European Refugee Crisis

[BruceVC]

 

 

I'm not interested in nationalist movements that are bound by modernist philosophies.

Nationalism is modern.

 

point being, people gravitate normally to those with the same values and cooperate accordingly, and those values are usually from within the same culture, which in turn usually are from the same people.

What people, culture and values are you referring to? Do the people in your country/state have uniform culture and values?

 

And how on earth is organising around this an effective means of combating unsustainable resource exploitation?

 

 

Yup, we have the same values, religion and social cues. For example, being unable to queue and cut in line makes a you social outcast who will be ostrasized by everyone. 

 

As for resources, i suggest to heavily invest in owning your own guns, self-sustainability and energy independence.

 

Globalism however, is the accelerant to a certain doom as it centralizes political and financial power in the hands of the few and thus is the most vulnarable to big changes. Smaller, homongeneous, self-ruled, self-sustainable societies will survive in the long run. There's also the modernist component of valuing only the material as its own religion, which leaves people living empty, purposeless lives, easily corrupted by extremist ideologies who promises them a destiny they feel robbed of. 

 

Meshugger I find it hard to believe you could be so melancholic, depressed and negative about the EU and the West...does anyone else believe he is so truly negative? I would think there is an element of hyperbole and theatrics in your posts ?

[BruceVC]

Well, this refugee crisis has taken us places.

Yes my friend and you have been feeding the negativity that people like Meshugger seem to believe...welcome " to your world " ...gee its nice 

 

People are so upbeat 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

There's also the modernist component of valuing only the material as its own religion, which leaves people living empty, purposeless lives, easily corrupted by extremist ideologies who promises them a destiny they feel robbed of. 

 

 

...Said he, once again proving he has no ****ing clue whatsoever as to what modernism is.

[Drowsy Emperor]

What's the point of arguing semantics. You know exactly what he's talking about. The current moral and political climate in Europe is tragic, and the absurdities of the incumbent powers and their ideology is leading to divided societies and general misery in a continent that could be a political and military superpower, instead of being a midget.

 

This crisis just makes it obvious that Europe has no idea what it is and where its going, which is a far cry from a continent that used to decide where the entire world was going.

 

You may not personally feel the effects of all these cumulative bad decisions, but once you do start feeling them it may well be too late.

[Meshugger]

 

 

There's also the modernist component of valuing only the material as its own religion, which leaves people living empty, purposeless lives, easily corrupted by extremist ideologies who promises them a destiny they feel robbed of. 

 

 

...Said he, once again proving he has no ****ing clue whatsoever as to what modernism is.

 

 

Aww, that's so cute.

 

On-topic: Tsipras shares his thoughts on the deal between Turkey and EU:

 

[Fenixp]

 

 

So... democracy gave Iraq a sepia tone effect?

 

Democracy's insufferable ever since it found instagram.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

I'm not interested in nationalist movements that are bound by modernist philosophies.

Nationalism is modern.

 

point being, people gravitate normally to those with the same values and cooperate accordingly, and those values are usually from within the same culture, which in turn usually are from the same people.

What people, culture and values are you referring to? Do the people in your country/state have uniform culture and values?

 

And how on earth is organising around this an effective means of combating unsustainable resource exploitation?

 

 

Yup, we have the same values, religion and social cues. For example, being unable to queue and cut in line makes a you social outcast who will be ostrasized by everyone. 

 

As for resources, i suggest to heavily invest in owning your own guns, self-sustainability and energy independence.

 

Globalism however, is the accelerant to a certain doom as it centralizes political and financial power in the hands of the few and thus is the most vulnarable to big changes. Smaller, homongeneous, self-ruled, self-sustainable societies will survive in the long run. There's also the modernist component of valuing only the material as its own religion, which leaves people living empty, purposeless lives, easily corrupted by extremist ideologies who promises them a destiny they feel robbed of. 

 

Meshugger I find it hard to believe you could be so melancholic, depressed and negative about the EU and the West...does anyone else believe he is so truly negative? I would think there is an element of hyperbole and theatrics in your posts ?

