This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Defense of Weastern civilization.  (Read 13003 times)

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Defense of Weastern civilization.
« Reply #135 on: September 14, 2017, 07:14:32 PM »
@kim & Brendan, thanks for the interesting & civilised discourse on postmodernism & the study of history, I feel I learned something. :)

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Defense of Weastern civilization.
« Reply #136 on: September 14, 2017, 07:24:04 PM »
Quote from: Gwarh;992404
Chicken or the Egg

Did the decline in Religiosity of Europeans weaken them enough to allow Marxist ideology to gain a hold, or did Marxism cause the decline in Religiosity. I'd say you need a weakening of the current believe system first before a new one can take hold. Though once it gets started it creates a feedback loop.

The longer and longer I go as being an Atheist, the more feel it's done as much harm as it's done good. The "God is Dead" Nihilism paves the way to Marxism argument. At one point in my life I didn't give Christianity much if any credit for the birth of the Enlightenment, but the more history I see there is validity in Christian Philosophical argument that the ideas (not all of course but more than I previously gave credit) of the enlightenment owe a certain amount of gratitude to the Christian tradition. I think there is allot of validity in the arguments of Prof Jordan Peterson or the Writer/Humorist Andrew Klavan re: Christianities contribution to Enlightenment Ideals.

Once I took the red pill of Atheism in my pre-tween years there was no going back. You can't un-see what's been seen once you've put on the "They Live" sunglasses. But I also see the tertiary problem with Atheism as it all to often leads folks to be materialists and worse nihilists. Both of those things allow Marxism (and Authoritarianism in general) to be all the more appealing.


I'm much the same, though I was raised an Atheist so I never had a chance. I definitely think Christianity laid the groundwork for the Enlightenment. By separating out God from His Creation and positing a universe governed by Natural Law, it made science possible. Mind you a lot of late Republican Roman thinkers seem highly modern too, but they were a tiny elite; the culture itself was not conducive to the scientific enterprise.

-E.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 1198
Defense of Weastern civilization.
« Reply #137 on: September 14, 2017, 07:38:21 PM »
Quote from: Gwarh;992370
If this is the case then how do we explain Doctors, Engineers, Children of the Wealthy turning to Extreemist groups. One doesn't have to be desperate to adopt an extremist ideology/position.

I only say this as I'm tired of the "If these kids had job prospects they'red be no ISIS" argument.

I hear what your saying and feeling depressed, destitute and without hope certainly doesn't help someones mental state of mind, but I think Ideology (Religion) plays has an even greater part.

P.S. the Majority of ANTIFA types are hardly destitute poor. The majority almost assuredly are middle class millennials with at least some time (if not allot of time) in college. They are among the most privileged people currently alive, let alone ever to have lived.

Is White Guilt enough to drive one into the arms of ANTIFA? Well after 4 years of Cultural Marxist indoctrination it certainly seems that way.

People can be in despair about a lot of things.

It's not primarily financial -- in a lot of cases, they're even doing pretty well -- but not as well as their expectations. Disappointment and entitlement drive extremism, and yeah -- mostly that's losers, but it's also people who think really highly of themselves and then hit reality and find out not everyone is so impressed.

Different ideologies will speak to different people -- the guys shooting up a place for ISIS might not find ANTIFA that appealing -- so if you're in the market for an extremist or radicalized ideology, you'll find one that fits your background and culture.

But didn't we just have a thread where someone went from OWS to WSE?

It's not as far a jump as some might think.

Cheers,
-E.
 

-E.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 1198
Defense of Weastern civilization.
« Reply #138 on: September 14, 2017, 07:40:46 PM »
Quote from: Gwarh;992378
You had your chance to take the red pill Neo, but you chose to be Cypher instead.

Sadly, no.

Where are you getting your information? What sources do you believe? Who do you trust to tell you the truth?

Start there. If you want to see the Matrix, you have to look inward -- not out at the comforting messages that tell you things you want to be true.

If you're willing, I'll show you.
-E.
 

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Defense of Weastern civilization.
« Reply #139 on: September 14, 2017, 07:55:23 PM »
Quote from: -E.;992423
Who do you trust to tell you the truth?

IME if the issue is controversial it's best to trust no one, but seek to triangulate and look for two+ different perspectives.
Also, look for familiar patterns. Hoaxes & lies especially tend to be built up along standard structures. Truth can be a lot weirder & surprising.

