Elections in various countries

[rotting bones]

I can't say I really hate him. I'm mostly amused at the fact that, like many of our intellectuals, he's decidedly out of fashion at home but people still feel he's relevant abroad.

If you mean relevant to our times, their sustained skepticism about all existence actually makes me nostalgic for simpler times when progressives believed that existing power structures are the only things standing in the way of a less grim future. Honestly, I never shared the view that you can just destroy the evil empires and trust in the people to rebuild from ground up. Those who still haven't been disabused of this notion ought to study Mechanism Design.

[FlamyobatRudki]

Again, we can't judge without seeing the actual questions. [. . .] "Similarities" is probably the exact sort of question I talked about above, measuring a type of categorization that is not universal, or even universally useful, but happens to underlie scientific taxonomies. . .

That category is the one thing I actually remember somewhat well from the test (it was a while ago). They gave you two concepts (e.g. the tide and music, that's the one that sticks out to me) and you have to speak to what is similar about them. They do prompt you if you can demonstrate you're in the ballpark but have trouble spitting it out, I will say; they did that with that question. (The answer they were looking for was rhythm/repetition.) They won't straight-up give you the answer; it was more like "You said X, can you tell me more about how that is relevant?".

isn't that highly dependent on culture?

[rotting bones]

I have to ask: Does a Reuss have a reason to consider himself a legitimate heir to the throne even within the logic of the Reich's aristocracy?

[Ares Land]

I have to ask: Does a Reuss have a reason to consider himself a legitimate heir to the throne even within the logic of the Reich's aristocracy?

(I was confused for a bit, so for people who hadn't heard that particular bit of news: a Heinrich XIII Reuss was arrested for trying to organize a putsch in Germany.)
It looks like Heinrich Reuss' motives were the usual qanon, pedophile elite, etc. drivel. He doesn't even have a claim on the tiny principalities of Reuss; that would his cousin, a Heinrich XIV who seems completely embarassed by the whole thing.

[rotting bones]

It looks like Heinrich Reuss' motives were the usual qanon, pedophile elite, etc. drivel.

I don't know if "pedophile elites" is complete drivel in the context of Epstein. Conspiracy theories seem to grow when people try to fit bits of news into the collage of their consciousness without noticing how the details vary from their preconceptions.

He doesn't even have a claim on the tiny principalities of Reuss; that would his cousin, a Heinrich XIV who seems completely embarassed by the whole thing.

My understanding is that Reichsburger conspiracies are spread by old fuddy-duddies on Facebook who "analyze" the legalese behind the modern German state. They have apparently come to the conclusion that the current state is not a government at all, but a capitalist corporation. The real German state is the Reich, which currently happens to lack the institutions to enforce its rule. They claim pre-WWI territories for the Reich. Even more confusingly, they apparently think installing a Reuss as the monarch would somehow restore the Second Reich.

I have a minor aristocratic title. Why doesn't anyone treat me like a Caliph? So unfair.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I feel some irony in that last bit.

[rotting bones]

I feel some irony in that last bit.

Note that I've said this before while arguing for far left policies. Also, one of my cousins is a full-blown Maoist.

After Marxists confiscated most of the estate, I grew up lower middle class in a big city. My father was a microbiologist in a government institute. My grandfather studied to be a doctor, but my great grandfather called him back to manage the estate. We like to think of ourselves as a family of intellectuals.

If you want me to psychoanalyze myself, it's possible that because my father had a government job in my childhood, I associate government jobs with stability. But I like to think I have objective reasons for supporting them anyway. I want a stable job like my father had. I don't want to hustle in a capitalist economy, and I know many people feel the same way. Another point is that my ancestors did many things I'm not proud of. But if Mesquita is right about there being a natural law which ensures that aristocratic positions are selected for evil, that makes what my ancestors did understandable if not justified.

