If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

I haven't read any more than what you quoted, but what appears to be missing is the why for the proffered imperative. Presumably, any exclusion is bad because pain, and pain is to be avoided because......hedonism?

 

[CiG]

I get this feeling like the idea of political inclusivity is being longed for here.

 

[Dak]

Swords will never be beaten into plowshares. The right knows it needs both and the left hates work like a bunch of Situationists.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Did it? The stats seem to imply it didn't.

It did, by about 17%. Robberies also went down substantially after the dust settled from the buy-back program. Contrarily, the other crime categories went up.

 

[SentinelSlain]

There's quite a lot of evidence actually if you study the economics.

Reference? Link?

What people do ignore however is that the emergence of liberal programs in the middle of the 20th century created to help minorities has actually set them back decades.

Sounds like something Thomas Sowell would say. Or Chomsky would say that instead of enslaving the blacks, they all got put into prison. It's a bit hard making sense of it all.

 

[Dak]

Edit: Post jump

Also have to look if reporting standards changed. For example, iirc Britain has engaged in reporting shenanigans which will report multiple incidents by say, a single party in rough succession as one incident. EG, breaking into multiple apartments in one building.

 

[CiG]

Reference? Link?

Because my memory is shit, I had to go back and see what this was in reference to, I didn't realise you said end of colonialism, I was arguing that colonialism had a long lasting positive effect, my bad.

Just for reading.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/17194-was-colonialism-a-positive-force

 

[Dak]

Quoting TNA isn't going to go over well here haha.

 

[CiG]

 

[Einherjar86]

I haven't read any more than what you quoted, but what appears to be missing is the why for the proffered imperative. Presumably, any exclusion is bad because pain, and pain is to be avoided because......hedonism?

I get this feeling like the idea of political inclusivity is being longed for here.

Inclusivity is always longed for; but Rasch writes:

Oppressed minorities and exclusionary ideologies undeniably exist, as well as laws and legal systems that are inherently and systematically prejudicial with regard to the rights of select groups. And political activity in an attempt to rectify perceived injustices and inadequacies is a part of our daily lives. But all this does not erase the logical fact, [Niklas] Luhmann argues, that a politics that would claim to give voice to the excluded other for the sake of egalitarian inclusivity is a constitutive impossibility.

What imperative can there be if inclusivity is impossible? Rasch poses the question explicitly, appealing to a neologism from Lyotard, "differend," which signifies an attempt to reconcile differences between two parties in the language of one of the parties, while the wrong suffered by the other party is not represented (nor can it be represented) in that language: "Is the imperative to bear witness to the differend a practical observation of the differend, or a theoretical one? Is, in other words, the imperative to acknowledge the necessity and necessary violence of a choice an ethical or a logical imperative?"

Rasch takes the question of "imperative" up one level; if we decide that we should emphasize the logic of exclusivity (or the practical) - which he claims is inevitable for any operational system - is this decision a logical (practical) or ethical (theoretical) one? This complicates what appears at first to be a simple decision. We cannot decide to emphasize the practical in the name of praxis; this is to assume a position outside of the practical, i.e. the theoretical, and to thereby ground the practical in an ethical imperative. In both cases, the question of an imperative fails: the insistence of an imperative necessarily implies an ethical stance, and thus forfeits the logical.

I think Rasch would say that there can be no imperative. I think he would say that systems operate according to a logic of exclusivity no matter what we do; even attempts at inclusivity will result in exclusion. This isn't something that ethics can resolve. But I think he would also say to ignore the ethical entirely - to act as though it does not exist, or that exclusionary victimization does not exist - would be akin to denying consciousness and agency itself. It would be to fold over an entire realm of conscious thought. The point is we do feel, we do experience pain. Why should we award certain modes of consciousness with political attention and not others?

This is an example of the snake eating its own tail. Exclusion and violence are inevitable; but writing them off as necessary evils of logic and praxis, and thereby denying legitimacy to an ethical pathos, simultaneously appeals to an ethical imperative even while it maligns ethics.

Swords will never be beaten into plowshares. The right knows it needs both and the left hates work like a bunch of Situationists.

I think the right hates work just as much. That doesn't stop them from throwing it around as a staple of the platform though.

 

[CiG]

Politics is division by definition, just saying.

 

[Dak]

Inclusivity is always longed for

Inclusion happens. I think you mean universal inclusion is always longed for - but by who?

I think Rasch would say that there can be no imperative. I think he would say that systems operate according to a logic of exclusivity no matter what we do; even attempts at inclusivity will result in exclusion. This isn't something that ethics can resolve. But I think he would also say to ignore the ethical entirely - to act as though it does not exist, or that exclusionary victimization does not exist - would be akin to denying consciousness and agency itself. It would be to fold over an entire realm of conscious thought. The point is we do feel, we do experience pain. Why should we award certain modes of consciousness with political attention and not others?

