Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:12 pm**

Skip wrote:So, what's all the caterwauling about?

You understood that without much problem.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:36 pm**

Skip wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote:[S -Nobody was blaming culture. ]
Sure somebody was. "Culture of abuse" was not my phrase, you'll note, but rather Dubious's coinage.
As in organizational culture, distinct from the national culture, artistic culture, material culture, spiritual culture and Culture at large.

Yes, so?

I wasn't assuming any of the adjectives you list.

The problem remains. You're blaming a kind of "culture" for the actions taken by individuals. You're blaming an unspecified collective noun. But you don't know what your putative "culture" really is, nor what factors produce the abuse in question.

And so long as that's so, you're just shooting in the dark. And with it, you're giving the individuals an opportunity to make an excuse for what they do.

Not really. I myself explained its meaning, twice, quite clearly.

Do it again. I must have missed it completely.

What are the constituent causes of a "culture of abuse"?
A closed, opaque system. A stratified class or caste structure, where all participants know who holds what rank. Lower tier populations (members, student, recruits, employees) are regarded and treated as peons, unworthy of respect or consideration. (Thus presenting a large pool of potential victims, joke-butts, personal whipping-posts, as well as exploitable human resources) Some designated categories of humans utterly and permanently barred from the higher levels. (Thus, cultivating a distinct 'species' of marked as prey.) Scorn of outsiders; complacent self-regard of insiders. (Thus, cultivating an atmosphere of superiority.) Privileges, rewards and perquisites - often quite lavish ones - accorded to the upper echelons. (Thus, cultivating self-congratulations, self-indulgence.) Closed, solid front against any scrutiny from outside; defensive stance of all members from criticism and blame from outside. (Thus, increasing layers of protection around an individual as he rises in the hierarchy, cultivating freedom from consequences.) Arrogance, narcissism, a sense of entitlement, cultivating a delusion of invulnerability in the higher ranks. (That's why they so often get careless once they're powerful, rich or famous enough: in mid-climb, their more unsavoury activities are clandestine.)

Okay, you give a list of non-specifics. That's a little, but not entirely, helpful in seeing what you're trying to say.

But if what you say is true, then there should be good examples on hand...that is, what you describe should not be a fictional "culture" that nobody has lived, but rather a real culture that exists and is recognizable in the real world.

So what is your specific example of such a culture?

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:41 pm**

Specific examples would only provide you with far too many nits to pick and an opportunity to choose one that can be seen as progressive.
The point is, many different types of organization from armies to churches, banks to newspapers have this same caste structure and levels of protection, as outlined on Page 1.
The peon pool varies; the objectives vary, the politics vary, the designated non-persons vary; the culture of privilege is constant.
I'm not trying to say it; I've said it. Enough times.
If you don't get it by now, you're not going to.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 7:53 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote:...

So what is your specific example of such a culture?

Sure. Fux News where presumably it was fairly common knowledge that the CEO and the top anchorman were letches who used their power and positions to try and get sex and take liberties with staff, in O'Reillys case to the tune of 13 million dollars, but everyone keeps schtum. You know, the tumpette's attitude that because you're rich you can grab 'em by the pussy with impunity.

Then you get the BBC...

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:39 pm**

Skip wrote:Specific examples would only provide you with far too many nits to pick and an opportunity to choose one that can be seen as progressive.

Au contraire: perhaps you should consider what it indicates if you're unable to give a single specific example of a "culture of abuse." You should also perhaps worry what it means that you cannot apparently talk about abuse without perhaps implicating Progressives.

Now, a minute ago, you were "certain." There were "certain" cultures that produce abuse, you said. Now you seem less "certain."

Well, let me help you out. What "culture" produced Bill Clinton? Washington? How about Bill Cosby? Hollywood? How about Jimmy Saville? UK media? If there's any truth to the "culture" idea, it shouldn't be too hard to name just one.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:14 pm**

mascularchies
Also include Co. Russell Williams, Randolph Hearst, Yuri Andropov, Caligula and many thousands of bullies, mighty and petty,
in many chains of command, in all kinds of organization, of all faiths, historical and periods and nationalities.
BTW, a few, a very few females get into those cliques if they're well enough connected and ruthless enough.

Unwilling is not the same as unable. I've lost interest in this mulberry bush.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:08 pm**

Skip wrote:mascularchies
Also include Co. Russell Williams, Randolph Hearst, Yuri Andropov, Caligula and many thousands of bullies, mighty and petty,
in many chains of command, in all kinds of organization, of all faiths, historical and periods and nationalities.
BTW, a few, a very few females get into those cliques if they're well enough connected and ruthless enough.

Unwilling is not the same as unable. I've lost interest in this mulberry bush.

Oh. I haven't.

I'm still curious about whether we can call Caligula the product of "mascularchy."

I would quite agree he was a bully...to say the very least. But where was this "culture" that is actually culpable? I would have blamed Caligula for Caligula's sins. I would have blamed William Randolph Hearst for William Randolph Hearst's peccadilloes with women. I would have blamed Bill Clinton for rape, sexual exploitation and abuse of power, Bill Cosby for the same sorts of things, and Bill O'Reilly for whatever he did, whenever the story of that is fully exposed.

But unless there was a "culture" of some kind around Bill Clinton, I wouldn't call Bill Clinton a product of a "mascularchy" or of a "culture of abuse." I'd call him a rapist. Jimmy Saville, I would not call merely a product of the "mascularchy" of UK media culture, but a pedophile. And in my view, both of them should go to jail. Because we sure can't jail any "mascularchies."

