Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 9:04 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 8:51 pm Do you not see the complementary nature of my comment?

No. In what way was it complementary?

Your post was well put. Your style and content were unassailable

Joe Biden, the father of ‘Borking’
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/51 ... f-borking/

As head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he (Biden) presided over the infamous Robert Bork hearings. His smearing of Bork for his original-intent judicial philosophy transformed hearings for Supreme Court nominees into bloody ideological battles. Henceforth, all conservative nominees were subjected to “Borking.”

Brutal to Bork from the start, Biden treated him not as a serious judge but as a stooge for what Biden called the “Reagan-Meese” agenda. Biden’s transparently unfair treatment of Bork was so bad even The Washington Post editorialized against Biden at the time …

Nice bit of irony, seeing as how Biden became a stooge.

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 6:29 am Joe Biden, the father of ‘Borking’
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/51 ... f-borking/

As head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he (Biden) presided over the infamous Robert Bork hearings. His smearing of Bork for his original-intent judicial philosophy transformed hearings for Supreme Court nominees into bloody ideological battles. Henceforth, all conservative nominees were subjected to “Borking.”

Brutal to Bork from the start, Biden treated him not as a serious judge but as a stooge for what Biden called the “Reagan-Meese” agenda. Biden’s transparently unfair treatment of Bork was so bad even The Washington Post editorialized against Biden at the time …

Nice bit of irony, seeing as how Biden became a stooge.

In a similarly ironic nod, you could see what was going to become of Trump just by noticing that the majority of his head is a lie.
.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:15 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:05 pm "What's reasonable about hating all that exists, destroying everything we've built, and blinding trusting an imaginary "god" called "History" to save us all from our folly?"

Bro that's exactly what the antediluvian people asked when God flooded the erf.

Let's suppose, just for argument's sake, that you're right: that doesn't make it better for the Socialists -- it makes it even worse. I mean, if there were a "god" or "gods" that the Socialists simply didn't know about, maybe History would magically progress when we destroy things. The real "gods" would be doing it, but we would think it was the great god "History." Still, at least "progress" would be expectable.

But if there's no great god "History" at all, then Socialism is just a product of blindly destroying the status quo, with no reasonable expectation of "progress" at all.

So which way do you want to be wrong?

You are a confused little puppy.
It's all wrong obviously, dolt.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:35 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 6:29 am Joe Biden, the father of ‘Borking’
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/51 ... f-borking/

As head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he (Biden) presided over the infamous Robert Bork hearings. His smearing of Bork for his original-intent judicial philosophy transformed hearings for Supreme Court nominees into bloody ideological battles. Henceforth, all conservative nominees were subjected to “Borking.”

Brutal to Bork from the start, Biden treated him not as a serious judge but as a stooge for what Biden called the “Reagan-Meese” agenda. Biden’s transparently unfair treatment of Bork was so bad even The Washington Post editorialized against Biden at the time …

Nice bit of irony, seeing as how Biden became a stooge.

In a similarly ironic nod, you could see what was going to become of Trump just by noticing that the majority of his head is a lie.
.

HCyJ8jP.jpeg

A man going bald. How dare he.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 10:03 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:35 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 6:29 am Joe Biden, the father of ‘Borking’
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/51 ... f-borking/

Nice bit of irony, seeing as how Biden became a stooge.

In a similarly ironic nod, you could see what was going to become of Trump just by noticing that the majority of his head is a lie.
.

HCyJ8jP.jpeg

A man going bald. How dare he.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 9:59 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:15 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:05 pm "What's reasonable about hating all that exists, destroying everything we've built, and blinding trusting an imaginary "god" called "History" to save us all from our folly?"

Bro that's exactly what the antediluvian people asked when God flooded the erf.

Let's suppose, just for argument's sake, that you're right: that doesn't make it better for the Socialists -- it makes it even worse. I mean, if there were a "god" or "gods" that the Socialists simply didn't know about, maybe History would magically progress when we destroy things. The real "gods" would be doing it, but we would think it was the great god "History." Still, at least "progress" would be expectable.

But if there's no great god "History" at all, then Socialism is just a product of blindly destroying the status quo, with no reasonable expectation of "progress" at all.

So which way do you want to be wrong?

You are a confused little puppy.

Not so confused that I'm self-contradicting. Socialism is inherently contradictory, and not just for the above reasons. It also supposes there's a problem in the structure of society, one we have created, but which we who caused the problem in the first place can rectify by imposing a more structured society.

Make sense of that, if you can.

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 6:29 am Joe Biden, the father of ‘Borking’
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/51 ... f-borking/

As head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he (Biden) presided over the infamous Robert Bork hearings. His smearing of Bork for his original-intent judicial philosophy transformed hearings for Supreme Court nominees into bloody ideological battles. Henceforth, all conservative nominees were subjected to “Borking.”

Brutal to Bork from the start, Biden treated him not as a serious judge but as a stooge for what Biden called the “Reagan-Meese” agenda. Biden’s transparently unfair treatment of Bork was so bad even The Washington Post editorialized against Biden at the time …

Nice bit of irony, seeing as how Biden became a stooge.

Agreed, and I would add two thoughts to the discussion.

For an honest comparison consider the Ben Ghazi hearings. Goose/Gander.

Aside from that, there’s always the possibility of growth or of a change of circumstances, usually referred to as flip-flopping.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 2:22 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 9:59 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:15 pm
Let's suppose, just for argument's sake, that you're right: that doesn't make it better for the Socialists -- it makes it even worse. I mean, if there were a "god" or "gods" that the Socialists simply didn't know about, maybe History would magically progress when we destroy things. The real "gods" would be doing it, but we would think it was the great god "History." Still, at least "progress" would be expectable.

