Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Berkut]

Oh please - you whole heartedly agreed that it means someone who justifies slavery, because there is worse slavery somewhere else! That implies stupidity at the very least.

  That was an example of attitude not a statement that any reactionary Languishite posters support slavery.

Of course, just like nobody is actually a reactionary, it is just the tone is always reactionary.

Oex specifically chose a rather onerous example because he wanted to point out how typically unreasonable people are - they will justify slavery because somewhere else there is worse slavery. Sorry, you cannot use that as your example of how people think, then say they should not be offended that you consider them in that manner - that is a grossly offensive characterization of anyone's position, *because* it is basically saying that it is the kind of thinking that CAN justify slavery.

That's a nonsense and extreme reading of it,

I think it is a nonsense and extreme characterization of people who do not agree with you. Hence my taking you to task over it. But the entire post from Oex you are gushing over is basically the same. It amounts to a extremely arrogant view of others and their views, IMO.

I think you're really assuming the worst of me (and Oex I imagine) if you think we're saying there are people here justifying slavery.

Funny, I think you are assuming the worst of others if you think they would justify slavery because there is worse slavery somewhere else. Or justify any terrible thing because there is some worse terrible thing elsewhere - and why, that is no different than justifying slavery!

  I can't believe you're reading that that literally.

I cannot believe you don't see how offensive the post was to those who find themselves on the other side of discussions from the "non-reactionary" Languish crowd. And then to follow it up by saying "Oh, well, you know, there aren't really any people who are actually like that, but the discussion is almost always like that...". Uggh. Very poor form.

[Sheilbh]

Of course, just like nobody is actually a reactionary, it is just the tone is always reactionary.

Oex specifically chose a rather onerous example because he wanted to point out how typically unreasonable people are - they will justify slavery because somewhere else there is worse slavery. Sorry, you cannot use that as your example of how people think, then say they should not be offended that you consider them in that manner - that is a grossly offensive characterization of anyone's position, *because* it is basically saying that it is the kind of thinking that CAN justify slavery.

Of course it can justify slavery.  But it's possible to be sort of empathetic with people who were sympathetic to slavery.  They weren't all horrifying inhumans.  Similarly I think we all generally sort-of get people whites in the US in the 60s who were scared and unhappy at the civil rights movement and equal rights.  We can say they're wrong but see where they're coming from, but the truth is that a default suspicion of change will inevitably lead sometimes to justifying what later seems simply wrong. 

I'd also contrast the people who were merely of that view and those who were in a position of power and trying to manipulate fear - 'if you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour'.

I think the contrasting example for someone (rather closer to me) who automatically assumes that change is generally good and the status quo is always in need of changing is that we buy into something that's simply wrong like eugenics in the early 20th century.  Or, more likely, we'll be fellow travellers of right or left.

Anyway there's nothing wrong with being unreasonable.  Reason's over-rated.

[Josephus]

There used to be three tenors.

I miss the fat guy. Not that he was fat, but he certainly put forward a lot of fat positions.

[Ed Anger]

LOL, occupy Black Friday.

[Razgovory]

Anyway there's nothing wrong with being unreasonable.  Reason's over-rated.

Amen.  Especially since it's fairly subjective.

[Grallon]

... As for Grallon, his whole myopic xenophobic bitter queen Cassandra schtick has little to do with government one way or the other.

 


If you recall Cassandra was proven right in the end - and Troy was razed to the ground.


-----

And I am a statist yes.  Any society needs regulation in order to function.  Individuals, being irrational and consumed with their own desires, cannot regulate themselves.  Private organizations such as unions or corporations are factions, that is aggregates of irrational individuals consumed with the pursuit of their own desires - and thus incapable of restraining themselves.  Only the State, who by definition is above the melee, can - and must - regulate the constant jockeying happening below.

Which is why the pathological suspicion of/paranoia against the State, shared by so many Americans, is so repellent to me.