I'm failing to see a serious contribution here. Action happens, will happen. Exclusion happens, will happen. If it's inevitable, yet we are supposed to be mindful? of it, what exactly does that do? Is that shedding a tear as we drop bombs on our enemy? Is it having a moment of peace as the bodies fall beneath the steamroller? Is it grimly building walls rather than gleefully?

This is an example of the snake eating its own tail. Exclusion and violence are inevitable; but writing them off as necessary evils of logic and praxis, and thereby denying legitimacy to an ethical pathos, simultaneously appeals to an ethical imperative even while it maligns ethics.

Some "realpolitik" people might malign ethics, but I doubt most practical people are antiethics. It's a matter of questioning the primacy of universalization. Something that has been grossly overlooked in the western ethical tradition, especially moving into the more modern times, is that you don't have control over what constitutes the out group. Or more succinctly, you can't unilaterally declare your enemy to be your friend.

I think the right hates work just as much. That doesn't stop them from throwing it around as a staple of the platform though.

Exceptions may abound, but at least in the US, the geographical separation of the at least nominally left and right demographics doesn't back this up. Flyover country and the hinterlands is where the real productive work occurs in any time since the agricultural revolution. Dense urban areas are purely consumptive. The French Situationists may have been the most honest leftists ever.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm kind of in the middle on the US gun issue. Our military is mostly made up of conservatives, especially in the higher ranks, so there's arguably a national security interest in tolerating the conservative gun culture that breeds a lot of our military talent. Even if we were successful at totally banning guns, it would weaken that culture, and therefore weaken the military.

 

[CiG]

Totally banning guns would be unconstitutional.

 

[Matt]

I'm kind of in the middle on the US gun issue. Our military is mostly made up of conservatives, especially in the higher ranks, so there's arguably a national security interest in tolerating the conservative gun culture that breeds a lot of our military talent. Even if we were successful at totally banning guns, it would weaken that culture, and therefore weaken the military.

Psh. That's a crap argument to be honest.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm failing to see a serious contribution here. Action happens, will happen. Exclusion happens, will happen. If it's inevitable, yet we are supposed to be mindful? of it, what exactly does that do? Is that shedding a tear as we drop bombs on our enemy? Is it having a moment of peace as the bodies fall beneath the steamroller? Is it grimly building walls rather than gleefully?

Some "realpolitik" people might malign ethics, but I doubt most practical people are antiethics. It's a matter of questioning the primacy of universalization. Something that has been grossly overlooked in the western ethical tradition, especially moving into the more modern times, is that you don't have control over what constitutes the out group. Or more succinctly, you can't unilaterally declare your enemy to be your friend.

I think he's saying we can't help being mindful. Exclusion happens and mindfulness of it happens, and criticizing certain groups for their mindfulness opts for a "logic/praxis over ethics" mentality. But as Rasch's essay demonstrates, such a move inevitably falls back into ethics.

He's not presenting any actionable alternatives, he's presenting a critique of social behavior yet in a new and helpful way - by taking aim at the process of decision-making itself, rather than the choices made.

Flyover country and the hinterlands is where the real productive work occurs in any time since the agricultural revolution. Dense urban areas are purely consumptive.

Well, I obviously disagree with this pretty strongly. Cities attract hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. That's because cities are where the jobs are.

Totally banning guns would be unconstitutional.

The Constitution has changed by leaps and bounds since it was first crafted. We perceive certain elements as unchangeable because that's where our values lie; but the Constitution is a legal document, not a sacred tablet. It's subject to change.

Not agreeing with banning all guns, by the way - just saying that appealing to constitutionality merely disguises a sacred absolutism in shoes with buckles and fancy wigs.

 

[CiG]

Has the bill of rights ever been amended?

 

[The Ozzman]

No

Edit: Probably not since it was being drafted.

The last amendment to the Constitution was in the 70s I think.

 

[Dak]

Well, I obviously disagree with this pretty strongly. Cities attract hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. That's because cities are where the jobs are.

Jobs are in the city, but that doesn't mean much production is happening. Jobs in the city are primarily consuming and distribution to consume, and it is increasingly so the more "developed", the more densely urban, a city becomes.

Monetary and other government policies dictate whether people flock towards or away from cities/the hinterlands. As money is generated in the city (not wealth), and wealth is funneled to the cities, and government programs are all most available in the cities, people must follow the wealth to the cities - if they want money and services. Life in the city appears easier. But cities require vast distribution systems just to get the necessary basics to the city. I was just reading an article the other day about the constantly ongoing tunneling projects to bring water to NYC from hundreds of miles away. Cities aren't sustainable as they aren't remotely productive.

However: Excluding the water thing, vertical farming may begin to fix part of the problem, and "clean" industries can also. But water is a big problem. Like, big. Given that most large cities are near the ocean, efficient desalinization should be a pressing endeavor, but it doesn't seem to be.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Psh. That's a crap argument to be honest.

You saying it's not true?

I don't know that the gun culture breeds talent necessarily, but it at least breeds people who are more willing to go into service.