|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 06 2017 04:01 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:59 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. Capitalism began with the emergence of basic market theory in the 18th century as philosophers like Smith and Hume began questioning mercantilism. The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776. It was shortly after that the Industrial Revolution began. None of this would have happened without the enshrinement of Western philosophical theory into contemporary legal norms. Concepts of individual liberty and property rights are preconditions to a capitalist system. This isn't true, and I'm not sure what I can do to convince you otherwise.
It very clearly is true, and you're now being told as such by two posters.
|
I'm not looking forward to an inevitably "I know it when I see it" tinged verdict with inadvertent consequences, but we'll probably get one here. I guess that's what you get when the Constitution protects a fundamentally unverifiable concept though, especially when it's more unverifiable today than it was in 1776 due to its evolution since then.
Hope they at least explicitly discuss the example of an anti-interracial marriage bakery though beyond it almost inevitably coming up in any dissent.
|
On December 06 2017 04:00 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:57 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. "emerged?" no "thrived as a result of?" yes. but i would say as a result of enlightenment AND reformation. max weber said this over a hundred years ago But posters here are claiming that the reason for the adoption of Western culture by non-Western cultures is due to its inherent superiority - not due to the spread of capitalism stamping western culture into these countries whether they like it or not. To try and explain this by pointing to capitalism as emerging due to the Enlightenment misrepresents the causal relationship between capitalism and 'Western' values.
well saying "the enlightenment and reformation ohenomena led to the growth of capitalism in the west" and saying "other countries are only forced to adopt capitalism and western values out of necessity" (the two being inextricably linked) arent mutually exclusive. what i think is the more pressing question is: what to make of so called "capitalism w asian values" in what is supposed to be the only region of the world that poses a true threat to continued American global dominance
|
United States42004 Posts
On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic
I don't disagree with xDaunt about the superiority of secular humanism, tolerance, democracy, equality under the law, the rights of all individuals, and so forth. If anything I go far beyond him in those because, you know, I'm the non Nazi of the two of us.
I just don't see how you get from "these things emerged from the northern European technological feedback loop that came to dominate the globe", which I agree with, that is where they came from, to "we must eradicate all other cultures and/or races".
My argument is that
1) These are not fundamentally "white" or "European" ideas, they were expressed by different people at different times all around the world. For historical reasons we just give priority to the European voices.
2) These are a narrow selection of "white" or "European" ideas. The argument that our society is defined by inalienable human rights is pretty difficult to defend given even a cursory understanding of history. It's certainly one of the ideas we had, but we also had this idea about how you can buy some black people and then they can work for you and you don't need to pay them, so little of column A, little of column B there.
3) The good parts of our culture are self evident. We don't need to impose them upon the world, the world will happily take them from us.
4) There are a shitton of bad parts of our culture which we ought not to be imposing upon the rest of the world.
xDaunt's white supremacism is blind to the flaws of our culture and the virtues of others, of which there are a great many. His desire to impose his own idea of culture upon the world and to displace that of others will replicate our flaws and destroy their virtues. I believe that through multiculturalism and the exchange of cultural ideas the superior cultural practices will succeed through their own virtues.
To xDauntWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. is a fundamentally white European vision but somehow I want Cuba, and I know that sooner or later we must have it. If the worm-eaten throne of Spain is willing to give it for a fair equivalent, well—if not, we must take it. I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason—for the planting and spreading of slavery.
And a footing in Central America will powerfully aid us in acquiring those other states. It will render them less valuable to the other powers of the earth, and thereby diminish competition with us. Yes, I want these countries for the spread of slavery. I would spread the blessings of slavery, like the religion of our Divine Master, to the uttermost ends of the earth, and rebellious and wicked as the Yankees have been, I would even extend it to them.
I would not force it upon them, as I would not force religion upon them, but I would preach it to them, as I would preach the gospel. They are a stiff-necked and rebellious race, and I have little hope that they will receive the blessing, and I would therefore prepare for its spread to other more favored lands.