I have to worry that the "culture of abuse" explanation is actually too morally weak to change anything. We'll never find this "culture," and we'll never change what needs to be changed if we can't.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:09 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote:... How about Jimmy Saville? UK media? ...

1960's to 1970's UK culture, the BBC and police force who knew it was going on but were told not to rock the boat by their higher-ups.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:12 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote:... Because we sure can't jail any "mascularchies."

I have to worry that the "culture of abuse" explanation is actually too morally weak to change anything. We'll never find this "culture," and we'll never change what needs to be changed if we can't.

Well IC might not be able to but over here we've put in place the changes needed in both the BBC and the police force that makes such behaviours more unlikely to be kept hidden in the future. But I can well understand why IC would not like such a thing as his preferred organizations may well be put under the same spotlight.

Posted: **Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:46 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote:...then please explain what you mean by "culture of abuse." What are the constituent parts of this "culture" that we should be working on to change? Do you blame Hollywood? Please explain. Or is it Republicans or Brexit voters who create this allegedly abusive culture? Please explain how. Or is it all men who are responsible? We need to know what aspect of culture to address. It's not enough just to say, "somewhere out there is a thing that is causing all this abuse, and we'll shuffle the cultural deck randomly until things get better. Anybody who opts for "culture of abuse" thinking owes us a better explanation of what we are to do.

Your silly questions for specifics denote a complete incomprehensibility of what is meant by culture of abuse or abuse of culture which can manifest itself in countless ways. If you want to count them query Google! Skip already defined it in succinct detail in the following; there's nothing I can add or say that could possibly make more sense to you which has invariably been the case no matter what was discussed.

Skip wrote:A closed, opaque system. A stratified class or caste structure, where all participants know who holds what rank. Lower tier populations (members, student, recruits, employees) are regarded and treated as peons, unworthy of respect or consideration. (Thus presenting a large pool of potential victims, joke-butts, personal whipping-posts, as well as exploitable human resources) Some designated categories of humans utterly and permanently barred from the higher levels. (Thus, cultivating a distinct 'species' of marked as prey.) Scorn of outsiders; complacent self-regard of insiders. (Thus, cultivating an atmosphere of superiority.) Privileges, rewards and perquisites - often quite lavish ones - accorded to the upper echelons. (Thus, cultivating self-congratulations, self-indulgence.) Closed, solid front against any scrutiny from outside; defensive stance of all members from criticism and blame from outside. (Thus, increasing layers of protection around an individual as he rises in the hierarchy, cultivating freedom from consequences.) Arrogance, narcissism, a sense of entitlement, cultivating a delusion of invulnerability in the higher ranks. (That's why they so often get careless once they're powerful, rich or famous enough: in mid-climb, their more unsavoury activities are clandestine.)

BTW "Culture of Abuse" is a long standing phrase discussed in all of its manifestations and definitely NOT of my coinage. I'm simply not that clever you'll be happy to know.

Posted: **Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:01 am**

Dubious wrote:Your silly questions for specifics denote a complete incomprehensibility of what is meant by culture of abuse or abuse of culture ...

Literally, if I take you as you wrote, you just called the concept of culture-of-abuse "incomprehensible." I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant to do...but it's probably right anyway, so I'll agree with your literal meaning.

Skip already defined it in succinct detail in the following...

Um..."succinct" is the opposite of "in detail," actually. Which were you intending to indicate? Was Skip's account detailed, or succinct?

Skip wrote: BTW "Culture of Abuse" is a long standing phrase...

It's not "long-standing" at all. It's just a postmodern, Leftist jargon phrase. Nobody even knows what it really means...least of all Leftists. You won't find the great philosophers of the past using such a phrase, at least not before the (post-)modern Left.

I'm simply not that clever you'll be happy to know.

I'd would really hope you're not only more clever than that, but also far too clever to coin such a phrase. It's empty of content. It specifies no culture in particular. In fact, when I asked Skip about it, you'll note, all that I got was a list of particular abusers rather than the mention of even one "abusive culture."

But if you think you know of one, name it -- not some particular abuser, like Jimmy Saville or Bill Cosby, but a particular cultural ethos in which abuse is encouraged or perpetuated.

Name one. Just one. One will do.

Posted: **Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:27 am**

Immanuel Can wrote:
Skip already defined it in succinct detail in the following...
Um..."succinct" is the opposite of "in detail," actually. Which were you intending to indicate? Was Skip's account detailed, or succinct?

Both! Detailed in the number of examples given while succinctly expressed in each and well articulated overall whose meaning is clear to everyone but you.

...but what makes you think detailed preempts succinct? Sometimes it does and often it doesn't. As with every expression, every sentence, every thought, it all depends on context...meaning the amalgam of all prior thoughts which are summarized in the one stated.

Posted: **Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:08 am**

Immanuel Can wrote:...

Name one. Just one. One will do.

The ethos of silence and cover-up by the BBC and the police force in the 70's and the 80's. The ethos of silence and cover-up by the Catholic Church(and most likely many other Christian groups related to the care of children) for decades. The ethos of silence and cover-up by the UK social care system in the 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's(can't see that it'll be any different in America). And now the ethos of silence and payoff by the Fux News group(and most likely many other such organizations in America). That do IC?

Posted: **Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:57 am**

If those women would have stayed home barefoot and pregnant none of this would ever have happened.

Posted: **Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:29 am**

artisticsolution wrote:If those women would have stayed home barefoot and pregnant none of this would ever have happened.

In your opinion, is that the proper place for a woman?

Philosophy Now Forum

Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

Re: Bill O'Reilly"s downfall