Aristocracy & Censorship

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

meh, it's not that hard. Staging and taking the photographs is itself a criminal act, so circulating them whether or not you took them makes you an accessory to the crime.

Unless of course you're trying to gather evidence of a crime without actually participating in it or enabling it. (A photographer catching someone in the act of this or another crime for example.)

In other words, it doesn't even have to be a matter of censorship in that case. A serial killer's photographer complicit in the acts while not reporting the crimes likewise would be an accessory to the murders. A reporter on the other hand is not unless they hide the identity of the criminal from the police. So while people generally see crimes as bad heh, certain material can be stopped from being put into circulation because of its ties with a crime rather than it being a matter of censorship (whether certain material can be published when gathered by a reporter etc however would fall into the censorship or not camp and is a more complex matter, but in the case of child porn these could not be published at all since the victim is a minor and cannot give consent.)

---

yes I agree, stopping child porn has little to do with censorship ultimately

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

No more than you are telling white men that they are helpless children due to affirmative action.

---

My position is that nobody can be presumed a victim of inequality, as each individual will have a different story in life. If that is also your position, you cannot logically consider all women and non-whites to be oppressed, yet that is what you implied earlier. Such an assumption also seems rather patronising to me, almost as if you assume that these people can't succeed on their own.

I only seek to advance and achieve within the society I belong to. I don't seek to change the nature of the society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Flip time:
What does that mean? It means you can do whatever you want (as long as it doesn't offend another, ahem, "white male victim"). All restrictions on upon white male behavior are oppressive. White males are special little snowflakes! So fuck your equality rules.

---

Equality isn't a rule, it's an ideal. Do not confuse the two.

I agree that restraints (or better put, laws) are necessary to ensure that a society functions. But these laws need to be objective, applied across the board, and there must be a presumption of innocence and not of guilt. A disparity between men and women, or whites and non-whites, is not in and of itself proof of discrimination - this could only be the case if everyone was born with equal potential, and we both know that this isn't true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuivienen

My position is that nobody can be presumed a victim of inequality, as each individual will have a different story in life. If that is also your position, you cannot logically consider all women and non-whites to be oppressed, yet that is what you implied earlier. Such an assumption also seems rather patronising to me, almost as if you assume that these people can't succeed on their own.

I only seek to advance and achieve within the society I belong to. I don't seek to change the nature of the society.



Equality isn't a rule, it's an ideal. Do not confuse the two.

I agree that restraints (or better put, laws) are necessary to ensure that a society functions. But these laws need to be objective, applied across the board, and there must be a presumption of innocence and not of guilt. A disparity between men and women, or whites and non-whites, is not in and of itself proof of discrimination - this could only be the case if everyone was born with equal potential, and we both know that this isn't true.

---

Sweet, so you don't really have a problem with affirmative action, but were just using it as an example. I can understand that.
I don't believe white men are victims who can't succeed with affirmative action in place, either. I'm glad we were able to find a common ground.


It's also nice to know that you don't seek to change the nature of society and accept that it's a natural part of human nature to try to influence/change their world to suit their ideals, including censoring that which they are offended by or believe is harmful. It's useless to label that part of human nature as a good or bad thing, it just is, and what we're given to work with. I'd rather seek win-win solutions, but alas, some people just want to get their own way without regard to the others in their society...and some have way more Will/Energy to try pushing it through than I ever could. I'd make a lousy SJW, (too e6, :lol: ).

Anyways, I still highly recommend Haidt's 5 moral foundations. Understanding those helps one understand some of the underlying factors involved in differing sides of moral/ethical and even political stances. Way more fascinating than socionics and quadra values and their erred stereotypes.

Have a good night. :D

Im curious as to what anndelise's actual position is, because it sounds like they're simply saying all values are relative to the individual and there's no way to choose between them thus pro/con censorship are equally meritorious. interestingly they also seem to argue a pro affirmative action stance, on similar grounds. the weirdness for me comes in when it seems to be something like "demonstrably good arguments pro a position I don't like are leveled by my relativism" and "demonstrably bad arguments for my position are brought up by my relativism" in other words, relativism makes good arguments no better than bad ones when I disapprove of them, and elevates bad arguments to being just as good as better ones, when I approve of the bad ones, because its all relative. it seems to be essentially begging the question that all opinions are equally (un)informed and (un)meritorious (except mine), which seems to be self evidently false. it speaks of win-wins, as if such a thing is cognizable in light of "human nature" being defined as an absolutely relative perspective. it seems to be confused, because you can't call your position the pursuit of "win-wins" which are just a linguistic construction that purports itself to rise above what was previously defined as being absolutely incapable of transcendence. its like saying the goal is for human beings to overcome their subjectivity, which is what a win-win would actually be. its like duh, but you have to presuppose that such a thing is possible. if you define it up front as impossible then make it the goal you're being ridiculous, especially if you say that goal is what you're exclusively pursuing and that's what elevates you over the competition. its like, no, that's what everyone is pursuing you've simply linguistically categorized them out and excepted yourself on the basis of nothing but pure assertion. its all just a trick of language with no underlying substance

its essentially saying what most IEE's say "I am solely able to discern the truth of any position and reserve the right to do so as mine alone" which is a ridiculous position and not one to be taken seriously, because you might as well just walk into the room and announce "I am God" at least Hamlet has the decency to admit his reliance on faith and openly acknowledge his recourse to force when he genuinely believes its required

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Sweet, so you don't really have a problem with affirmative action, but were just using it as an example. I can understand that.
I don't believe white men are victims who can't succeed with affirmative action in place, either. I'm glad we were able to find a common ground.


It's also nice to know that you don't seek to change the nature of society and accept that it's a natural part of human nature to try to influence/change their world to suit their ideals, including censoring that which they are offended by or believe is harmful. It's useless to label that part of human nature as a good or bad thing, it just is, and what we're given to work with. I'd rather seek win-win solutions, but alas, some people just want to get their own way without regard to the others in their society...and some have way more Will/Energy to try pushing it through than I ever could. I'd make a lousy SJW, (too e6, :lol: ).

Anyways, I still highly recommend Haidt's 5 moral foundations. Understanding those helps one understand some of the underlying factors involved in differing sides of moral/ethical and even political stances. Way more fascinating than socionics and quadra values and their erred stereotypes.

Have a good night. :D

---

So, what we have here is a little manipulative behavior on the part of @anndelise. In case it isn't obvious to everyone, I thought I'd drop a post to show people what's going on here.

What Anndelise is doing here is embedding commands (Neurolinguistic Programming term) within grammatical structures that could be seen as statements rather than commands. One way of doing this in text is to use certain words to set off or delimit the command from the other parts of the content. In the first example, she is using "so", "really," and "but" to off-set the command "don't have a problem with affirmative action."

In the second example, Anndelise is embedding the command, "don't seek to change the nature of society and accept ... censoring" by prefixing it with the statement, "It's also nice to know that."