Albert Gallatin Brown - US Senator 1858 is not.
|
On December 06 2017 04:01 chocorush wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:54 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2017 03:49 Logo wrote:On December 06 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2017 03:41 Velr wrote:
@plabsix: Everyone should just stop with bullshit like this again. Why on earth is this tweet post worthy?
Edit: this moved quick Millennial is a shitty term that has becomes a pejorative because of the way online magazines have been covering that age group. I think it is post worthy when one of the three major news papers in the bans the term because they are holding their writers to a higher standard. So... what you're saying is Millennials killed the word Millennials. Typical Millennial behavior. I heard they are killing Chilies, TGI Fridays, AppleBee's, Napkins, the Diamond Industry and traditional dating. Now they are killing bad writing. So they might be the Greatest Generation. I also read two articles, one that said Millennials don't eat out and the other that said Millennials don't cook. I must assume that Millennials do not require food to survive. We get our food couriered to us. It's part of the reason why Millennials are also always poor.
We wouldn't have student debt if we didn't indulge in the luxury of delivery.
|
On December 06 2017 03:42 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:06 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:55 Logo wrote:It's nice to see the lawyers bringing up actual relevant cases ( not like the examples brought up here yesterday)
For support, [ACLU Lawyer Mr. Cole] turns to the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 opinion rejecting a claim that members of the Native American Church could not be penalized because they used peyote, a sacrament in their faith that nevertheless was illegal under state law.
Justice Scalia’s reasoning followed Reynolds v. U.S., an 1878 case rejecting a Mormon’s claim that his religious faith exempted him from bigamy laws. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances," the court said then
Ms. Waggoner tries to march through three points she has prepared in rebuttal. She argues that, 1) the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was biased because it did not cite bakers who refused to bake cakes denigrating same-sex marriage; 2) that Mr. Phillips is entitled to “dignity” under the law for his “honorable and decent beliefs about marriage,” and 3) that public opinion about same-sex marriage is moving already in Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins’s direction. Kristen K Waggoner, lawyer for Masterpiece Cakeshop arguing for the baker, brought identical examples to what I brought up yesterday. Logo, here's your chance to tell me that she's also a dummy for bringing them up before the highest court in the land when her client stands liable to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars. Specifically, do you walk back "that's not a thing" and "It's not that hard and it's not some weird moral quandary," given that it's among several questions from at least 4 justices of the supreme court that find moral dilemmas? I'm very interested, Logo, if you want to dismiss it for the third time, or if your understanding of the issues at stake have changed or become more nuanced? Chief Justice Roberts returns to an earlier hypothetical: must, say, a nonprofit like Catholic Legal Services, affiliated with a church that views same-sex marriage as sinful, agree to represent a gay couple suing Masterpiece Cakeshop, simply because they offer other legal services to the public? Not exactly a line I thought would come up... I've said I think 3 times now that it's not hard and it's not a moral quandary that sexual orientation should be a protected class. Yet you continue to both fight me on the issue and apparently not agree. Your effort to dodge out of the simple idea is to pretend it's some grander statement that you can poke holes in. It's not. (And yes I obviously think the examples brought up by Ms. Waggoner are less relevant than the example brought up by Mr. Cole and the associated words of Anton Scalia).
You're looping back around, but this is likely the last post I'll do on this particular topic with you.
You've never given a defense that weighing public accommodation against free speech and exercise exercise rights does not involve a moral consideration. Every time it's brought up, you deflect to either protected classes of people or a universal right to discrimination against a view or expression. You're unprepared to argue where and when your universal right to discrimination against a view or expression meets a baker's right to turn down a cake expressing a positive view of an upcoming gay marriage. Is he refusing service because he/she is gay, or is he within his right to discriminate against (as your frame it) a "view or expression" (it's something to be celebrated in society)?
Related to the first, you've ignored or glossed over the Supreme Court's multifaceted treatment of the issue. The very fact that Supreme Court justices are arguing for and against certain limitations on his right to free expression means you're absolutely wrong to think there's no moral quandary here. It's not like "sexual orientation should be a protected class" remotely answers the question at hand. Otherwise, maybe the lawyer would have said it and repeated it under questioning but he didn't because that would be foolish. It amounts to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "There's nothing to be resolved, because I haven't heard a dilemma that needs resolving."
|
On December 06 2017 03:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. Capitalism began with the emergence of basic market theory in the 18th century as philosophers like Smith and Hume began questioning mercantilism. The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776. It was shortly after that the Industrial Revolution began. None of this would have happened without the enshrinement of Western philosophical theory into contemporary legal norms. Concepts of individual liberty and property rights are preconditions to a capitalist system.