 

 

lol, here i am sowing the seeds for a better tomorrow and there you are complaining about the loss of the poison ivy.

 

lol #2: About 14 000 refugees have dissappeared in Sweden: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-29/14000-refugees-due-deportation-sweden-have-vanished-we-simply-do-not-know-where-they 

Edited November 30, 2015 by Meshugger

[aluminiumtrioxid]

What's the point of arguing semantics. You know exactly what he's talking about.

 

He's talking about words with fixed meaning, and when he uses them to mean something entirely different, he comes across as an undereducated fool.

 

Now tell me, why should I value the opinion of an undereducated fool?

[Darkpriest]

Becauseyou have to do so in democracy. Don't you know?

[BruceVC]

Becauseyou have to do so in democracy. Don't you know?

Thats clever..but cheeky, very cheeky 

[Barothmuk]

Yup, we have the same values, religion and social cues. For example, being unable to queue and cut in line makes a you social outcast who will be ostrasized by everyone.

Sarcasm?

 

Globalism however, is the accelerant to a certain doom as it centralizes political and financial power in the hands of the few and thus is the most vulnarable to big changes. Smaller, homongeneous, self-ruled, self-sustainable societies will survive in the long run.

Not really sold on crypto-primitivist societies as a solution to unsustainable resource exploitation.

 

What constitutes "homogeneous"? What happens to those who don't conform to group homogeneity? How does one maintain self-sustainability in these small communities? Rationing? Killing off chunks of the population? Most importantly of all though how does one reconstruct the existing state of affairs to bring about these "small", "homogeneous" societies?

 

Personally I'd rather humanity seize conscious control of its development and restructure society so as to benefit all rather than regress into petty tribalism.

 

here's also the modernist component of valuing only the material as its own religion, which leaves people living empty, purposeless lives

You already stated that their purpose is material. Your issue is not purposelessness but the fact that people's purposes are not the purposes you want them to be.

 

easily corrupted by extremist ideologies who promises them a destiny they feel robbed of.

Aren't you one of these people?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Becauseyou have to do so in democracy. Don't you know?

 

Did "democracy" join the club of "words people use to mean completely different things than they mean" while I wasn't looking, like "freedom of speech" did?

[Meshugger]

Uuurgh, i hate, haaaaate when people crop sentences into multiquotes. Pretty please, try to write something more condenced the next time.
 

 

Yup, we have the same values, religion and social cues. For example, being unable to queue and cut in line makes a you social outcast who will be ostrasized by everyone.

Sarcasm?

 

 
No sarcasm, that's the way here up north. 
 

 

Globalism however, is the accelerant to a certain doom as it centralizes political and financial power in the hands of the few and thus is the most vulnarable to big changes. Smaller, homongeneous, self-ruled, self-sustainable societies will survive in the long run.

Not really sold on crypto-primitivist societies as a solution to unsustainable resource exploitation.

What constitutes "homogeneous"? What happens to those who don't conform to group homogeneity? How does one maintain self-sustainability in these small communities? Rationing? Killing off chunks of the population? Most importantly of all though how does one reconstruct the existing state of affairs to bring about these "small", "homogeneous" societies?

 

 
It's happening as we speak in Europe, more and more states are created as people refuse to live in suprastates. Compare a map from 1914 to now to catch my drift. Kind of ironic when thinking of the EU at the same time, which started as an economic union to prevent war (yay!) into the behemoth that it is today.
 

Personally I'd rather humanity seize conscious control of its development and restructure society so as to benefit all rather than regress into petty tribalism.

 
Nothing to disagree about there, but it has to come from nations voluntarily cooperating together without a top-down class politicrats larping civilization. CERN is a result of such cooperation, which is a nice thing.
 

 

here's also the modernist component of valuing only the material as its own religion, which leaves people living empty, purposeless lives

You already stated that their purpose is material. Your issue is not purposelessness but the fact that people's purposes are not the purposes you want them to be.

