Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Sorry, have you mistaken me for a liberal?

Memo to self : try harder.

It's obvious that the writer is buying into Sullivan's (Sullivan's!) framing. And by your choice to meta-analyse Sullivan via a review of his rambling, trivial article, you are buying into it too, by considering the whole shambles to be worthy of comment. Frankly, it isn't.

To indulge you, I have read the first few paragraphs of Sullivan's drivel :

Everyone has a religion. It is, in fact, impossible not to have a religion if you are a human being.
[SNIP]

And we have the cult of social justice on the left, a religion whose followers show the same zeal as any born-again Evangelical. They are filling the void that Christianity once owned, without any of the wisdom and culture and restraint that Christianity once provided.

It doesn't seem to ever occur to anyone in this chain of commentary -- you at the top, down to Sullivan at the bottom -- that people can believe in things, and fight for them, because they are good in themselves, according to a self-defined system of values, without any need of tribal or religious validation.

That there are vast numbers of humans who have not achieved emancipation from their anthropoid need of tribal value systems, is self-evident, and the hardest political problem there is.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Dec 18th, 2018 at 06:20:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sulivan is not elaborate, but his straightforward assessment is not necessarily boring or wrong.
By religion, I mean something quite specific: a practice not a theory; a way of life that gives meaning, a meaning that cannot really be defended without recourse to some transcendent value, undying "Truth" or God (or gods).

Which is to say, even today's atheists are expressing an attenuated form of religion.

If you want to see liberal values win, tribal validation is not mandatory indeed. But if too many people are actually repulsed by how far intersectionality, queer "tolerance" and similar unbounded values are going, that is perhaps exactly why Trump gets all validation and more.
by das monde on Tue Dec 18th, 2018 at 06:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, if the issue is tribalism vs rationality, Sullivan has no added value from my point of view. He seems to posit that "liberals" are a tribe, and that their tribalism is inferior to others.

Your objection to rationality (what you call liberalism) is apparently the age-old one of religious moralists : "Gay rights brought down the Roman Empire", etc...

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Dec 19th, 2018 at 04:12:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Liberalism and Rationality are not the same things. As I suggested above, liberals could be rather Romantics. Liberal moral purity may appear more than unattractive to most of population -- what is compassionate then?

The subject of liberal religion is taking off on the dark internet:

Postmodern Religion and the Faith of Social Justice

by das monde on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 10:11:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, [pandering to your définitions for the sake of argument], so liberals are just another tribe/faith, and my first instinct was right : I am not a member, and indeed nobody here is, as far as I can see. As for the Maoists, if they are included in your definition of "liberals", then that's... interesting (from a psychiatric point of view)

The non-tribal people, those who actually buy into the idea of individual emancipation, don't seem to exist in your taxonomy (nor in that of Sullivan). That's fine with me :)

Just keep on trying to put me in a category.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 02:56:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It does not matter what I categorize or not.

Faith is characterized by absence of limits. As the drive for intersectional justice shows no sensitivity outside its focus, that will provoke categorizations and comparisons with Mao, alas. That is my message.

by das monde on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 03:09:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It does not matter what I categorize or not.

You're right about that.

There are always extremists on all sides on hot-button social issues. Your determination to categorize me with the people who are hostile to the study of "ROGD" tells us plenty about you, and nothing about me. (Oh I suppose you can guess my opinion on that subject. Will you kindly fill me in?)

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 03:43:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I did not expect you to be that kind of a zealot, even if you are reluctant to bad-mouth them.
by das monde on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 03:53:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But surely I must follow the laws of my tribe? I'm confused. Please explain.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 04:23:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We are not patronizing each other
by das monde on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 05:45:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I deliberately choice the word 'society', because 'tribe' is an artifact --a pejorative one at that--of western European ethnographic 'disciplines' dedicated to study of so-called primitive people and their customs viz. hagiography of colonial rule in perpetual progress toward perfection of itself.

Vinay Lal, among many other critics of western European historicism beside Foucault, has commented on such language, invented to displace humanity and 'civilization' and political sophistication of any sort in 'the other'.

One humorous, memorable quote in his survey of British India encapsulates the problem for anyone struggling to discard the yoke of the, one, 'progressive' value system:

What's the difference between anthropology and sociology? Sociology is when you study your own people.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Dec 18th, 2018 at 07:44:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This course is good to follow:

by das monde on Thu Dec 20th, 2018 at 03:27:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
entertaining 100-level to "chaos and complexity", rung several of my favorite pivots here on Anglo-merican psychopathy --the search for mitigating circumstances in capital punishment, for instance, the dread B.F. Skinner, western mind-body dichotomies, stereotype ("category thinking'), Nash equilibrium, human "speciation," etc. and, most surprising, reference to labial-velar consonant "evolution", e.g. b<->p.

That I learned about by reading Bernal, vol. II-III, lengthy application of historical linguistics to documentary artifacts of afro-asiatic languages. d<->t is common; a<->o vowels, too, (I forget the terminology  off-hand) introduced a few dramatic lexical errors and transliterations in cognates, e.g. psyche.

< sigh >

return of "interdisciplinary study" in the '80s, "unlearning" a crazy-ass canon of besserwissen: "animals behave to maximize the number of gene copies for the future generation" is not "group selection."

Like I said, neologism is rife.
 

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Fri Dec 21st, 2018 at 01:00:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series