What Anndelise is doing here is trying to influence her audience to accept her propositions subconsciously and without resistance, without bothering to try to prove the logical validity of what she is saying, or without trying to provide rational justification for the value or merit of her claims. Because this behavior is recognizably underhanded, deceitful, and manipulative, I'm calling it out here and now in front of everyone and condemning it.

If anyone wants any more information on what embedded commands are, or how they work, just PM me or feel free to Google the terms "embedded commands NLP." That should provide you with all the information you need. See there? I just used an embedded command. Have fun discovering misleading rhetoric wherever it may lie. (...Was that another one? Gee...)

P.S. She's also using words like "sweet" and "nice" to influence her readers. Does she want you to think she's sweet and nice? Or does she want you to be sweet and nice, according to what she finds to be sweet and nice? There are other parts of her post that one could deconstruct and show to be rhetorical, but I'll leave that to others to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Sweet, so you don't really have a problem with affirmative action, but were just using it as an example

---

I disapprove of redistributive policies that take from one group and give to another, as they punish people for talent and hard work. Affirmative action is just one example of that. My critique here is therefore not so much of AA specifically, but of the ideology that has led to AA and other social programs like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

I can understand that.

I don't believe white men are victims who can't succeed with affirmative action in place, either. I'm glad we were able to find a common ground.

---

The point is that you do not expect non-white men (at least, black and Latino men) to be as talented as white men, and this implies two things to me:

(1.) That you do actually recognize that race has some correlation to mental capacity, and therefore, the science aside,
(2.) You are a racist by your own definition of racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuivienen

I only seek to advance and achieve within the society I belong to. I don't seek to change the nature of the society.



Equality isn't a rule, it's an ideal. Do not confuse the two.

I agree that restraints (or better put, laws) are necessary to ensure that a society functions. But these laws need to be objective, applied across the board, and there must be a presumption of innocence and not of guilt. A disparity between men and women, or whites and non-whites, is not in and of itself proof of discrimination - this could only be the case if everyone was born with equal potential, and we both know that this isn't true.

---

The fallacy of objectivity coincides with the political ideology of rationalising social structures that used to be present as innate, just, and unchangeable.

During the christendom of Europe, the idea was popular that "grace" determined everyone's place in society and that was an immutable part of nature.

The most fascinating thing is that the ideology given by which ever dominant ruler has a political partiality used to justify and maintain which ever given structure is present.

Back to Christendom Europe the idea than royalty and the nobility were graced and immutable, was ordained as unquestionable fact. The grinding poverty of the serfs was genetic actualisation and nobody had the freedom to think contrarily.

Ideology is used to maintain political power structures. Despite the flawed rational easily exposed under critical thinking - especially when one has been exposed to Khaneman's Thinking fast and slow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni8kL5TTRtAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni8kL5TTRtA

its funny because its precisely the claims enumerated in that youtube that now make up the canon of post modern idealogy that exists mainly to maintain power by the career academics in the social sciences

not only that but Jung enumerated precisely how Christ stands for something more than a kingdom on earth but as a symbol for the human psychological endeavor of unification, which is the only mechanism I know of that describes the process of transcending the power dynamic and progressing human understanding rather than stultifying it in one corrupt ideology after the next. it describes the actual process of psychological transcendence rather than simply the historical enumeration of the never ending chain of one self serving political ideology after the next, which has given rise to its contemporary instantiation of an ideology of pure cynicism which is what Lewontin promulgates above

he's also dated because the claims he denigrates with his tone in enumerating have been shown to be true in many cases. that personality measurement has shown substantial differences in the sexes which give rise to much of the choices we see various groups make, not because they can't do this or that, but because they simply don't want to. that is in fact the basis of much of socionics that people work most efficiently in different areas based on personality and that personality is not evenly distributed. he talks as if biological differences between sex are myths imagined in order to maintain oppressive gender roles that only serve to benefit the people that hold onto power they haven't earned, except via trickery, but you look at progressive countries like sweden and you see that every effort to erase biological differences has only accentuated the real differences in practice. in other words, by isolating out the prejudicial societal structures they've isolated the real differences between the sexes in a way that proves the opposite of what they set out assuming such societal policies would accomplish. in other words, Jung was right--there exists a psychic counterstroke to every environmental provocation. to do away with gender roles just provokes an increased manifestation of them. you see this in the allyship between radical leftists and islam

what people fundamentally seek to right is the unethical exploitation of those too weak to resist across certain levels. but what they fail to understand is that the human psyche has a built in balancing mechanism which is that for as weak as ethics seems in light of sensing/logic, it still comes as a master in its own domain. thus there is a certain unmerited paternalism to trying to save the "weak" from themselves, by bringing low the "strong" when the two have always maintained a sort of equilibrium. the fact that things were worse in the past than today does not mean that the dynamic has failed, but simply that it progresses in time. that it does so is to its credit, not reason to abolish it. that is the mistake of those that believe utopia is in principle something we can set up today and be done, rather than an ongoing process via which every individual member must participate in; in other words, to take up their cross. it is a message of existential burden so it is tempting to want to dispense with it and send out all the blame with the patriarchy or whatever contemporary boogeyman manifests itself, but it simply gives rise to greater atrocity because it fails to deal with existence on its own terms. by refusing to acknowledge the human condition in a way that implicates individual duty and process, they only manage to make things worse via a scheme that allows evil in the backdoor as it attempts to jump the process and skip to the heavenly state via some kind of word game its perpetrated on itself. in other words, the most pernicious form of ideology is the one that lacks awareness of the role the intellect has in deceiving itself, which is why it tends to dissolve into Marxist forms of reasoning about the world with predictable results.

you might say it reverts to the very first sin, which is that of pride in assuming that the answer has simply eluded all prior generations but this time we've got a handle on things. the bottom line is we're living out the same mythological narratives every generation does, only the names have changed. post modernism does in some sense grapple with this same underlying truth, but like most ideologies it seems to have taken on a life of its own where people have lost sight of the evil to be cured, and allowed the message to be subsumed into the illness rather than cure it, which is to say most people advocating post modernist takes on power dynamics don't really understand that it was in response to totalizing modernist narratives responsible which in their hubris set the world on fire. now the stage is set to repeat the mistakes of the past where the words have changed but the underlying human reality is the same its always been. only something like a religious experience can transform the hearts of people in such a way as to lift themselves up out of this all-too-human dynamic, which is why the message of pomo is so pernicious because it denies in principle the truth of those forms of understanding as nothing more than precisely what pomo has succumbed to, which is just a stultification of man's worse nature enshrined in language via a corrupt ideology passed down by societal structures, aka the educational system, in order to perpetuate the privileges its become accustomed to. adorno would be rolling in his grave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