One pattern though is that some people/sources always seem to lie, others seem to have honest intent. A few even have wisdom + honesty. Usually those are the ones who get the most abuse directed at them.

-E.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 1198
Defense of Weastern civilization.
« Reply #140 on: September 14, 2017, 09:03:28 PM »
Quote from: S'mon;992429
IME if the issue is controversial it's best to trust no one, but seek to triangulate and look for two+ different perspectives.
Also, look for familiar patterns. Hoaxes & lies especially tend to be built up along standard structures. Truth can be a lot weirder & surprising.

One pattern though is that some people/sources always seem to lie, others seem to have honest intent. A few even have wisdom + honesty. Usually those are the ones who get the most abuse directed at them.

I don't think news sources work like compasses where you can take a couple of readings and get an aggregate.

It's very possible to select 4 incorrect sources and one decent one and conclude that the incorrect ones have it.

I agree that hoaxes and lies can fall into patterns, but that's not always the case, either. And just because something is weird and surprising doesn't mean it's true.

And I definitely don't agree that getting the most abuse indicates honestly and wisdom -- sites that traffic in transgression are likely to get abuse (and want it. And deserve it) for that reason alone.

Better than nothing
Looking at multiple sites is better than looking at one. Looking for patterns that indicate dishonesty is better than being oblivious to them. Placing some trust (a little?) sites with a good history of fidelity is better than treating sites with a history of lying equal to ones mostly proven true.

But I don't think that -- alone -- they'll get you to The Matrix

Seeing the Matrix
How do you choose which sites to triangulate with?

How do you distinguish between a pattern that looks like a lie from one that's actually a lie?

When the topic isn't news (e.g. "what happened") but something factual about the world, where do you go? Who do you trust to tell you how many stars there are in the sky, or whether climate change is driven largely by humans?

Cheers,
-E.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 09:19:11 PM by -E. »
 

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
Defense of Weastern civilization.
« Reply #141 on: September 14, 2017, 10:28:38 PM »
Quote from: Gwarh;992404
Chicken or the Egg


Neither. The decline in religiosity was something that started centuries before the Marxists even existed.  It was a product of modernization combined with Enlightenment ideals.

There IS a link between Marxism and the rise of Material Positivism, which is different than general secularism.  Material Positivism promotes the notion that there is nothing in this world except matter, we are just a bag of meat, and any search for transcendental meaning, purpose, or individuation is delusional at best and dangerous at worst. It allows and justifies the Marxist notion that people should just be treated as cogs in the machine and that individual rights can be ignored with impunity.
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

Dumarest

  • Vaquero
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3685
Defense of Weastern civilization.
« Reply #142 on: September 14, 2017, 11:33:37 PM »
Quote from: S'mon;992411
I think the successful gaslighting campaign by the Left was aided by an older strategy unique to the USA of pretending not to be Marxist. It's a bit weird looking in from outside the USA; in most countries Marxists will call themselves Marxists, in the USA Marxist academics generally deny it, and the lumpen-intelligentsia they indoctrinate don't even know where the ideas come from. I think what happened in the USA (but natives may correct me) is that ca 1930s or 1950s(?) the US Right successfully stigmatised the term Marxist with the US public, so the Marxists adopted a camouflage strategy. At my University staff seminars, academics will often say "As a Marxist, I..." or "As Marx teaches us..." - and my faculty is definitely not particularly extreme AFAIK. But the US Academy at the higher institutions seems if anything more left-wing than here in the UK. They just don't want to call themselves Marxists.


Oldest trick in the book. Never tell the enemy who and what you are. They've all read Animal Farm , missed the point, and adopted the tactics of Napoleon the pig.

jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18318
Defense of Weastern civilization.
« Reply #143 on: September 14, 2017, 11:46:59 PM »
Quote from: S'mon;992429
A few even have wisdom + honesty. Usually those are the ones who get the most abuse directed at them.


So that's why..... :D
"Meh."

jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18318
Defense of Weastern civilization.
« Reply #144 on: September 14, 2017, 11:56:10 PM »
Quote from: -E.;992441
I don't think news sources work like compasses where you can take a couple of readings and get an aggregate.

It's very possible to select 4 incorrect sources and one decent one and conclude that the incorrect ones have it.