 

 

It is the modernist dogma of the tangible things are the only things that matter which has led it from a tool to use, like in science, into a religion of thought in itself, which in turn has led to a void in the spiritual in human life. It has surely manifested in the degeneracy that we know as modern art, yuck. People seem to have forgotten that no great civilization has existed without a founding religion, and now we see the results today with all kind of religious violence and war, which somehow doesn't seem to stop, no matter how progressive we try to be. Remember me asking about SJWs and their behaviour reminding of religious zealots? Well, here i think there's something to it.  

 

As for my purpose, I am content with spreading my ideas as far and wide through the web and promote my kind of thinking. I am also planning to have a family and children, of which i will pass these ideas, values for the next generation where you should always try to overcome your shortcomings, learn from your mistakes and try to live a virtous life as much as possible. That's as far as i will tell about myself personally. 
 

 

easily corrupted by extremist ideologies who promises them a destiny they feel robbed of.

Aren't you one of these people?

 

 
Nope. They are fixated on race as an external and material thing, which leads to eugenics and the slippery slope of what is a "pure" race, despite of what inner qualities of the person itself. For me it is in the traditional, spiritual and the values that come naturally with that. Sure, it leads to groups of people with distinct facial features as a consequence in the long run, but isn't that the diversity that people like so much? those differences that make different cultures so interesting with different customs and languages? 

[Meshugger]

 

What's the point of arguing semantics. You know exactly what he's talking about.

 

He's talking about words with fixed meaning, and when he uses them to mean something entirely different, he comes across as an undereducated fool.

 

Now tell me, why should I value the opinion of an undereducated fool?

 

 

You're just jealous that your marxist dialectic does not bring the boys the yard.

[Darkpriest]

 

Becauseyou have to do so in democracy. Don't you know?

 

Did "democracy" join the club of "words people use to mean completely different things than they mean" while I wasn't looking, like "freedom of speech" did?

 

 

If majority will want that some word has a certain meaning, it will have it. *shrug*

 

On a more serious note, you need to remember that not everyone on this forum is a native English speaker and even then I wager that some meanings are different between various English speaking countries.

 

I will not be putting any interpretation on why he decided to use that word, as only he can clarify it. The point was clear from the context of the post though, so you could have given him a benefit of doubt instead of jumping like some grammar nazi. Not everyone is sitting with an on line dictionary and thesaurus opened, while they post in here.

 

No words here have any legal bearing, so there is no need to.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Darkpriest

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

What's the point of arguing semantics. You know exactly what he's talking about.

 

He's talking about words with fixed meaning, and when he uses them to mean something entirely different, he comes across as an undereducated fool.

 

Now tell me, why should I value the opinion of an undereducated fool?

 

 

You can talk about the same issue using either scientific or colloquial terms, and while it is generally better to be precise the point of the discussion is to get the meaning across first and foremost.

 

I have a degree in political science and even I find it easier sometimes to convey meaning with the terms used in the news, blogs and other informal sources rather than talk straight out of a textbook. Ergo things like "cultural marxism" even though the term is flawed, possibly nonsensical (even if its meaning and much of the reality it describes is correct).  And in social sciences terms are a lot more fluid anyway, its easy to find ten different definitions of the same thing.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I will not be putting any interpretation on why he decided to use that word, as only he can clarify it. The point was clear from the context of the post though, so you could have given him a benefit of doubt instead of jumping like some grammar nazi. Not everyone is sitting with an on line dictionary and thesaurus opened, while they post in here.

 

I think you misunderstand. I'm not expecting people to use correct English (although I most certainly will mock them mercilessly if they don't). But when someone is criticizing an entire philosophical framework, but at the same time demonstrates an utter lack of insight into and familiarity with said framework, I'm not going to take his criticism seriously.

 

Basically: I know nothing about cars. I even forgot how the internal combustion engine works. But when people are discussing why a certain car doesn't work, I'm not going to butt in and start spewing my half-baked ideas about why it doesn't, because I'm capable of recognizing that I know nothing about the subject and would only embarrass myself by doing so. I think people should be more mindful of the limits of their knowledge.