Im curious as to what anndelise's actual position is, because it sounds like they're simply saying all values are relative to the individual and there's no way to choose between them thus pro/con censorship are equally meritorious. interestingly they also seem to argue a pro affirmative action stance, on similar grounds. the weirdness for me comes in when it seems to be something like "demonstrably good arguments pro a position I don't like are leveled by my relativism" and "demonstrably bad arguments for my position are brought up by my relativism" in other words, relativism makes good arguments no better than bad ones when I disapprove of them, and elevates bad arguments to being just as good as better ones, when I approve of the bad ones, because its all relative. it seems to be essentially begging the question that all opinions are equally (un)informed and (un)meritorious (except mine), which seems to be self evidently false. it speaks of win-wins, as if such a thing is cognizable in light of "human nature" being defined as an absolutely relative perspective. it seems to be confused, because you can't call your position the pursuit of "win-wins" which are just a linguistic construction that purports itself to rise above what was previously defined as being absolutely incapable of transcendence. its like saying the goal is for human beings to overcome their subjectivity, which is what a win-win would actually be. its like duh, but you have to presuppose that such a thing is possible. if you define it up front as impossible then make it the goal you're being ridiculous, especially if you say that goal is what you're exclusively pursuing and that's what elevates you over the competition. its like, no, that's what everyone is pursuing you've simply linguistically categorized them out and excepted yourself on the basis of nothing but pure assertion. its all just a trick of language with no underlying substance

its essentially saying what most IEE's say "I am solely able to discern the truth of any position and reserve the right to do so as mine alone" which is a ridiculous position and not one to be taken seriously, because you might as well just walk into the room and announce "I am God" at least Hamlet has the decency to admit his reliance on faith and openly acknowledge his recourse to force when he genuinely believes its required

---

It's much simpler than all that.

Regarding my 'actual position'.

First
To answer that, refer back to this post: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1242618

 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Censorship is the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive" and/or harmful.
Everyone has their own ideas about what would be considered "offensive" and/or harmful.*
Censorship happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others.

Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as by private pressure groups.*
Censorship by the government is unconstitutional (although pressure groups often attempt to use the government to impose their political/moral values on others).

Two fundamental principles come into play whenever a court must decide a case involving freedom of expression.
1) "content neutrality" - the government cannot limit expression just because any listener, or even the majority of a community, is offended by its content.
2) expression may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest. Even then, the speech may be silenced or punished ONLY IF there is not other way to avert the harm. ((so, one major solution to "PC culture" is to provide other ways to avert harm to others.))


It's not just PC culture, though. We see censorship of words, images, or ideas even in "anti-PC cultures", such as a bakery's refusal to use same sex figurines on a wedding cake, or put two same-gendered names on the wedding cake. We see it in religious groups attempting to get the government to censor same sex marriage by making it illegal, even if it means blocking the freedom of other religions to marry same sex couples. Why? because the IDEA of same sex marriage is offensive to these particular pressure groups. (IDEAS lead to ACTIONS) But these same anti-gay pressure groups accuse their criticizers of being wrongfully PC. So we have*two*opposing pressure groups, with opposing IDEAS regarding whether the IDEA of same-sex couples are offensive or harmful; each attempting to censor words, images, ideas (and thus actions) that they consider "offensive" and/or harmful, and both attempting to use the government to enforce their IDEAS.


Basically, in matters of censorship conflicts, there's at least TWO (or more) sides with opposing IDEAS of what is offensive/harmful.*

---

Pasted from <http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/55305-Aristocracy-amp-Censorship?p=1242618&viewfull=1#post1242618>

and this post: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1242645

 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Regardless of idealized utopian worlds, as long as humans are capable of*
a)having emotions and ideas,*
b) imagining a world different than the one they live in,*
c) autonomy of action,*
d) communicating with each other,*
and/or e) forming groups,*
there will always be attempts to censor what someone thinks is offensive/harmful.



(edited, I recommend reading up on Haidt's 5 moral foundations for a broader view of what all you're dealing with regarding what types of things can be regarded as offensive/harmful and thus at risk of censoring attempts)

---

Pasted from <http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/55305-Aristocracy-amp-Censorship?p=1242618&viewfull=1#post1242618>

Second:
As long as humans fit the criteria of the 'other post' here, there will ALWAYS be attempts to censor what someone thinks is offensive/harmful. Humanity will never get away from that. We evolved by changing our environment, creating tools to do so, as well as forming groups to aide our efforts to change our environments. It's one of the reasons our brains and our social structures developed the way that they did. (Note: Environments include our society and its rules. ) If we didn't cooperate within our family, or within our tribe, or intratribal cooperation, etc, we wouldn't have evolved as far as we did. Not mentally/psychologically, and not socially either.

This concept isn't complex, nor radical.
So to argue that people shouldn't try to change their society's rules, or shouldn't try to prevent harm to other members of our society, is a useless argument, cuz stopping it will never happen. (maybe if you do the ultimate form of world-wide dominance oppression of speech)

That doesn't mean it's a good thing to do, nor does it mean that it's a bad thing to do. It just ..IS.


Third:
There are 5 commonly referred to "conflict styles":
• Competitive - "I win, you lose"; High Assertive, Low Cooperative
• Accommodating - "You win, I lose"; Low Assertive, High Cooperative
• Avoiding - "I lose, you lose"; Low Assertive, Low Cooperative
• Collaborate - "I win, you win"; High Assertive, High Cooperative
• Compromise - "I win/lose some, you win/lose some" Med Assertive, Med Cooperative

When people push for their ideal to be more dominant in their society, the more assertive conflict styles are typically used: Competitive, Collaborative, or Compromise.

Supposedly we are intelligent beings. My hope…my Ideal…is that eventually humans will put that intelligence to work to create win-wins for the members of their society. (I don't actually expect it will happen in my lifetime, but it doesn't hurt to put the thought out there that maybe we eventually can.)

So basically, since censorship is going to happen anyways (and, no, not just by SJWs, but a variety of religious, political, etc groups), then why not use our intelligences to work together to find a solution that everyone can be happy with, or if not happy, then at least not feeling oppressed by? (iow, take the Collaborative route, and if that can't come to a mutual agreement then at least Compromising route.) (Note: those are the two that are cooperative+assertive styles, hence why chosen. If the competitive style is chosen, then you're risking making things worse up to and including rebellion/civil war.)


Fourth:
So, how can we do that? First, by understanding the morals that are being triggered.
This means working towards understanding the other side's pov. Not projecting some bullshit crap onto them. But honestly trying to see things as if you were them, with their experiences, their beliefs, their sense of morals.


