@Adam Strange
Materialistically. People's political views align with their interests, whether it be ideologically or economically. There was another thread where I talked about 'nationalism' and basically say the same thing and not one person addressed the arguments I made. An NT just called me 'wrong' but never substantiated why.
@Adam Strange
Extremely well I think, i.e look at the material conditions which made someone have the views they do and judge them through that.
I know you were asking None, not me, but personally, I have something to say about this. I don't think it should be about your side vs my side. As something more collaborative and pragmatic, in practice, and as something more nuanced, when it comes to theory.
This already does happen, sometimes, but overall the American political landscape is shaped by two parties that are essentially money making machines due having enough wealthy capitalist doners that gladly give in exchange for more and more clout. Duopoly is not a real choice, and neither are big political parties who's top dogs are disconnected from the lives of average people. The result of this system is that liberals often don't understand and thusly hate conservatives, and conservatives often don't understand and thusly hate liberals. So your country is in some fucking mess essentially for this reason.
Do you really think this is an ideal situation, Adam?
As a side note, I do believe that the Republican party has, in recent years, done more harm for the country thorugh policies than the Democratic party. For example, redistricting. That said though, I don't think the Democratic party has its hands clean, either. In terms purely of damage done, the Republican party is maybe a bit more guilty, but the Democrats are far from saints.
I personally wish people would try to understand things in more nuance rather than just blaming the other side.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
@chriscorey
I don't know about shyness or whatever but in politics there is absolutely no room for pussy-footing. Politics is a form of warfare through other means.
Gotta work. I’ll reply later.
@chriscorey
You can take a look at the thread itself. Apparently the person was an LSI.
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ionalism/page2
@Hardware Punk
There is absolutely no issue with viewing politics as 'my side' vs 'your side'. However- the vast overwhelming majority of people have a very narrow understanding of what the 'sides' even are, and only align themselves with the socially constructed understanding of 'left' and 'right' independent from actual history and logic. You have Nietzsche in your signature. People think of Christians these days as 'right wingers' and even 'authoritarian'. You and I know very well how Nietzsche thought of Christians [and how they actually are]
I mostly agree, but my point was that seeing it as 'my side' vs 'your side' is, in America, a byproduct of the bipartisan system - that there are only two sides because there are only two major parties.
I hear you that most people have no knowledge of what these sides even mean, both from a historical or philosophical perspective.
Funny thing about Nietzsche is that some people nowadays even claim he didn't hate Christianity. I'm referring to the Youtuber Natural Hypertrophy (who's content I like but I disagree with him on this point, since it seems to me he is trying to not alienate his Christian viewers and yet, at the same time, speak on Nietzsche). This does show how much the general public is enmeshed in current understandings of 'right' and 'left'.
That being said, I don't think left vs right is anything more than a paradigm, and it doesn't necessarily reflect all the nuances in political reality, even if you strip away the clichés that are concealing what these terms mean historically and philosophically.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
@Hardware Punk
There are sides in the USA however. The bi-partisan system just exploits them. It's very real indeed. All of the problems in the U.S stem from its racial issues.
Nietzsche didn't 'hate' Christianity, because 'One does not hate as long as one has a low esteem of someone'. He thought of it as a moralism the weak use to control the strong. Nietzsche railed against the Christianity of Paul and the apostles, not the Christ figure itself. I have no doubt Christ was one of the 'free spirits' he championed. I think his ideal, just as mine was the “Roman Caesar with Christ’s soul”.
Left vs Right doesn't reflect anything because there is no actual concrete definition of what these categories are. It means something different for anyone. I see many people who consider themselves 'right' as left and many people who consider themselves 'left' as right. My understanding of left and right is the same as it was in the French parliament during the revolution. The right is the status quo and the left is the opposition.
Hahaha... hah. With all due my respect here, this thread is laconically hilarious, so I wouldn't take this but with a pinch of salt, since the poster didn't seem to know what they were talking about. And as for your point, to think that something was "devilish" due to your own subjective perception about others, it wouldn't help you enough to think that you yourself was the devil yourself, while it really might be true that everyone was an evil on itself, every single living human did have this kind of wicked side. And speak of the devil, any form of defectiveness who didn't know how to assess whether human beings have had done things properly or not were those who haven't reflected upon themselves, so to speak.
Typology Diagnostic Service
Typology Discord Server
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."
@chriscorey
By the way, from experience NT types don't engage when they think they are wrong. When they think they are correct they would always engage, no matter how stupid they think the person they're arguing with is. In fact that's basically the whole point of being an NT. Correcting illogical stupidities. It's not a 'waste of time' because they enjoy doing it.
@Adam Strange
Sorry Adam, I didn't see this part. Political interests, are in fact material interests. Perhaps I can recommend a book: Marx's the 'Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte' is a classic. By materialism I do not mean being excessively concerned with material possessions, but rather real physical things that can be measured. Of course people are willing to sacrifice their resources for their political aims.
Maybe, but the pro-life position is a moral one. If you believe that a fetus deserves the same respect given to a human that's already been born, none of that is relevant. It would be like saying that if a woman finds herself fired from her job, she should have a right to kill her 6-year-old, because denying her that option means "trapping her in a life of poverty."
I see that some pro-lifers genuinely care about preserving the potential of life in undeveloped fetuses. I’m skeptical of politicians who use abortion to galvanize a base of evangelical voters and then do nothing to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Lawmakers who restrict access to abortion should support children and their mothers with means to survive and provide financial support, healthcare, childcare, and housing.