Besides, an aristocratic regime is not all sunshine and rainbows for minor aristocrats. In feudal regimes, the king is the people's strongman in their struggle against the nobility, so he can often get away with whatever he wants. But the minor aristocrats are often forced to live by bizarre fetishistic rules (like in Gormenghast) in exchange for the privilege of materially exploiting the poor. If anything goes wrong with the crops, nobles who failed to ingratiate themselves with the king while violating these rules too openly are in danger of being made examples of. (I recommend the novel Wolf Hall.)

I honestly don't understand why so many idiotic "intellectuals" on the left and right are stanning tradition and opposing common sense liberty nowadays.

PS. Also, see the autobiographical writings of Bertrand Russell.

[Travis B.]

I honestly don't understand why so many idiotic "intellectuals" on the left and right are stanning tradition and opposing common sense liberty nowadays.

In the case of the right, it makes perfect sense. These people are reactionaries, and only believe in the freedoms they want for themselves personally (and people like them), and are against freedom for anyone else. These people are not mere idiots; rather, they believe in oppressing everyone unlike themselves.

In the case of the left, it is because some people in the left have bought into the idea that traditional societies are better than modern society, with capitalism and everything. Of course, these people ignore the fact that in very many cases, modern capitalist societies are far better than traditional societies. Case in point, take the murder rates in traditional Papuan societies, which make modern capitalist societies seem fundamentally peaceful in comparison even at their most violent (they may seem low numerically, but they are actually extremely high once you take overall populations into account).

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I feel some irony in that last bit.

Note that I've said this before while arguing for far left policies...

I meant that more in the "fate has a sense of humour" sort of way.

[MacAnDàil]

I honestly don't understand why so many idiotic "intellectuals" on the left and right are stanning tradition and opposing common sense liberty nowadays.

In the case of the right, it makes perfect sense. These people are reactionaries, and only believe in the freedoms they want for themselves personally (and people like them), and are against freedom for anyone else. These people are not mere idiots; rather, they believe in oppressing everyone unlike themselves.

In the case of the left, it is because some people in the left have bought into the idea that traditional societies are better than modern society, with capitalism and everything. Of course, these people ignore the fact that in very many cases, modern capitalist societies are far better than traditional societies. Case in point, take the murder rates in traditional Papuan societies, which make modern capitalist societies seem fundamentally peaceful in comparison even at their most violent (they may seem low numerically, but they are actually extremely high once you take overall populations into account).

There are advantages and disadvantages to both but the most fundamental is not to destroy the planet we need to survive so we can not continue with the current capitalist system. I support liberty of course, a sustainable equal liberty, not the "liberty" that Elon Musk proposes where climate deniers and election deniers get to spouf off and his son gallivants off on a climacidal private jet. And he draws the line at denouncing the private jet. Of course that as much responds to your comment as it does to the news.

As for murder rates in traditional Papuan societies, they are generally agriculturalists and higher rates than nomadic hunter-gatherers.

Many nomadic hunter-gatherers have successfully found means of conflict avoidance and post-industrial democracies have also (as McCall and Widerquist detail in Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy). We should, I think, have, as far as possible, the best of both.

[MacAnDàil]

PS More relevantly to the previous posts, I also propose a best-of-both approach to tradition and liberty. As long as 'tradition' means 'local skills and practices' rather than 'barbary and oppression'.

[bradrn]

As long as 'tradition' means 'local skills and practices' rather than 'barbary and oppression'.

Ah, but where do you draw the line between the two?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

A good starting test is, "Is this presently being used to oppress anybody?" moving to "Can it be made non-oppressive?" and so on and so on.

[MacAnDàil]

Well, that debate can relate to general debates concerning rights and liberties.
In any case, local cuisine, languages, clothing and music genres would be promoted for example.
If it is against general moral principles, it is in the second category so to be avoided. One case which might borderline, and discussed at the moment in France, is corrida. I do not know much on the subject but there seems to be skill and death involved. I am unsure to which extent bloodless variants of bullfighting are acceptable. Because there's death involved, I would not defend corrida.