Haidt has 5 moral foundations +1.
• Care/Harm - related to how we treat those who are vulnerable (originally triggered by signs of neoteny)
• Fairness/Cheating - related to reciprocity
• Loyalty/Betrayal - refers to who we consider to be a member of our 'tribe'
• Authority/Subversive
• Purity (or Sanctity)/Degradation - related to 'disgust' and protecting ourselves from diseases/parasites
• +1 might be Liberty/Coercion - people want autonomy without coercion

Every person, regardless of socionics type has moral triggers. Some people's Care is triggered easier than others, and those who aren't triggered so easily are more willing to do/allow Harm. Some people's sense of Fairness is higher than others, while others are more willing to deceive/cheat. Some people's tribes are limited to their immediate surroundings, some include their online tribe, and some encompass the world as being part of their tribe. Some people think gay people are a degradation of the purity of God's creation, some people think GMOs are degradations of our food sources. Liberty for some might come by limiting autonomy for others, or worse, coercion.

Just because I have my own personal levels in each of these, that doesn't necessarily mean that my levels are objectively good/right. It just means that when I interact with someone else, I'm interacting with someone who has differing moral values/levels than my own. If these are in conflict, then we'll resort to one or more of the Conflict Styles I listed above. I'm not much of an assertive person, so my style typically is Avoiding or Accommodating, with every once in a while me finding the oomph to make a stand for something I strongly believe in. Since I tend to look at things from multiple perspectives (holographic-panoramic), my assertiveness doesn't get triggered very easily. Frankly, I'm just way more comfortable tossing ideas back and forth and looking at them from different perspectives. (Which is what I was initially doing in this thread.)

Unfortunately, I do often find myself trying to push another person into considering differing perspectives as well. I'm not debating, I’m not arguing, I'm just trying to say "Perhaps consider this as well…" (Which is what I later responded to Cuivienen with, flipping his arguments so he could get a chance to see how his arguments looked from a different perspective.)

Finally:
Do you believe in an objective morality? or do you believe morality is personal?
Do you believe human nature doesn't include the desire/will to change it's physical or social environments?
Do you think people's attempts to censor what they perceive to be offensive/harmful are completely avoidable, that somehow, without coercion/censorship, it would stop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

its funny because its precisely the claims enumerated in that youtube that now make up the canon of post modern idealogy that exists mainly to maintain power by the career academics in the social sciences

not only that but Jung enumerated precisely how Christ stands for something more than a kingdom on earth but as a symbol for the human psychological endeavor of unification, which is the only mechanism I know of that describes the process of transcending the power dynamic and progressing human understanding rather than stultifying it in one corrupt ideology after the next. it describes the actual process of psychological transcendence rather than simply the historical enumeration of the never ending chain of one self serving political ideology after the next, which has given rise to its contemporary instantiation of an ideology of pure cynicism which is what Lewontin promulgates above

he's also dated because the claims he denigrates with his tone in enumerating have been shown to be true in many cases. that personality measurement has shown substantial differences in the sexes which give rise to much of the choices we see various groups make, not because they can't do this or that, but because they simply don't want to. that is in fact the basis of much of socionics that people work most efficiently in different areas based on personality and that personality is not evenly distributed. he talks as if biological differences between sex are myths imagined in order to maintain oppressive gender roles that only serve to benefit the people that hold onto power they haven't earned, except via trickery, but you look at progressive countries like sweden and you see that every effort to erase biological differences has only accentuated the real differences in practice. in other words, by isolating out the prejudicial societal structures they've isolated the real differences between the sexes in a way that proves the opposite of what they set out assuming such societal policies would accomplish. in other words, Jung was right--there exists a psychic counterstroke to every environmental provocation. to do away with gender roles just provokes an increased manifestation of them. you see this in the allyship between radical leftists and islam

what people fundamentally seek to right is the unethical exploitation of those too weak to resist across certain levels. but what they fail to understand is that the human psyche has a built in balancing mechanism which is that for as weak as ethics seems in light of sensing/logic, it still comes as a master in its own domain. thus there is a certain unmerited paternalism to trying to save the "weak" from themselves, by bringing low the "strong" when the two have always maintained a sort of equilibrium. the fact that things were worse in the past than today does not mean that the dynamic has failed, but simply that it progresses in time. that it does so is to its credit, not reason to abolish it. that is the mistake of those that believe utopia is in principle something we can set up today and be done, rather than an ongoing process via which every individual member must participate in; in other words, to take up their cross. it is a message of existential burden so it is tempting to want to dispense with it and send out all the blame with the patriarchy or whatever contemporary boogeyman manifests itself, but it simply gives rise to greater atrocity because it fails to deal with existence on its own terms. by refusing to acknowledge the human condition in a way that implicates individual duty and process, they only manage to make things worse via a scheme that allows evil in the backdoor as it attempts to jump the process and skip to the heavenly state via some kind of word game its perpetrated on itself. in other words, the most pernicious form of ideology is the one that lacks awareness of the role the intellect has in deceiving itself, which is why it tends to dissolve into Marxist forms of reasoning about the world with predictable results.

you might say it reverts to the very first sin, which is that of pride in assuming that the answer has simply eluded all prior generations but this time we've got a handle on things. the bottom line is we're living out the same mythological narratives every generation does, only the names have changed. post modernism does in some sense grapple with this same underlying truth, but like most ideologies it seems to have taken on a life of its own where people have lost sight of the evil to be cured, and allowed the message to be subsumed into the illness rather than cure it, which is to say most people advocating post modernist takes on power dynamics don't really understand that it was in response to totalizing modernist narratives responsible which in their hubris set the world on fire. now the stage is set to repeat the mistakes of the past where the words have changed but the underlying human reality is the same its always been. only something like a religious experience can transform the hearts of people in such a way as to lift themselves up out of this all-too-human dynamic, which is why the message of pomo is so pernicious because it denies in principle the truth of those forms of understanding as nothing more than precisely what pomo has succumbed to, which is just a stultification of man's worse nature enshrined in language via a corrupt ideology passed down by societal structures, aka the educational system, in order to perpetuate the privileges its become accustomed to. adorno would be rolling in his grave

---

Case in point, you prove the cynicism via being entrapped in the ideology you espouse. Assuming we are living in a pure environment without cultural legacies. Iran has numerous women in stem and start ups, additional their perculiar history. (This would be picking and choosing a specific state and running away with it to make it an immutable reality).

One thing I've noticed above all is that people have trouble thinking beyond axiomatic foundations of their worldview. There's a lot of conflation of independent empirical information with banal real data lacking infallible explanation, which falls victim to ideology as it is necessary to fill in the gaps. Subjectivity is presented as fact.

BTW this is true of every ideology and every ideology out there is fighting for social dominance and perception of benevolence. There's dishonest mudslinging everywhere, and infallible answers are illusive unless cognitive blindspots are raised. You prove Lewontin (as he does himself) through noting the fact that Virtually (of not absolutely) every political organisation has a vested interest in protecting it's power structure through ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramas

So, what we have here is a little manipulative behavior on the part of @anndelise. In case it isn't obvious to everyone, I thought I'd drop a post to show people what's going on here.