Looking at multiple sites is better than looking at one. Looking for patterns that indicate dishonesty is better than being oblivious to them.

That is why you look at multiple sources with different biases. The truth then points to itself.

Quote from: -E.;992441
Placing some trust (a little?) sites with a good history of fidelity is better than treating sites with a history of lying equal to ones mostly proven true.

And this is where you fuck up. You NEVER assume that ANY site is TRUSTWORTHY, you compare and correlate the information and weed out the opinions to get to the facts by going through multiple sites and multiple sources.


Quote from: -E.;992441
How do you choose which sites to triangulate with?

How do you distinguish between a pattern that looks like a lie from one that's actually a lie?

When the topic isn't news (e.g. "what happened") but something factual about the world, where do you go? Who do you trust to tell you how many stars there are in the sky, or whether climate change is driven largely by humans?

Well, first you have to be able to discriminate between what answer is going to be a fact and what is going to be an opinion.

Otherwise, see above.

(Fuckin' A, people. This is Basic Research 101. Don't they teach that anymore?)
"Meh."

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Defense of Weastern civilization.
« Reply #145 on: September 15, 2017, 03:33:38 AM »
Quote from: jeff37923;992505
So that's why..... :D


:D

OK that may not be the only reason someone gets the most abuse directed at them. :D

I was thinking of Ron Paul when I wrote that. I didn't want to believe his negative predictions re Trump before the election, but they pretty much all seem to have been right. He seems pretty consistently right about stuff AFAICT, and that doesn't help his popularity.

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Defense of Weastern civilization.
« Reply #146 on: September 15, 2017, 03:36:36 AM »
Quote from: jeff37923;992511
And this is where you fuck up. You NEVER assume that ANY site is TRUSTWORTHY, you compare and correlate the information and weed out the opinions to get to the facts by going through multiple sites and multiple sources.

Yes. In particular I look for counter-arguments to a thesis. Where counter arguments seem based on ad hominem, misdirection, and appeals to authority, but not on facts, that's a good sign the thesis may be correct.

-E.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 1198
Defense of Weastern civilization.
« Reply #147 on: September 15, 2017, 06:39:16 AM »
Quote from: jeff37923;992511
That is why you look at multiple sources with different biases. The truth then points to itself.

And this is where you fuck up. You NEVER assume that ANY site is TRUSTWORTHY, you compare and correlate the information and weed out the opinions to get to the facts by going through multiple sites and multiple sources.

Well, first you have to be able to discriminate between what answer is going to be a fact and what is going to be an opinion.

Otherwise, see above.

(Fuckin' A, people. This is Basic Research 101. Don't they teach that anymore?)

Discounting known liars
When S'mon notes that

Quote from: S'mon
One pattern though is that some people/sources always seem to lie, others seem to have honest intent. A few even have wisdom + honesty. Usually those are the ones who get the most abuse directed at them.

I think he's got a point. If you're going to treat a source that repeatedly has been proven false and to have misleading intent with the same way you'd treat one with a record for truth, you're not applying discretion.

You'll never get to see The Matrix that way!

Cheers,
-E.
 

-E.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 1198
Defense of Weastern civilization.
« Reply #148 on: September 15, 2017, 06:41:05 AM »
Quote from: S'mon;992541
:D

OK that may not be the only reason someone gets the most abuse directed at them. :D

I was thinking of Ron Paul when I wrote that. I didn't want to believe his negative predictions re Trump before the election, but they pretty much all seem to have been right. He seems pretty consistently right about stuff AFAICT, and that doesn't help his popularity.

In a lot of contexts being popular has a lot to do with telling people what they want to believe and very little to do with being right.

Unfortunately.
-E.
 

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Defense of Weastern civilization.
« Reply #149 on: September 15, 2017, 07:37:32 AM »
Quote from: -E.;992556
In a lot of contexts being popular has a lot to do with telling people what they want to believe and very little to do with being right.

Yes, exactly. The one who speaks hard truths often attracts the most vitriol. There was a BBC journalist who revealed Blair's dirty propaganda tricks leading up to the Iraq War. He attracted a huge amount of abuse. Andrew Gilligan I think is his name.
I can think of a couple other examples I'll not mention since they'd make people mad & I don't feel like a flame war right now. At least with the Iraq war most people now agree it was a disaster, and those who don't feel more defensive than righteous anger.