EDIT: Yes to Rounin Ryuuji

[Ares Land]

I don't think it's a debate that can be settled in general terms.
Traditional agriculture, or regional languages have been repressed, at great loss to everyone, because they were felt to be oppressive, holding people back or inefficient. Damage has been done and is still being done by perpetuating certain traditions and forcing them on people.

I hold the somewhat radical view that in more than 99% of cases it's a matter of individual freedom. People are big enough to choose for themselves.

Corrida is a difficult subject. I feel a blanket ban on corrida is hard to support -- ethically, is it really worse than the slaughterhouse? but opinions may vary.

(I have a very low opinion of Aymeric Caron, the member of parliament who suggested the ban, besides.)

[Travis B.]

Personally I am neutral about tradition - when tradition oppresses people, I am against it, and when it does not, I am for people maintaining their traditions as they so see fit. This ranges from things such as traditional Papuan societies to religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in "developed" societies. I am just as much for people keeping their traditional languages and agriculture as I am against the oppressive aspects of present-day religions. The fundamental barometer for me is whether something is being forced on someone else, whether it is with regards to what religion they are permitted to believe in, what partner they choose, who they are permitted to associate with, what professions and social roles are open to them, and so on.

[Raphael]

I don't think it's a debate that can be settled in general terms.
Traditional agriculture, or regional languages have been repressed, at great loss to everyone, because they were felt to be oppressive, holding people back or inefficient. Damage has been done and is still being done by perpetuating certain traditions and forcing them on people.

I hold the somewhat radical view that in more than 99% of cases it's a matter of individual freedom. People are big enough to choose for themselves.

Personally I am neutral about tradition - when tradition oppresses people, I am against it, and when it does not, I am for people maintaining their traditions as they so see fit. This ranges from things such as traditional Papuan societies to religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in "developed" societies. I am just as much for people keeping their traditional languages and agriculture as I am against the oppressive aspects of present-day religions. The fundamental barometer for me is whether something is being forced on someone else, whether it is with regards to what religion they are permitted to believe in, what partner they choose, who they are permitted to associate with, what professions and social roles are open to them, and so on.

I mostly agree with both of those posts.

On the whole, I'm more anti-tradition than pro-tradition. I think traditions often serve to oppress people, exploit people, and generally make people miserable. And it's pretty disappointing that such large parts of the Left - a political camp that has its roots to a large extent in the struggle against oppressive traditions - these days oppose any criticism of traditions that are associated with groups of people they like ("orientalism" etc.).

But I draw the line at forcing people to abandon traditions. That's as wrong as forcing people to be ruled by traditions. I'm generally very sceptical about one-size-fits-all approaches. Some people are happiest and most productive when they are embedded in the comforting framework of a tradition. Some people are happiest and most productive when they are freed from a restrictive tradition. Let them all figure out for themselves which describes them better.

[Linguoboy]

I think traditions often serve to oppress people, exploit people, and generally make people miserable. And it's pretty disappointing that such large parts of the Left - a political camp that has its roots to a large extent in the struggle against oppressive traditions - these days oppose any criticism of traditions that are associated with groups of people they like ("orientalism" etc.).

I was with up until this last bit. The purpose of examining "Orientalism" is not to shield certain societies from criticism. It's to reveal the ways in which certain societies participate in othering in order to establish and justify hegemony.

[Raphael]

The purpose of examining "Orientalism" is not to shield certain societies from criticism. It's to reveal the ways in which certain societies participating in othering in order to establish and justify hegemony.

In theory, yes. In practice, my experience is that the cultural conservatives of some societies, and their allies on the supposed left, start chanting "Orientalism! Orientalism Orientalism!" whenever the uglier sides of their own traditions get criticized.

[Moose-tache]

I certainly have seen, for example, people claim that any criticism of Qatar's human rights abuses is "white supremacy." But the thing is, those people. Those people, you see, are morons. You can just not let them back in your car pool and then you'll never have to listen to them again.