What Anndelise is doing here is embedding commands (Neurolinguistic Programming term) within grammatical structures that could be seen as statements rather than commands. One way of doing this in text is to use certain words to set off or delimit the command from the other parts of the content. In the first example, she is using "so", "really," and "but" to off-set the command "don't have a problem with affirmative action."

In the second example, Anndelise is embedding the command, "don't seek to change the nature of society and accept ... censoring" by prefixing it with the statement, "It's also nice to know that."

What Anndelise is doing here is trying to influence her audience to accept her propositions subconsciously and without resistance, without bothering to try to prove the logical validity of what she is saying, or without trying to provide rational justification for the value or merit of her claims. Because this behavior is recognizably underhanded, deceitful, and manipulative, I'm calling it out here and now in front of everyone and condemning it.

If anyone wants any more information on what embedded commands are, or how they work, just PM me or feel free to Google the terms "embedded commands NLP." That should provide you with all the information you need. See there? I just used an embedded command. Have fun discovering misleading rhetoric wherever it may lie. (...Was that another one? Gee...)

P.S. She's also using words like "sweet" and "nice" to influence her readers. Does she want you to think she's sweet and nice? Or does she want you to be sweet and nice, according to what she finds to be sweet and nice? There are other parts of her post that one could deconstruct and show to be rhetorical, but I'll leave that to others to do.

---

roflmao
I'm not sure whether or not to feel honored that you think I could be so intentional with all that. :lol:
Occam's Razor: I try to see multiple povs, try to get others to see differing povs, and can be sarcastic. Oooh, so vicious!! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuivienen

I disapprove of redistributive policies that take from one group and give to another, as they punish people for talent and hard work. Affirmative action is just one example of that. My critique here is therefore not so much of AA specifically, but of the ideology that has led to AA and other social programs like it.



The point is that you do not expect non-white men (at least, black and Latino men) to be as talented as white men, and this implies two things to me:

(1.) That you do actually recognize that race has some correlation to mental capacity, and therefore, the science aside,
(2.) You are a racist by your own definition of racism.

---

Another strawman.

My understanding of affirmative action is that it's to help the work force better represent the society it's placed in. So that an area that is say, 40% nonwhite/female would have a workforce that roughly matches that. If a workforce in that area only employed 5% nonwhite/female, then that'd be a sign that some discrimination might be occurring.

USA affirmative action says nothing about being forced to hire untalented otherwise unemployable people. It presumes that nonwhite/females have capabilities needed by the workforce, and thus are just as employable as white men. It says nothing about every person being equal in capabilities/education for every single job that could possibly exist. Arguments saying that's what it means are fallacious.

It also helped distribute education to groups that were otherwise being blocked from education, education that would aide in their employ-ability, and thus help the workforce demographics better match the social demographics of that area. (personally I'd prefer to have well-educated neighbors, but I recognize that not everyone does.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

Case in point, you prove the cynicism via being entrapped in the ideology you espouse. Assuming we are living in a pure environment without cultural legacies. Iran has numerous women in stem and start ups, additional their perculiar history. (This would be picking and choosing a specific state and running away with it to make it an immutable reality).

One thing I've noticed above all is that people have trouble thinking beyond axiomatic foundations of their worldview. There's a lot of conflation of independent empirical information with banal real data lacking infallible explanation, which falls victim to ideology as it is necessary to fill in the gaps. Subjectivity is presented as fact.

BTW this is true of every ideology and every ideology out there is fighting for social dominance and perception of benevolence. There's dishonest mudslinging everywhere, and infallible answers are illusive unless cognitive blindspots are raised. You prove Lewontin (as he does himself) through noting the fact that Virtually (of not absolutely) every political organisation has a vested interest in protecting it's power structure through ideology.

---

your entire point relies on there being women in stem in iran? you haven't even begun to grapple with the issue but you think you can get above it by saying its all subjective. its just silly, you're the equivalent of the guy who never gets off the couch claiming victory over those with jobs because you've deemed them all as slaves to the grind or whatever. its fundamentally grounded in a need to invert the hierarchy you're on the bottom of and subconsciously know it. the claim that everything is subjective is only effective in the mind for the person for whom that is all they have to validate their own view. its predicated on resentment, nothing more

as for me, calling my "ideology" a "trap" doesn't make it so, you would have to demonstrate how it is so beyond simply blanketing all beliefs as ideological and therefore traps. if everything is a trap nothing is. that's whats so fundamentally empty about post modernism, it exists specifically to unwind a very specific subset of modernist beliefs, and like a ladder you utilize and then throw away once you've reached the destination, it is no longer useful. it only maintains its use as a tool for a resentful kind of person that uses it to level others not ascend themselves. this is what transforms it from having been anti ideological at its inception into the positive ideology it is today, it owes its persistence in time to the intractability of resentment as a feature of a significant portion of humanity. even if you were right, it only makes it all the more senseless that you would waste time trying to propagate your views because its an inherently self referentially defeating construct. like anndelise it retains its use as a tool to explode other's points of view but to retain the right to maintain one's own. its fundamentally hypocritical inasmuch as it is used as anything other than the means to humble oneself, which ironically has long since gone out of style

the only redeeming feature to your point of view is that is fundamentally self defeating, because although it may confer some semblance of a moral sense of superiority, inasmuch as it is indeed equivalent to doing nothing and claiming victory it fundamentally extinguishes itself on a long enough timeline, as it will naturally be replaced by modes of thinking with actual use. this is appropriate because it was conceived with planned obsolescence in mind anyway, although that's something that many of its half witted followers fail to understand, mainly because they've read none of the original post modernists themselves and understand nothing of its real purpose and philosophical origins

@anndelise honestly I don't understand your perspective or what you're trying to say beyond "people have differing opinions, therefore all truth value is equivalent"-- you offer this theory that breaks values down into 5 or 6 dichotomies but offer no reason as to why it should be accepted, except that since all opinions are valid it is likewise valid, but it just makes it totally worthless. that's the problem with IEE, if they explode all reasoning and then proceed to offer their own substitute there is literally no reason why we should accept their substitute, and many reasons why we should never accept the base premise it is predicated on. because we simply need not go on that magic carpet ride to begin with; we can just fundamentally retain the initial project of using reasons to discern between better and worse theories. creating a blank slate on the basis that its all a matter of opinion fundamentally undermines whatever follows, fatally. you might get a few autists like soupman to go along with you, which I think perhaps inclusion is your entire goal, so kudos inasmuch as you've managed to bring in someone who would otherwise be fundamentally excluded from seriously contributing, but you have to realize this is precisely why affirmative action is sort of bad, it goes nowhere because you've undermined your own competitive fitness by stacking the court with people who are by definition not best fit to fill the position

if this is honestly the pro censorship group, democracy has a bright future ahead of it--so maybe it really is a win-win