I don't think this is right. I think you're suggesting:
Step 1 - Western philosophers from the enlightenment muse about economic organisation and come up with the concept of capitalism;
Step 2 - Political actors are enlightened by the philosophy and enact 'capitalism'
Step 3 - Industrial revolution!
What I believe is closer to the truth is:
Step 1 - Political strife between absolutist monarchs and the elites;
Step 2 - From that strife emerges a political compromise where political participation is more inclusive, the king recognizes more rights to the citizens including economic rights. The resulting political system is more pluralistic;
Step 3 - That pluralism enables entrepreneurs and inventors to profit from their ingenuity.
Step 3 - Industrial revolution!
The advent of capitalism in the UK is the result of a long process of political reform and back-and-forths from the Magna Carta to the Glorious Revolution and its aftermath. The colonies and the atlantic economy as a whole created a powerful coalition that favored pluralistic political institutions.
Only then did Adam Smith theorize about what was happening and his thought legitimized the whole thing. The industrial revolution was already on its way when he published Wealth of Nations.
tldr: Capitalism arose through a process more like evolution and less like intelligent design. Chance played a huge role.
|
On December 06 2017 04:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:01 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:59 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. Capitalism began with the emergence of basic market theory in the 18th century as philosophers like Smith and Hume began questioning mercantilism. The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776. It was shortly after that the Industrial Revolution began. None of this would have happened without the enshrinement of Western philosophical theory into contemporary legal norms. Concepts of individual liberty and property rights are preconditions to a capitalist system. This isn't true, and I'm not sure what I can do to convince you otherwise. It very clearly is true, and you're now being told as such by two posters.
What Igne is saying does not support your argument, the weight of historical evidence and political development also does not support your argument. Capitalism did not begin in then 18th century, and it is ludicrous to claim it did.
|
On December 06 2017 04:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:00 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:57 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. "emerged?" no "thrived as a result of?" yes. but i would say as a result of enlightenment AND reformation. max weber said this over a hundred years ago But posters here are claiming that the reason for the adoption of Western culture by non-Western cultures is due to its inherent superiority - not due to the spread of capitalism stamping western culture into these countries whether they like it or not. To try and explain this by pointing to capitalism as emerging due to the Enlightenment misrepresents the causal relationship between capitalism and 'Western' values. well saying "the enlightenment and reformation ohenomena led to the growth of capitalism in the west" and saying "other countries are only forced to adopt capitalism and western values out of necessity" (the two being inextricably linked) arent mutually exclusive. what i think is the more pressing question is: what to make of so called "capitalism w asian values" in what is supposed to be the only region of the world that poses a true threat to continued American global dominance
Very true, I just have a problem with xDaunt expressing the idea that Western culture 'produced' capitalism.
|
On December 06 2017 04:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:00 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:57 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. "emerged?" no "thrived as a result of?" yes. but i would say as a result of enlightenment AND reformation. max weber said this over a hundred years ago But posters here are claiming that the reason for the adoption of Western culture by non-Western cultures is due to its inherent superiority - not due to the spread of capitalism stamping western culture into these countries whether they like it or not. To try and explain this by pointing to capitalism as emerging due to the Enlightenment misrepresents the causal relationship between capitalism and 'Western' values. well saying "the enlightenment and reformation ohenomena led to the growth of capitalism in the west" and saying "other countries are only forced to adopt capitalism and western values out of necessity" (the two being inextricably linked) arent mutually exclusive. what i think is the more pressing question is: what to make of so called "capitalism w asian values" in what is supposed to be the only region of the world that poses a true threat to continued American global dominance
What you see are countries that acknowledge the obvious power and superiority of a capitalist economy but are still expressly rejecting most of the core individual-oriented, Western values that gave birth to that system. This is why I say that cultural differences matter and Western culture should be defended. There very clearly are competitors out there that seek to eventually overtake and replace the dominant position of Western culture. Anyone who purports to cherish the fruits of Western culture -- which, as I have pointed out, is pretty much everyone here -- should be mindful of this reality and act accordingly.