G.

[Neil]

Why is the state above the melee?

[Razgovory]

Well if you say something is going to fail you going to be right eventually.  It may be 10,000 years in the future, but you'll eventually be right.

[Ideologue]

You're taking the word reactionary very hard.  It's nowhere near comparable to racism and I don't think it implies stupidity or anything so sneerish. 

Seriously? How can it be such a dominating "tenor" if nobody actually puts those positions forth? What is the point of a comment like that, if you aren't even willing to pin it on someone specifically?

Because I think most languishites a pretty varied on their opinions.  This sort of attitude comes up in almost any thread - just look at this one or any on the Arab revolutions - but it's not always the same people or for the same reasons.  That's why I'm distinguishing between the tenor of discussion and positions taken which I think fits (and has nothing to do with being a majority of people) and people, which I don't think does.  There's noone consistent enough to fit the description as a whole - though Yi says he comes close supporting two of the three

For me it's more a tone that comes up in many threads.  Things are always worse somewhere else, that's what people should focus on, because of that change is suspicious.  Any social movement needs to be 'respectable' and ideally have a clear list of demands that have ideally been written by a think tank and are implementable - this has come up in almost every thread I can think of on a protest movement, it was a criticism of the TP, the OWS, the Arabs, the unions, the anti-war and more - failure on that makes the protests sort-of invalid.  And I think there's a general bias towards authority on Languish as I said before.

I think you're right.  Remember how the only people who thought John Brown was right were, like, me and CdM?

[Razgovory]

I could see how people could justify slavery.  "If we don't enslave these people, some other people are going to enslave us".  I would think that most people would believe that slavery possibly happening to them is worse slavery then slavery happening to someone else.

[Malthus]

Oh please - you whole heartedly agreed that it means someone who justifies slavery, because there is worse slavery somewhere else! That implies stupidity at the very least.

  That was an example of attitude not a statement that any reactionary Languishite posters support slavery.

That's a nonsense and extreme reading of it, I think you're really assuming the worst of me (and Oex I imagine) if you think we're saying there are people here justifying slavery.  I can't believe you're reading that that literally.

I disagree with Berkut all the time - often I find him too stubborn for words. But the notion that he comes up with his attitudes because of "reactionaryism", whether phrased offensively or not, is simply not accurate.

I think you and Oex are making a fundamental mistake: of not seeing an idealism different from your own *as* a form of idealism, as opposed to a mere unthinking impulse of reaction.

This sort of mistake is hardly unique to you guys of course.

[Barrister]

The phrase 'reactionary' seems to me to be the leftists version or a right-winger calling their opponent a 'socialist'.  It may have some very debatable merit to the phrase, but is so loaded with negative connotations and attitudes that its use is intended as an insult, not as merely descriptive.

[Jacob]

The phrase 'reactionary' seems to me to be the leftists version or a right-winger calling their opponent a 'socialist'.  It may have some very debatable merit to the phrase, but is so loaded with negative connotations and attitudes that its use is intended as an insult, not as merely descriptive.

Clearly we need a Reactionary Socialist party then.

[Malthus]

The phrase 'reactionary' seems to me to be the leftists version or a right-winger calling their opponent a 'socialist'.  It may have some very debatable merit to the phrase, but is so loaded with negative connotations and attitudes that its use is intended as an insult, not as merely descriptive.

I dunno, many proudly describe themselves as 'socialist' or describe particular measures, neutrally, as 'socialist'. Few people proudly refer to themselves as "reactionary". I don't think socialist always has the perjorative meaning of 'reactionary'. 

[Malthus]

The phrase 'reactionary' seems to me to be the leftists version or a right-winger calling their opponent a 'socialist'.  It may have some very debatable merit to the phrase, but is so loaded with negative connotations and attitudes that its use is intended as an insult, not as merely descriptive.

Clearly we need a Reactionary Socialist party then.

What, the NDP?