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

your entire point relies on there being women in stem in iran? you haven't even begun to grapple with the issue but you think you can get above it by saying its all subjective. its just silly, you're the equivalent of the guy who never gets off the couch claiming victory over those with jobs because you've deemed them all as slaves to the grind or whatever. its fundamentally grounded in a need to invert the hierarchy you're on the bottom of and subconsciously know it. the claim that everything is subjective is only effective in the mind for the person for whom that is all they have to validate their own view. its predicated on resentment, nothing more

as for me, calling my "ideology" a "trap" doesn't make it so, you would have to demonstrate how it is so beyond simply blanketing all beliefs as ideological and therefore traps. if everything is a trap nothing is. that's whats so fundamentally empty about post modernism, it exists specifically to unwind a very specific subset of modernist beliefs, and like a ladder you utilize and then throw away once you've reached the destination, it is no longer useful. it only maintains its use as a tool for a resentful kind of person that uses it to level others not ascend themselves. this is what transforms it from having been anti ideological at its inception into the positive ideology it is today, it owes its persistence in time to the intractability of resentment as a feature of a significant portion of humanity. even if you were right, it only makes it all the more senseless that you would waste time trying to propagate your views because its an inherently self referentially defeating construct. like anndelise it retains its use as a tool to explode other's points of view but to retain the right to maintain one's own. its fundamentally hypocritical inasmuch as it is used as anything other than the means to humble oneself, which ironically has long since gone out of style

the only redeeming feature to your point of view is that is fundamentally self defeating, because although it may confer some semblance of a moral sense of superiority, inasmuch as it is indeed equivalent to doing nothing and claiming victory it fundamentally extinguishes itself on a long enough timeline, as it will naturally be replaced by modes of thinking with actual use. this is appropriate because it was conceived with planned obsolescence in mind anyway, although that's something that many of its half witted followers fail to understand, mainly because they've read none of the original post modernists themselves and understand nothing of its real purpose and philosophical origins

@anndelise honestly I don't understand your perspective or what you're trying to say beyond that "people have differing opinions, therefore all truth value is equivalent"

---

Have you read "Khaneman's Thinking Fast and Slow"? You had a substitution fallacy by claiming that "if everything is an ideological trap nothing is"?

If your abstractive and analytical capacity can't comprehend that everything is ideology, there's no engagement needed.

Failing to connect the dots and realise ideas are everywhere and they affect the very conception of reality through a bias of expectation - layering the axiomatic perversion (infallibility across space and time is illusive unless one is dishonest).

if you define everything as ideology it just makes the project to determine how and why some ideologies are superior to others, which is what the project has always been (this is precisely why tradition is valuable and can be learned from and built on, not dispensed with). this great insight "of yours" is totally illusory

have you read:

Radical Hermeneutics?
One-Dimensional Man?

Your shitty pop books don't even begin to scratch the surface of the real issue, yet here you are making sweeping claims that everyone who disagrees with you is dishonest. its like, um, not sure who the ignorant idealogue is here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

@anndelise honestly I don't understand your perspective or what you're trying to say beyond "people have differing opinions, therefore all truth value is equivalent"--

---

How about People have differing opinions, who's/what's to say which, if any, opinion should rule over others?

Edited to add: the rest of your comment wasn't worth one finger typing on my kindle. Beyond to say that I don't even know Soupman, certainly didn't call him in, and am sure he could easily obliterate most of what i've written in this thread with little effort. Clicking like/constructive doesn't necessarily mean agreement nor group effort. :lol:

sure, Piaget explored exactly that in his "equilibrated game" socialization is the process of learning how to be invited back. you do that by providing things of value. value are those things that enhance survival fitness and wellbeing of the people you want to be invited back by. the game needs to be such that you're not simply trying to be invited back once, but across time in general and across future unknown people groups of indeterminate value. the idea is this is the essence of "morality" or the realm of the ought as it pertains to human action. Jung comes in that he describes unification as a "moral effort"--meaning that inasmuch as Piaget is right and he's describing morality with his equilibrated game, then him and Jung are aiming at the same thing. Jungian analytic psychology is a form of praxis centered around that aim. To make better humans. Religious symbolism is the basis for communicating the themes humanity has accreted in the form of tradition which is nothing less than the accumulated wisdom through time of our forefathers in playing this game. Depth psychology is the idea that the symbolism itself is rooted in the collective unconscious which is the underlying unconscious mental layer which all humans share to some degree and which humans draw on to substantiate inter subjective communication. post modernism is just one shitty chapter in the process of the collective unconscious developing mainly as a counter stroke to the oppressive ideologies of the first half of the 20th century. in other words, it is the counter stroke of chaos in response to excess order. the counter stroke to the counter stroke is just neo marxism. in any case, you are just an unwitting mouthpiece to a process that this board is fundamentally devoting to unwinding, which makes it all the more ironic [1]

have a nice day :content:

read more Jung and Piaget and less bankrupt social psychology


[1] so are people like Scarper, which is why when I call them a terrible person, I mean it literally

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Another strawman.

My understanding of affirmative action is that it's to help the work force better represent the society it's placed in. So that an area that is say, 40% nonwhite/female would have a workforce that roughly matches that. If a workforce in that area only employed 5% nonwhite/female, then that'd be a sign that some discrimination might be occurring.

USA affirmative action says nothing about being forced to hire untalented otherwise unemployable people. It presumes that nonwhite/females have capabilities needed by the workforce, and thus are just as employable as white men. It says nothing about every person being equal in capabilities/education for every single job that could possibly exist. Arguments saying that's what it means are fallacious.

It also helped distribute education to groups that were otherwise being blocked from education, education that would aide in their employ-ability, and thus help the workforce demographics better match the social demographics of that area. (personally I'd prefer to have well-educated neighbors, but I recognize that not everyone does.)

---

Ideological blindspots are weird, from what I've gotten to realise is they believe that the world as it is, is immutable and genetic actualisation is the only explanation for disadvantaged groups. They believe there's no rational explain beyond genes their motto is: "Let's assume they have horrible genes even though we cannot explain unambiguously what, how, or why, that is, without being disingenuous." The tragedy is the dishonest use of epestimological foundations to encourage stagnation, even contrary to research.

None of this is surprising, politics shapes worldviews whether good or bad. Particularly power lends itself a disgusting viciousness since maintaining the dominant status quo matters above all.

"its all bullshit so we should just all be nice to eachother"

actually the most rational response to it all being bullshit is to be the most smash and grab sociopath you can get away with

not sure if you see the problem with that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Another strawman.

My understanding of affirmative action is that it's to help the work force better represent the society it's placed in. So that an area that is say, 40% nonwhite/female would have a workforce that roughly matches that. If a workforce in that area only employed 5% nonwhite/female, then that'd be a sign that some discrimination might be occurring.