|
On December 06 2017 04:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:01 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:59 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. Capitalism began with the emergence of basic market theory in the 18th century as philosophers like Smith and Hume began questioning mercantilism. The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776. It was shortly after that the Industrial Revolution began. None of this would have happened without the enshrinement of Western philosophical theory into contemporary legal norms. Concepts of individual liberty and property rights are preconditions to a capitalist system. This isn't true, and I'm not sure what I can do to convince you otherwise. It very clearly is true, and you're now being told as such by two posters.
You're arguing about where you draw lines in the sand. Depending on your definition of what exactly constitutes capitalism you could easily argue for dates ranging from 1900 with globalization to roman empire trading networks. Most people would argue that the branch of mercantilism existing in Italian City states in the 16th century would constitute capitalism, but w/e.
|
On December 06 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:07 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 04:00 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:57 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. "emerged?" no "thrived as a result of?" yes. but i would say as a result of enlightenment AND reformation. max weber said this over a hundred years ago But posters here are claiming that the reason for the adoption of Western culture by non-Western cultures is due to its inherent superiority - not due to the spread of capitalism stamping western culture into these countries whether they like it or not. To try and explain this by pointing to capitalism as emerging due to the Enlightenment misrepresents the causal relationship between capitalism and 'Western' values. well saying "the enlightenment and reformation ohenomena led to the growth of capitalism in the west" and saying "other countries are only forced to adopt capitalism and western values out of necessity" (the two being inextricably linked) arent mutually exclusive. what i think is the more pressing question is: what to make of so called "capitalism w asian values" in what is supposed to be the only region of the world that poses a true threat to continued American global dominance What you see are countries that acknowledge the obvious power and superiority of a capitalist economy but are still expressly rejecting most of the core individual-oriented, Western values that gave birth to that system. This is why I say that cultural differences matter and Western culture should be defended. There very clearly are competitors out there that seek to eventually overtake and replace the dominant position of Western culture. Anyone who purports to cherish the fruits of Western culture -- which, as I have pointed out, is pretty much everyone here -- should be mindful of this reality and act accordingly.
I too agree we should oppose and possibly stamp out the KKK, white separatists, and the Westboro Baptist Church and stop their war on positive Western values.
|
United States42004 Posts
On December 06 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:07 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 04:00 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:57 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. "emerged?" no "thrived as a result of?" yes. but i would say as a result of enlightenment AND reformation. max weber said this over a hundred years ago But posters here are claiming that the reason for the adoption of Western culture by non-Western cultures is due to its inherent superiority - not due to the spread of capitalism stamping western culture into these countries whether they like it or not. To try and explain this by pointing to capitalism as emerging due to the Enlightenment misrepresents the causal relationship between capitalism and 'Western' values. well saying "the enlightenment and reformation ohenomena led to the growth of capitalism in the west" and saying "other countries are only forced to adopt capitalism and western values out of necessity" (the two being inextricably linked) arent mutually exclusive. what i think is the more pressing question is: what to make of so called "capitalism w asian values" in what is supposed to be the only region of the world that poses a true threat to continued American global dominance What you see are countries that acknowledge the obvious power and superiority of a capitalist economy but are still expressly rejecting most of the core individual-oriented, Western values that gave birth to that system. This is why I say that cultural differences matter and Western culture should be defended. There very clearly are competitors out there that seek to eventually overtake and replace the dominant position of Western culture. Anyone who purports to cherish the fruits of Western culture -- which, as I have pointed out, is pretty much everyone here -- should be mindful of this reality and act accordingly.
A) Western culture doesn't need defending, it's doing fine, the parts of it that are good are growing stronger daily.
