it may just not be part of that culture but just an instrument of power, second not everything that is old is automatically "wisdom". It's like trying to sell futon matresses by claiming people have used it for thousands of years. Well, we've used caves for thousands of years - tradition isn't always right. I'm thinking about for instance woman's circumcision, specifically clitoridectomy or whassitcalled. Blindly embracing a culture and all of it's aspects is just the other side of generalisation. The crux is that generalisation is the point at which one refuses to think things through. I'll put it simply: "do what you will, lest ye harm no one" - and anything that willingly infringes on this principle and anyone who puts other individual's choices and lives to use for solely his or her own benefit *is* wrong. This said, part of this is an entirely western point of view. If you could save the lives of millions by killing 10000, would you do it? West says no, but East might think otherwise, and it all depends on whether you want every individual to survive, or whether you want the "tribe" to survive. Both West and East agree on one thing though: no one shall put others to use for his or her *individual* needs. This is a general cultural tool (the most powerful "meme") that goes directly against survival of the fittest of the individual gene and allows us to build societies allowing for memes to survive. Only, the West sees this from the side of the individual and thus concludes that no one can do anything to anyone else, whereas the East sees it more from a society viewpoint, meaning that the individual, while not subject to other individuals, is subject to the society. Unfortunately, this leaves the road open for misuse of power (Taoism and Confucianism were basically ways of doing this). Nevertheless, what the fuck does it matter all this theorising, as each of both West and East cultures completely chokes on misuse of power and does not live by its principles at all. What I'm saying is that, while there's some truth in theoretical discussions, it's a dangerous path as with theory you can prove anything. Therefor I say, don't condemn the whole on any a priori grounds, but look at ways of making each society live according to maximalisation of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Anyway, the point being it's a difficult discussion and nor blindly accepting nor blindly condemning a society or culture will get us anywhere. It's about changing *behaviour*, not cultures. Arf!
|
|||
|
Bonzo the Cat 138 posts |
Jan 07, 2008, 10:20
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: PS, I think what I'm trying to say is that culture doesn't define wrongness, humanity does, and criticism of certain things isn't cultural imperialism it's an affirmation of something far more profound than mere cultural attitudes. Defending those things on the grounds that critics of them are merely displaying Western bias is a cop-out. Nail on the head, dr swift!
|
| Pages: 7 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