---

This thread is about a wider issue (censorship and discrimination in the name of removing harm/fighting injustice) of which AA is one example. AA itself is not the thread topic, so don't go off on tangents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

USA affirmative action says nothing about being forced to hire untalented otherwise unemployable people. It presumes that nonwhite/females have capabilities needed by the workforce, and thus are just as employable as white men. It says nothing about every person being equal in capabilities/education for every single job that could possibly exist. Arguments saying that's what it means are fallacious.

---

That is irrelevant.

Regardless of what AA was intended to do, it has led to minority applicants being held to a lower standard than white applicants. This has consequences both for the economy (as businesses now have a less intelligent workforce) and for minority communities (who are now accused, not unjustly, of jumping the queue).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

It also helped distribute education to groups that were otherwise being blocked from education, education that would aide in their employ-ability, and thus help the workforce demographics better match the social demographics of that area. (personally I'd prefer to have well-educated neighbors, but I recognize that not everyone does.)

---

People like you look for any excuse to bully the unrighteous into conformity. Non-white Americans are not being blocked from accessing education by the state. Therefore state intervention (like AA) is not an appropriate way to resolve any disparaties that may exist.

go away cuvininy by arguing against affirmative action in your shitty way you're making andelise look like they may have a point

bottom line is AA exists to right a wrong a prior generation committed at the expense of the current generation in the hope that future generations will all be better off. depending on how you experience time you see the validity in that or not. my guess is being the retarded Se brute you are, you don't want anything infringing on your possibilities today, which is why you'll always be a shit leader and no one will ever come to you for actual wisdom, because you can't even conceptualize the issue outside of your own solipsistic worldview. cast your vote and move on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

my guess is being the retarded Se brute you are, you don't want anything infringing on your possibilities today, which is why you'll always be a shit leader and no one will ever come to you for actual wisdom, because you can't even conceptualize the issue outside of your own solipsistic worldview. cast your vote and move on

---

You are raving Bertrand, have you gone off your meds again?

@Bertrand Here are some words of wisdom from a retarded Se brute, words that you would do well to heed:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/use-simple-language-to-sound-smarter-2015-9

That glorious moment when Bertrand suddenly realizes that people think he is stupid, and is stunned into a cavernous silence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramas

How do you define privileges, especially in this context?

---

One will or claim has priority over the other basically.

For the record, the OP had nothing to do with censorship as a current political issue, censorship as an ethical issue, or censorship as a legal issue. However, on display here are some lovely examples of what I'm talking about, which is group power dynamics and censorship as a vehicle of power. Aramas's weird attack on @anndelise, for instance. Notice how he does it after @Bertrand moves on her, but before @Soupman intervened, so at that point he saw sentiment moving against her (Cuiv+Bert+Aramas vs. Anndelise) and knew the time was ripe: She's a WITCH, burn it!!! His accusations are ridiculous and she laughs them off appropriately. Then we've got a nice NF battle here, but wait Bertrand turns on Cuiv "go away child" and Cuiv ofc retaliates... anyway obviously the battle of the 1-D Ti cannot be resolved without a few dozen more eyesore posts from everyone involved (while random Alphas and Gammas pepper their opinions here and there) but I'm sure it'll be some good fun along the way!
Honestly it makes sense but I'm pretty sure that only @Viktor really saw what I meant to convey. And maybe a couple other people who were quiet lol who knows

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nehtaro

For the record, the OP had nothing to do with censorship as a current political issue, censorship as an ethical issue, or censorship as a legal issue. However, on display here are some lovely examples of what I'm talking about, which is group power dynamics and censorship as a vehicle of power. Aramas's weird attack on @anndelise, for instance. Notice how he does it after @Bertrand moves on her, but before @Soupman intervened, so at that point he saw sentiment moving against her (Cuiv+Bert+Aramas vs. Anndelise) and knew the time was ripe: She's a WITCH, burn it!!! His accusations are ridiculous and she laughs them off appropriately. Then we've got a nice NF battle here, but wait Bertrand turns on Cuiv "go away child" and Cuiv ofc retaliates... anyway obviously the battle of the 1-D Ti cannot be resolved without a few dozen more eyesore posts from everyone involved (while random Alphas and Gammas pepper their opinions here and there) but I'm sure it'll be some good fun along the way!
Honestly it makes sense but I'm pretty sure that only @Viktor really saw what I meant to convey. And maybe a couple other people who were quiet lol who knows

---

And you are the announcer, host, and commentator all at once :lol: What was the actual motivation to start this debate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

unfortunately, in some countries, speaking your mind might get you executed. :(

---

This is true and is horrific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chains

I do not need permission to speak my mind, to think my thoughts, to make associations, to have my own beliefs and opinions, to like what I like. No one can take that away.

---

Further clarification: Rights are not privileges. They aren't granted, unless one lives in non-democratic country, or one not founded on Enlightenment ideas, where they try and copy democracies by granting rights. The United States is unique in that it was founded by ideas originating from the Age of Enlightenment. Rights make little sense without the context in which they originated from. Our country claimed rights first and have expanded upon them as time has gone on. People have forgotten or are ignorant of these ideas, which have been eroded by the Romantics and Postmodernists. The latter two can be said to belief rights are granted by rules. The truly free take them.

The most basic right is one of Free Thought. This is a right so true that it does not have to be included in any document, granted by anyone; No permission required. This does not mean that governments do not discourage or prevent it. Once a government does this it no longer is a government protecting the most fundamental right of conscious existence: Free Thinking. The U.S. Bill of Rights were included, not because they were granted, but because as reassurance that no one could take them away. In fact they were almost not included, like the right to privacy, which was not specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, but a a right that is so obviously a right that it needs not be listed, which fell under the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy, like other rights are rights that must exist to protect our mental freedom, freedom from dogma, harmful ideologies, and things that interfere with our ability to think for ourselves and understand Truth. Surely, people who are on a quest to understand truth through socionics would understand this basic human need.

One does have to use prudence with free speech and expression. To speak and act without thinking is actually what the unlearned, the impulsive, and irrational do. This is not the free speech and expression I am praising.