But if there's no great god "History" at all, then Socialism is just a product of blindly destroying the status quo, with no reasonable expectation of "progress" at all.

So which way do you want to be wrong?

You are a confused little puppy.

Not so confused that I'm self-contradicting. Socialism is inherently contradictory, and not just for the above reasons. It also supposes there's a problem in the structure of society, one we have created, but which we who caused the problem in the first place can rectify by imposing a more structured society.

Make sense of that, if you can.

As usual you don't know what you are talking about.

Trump calls for executiona and Repugnants say fuck all.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QsSZ31PjmH0

I think you posted the wrong clip. There's no 'calling for execution' on there

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 4:03 pm As usual you don't know what you are talking about.

As usual, you have no substantive response, and apparently can't even get on the playing field.

A common technique of cultural subversion “involves an attack upon genuine inequities or irrationalities. Since all societies abound in both, there is never an absence of targets. However, the attack is generally not directed at the particular inequity or irrationality per se. Rather, such inequities or irrationalities are used as a means for achieving a larger purpose: the general weakening of the social order itself” [Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter from a 1982 essay on the New Left]

Let's examine what Mark Levin, and Walker, have defined as 'hatred'. I do not think that is the best word. I think we need to examine the term criticism and oppose it with its opposite: constructivism. For this reason -- this is obvious, is it not? -- there has been a rising tide of complaint and opposition to critical theories by those of a Right-leaning orientation.

In the on-going battle (culture war) the Left-Progressive faction involves itself in harsh and sustained criticism of systems, conventions, cultural restrictions, established mores, religious belief (i.e. Christian morality) and it invites people to participate in processes of 'tearing down'. For this reason it is not unfair to refer to the riots, the burnings, the destruction, as well as the attacks on institutions of authority such as police stations, etc. And extension of this criticism is, therefore, destructive actions.

The Right (if my perception is accurate) attempts with limited success to oppose destructive-criticism through a constructivist ethics. That is, it can admit and does admit to 'inequalities' and past actions that it repudiates, but instead of saying "Tear it all down!" it admonishes that a better attitude is to hold to a constructive outlook: i.e. see all the good things that have been done; see how far society has come; focus on a constructive view of the United States in opposition to a purely negative one.

There still remains a core problem however and it is that there are factions who do not have reconcilable visions of what America is nor what it should be. There is no doubt -- in my mind at least -- that the faction I regard as *my enemy* has dedicated itself to "the general weakening of the social order". But that is a problematic assertion since, as it happens, the 'social order' of today is not the social order of even 20 years ago and not to mention 50-60 years ago.

From a Forbes article:

The debate over Critical Race Theory continues to wage on. Last year, a video went viral of a man who criticized Critical Race Theory but at the same time could not define it. The man said that Critical Race Theory was the most crucial issue in last year’s Virginia gubernatorial election, but later he could not define the theoretical framework or justify his feelings against it. This has led to many who argue that many White Americans who oppose CRT are also completely unaware of what it is.

That said, proponents of theory argue that there is a large cohort of white Americans who have expressed opposition to the theory who are not guilty of having gaps in knowledge about it, but choose to remain blatantly and willfully uneducated about CRT, which speaks to a larger issue. A larger issue that that points to a deeply rooted rage that stems from fear of anything they perceive to be a threat to their racial privilege. Furthermore, many argue that their indignant and almost boastful resistance to familiarize themselves on the topic of basic U.S. history further illustrates their racial privilege.

Here is a Heritage Foundation pamphlet that defines CRT and why it should be opposed.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 5:41 pm The Right (if my perception is accurate) attempts with limited success to oppose destructive-criticism through a constructivist ethics.

Actually, AJ, the term "Constructivism" is already in use, and refers not to what you wish to use it for -- a right-side kind of ideology -- but to yet another Leftist one.

"Constructivism is the theory that says learners construct knowledge rather than just passively take in information. As people experience the world and reflect upon those experiences, they build their own representations and incorporate new information into their pre-existing knowledge (schemas)." (University of Buffalo)

In other words, it's another anti-objectivity, anti-truth, anti-authority position, which says that human beings assemble (construct) or make up their own "knowledge," rather than discovering knowledge of the existingly real.

I think the term you're looking for is actually "conservatism." For you write:

That is, it can admit and does admit to 'inequalities' and past actions that it repudiates, but instead of saying "Tear it all down!" it admonishes that a better attitude is to hold to a constructive [sic] outlook: i.e. see all the good things that have been done; see how far society has come; focus on a constructive [sic] view of the United States in opposition to a purely negative one.

Conservatism is not, as the Left would wish to think, an anti-change or anti-improvement-of-society position. It's not mere retrenchment. Conservatism just argues that we should "conserve" elements of our past and institutions, rather than destroy them wholesale, while the changes that always are necessary are taking place. That's a key distinction. Conservatism is not the same as traditionalism, nostalgia for the past, Neo-Nazism or refusal to change. It's a different mode of change, a different response to the necessity of change, suggesting different strategies of change, especially those that preserve the benefits of existing human achievements in the process of change.

By contrast, the various Socialisms hold that dialectical destruction is the agency of change itself, and that all existing institutions are oppressive and retrograde. So it advocates only "revolutionary" measures, and regards all calls for restraint or preservation of elements of socieity as merely examples of refusal to accept change, or as "reactionary" strategies of maintaining the oppressive status quo.

Yes, I see, but I simply tried to create a term to stand in opposition to criticism. The point stands that it is one thing to be critical and criticizing and to engage in processes that end up *tearing down* and another to be constructive and creative and to build on the positive.