Edited November 30, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

If majority will want that some word has a certain meaning, it will have it. *shrug*

 

On a more serious note, you need to remember that not everyone on this forum is a native English speaker and even then I wager that some meanings are different between various English speaking countries.

 

I will not be putting any interpretation on why he decided to use that word, as only he can clarify it. The point was clear from the context of the post though, so you could have given him a benefit of doubt instead of jumping like some grammar nazi. Not everyone is sitting with an on line dictionary and thesaurus opened, while they post in here.

 

No words here have any legal bearing, so there is no need to.

Good luck with that sentiment in this pit of condescension.

 

I have a degree in political science

Aw, man, DE, I thought you were better than that.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Malcador

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

I have a degree in political science

Aw, man, DE, I thought you were better than that.

 

 

In my defense, I didn't know what I was thinking at the time.

[213374U]

You can talk about the same issue using either scientific or colloquial terms, and while it is generally better to be precise the point of the discussion is to get the meaning across first and foremost.

 

I have a degree in political science and even I find it easier sometimes to convey meaning with the terms used in the news, blogs and other informal sources rather than talk straight out of a textbook. Ergo things like "cultural marxism" even though the term is flawed, possibly nonsensical (even if its meaning and much of the reality it describes is correct).  And in social sciences terms are a lot more fluid anyway, its easy to find ten different definitions of the same thing.

 

So what you are saying is you are deliberately contributing to a perversion of language in which words have no meaning and are simply thrown around for shock value ("cultural marxist!" is the Twitter age equivalent of "filthy commie!"), instead of using your superior education to spread knowledge properly to those who aren't so lucky. And for what, to sound more appealing? To reach a wider audience? This is pandering. There is a reason you don't applaud kids calling anything with more than three sides a triangle. Sure, the kid may have a point, but most likely it's a pretty irrelevant point because he was never made to get the basics down.

 

Yeah, that's also a sign of the times, and the widespread acceptance of words being constantly redefined ad-hoc makes people much easier to deceive and manipulate. Or nothing anyone says really matters anymore -assuming it ever did- and it's all an unabashed appeal to emotion in a gigantic echo-chamber.

 

 

I think people should be more mindful of the limits of their knowledge.

As you know, this is thought to be a flaw in the human mind (Dunning-Kruger), so you may well be asking for an impossibility. Best you can hope for is that explaining clearly what you mean will offer a new perspective and get people thinking. Reason I keep coming back is that I've learned a lot of interesting stuff in the years of back-and-forths with folks here, and no doubt will continue to learn. And I'm especially thick-skulled...

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I think people should be more mindful of the limits of their knowledge.

 

As you know, this is thought to be a flaw in the human mind (Dunning-Kruger), so you may well be asking for an impossibility. 

 

 

I dunno. Ever since I've heard of Dunning-Kruger, I follow the practice of "assume you have very little idea of what you're talking about unless you've spent years on it, and if someone turns out to have spent even more time and effort than you did, for chrissakes, listen to them". It works pretty well for me.

Edited December 1, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Meshugger]

While you guys are busy debating on whether you should position yourselves as intellectual patricians or not, i have good news from the front. Thanks to ISIL and their deplorable islamist ways, more and more youths are instead looking into converting to Zoroastrianism, especially among the Kurds.

 

http://projects21.com/2015/11/26/the-curious-rebirth-of-zoroastrianism-in-iraqi-kurdistan/

[Barothmuk]

People seem to have forgotten that no great civilization has existed without a founding religion,

The Mongol empire.

 

That, said this is absurd thinking. I'm a big believer in "incorrect belief leads to incorrect action" so basing social policy off blind religious dogma seems a recipe for disaster.

 

Sure, it leads to groups of people with distinct facial features as a consequence in the long run, but isn't that the diversity that people like so much? those differences that make different cultures so interesting with different customs and languages?

To be honest I have no interest in preserving any particular skin colours or cultures.

[Drowsy Emperor]

You realize that being in Sid Meier's Civilization doesn't actually make the Mongols a great civilization?

[Barothmuk]

You realize that being in Sid Meier's Civilization doesn't actually make the Mongols a great civilization?

How are they not a great civilization?