I also raise my eyebrows at the unrealistic expectation for women to keep their legs closed. That attitude has never worked. People will continue to have sex whether or not you like it.
@Poptart
The state can legally abort anybody at will and nobody particularly gives a fuck about it. Well 'anarchists' do but no one takes them seriously.
I don't find the expectation of women keeping their legs closed to be 'unrealistic'. Women will do it if men expect it from them, clearly however men don't expect it and thus women keep them open. Some men complain about it but no one gives a fuck about complaints.
The five countries that completely outlaw abortion have a majority Christian population. The US has the world largest Christian population. It's not a moral question, it's a religious one. All other religions have more or less a lax stand on it, and I haven't seen many atheists who oppose abortions to that degree either. From a public policy perspective I would focus on making the population less swayed by religious doctrine if I wanted to move things forward in this case, sort of like what happened in Europe. All other arguments are moot.
On Reddit and Twitter, there are communities of women coming out against porn and casual sex (against unwanted casual sex, at any rate, which they say they feel coerced into doing due to the fact that it has been fully normalized).
/r/FemaleDatingStrategy is a famous example by now. A lot of them call themselves radical feminists, which, as far as I'm aware, is a broadly leftist designation. I didn't get the impression that many of them are traditionalist Christian women (I could be wrong—I get tired listening to other people's relationship problems, so I only skimmed some threads and don't have the full picture).
Anyway, it does seem like there's a backlash against the sexual revolution coming from the left.
This lady is a Marxist.
You are wrong in this case. I just did a quick search in /r/FemaleDatingStrategy and sorted the posts from most popular to least. No thread in sight that supports abortion. The first one warns Polish women who are about to be hit with an abortion ban. The second one titled "US-based women who are actively dating/in relationships: Protect your womb" then goes to say "With what’s going on today in the Supreme Court, it appears more and more that abortion access is going to be reduced to 15 weeks, if not being overturned altogether." Third one: "Wish I found this sub before being baby trapped." And so on. Female Incel communities in general are less traditional than male ones. In fact being a traditional woman, who mainly cares for the house and children, is still a desirable trait and I doubt that would ever change.
I didn't see the video but I can guess what your argument is going to be. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Christianity had to come from somewhere too, so it's possible to hold those beliefs without being a Christian. And I doubt there is any significant backlash. It seems to me that you are exaggerating. If you are not, source your claims.
A casual glance at the kinds of people who've thought deeply and seriously about morality should show that most of them have been religious. It's not a coincidence that as the world has become less religious, traditional values have been eroded in favor of ones that are good for the wealthy ("the market"). If people don't have a unifying banner, they have nowhere to rally, and the temptation of money is powerful.
"Forward" is always relative to where you face.From a public policy perspective I would focus on making the population less swayed by religious doctrine if I wanted to move things forward in this case, sort of like what happened in Europe. All other arguments are moot.
Do you remember when I told you that you came across as socially conservative and you denied it? This could be the reason.
Are you a Christian? I have to ask. I don't want to just assume.
I'm not interested in arguing in any case, I left my birth religion a long time ago. I doubt we would convince each other of anything on this issue without asking the other to renounce their beliefs.
True.
I was so sure you had at least Christian upbringing. I guess I assumed wrong.
I mean you may not consider yourself a conservative but you can't deny that you hold many views that are largely consistent with core conservative values, can you? At least socially. I have known you for a few years now and I would say that is a fair characterization. Again, I could be the only one reading your wrong, so forgive my insolence.
From the few posts I have read, he comes across to me as someone who would have been a member of the International Workingmen's Association.
Ethical dilemmas are situations in which every available choice is wrongI could post more definitions but I think my point is clear.An ethical dilemma describes a conflict between two morally correct courses of action.
Are you arguing that not carrying an abortion is also wrong, or that abortions are good?
Edit:
I admit that I didn't read your post carefully. I guess it could be argued that some people don't consider aborting a fetus is wrong, that is why they don't see it as a moral dilemma in the first place, but I can see where you are coming from. You are not exactly wrong.
When I wrote that, I wasn't thinking about abortion at all. I was just adding to my earlier conversation with Adam about the seeming rise of sex negativity (based on anecdotal evidence).
Now that I think about it, I probably shouldn't have posted it in the middle of an abortion discussion. My bad.
If my memory serves me correctly I recall a post regarding economics in which @FreelancePoliceman understanding struck me as someone who has engaged with Karl Marx's critique of political economy.
Edit: Tagged wrong person.
Nah I just speed read your post. I got it the second time. I agree with you.
I don't think I'm wrong in thinking the way forward is for Christians in particular to ease their stance on abortions, but that is a whole different deal and is merely a political/policy question.
I used to DEBATE with people all the time when I was younger. I won't anymore if you're making too many logical fallacies for the same reasons I wouldn't argue with a child. I don't feel like debating with anyone these days unless I think I could learn from them, so no, I wouldn't ignore you if I was wrong. I'd keep talking to you. In all honesty some of the smartest people on this forum are not NTs in my opinion.
To argue with you I'd have to assume all the NTs you have experience with are actually NTs. Then I don't have any real statistics on NTs regarding your experience.
Last edited by chriscorey; 04-25-2022 at 03:47 AM.
Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel!
-Raskolnikov