On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 7:54 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/7/2014 5:57 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 2:52 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 8/6/2014 4:34 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 7 August 2014 08:56, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I refuse to play this game where you get to knock down such >>> generalization with partial edited posts, pretending they are held by >>> anybody here in these strong forms, >>> >> >> PGC posted, "Assume some emergence phenomenon and you risk reductionism >> at fundamental problem of identity, and the usual fascisms of >> discrimination can follow. Assume some universal person and you aren't a >> step further dealing with problems of evil and difference." >> >> I thought saying that "the usual fascisms of discrimination can follow" >> was blaming reductionism as a component of racial discrimination...which >> seemed like a stretch. >> > > Liz feels similar it would seem; but assuming we or I got it wrong, with > a nod to the author of the body language post I can't recall (Kim, I > think...too lazy to search) concerning posts/communication problems on the > net via text in general: > > No, I don't blame our tendency towards reductionism across the board: > just the idiotic usual suspects. > > > Which are? > Erm... you have to wait in a conversation or written text for the other side to respond as this way, you can accuse anybody of failing to address a question they set out to treat, before they do so. Already addressed that. > I just don't see that reductionism versus holism has much to do with the > use or misuse of political power - > Exactly my final point in the last post. Straw man of partial editing again. > which I take to be your concern. Misuse of political power is usually > accomplished by turning on group against another. So it's neither > individualism nor socialism; it's in-group socialism, mutual support > all-for-one one-for-all, combined with out-group xenophobia > > > Obvious, but if I have to: It's scientifically, creatively, > theologically useful when appropriate. > > > What does "It" refer to? blaming reductionism? > Just reductionism. > > > > By contrast, reductionism to range of features worked into politics/law > that pragmatically/conveniently confuses possible with necessary dangers > appears to multiply idiotic assignments. > > > How is that reductionism? I don't understand the sentence. Can you give > an example? > Reducing a system to its elements/constituents/features for some purpose. Take your pick. > > > It's more a stretch to assume "they (unwarranted discrimination > acts/violence)" don't follow ill-defined threat theologies of fuzzy secular > or materialist orientation because not only "can" they follow, they appear > to do so: > > https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/08/05/watch-commander/ > > > You've lumped together the "unwarranted discrimination" of putting a > person on a "watch list" and the violence of bombing and airliner; > Everybody on a watch list "could" bomb an airliner would be the skewed logic. Confuses potential and necessity, which was my point. > between which I think there is some ethical gap. > You're really fishing here. I don't think there is a clear winner in "what's worse: mass surveillance for all futures/peoples of type X, or bombing an airliner?" Please elaborate. > And how is the threat of terrorist bombing of "secular or materialist > orientation" when the bombers are motivated by religion. > How do you know? People in tough economic situation can be manipulated in all kinds of ways. It doesn't always have to be "idiot who believed in virgins"; as radical right wing would have us think. > > > > Like some major religions, the secular or materialist position does not > provide protection from idiotic persecution/politics. > > > The secular or materialist position on what? > On ice cream. Come on Brent... you implying that you don't see this refers to reality, truth, state of affairs? > Whether everyone is the same person? The secular/materialist position > expressed in the Enlightenment is that each person should be equal before > the law and government exists only to serve the people in pursuing their > own happiness. > As preached by CNN? Please, Brent. Is your boogie here for real or you pulling my leg? Part of this happiness is surveillance, prohibition, death penalty, economic opportunism externalizing costs plus all the justice conundrums we've discussed on this list. My point here, irrespective of people's beliefs not always exerting influence on everything they do, is that pursuit of happiness can be construed to mean "take advantage of others until you get caught" => does not save us from theological trap of taking our own core beliefs too seriously, and hurting ourselves/others. > > > Especially given our thirst for large data, even assuming factual > inaccuracy, hyperbole, exaggeration of the link; it's naive to think this > kind of phenomenon isn't ballooning size, scope, and cost of similar > needlessly discriminatory acts (profiling leading to targeted advertising; > Google snooping everybody's mail for law enforcement increasingly etc) + > institutions and industries they spawn. > > > The phenomenon of target advertising has been around as long as > advertising, and so has government surveillance. The main change has just > been in the technology that makes to so much easier to collect data on us > internet users. > So? That is appropriate justification according to you? I'd say you usually have higher standards than this. > > > > And yes, holistic postures can also be abused for propaganda. What makes > one stance inherently stranger than another, when majorities are fuzzy and > mute on such question? > > > It's not clear to me that majorities are fuzzy and mute on the question of > surveillance. From the way they answer polls and the way they vote I think > they're for it. I think they're wrong to be so fearful of terrorists and > so trusting of bureaucracy - but that doesn't put me in the majority. > > Negation space bunny teapotism? > > > ?? > Placeholder for perceived esoteric positions with common derisive connotation; "perceived" because it's easy to shoot them down and make fun of them without taking a stance and then masking the sniping with complexity, like the news, cultural propaganda do, or a ton of posts, questions and details for example. Majority is wrong on a lot of things and easy to influence. > > > Additionally, somebody sporting the banner of some interest/country > doesn't always mean they buy the banner (hesitant soldier examples, > whistleblowers etc.) which weakens my original post's positions quite > considerably. PGC > > > ?? I'm not sure how someone's private opinion weakens or strengthens what > the say in public. I suppose the public statements are strong or weak on > their own. > It's what the speaker or writer intends, despite misunderstandings, possible errors, and invalid interpretation. If I say something is ambiguous and state that I'm not sure, then this is different than stating there is valid reasoning/assumptions to grant certainty of this ambiguity and what should be done about it. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