B) Dumb fucks trying to secure the future for their culture by trampling over other groups are, historically speaking, the single worst thing about western culture. Eugenics, for example, is an explicitly white European idea that was extensively practiced in America, Canada, and across Europe.
|
On December 06 2017 04:02 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:55 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 03:35 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 03:18 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 02:54 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:14 NewSunshine wrote:On December 06 2017 02:07 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
No one is asking for you to meet in the middle. I'm just saying if you want to act superior to them you should act superior to them. You've done nothing in the thread other then perpetuate vicious polarized discourse so you're the last person to complain about others wanting you to meet in the middle. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. Seriously, what a construction! My bad behavior is justified because they started it! On December 06 2017 02:27 Sermokala wrote:
Ah so you're a hypocrite. You want to act as bad as you accuse people of acting and argue in as bad faith as you say other people are arguing. I'm glad we've cleared this all up and you've admitted your guilt in the matter. Liquid'Drone and Falling are useful examples of the reverse. You see, for example, Drone engaging on a stance he thinks is immoral, or an argument unfair, without dipping into unfair backlashes, flippant comments, and paragraphs of pure insults. NewSunshine deserves credit for owning up to doing himself exactly what he likes to insult others for doing, even if he thinks he has more cause for the misbehavior than others. If you weren't trying to read what you want into what he said, you would know that he doesn't believe that his bad behavior is justified, he believes that he doesn't have bad behavior on this topic. However, props to you for doing exactly what you give props to NewSunshine for owning up to doing without owning up to it yourself. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. What you're missing, perhaps intentionally, is that he admits that his interactions have polarized the discourse, justifying it as "because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation" [ they provoked me first]. "I'm guilty as charged" means that he accepts the characterization, with the understanding that he considers it warranted. I'm not implying you or he will observe and reflect on the plain meaning of his speech. "I'm guilty as charged" doesn't mean that he accepts his own hypocrysy "because you provoked him", it means that he views the accusation that was made against him as futile and he dismisses it. "If you call people who don't accept your bullshit "polarizing" because they don't accept your bullshit, then I'm guilty". It's pretty clear. This comes back to my original critic to Sermo. You're never polarizing for having extreme views, we're polarizing for not compromising with you. In your case at least I'm pretty sure you know this is a rhetorical trick but I wasn't sure when it comes to Sermo (and I'm still not, cause his answers are generally weird). My answer is yes? You're inherently labeling their views as extreme and refusing to compromise thats as polarizing as you can get. Nothing good has come from anything without compromise. Its the definitive good answer to any argument or situation you can be in. You shouldn't compromise your limits of compromise for the sake of compromising but thats you compromising with how much you should compromise. Reality is labeling their views as extreme, so I am too. I like reality. I guess I could compromise and pretend that they're not extreme, is that what you want me to do? Not a big fan of those compromises between being factually correct and being factually incorrect. Is this the part where you say reality has a liberal bias like a smug hipster? Your insistence on being right doesn't make reality bend to your will. People are asking you to not be a dick. Your response is saying you have no choice but to be a dick because those people are forcing you to be a dick. You have the personal agency to not let the other define you. Well, we appear to have a disagreement on whether republican views are extreme or not. Tell you what, I'll stick to my position, and you're going to show that you're superior by attempting to find a compromise. Hope you're fine with that?
Its like you're switzerland and I'm the guy who wants you to do something about the holocaust gold.
|
On December 06 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:07 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 04:00 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:57 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. "emerged?" no "thrived as a result of?" yes. but i would say as a result of enlightenment AND reformation. max weber said this over a hundred years ago But posters here are claiming that the reason for the adoption of Western culture by non-Western cultures is due to its inherent superiority - not due to the spread of capitalism stamping western culture into these countries whether they like it or not. To try and explain this by pointing to capitalism as emerging due to the Enlightenment misrepresents the causal relationship between capitalism and 'Western' values. well saying "the enlightenment and reformation ohenomena led to the growth of capitalism in the west" and saying "other countries are only forced to adopt capitalism and western values out of necessity" (the two being inextricably linked) arent mutually exclusive. what i think is the more pressing question is: what to make of so called "capitalism w asian values" in what is supposed to be the only region of the world that poses a true threat to continued American global dominance Very true, I just have a problem with xDaunt expressing the idea that Western culture 'produced' capitalism.
