NEWS: Sorry Folks, The Election’s Over

The dude has a black belt...IN HIS OWN FORM OF MARTIAL ART.

Okay, so he has a black belt in some other ones too, but doesn't being a black belt in your own martial art kinda sound like giving yourself an A in a class you made up?

Whatevs. I've been upset with the guy ever since he kicked Indiana Jones in the junk. You know, in the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny?

See, if I actually cared about that it would be the same as caring about Chuck's political endorsements. Because they both only matter in internet joke circles.

I am glad you said it before I did.

I would say the same thing about sodomy.

do you think chuck is in to sodomy? in the confines of his basement. i think thats why he works out so much. has to feel the burn, and take the pain. lol.

Zarth said:

Clidna said:

RudieCantFail said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

But who does he want us to vote for???

Why, for Leader Zarth, of course!

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Zarth for Leader! Vote for Zarth! Stride Boldly Into the Future With Leader Zarth!

"I am a man, not a Zed-word!"

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

"Vote Number Zarth for Number Two! Vote Zarth for Two!"

Except that I'm not comfortable with that terminology because there is an implicit disdain in it that I'm trying to avoid.

I mean, one could as easily abstract "bread and circuses" to "comfort and joy," which, if not quite lofty ideals worthy of killing and dying for are nevertheless goals which it may be conceded are unobjectionably human. Indeed, one could abstract the phrase yet further to "the pursuit of happiness" itself, which may (according to some of my ancestors, at least) well be an ideal worth killing and dying for.

Indeed my point, really, is precisely that such values should not be regarded with simple contempt.

The corollary of that is that we should not delude ourselves that the value of participatory democracy is intrinsic. In fact to do so drains it of its true utility by fetishizing it, turning "Freedom" into just another tribal (now imperial) totem with no particular meaning.

The principal value of participatory democracy is that it makes leaders at least somewhat accountable to those who are led, and by this method discourages abuses of power. It is not, nor can it be expected to be, perfect in this regard. But even the best-led despotism cannot make as sound a guarantee in this regard.

That alone makes democracy - and the expanion of its domain - a worthwhile goal.

What it does not entail, however, is the assumption that "all people everywhere desire freedom."

I mean, pretty much anyone who thinks about it would want freedom in the sense of not being arbitrarily fucked over by people in power, yes. But there's a great gulf between a basic desire like that (for one's self and one's family) and the more complex desire for civic institutions and values that guarantee pluralism and political equality.

Indeed, many Americans don't much care for pluralism and political equality. We call them "Republicans." In Britain you'd call them the BNP. It's a constant struggle defending our liberal democratic values against the atavistic comforts of purposeful conformism and rigid hierarchy.

The philosopher Kongzi's assertion that the family is owed a higher moral duty than the state is alien if not downright antithetical to Western political thought (with its ascending hierarchy of abstractions), and it's not a belief I personally feel comfortable advocating or even agreeing with. But I have to concede that it does take our human nature into account as something to be incorporated into the proper functioning of a peaceful and prosperous society, rather than taking human nature, with its general (and in principle unobjectionable) propensity to the primacy of personal relationships, as something to be struggled with.

At the very least, that humanity is something which we have a moral obligation to treat compassionately and magnanimously, lest we lead ourselves into imperial follies with, as ever, the best of intentions.

This is true; however, it relies on a population which is politically active (instead of being led by vested interests) and which does not applaud abuses of power. Which is exactly the point at which one Godwins a thread, isn't it?

Hmmm. I applaud your morality. But I am not happy with the idea that human nature is fixed, which I think is implicit in your argument. Which leads me to ask whether education is (within your definition) an "imperial folly".

WAIT!!!!! This is [way too deep for a Chuck Norris article

HA!

See, this is something I really don't want to think about or know.

I do indeed regard human nature, as properly considered, largely fixed. I think that we're fundamentally the same animal in the jungles of New Guinea or the classrooms of the London School of Economics. Culturally, even an Amazonian village isn't necessarily so distant from an Indiana trailer-park.

But when I say that human nature is fixed, it shouldn't be taken to mean that I think it is uneducable, or even necessarily universal in the specific complement and relative strengths of its imperatives. Humanity is wonderfully diverse, and nature, properly understood, simply provides a more or less malleable base to modify an build upon. In short, I don't think that there's any genuine resolution to the nature/nurture conundrum that privileges one over the other in any final sense.

That being said, the base I refer to does not advance. Every generation is born with its own (we may as well call them) instincts, as primitive, barbaric, and savage as that of any of our remotest ancestors. I do not think we should therefore be surprised at the persistence of genocidal fascism or religious fundamentalism or even garden-variety bigotry (let alone the avarice, enlarged nepotism, and smug chauvinism that constantly threaten democratic society in the industrialized West) even in the modern world, because these simply represent a failure of culture to compensate and civilize the barbarism that is our natural state.

Our understanding is such that it has penetrated to the very building-blocks of reality itself. Yet our barbarism is such that we use this knowledge in order to make giant bombs. Giant petroleum reserves lie under the sands of absolute monarchies which do not acknowledge even the antiquity of the Earth, let alone the doctrines of biological evolution which would explain the source of their wealth.

But, to answer your second question, no. I do not regard education as an imperial folly. Rather I regard it as an absolute necessity for human survival in a world where our technological power has far outstripped our generalized scientific understanding and moral development.

That summarises my own position fairly well; biology is more or less fixed, but nurture can override it. I still feel that education is an action taken without any possible consent by the educatee: you can't consent to a process which will make you into something you can't yet understand; but that's why children are minors, I guess.

Euphemism FTW