that was interesting but I feel like distinctions should be made between delta and beta because their style of aristocracy is vastly different, so naturally their style of censorship is going to be different. betas administer & receive direct commands, whereas deltas fluctuate between inferiority & superiority

beta is more social and structured, interactive and hierarchical. it's shaped like a pyramid where there's a clear divide between the upper and lower levels. beta's criteria is more "objective" than delta's criteria because beta's aiming for a collectivist unit that moves toward a common goal that's beneficial to the members of said collective, when in fact it's most beneficial to the few at the top. beta is collective aristocracy. everybody agrees with / adheres to this chain of command, therefore beta employs direct forms of censorship, you can tell by how they interact with each other which members are at the top and which are "scapegoats" (to steal strat's terminology) and everybody else in between. you'll administer and receive direct commands. their criteria tends to exemplify Se and Fe stereotypes insofar that it's about social and physical prowess, attractiveness, $$$ (not in the Te sense but in the Se sense where you've got an expensive house, therefore you must be loaded) and sense of humor which adheres to the rowdy and inclusive atmosphere, as well as the lengths you'll go to support the collective's initiatives, which includes how well you adhere to your respective position and how willing you are to climb up the ranks whilst operating within the restrictions set forth by the preexisting beta hierarchy. but not only do betas distinguish between the higher and lower levels within this hierarchy, they also distinguish between members who exist within and outside this hierarchy. just imagine a less satirical example of fight club in real life, you're either on board with tyler durden's ideology... or you're not, because in beta there's a sense of devaluing the self in favor of the collective (which is why they usually allow themselves to be subject to the "initiation process" without much complaint) which is why they clash with delta's brand of aristocracy, even though, in a sense, delta devalues the self in a similar manner but it's for a different endgame

now how they interact with those who don't meet their aristocratic standards is quite different because with beta it's a little more direct, like I mentioned above, because their initiation process takes place in public, here you're condemned for not submitting to the chain of command, for refusing to climb from a lower position into a higher position, even more so if you actively impede the collective's initiatives by asserting your own individuality, especially if they directly conflict with the collective's initiatives. "what do you mean you don't like/hate [x]?" this is where you'll find the direct censorship mentioned in the OP: "shut up", "who are you?", and "you have no leverage here, learn your place!" now for those who DO adhere to the beta chain of command, it's subservience to your position, if you're in a lower position then you immediately accept the commands of someone in a higher position, but if someone from a lower position tries to enforce the same commands, your response is brushing them off and/or asserting your higher position with adamancy

whereas delta is more individualistic in how they express their aristocratic inclinations, yet their ultimate goal is still the collective. delta's criteria is highly personalized, which is what distinguishes them from beta, but they're just as exacting in how they alter their treatment of individuals based on this personalized criteria. delta treads a fine line between democracy and aristocracy in that sense, because their hierarchy is loose and malleable, as is the nature of delta, more accurately that is the nature of Fi and Si, there is no such thing as a delta collective. if anything the closest we get to seeing a delta collective is their inclination toward the "greater good" (which I know sounds pretentious, but it's not meant to imply that all deltas are moralistic, it just means that - in contrast with beta, which is more about how you impact society and other people, tangibly and emotionally, within the group's respective ideology - in delta it's about how little impact you have on anybody else's initiatives while pursuing your own initiatives). beta is about the strength of the collective, whereas delta is about the strength of the individual. delta is aristocracy of the individual. in the case of delta STs it's about practicality and diligence, work ethic and knowledge base, whereas with delta NFs it's about creativity and perspective, humanistic understanding and emotional self-control. deltas are usually attracted to creative, talented, and successful individuals, like an impressive yet still unknown painter, which has little bearing on where that painter lies on any social hierarchy. here you're either impressive or interesting - as an individual - or you're coldly overlooked and/or dismissed. there's another level which, after determining that you're worthy on an individual basis, deltas are prone to splinter off based on similar interests (movies, music, books, of the obscure and "niche" nature) or life experiences, which is how delta separates between who's "in" and who's "out"

deltas are more inclined to employ cold dismissals or just outright avoidance, their form of censorship manifests as a cold, detached attitude toward those who don't meet their aristocratic standards. imagine somebody in a beret scoffing at you after you just revealed that you've never heard of his favorite obscure band from england with only 100 youtube views, because in delta it's more about associations that exist outside any solidified hierarchy, "oh he hasn't heard of my favorite band, but she has, therefore she's more deep and cultured than that guy." [shoots dismissive glare] or how you hold / express yourself in a group setting, whether it's school or work, it's more about your way of being. now this one's a little tricky because they're not subservient per se, but if deltas encounter somebody they perceive as a high quality individual, there's a sense of preemptive inferiority, like "this guy is a well-renowned artist, whereas I'm just an amateur painter." or alternatively they're the well-renowned artist and they encounter someone who's just an amateur painter, then they feel it's within their right to speak down to them, to give them unsolicited advice, like they're the teacher and the amateur painter is their pupil

there's probably a less verbose way of outlining their differences but it's difficult to put into words, but that's one thing that strat outlined beautifully

yeah delta is more informally elitist, and identifies with unseen ability and potential, whereas beta is more formal and vests real power in titles and office. its a kind of Ne (potential) v Se (force), along with Fi Te (taste/ability) v Ti Fe (rules/influence). two somewhat obvious strains of this and it goes to central/peripheral elements of society would be popular v indie music and their "scenes" (although of course beta has their underground and there are popular delta acts-- in general the scenes track the mindset)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by domr

Personal sentiments, in terms of what I remember about an experience is Si, not Fi.

---

I never mentioned personal sentiments in terms of Si.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

and focus on Fi - in cases of Delta STs especially, resulting in personal sentiments

---

Are you sure you're IEE? Your Ne (or Fi) is suspect. I'm kind of getting the impression you're wanting stuff explained to you as if you're not intuitively getting it, but, it's just a suspect based on your post, seemed to be attempting to be rather logical and detail orientated but missing missing the mark.

If you're Ne base, maybe you're not Fi valuing, hmmm.

I don't speak your language, you don't appear to understand mine, but appear to want to approach this from your misunderstanding to talk about something else. I'm on my phone, I may come back to this, but unless you're trying to use Ti PoLR, indications are IEE is not your type.

In a nutshell: my post was talking about the affect Fi valuing - weak but valued can have on a delta ST and morality/conformity - personal values. It's already known at least with SLIs that they can be 'delinquents' following what they think is right not society (weak not valued Fe).

When an SLI starts to talk about their feelings, whether directly or indirectly, it's not misunderstood and 'explained' as Si. It's why I don't think you're IEE and probably don't value :Fi:

havent read all the thread, anyway I firmly believe some basic censorship is essential. much of what is spread ignorance= intolerance, in our super developed world is caused by the fact that anyone can share their shitty opinion as if it was holding the same value as anything else. i can offend, omit the truth, twist facts to make a point, support racist ideas, support corruption... you name it, it will be ok, I can do it. because of free speech. free speech is better than respect, it's better than the truth, better than culture, it's the most important thing in the world (hail USA!), and if you're offended, if the things said just cause hate, if someone gets hurt, obviously it's their fault, how fking sensitive of them to get offended!, grow up!, grow up to the level of my super right to say wtv the fk i want, yolo! grow up and erase your feelings, u scumbag, what are u even getting offended at? you stupid carrot fker, inbread eater, i can say wtv the fk i want, dont u fking know it, u snowflake!

obviously, the power goes in the hands of who can scream louder, of who beats their fists on their chests making the greatest noise, shaking their bum bums at the sound of the masses howling at them, they really can control their right to free speech better! hail!

i'm a bit disgusted by this modern world, yes.

Europe: it is illegal to promote fascist/nazi ideas. meanwhile in USA: people in support of nazism/holocaust denial can write books and get published. yo freethought!