well there was some western culture before the enlightenment in which capitalism "emerged" and in which the reformation itself "emerged" . . . china and the ottomans didnt exactly produce the magna carta
|
On December 06 2017 04:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 04:07 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 04:00 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:57 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. "emerged?" no "thrived as a result of?" yes. but i would say as a result of enlightenment AND reformation. max weber said this over a hundred years ago But posters here are claiming that the reason for the adoption of Western culture by non-Western cultures is due to its inherent superiority - not due to the spread of capitalism stamping western culture into these countries whether they like it or not. To try and explain this by pointing to capitalism as emerging due to the Enlightenment misrepresents the causal relationship between capitalism and 'Western' values. well saying "the enlightenment and reformation ohenomena led to the growth of capitalism in the west" and saying "other countries are only forced to adopt capitalism and western values out of necessity" (the two being inextricably linked) arent mutually exclusive. what i think is the more pressing question is: what to make of so called "capitalism w asian values" in what is supposed to be the only region of the world that poses a true threat to continued American global dominance Very true, I just have a problem with xDaunt expressing the idea that Western culture 'produced' capitalism. well there was some western culture before the enlightenment in which capitalism "emerged" and in which the reformation itself "emerged" . . . china and the ottomans didnt exactly produce the magna carta
Sorry, by Western culture I meant Enlightenment values
|
On December 06 2017 04:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 03:42 Logo wrote:On December 06 2017 03:06 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:55 Logo wrote:It's nice to see the lawyers bringing up actual relevant cases ( not like the examples brought up here yesterday)
For support, [ACLU Lawyer Mr. Cole] turns to the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 opinion rejecting a claim that members of the Native American Church could not be penalized because they used peyote, a sacrament in their faith that nevertheless was illegal under state law.
Justice Scalia’s reasoning followed Reynolds v. U.S., an 1878 case rejecting a Mormon’s claim that his religious faith exempted him from bigamy laws. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances," the court said then
Ms. Waggoner tries to march through three points she has prepared in rebuttal. She argues that, 1) the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was biased because it did not cite bakers who refused to bake cakes denigrating same-sex marriage; 2) that Mr. Phillips is entitled to “dignity” under the law for his “honorable and decent beliefs about marriage,” and 3) that public opinion about same-sex marriage is moving already in Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins’s direction. Kristen K Waggoner, lawyer for Masterpiece Cakeshop arguing for the baker, brought identical examples to what I brought up yesterday. Logo, here's your chance to tell me that she's also a dummy for bringing them up before the highest court in the land when her client stands liable to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars. Specifically, do you walk back "that's not a thing" and "It's not that hard and it's not some weird moral quandary," given that it's among several questions from at least 4 justices of the supreme court that find moral dilemmas? I'm very interested, Logo, if you want to dismiss it for the third time, or if your understanding of the issues at stake have changed or become more nuanced? Chief Justice Roberts returns to an earlier hypothetical: must, say, a nonprofit like Catholic Legal Services, affiliated with a church that views same-sex marriage as sinful, agree to represent a gay couple suing Masterpiece Cakeshop, simply because they offer other legal services to the public? Not exactly a line I thought would come up... I've said I think 3 times now that it's not hard and it's not a moral quandary that sexual orientation should be a protected class. Yet you continue to both fight me on the issue and apparently not agree. Your effort to dodge out of the simple idea is to pretend it's some grander statement that you can poke holes in. It's not. (And yes I obviously think the examples brought up by Ms. Waggoner are less relevant than the example brought up by Mr. Cole and the associated words of Anton Scalia). You're looping back around, but this is likely the last post I'll do on this particular topic with you. You've never given a defense that weighing public accommodation against free speech and exercise exercise rights does not involve a moral consideration. Every time it's brought up, you deflect to either protected classes of people or a universal right to discrimination against a view or expression. You're unprepared to argue where and when your universal right to discrimination against a view or expression meets a baker's right to turn down a cake expressing a positive view of an upcoming gay marriage. Is he refusing service because he/she is gay, or is he within his right to discriminate against (as your frame it) a "view or expression" (it's something to be celebrated in society)? Related to the first, you've ignored or glossed over the Supreme Court's multifaceted treatment of the issue. The very fact that Supreme Court justices are arguing for and against certain limitations on his right to free expression means you're absolutely wrong to think there's no moral quandary here. It's not like "sexual orientation should be a protected class" remotely answers the question at hand. Otherwise, maybe the lawyer would have said it and repeated it under questioning but he didn't because that would be foolish. It amounts to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "There's nothing to be resolved, because I haven't heard a dilemma that needs resolving."
I did not? I've been reading and listening to arguments on both sides of the issue as it's a reasonably interesting one in terms of what protected classes actually means, how those protections relate to each other, and the ability to use religion as a means to rub against or skirt the limitations of protected class. I don't think I've chimed in any detail one way or the other to any great length. Mostly just some small quips and a primary point that I think situations like the ones brought up by Mr. Cole (and me in this thread) are more relevant precedence as the issue to me has primarily to do with how much you can get away with under the umbrella of religious freedom and almost nothing about gay rights (except insofar as Christianity intersects with Homophobia).
None of that has to do with the thing I said that you take so much issue with. I'm not looping back around as far as I can tell other than the fact that I can't reduce my statement any more or make it any simpler.
I said I think what most people want is for sexual identity to be a protected class (which it isn't federally). Having it be a protected class is not a moral quandary or a difficulty decision.
What you did is rip those two words completely out of the context of the post and pretend like I said something I didn't, then you've stuck by that statement every time I've clarified it.
---
Not directly related, but yes related is that you've had maybe 4+ chances to say you agree that sexual identity should be a protected class as I've put my statement in increasingly clear terms. Instead you've doubled down on ignoring the very specific thing I said. Which doesn't give me a lot of confidence that the intricate nature of anti-discrimination laws and free speech is actually the issue you care about.
|
On December 06 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:07 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 04:00 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:57 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. "emerged?" no "thrived as a result of?" yes. but i would say as a result of enlightenment AND reformation. max weber said this over a hundred years ago But posters here are claiming that the reason for the adoption of Western culture by non-Western cultures is due to its inherent superiority - not due to the spread of capitalism stamping western culture into these countries whether they like it or not. To try and explain this by pointing to capitalism as emerging due to the Enlightenment misrepresents the causal relationship between capitalism and 'Western' values. well saying "the enlightenment and reformation ohenomena led to the growth of capitalism in the west" and saying "other countries are only forced to adopt capitalism and western values out of necessity" (the two being inextricably linked) arent mutually exclusive. what i think is the more pressing question is: what to make of so called "capitalism w asian values" in what is supposed to be the only region of the world that poses a true threat to continued American global dominance What you see are countries that acknowledge the obvious power and superiority of a capitalist economy but are still expressly rejecting most of the core individual-oriented, Western values that gave birth to that system. This is why I say that cultural differences matter and Western culture should be defended. There very clearly are competitors out there that seek to eventually overtake and replace the dominant position of Western culture. Anyone who purports to cherish the fruits of Western culture -- which, as I have pointed out, is pretty much everyone here -- should be mindful of this reality and act accordingly.
You act as if our cultural identity is something so fragile and unstable that it must be insulated from conflicting ideas. If Western Culture as you frame is so meritorious, it won’t need us to defend it. We have to shield this “culture” from the free exchange of idea that birthed it. If capitalism and liberty if going to “survive” this culture war you claim is coming, it isn’t going to do it by limiting the US citizen’s exposure to other ideas and cultures.
|
On December 06 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
What you see are countries that acknowledge the obvious power and superiority of a capitalist economy but are still expressly rejecting most of the core individual-oriented, Western values that gave birth to that system. This is why I say that cultural differences matter and Western culture should be defended. There very clearly are competitors out there that seek to eventually overtake and replace the dominant position of Western culture. Anyone who purports to cherish the fruits of Western culture -- which, as I have pointed out, is pretty much everyone here -- should be mindful of this reality and act accordingly.
Personally, I just don't see "our culture" and "their culture" as monolithic entities. If other cultures can cherry-pick the parts of western culture that self-evidently lead to a more successful society, why can't we do the reverse?
Every culture has a combination of good and shitty things. We as a society of discerning, rational human beings can steer our society in the direction of the good things and reject the shitty things. Western culture created a lot of great things, but that doesn't mean I need to accept all components of western culture together. We can build a better society by integrating things that other people do better, and that's what the whole idea of exposing our society to other cultures is about. The good stuff floats to the top and the bad stuff sinks to the bottom because it's self-evidently bad.
Maybe this is just my perspective growing up as a second-generation immigrant from the fact that I'm just doing this shit all the time, and constantly reconciling my Chinese heritage and my American upbringing in a way that I believe is more sensible than blindly adhering to one or the other. Cultures are not monolithic entities and we shouldn't be elevating one wholesale above others. Rather, they are a modular collection of ideas, and we should be seeking to make our culture better by incorporating the good ideas from other cultures and rejecting the bad ones.
|
On December 06 2017 04:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:02 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 03:55 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 03:40 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 03:35 Sermokala wrote:On December 06 2017 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 03:18 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:On December 06 2017 02:54 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 02:14 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. Seriously, what a construction! My bad behavior is justified because they started it! On December 06 2017 02:27 Sermokala wrote:
Ah so you're a hypocrite. You want to act as bad as you accuse people of acting and argue in as bad faith as you say other people are arguing. I'm glad we've cleared this all up and you've admitted your guilt in the matter. Liquid'Drone and Falling are useful examples of the reverse. You see, for example, Drone engaging on a stance he thinks is immoral, or an argument unfair, without dipping into unfair backlashes, flippant comments, and paragraphs of pure insults. NewSunshine deserves credit for owning up to doing himself exactly what he likes to insult others for doing, even if he thinks he has more cause for the misbehavior than others. If you weren't trying to read what you want into what he said, you would know that he doesn't believe that his bad behavior is justified, he believes that he doesn't have bad behavior on this topic. However, props to you for doing exactly what you give props to NewSunshine for owning up to doing without owning up to it yourself. I don't want to be superior to them, I want us all to be willing to have an honest discussion with each other. If I come off as polarizing because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation, then I'm guilty as charged. What you're missing, perhaps intentionally, is that he admits that his interactions have polarized the discourse, justifying it as "because I don't indulge their bad faith argumentation" [ they provoked me first]. "I'm guilty as charged" means that he accepts the characterization, with the understanding that he considers it warranted. I'm not implying you or he will observe and reflect on the plain meaning of his speech. "I'm guilty as charged" doesn't mean that he accepts his own hypocrysy "because you provoked him", it means that he views the accusation that was made against him as futile and he dismisses it. "If you call people who don't accept your bullshit "polarizing" because they don't accept your bullshit, then I'm guilty". It's pretty clear. This comes back to my original critic to Sermo. You're never polarizing for having extreme views, we're polarizing for not compromising with you. In your case at least I'm pretty sure you know this is a rhetorical trick but I wasn't sure when it comes to Sermo (and I'm still not, cause his answers are generally weird). My answer is yes? You're inherently labeling their views as extreme and refusing to compromise thats as polarizing as you can get. Nothing good has come from anything without compromise. Its the definitive good answer to any argument or situation you can be in. You shouldn't compromise your limits of compromise for the sake of compromising but thats you compromising with how much you should compromise. Reality is labeling their views as extreme, so I am too. I like reality. I guess I could compromise and pretend that they're not extreme, is that what you want me to do? Not a big fan of those compromises between being factually correct and being factually incorrect. Is this the part where you say reality has a liberal bias like a smug hipster? Your insistence on being right doesn't make reality bend to your will. People are asking you to not be a dick. Your response is saying you have no choice but to be a dick because those people are forcing you to be a dick. You have the personal agency to not let the other define you. Well, we appear to have a disagreement on whether republican views are extreme or not. Tell you what, I'll stick to my position, and you're going to show that you're superior by attempting to find a compromise. Hope you're fine with that? Its like you're switzerland and I'm the guy who wants you to do something about the holocaust gold.
I don't quite know what that means, but I'm fine not knowing tbh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
