[Rei Murasame]

Shamanic rituals are not backward?

Always picking on the shamans.

Here's a random example:
[youtube]ddHfU2wKvmc[/youtube]

Are they really backward?

[starman2003]

The problem with this form of thinking is that it fails to protect the essence of human spirit, which is ultimately global diversity of culture and thought.

No, the essence of human spirit is the will to progress, the quest for truth and a better life.

The last thing I want to see is a monolingual, monocultural, and monoracial human race encompassing the whole globe, putting an end to cultural diversity..

This is slowly but surely happening anyway, even without a world state.

It limits humanity into following a single set path, and it is arrogant to pretend we know which path is best or optimal.

No, it should be clear that the best path to follow is the one most conducive to stability, problem solving and progress--global, meritocratic authoritarianism. And truth isn't relative. Eventually, due to science, truth, or our knowledge of it, will be finished, and only an ideology and culture consistent with it will survive under the circumstances. Already, many silly old cultures, rooted in the ignorant, insular past, are waning. At a time when knowledge and progress are advancing by leaps and bounds, the last thing we should do is cling to the past. We should devise a new ideology and culture based on current/future progress, not maintain dopey old ways and beliefs.

[Daktoria]

Okay, you choose the one that you think is optimal. Either way, you choose one.

You don't "think" anything though before you know something.

At best, you have intuition, but intuition only applies if you have some value in advance that believes optimization is associated with.

At worst, you have emotion such that you're letting the intensity of biological imperative degrade who you are.

Yes, but choosing to do this excludes the possibility of being monogamous.

So what are you getting at?

No... c'mon. Think specifically, not generally.

Monogamy is a decision making method, not an actual decision. It's an approach towards which light switches to turn on or off, not an actual light switch.

Only if you ignore the whole thing about meta-political struggle and social revolution.

You aren't going to be successful if you point a gun and 100% of people decide simultaneously to disobey. I'm not sure what you are caricaturing here, but it certainly isn't Fascism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_overload

I'm actually kind of shocked you're saying this after our discussion on engineers and telling the masses to be patient.

[Rei Murasame]

You don't "think" anything though before you know something.

How did you conclude that?

No... c'mon. Think specifically, not generally.

Why?

I'm actually kind of shocked you're saying this after our discussion on engineers and telling the masses to be patient.

Since Fascism is a mass movement, you can't build the movement by threat of force alone. Nor has anyone ever suggested this in the past or the present. The groundwork has to be laid first through spreading the ideas that lead to 'awakening' people, and making them more amenable to the sort of dramatic policy shifts that would be coming.

You keep making these odd caricatures as though using a command while in power, means that the movement is built by command? You are just searching for contradictions in this way, which reveals more about your own ideology than mine, since it almost seems to suggest that you are trying to find some specific (there's that word again) principles that are applied in all circumstances, and you are just taking everything as a principle and then acting surprised that it's not mapped onto everything blindly?

[Daktoria]

How did you conclude that?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Are you asking me how deontology operates?

Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_criterion

I've brought this up before, and you keep ignoring it.

By focusing on monogamy rather than potential relationships, you're being a methodist, not a particularist. However, your justification of fascism depends upon epistemological particularism, so you can't leap to methodism without losing your justification.

Since Fascism is a mass movement, you can't build the movement by threat of force alone. Nor has anyone ever suggested this in the past or the present. The groundwork has to be laid first through spreading the ideas that lead to 'awakening' people, and making them more amenable to the sort of dramatic policy shifts that would be coming.

You keep making these odd caricatures as though using a command while in power, means that the movement is built by command? You are just searching for contradictions in this way, which reveals more about your own ideology than mine, since it almost seems to suggest that you are trying to find some specific (there's that word again) principles that are applied in all circumstances, and you are just taking everything as a principle and then acting surprised that it's not mapped onto everything blindly?

/facepalm

It's not about threats of force. It's about propaganda. You don't need to exert physical coercion when you can confuse people. You don't need to awaken people for fascism to succeed, just stimulate them enough to dream in slumber.

Again, consider our engineer discussion. Say certain engineers or engineering principles can arrive from immigrants, but the people don't like immigrants. As long as the people are entertained by inventions, they won't care if the inventions come from immigrants or not.

[Rei Murasame]

You're now just floundering and not actually addressing my points.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

I've brought this up before, and you keep ignoring it.

Because it's irrelevant.

By focusing on monogamy rather than potential relationships, you're being a methodist, not a particularist.

And what is the relevance of that? You're trying to hold me to some axiom that no one can be bothered with?

It's not about threats of force. It's about propaganda. You don't need to exert physical coercion when you can confuse people. You don't need to awaken people for fascism to succeed, just stimulate them enough to dream in slumber.

You're not really contradicting my point, you're just calling 'awakening', 'dreaming in slumber', while echoing my point back at me. You and 9000 other liberals feel the same.

Newsflash: You think my ideology is about confusing people, I think your ideology is about confusing people. This is because we are at cross-purposes and are trying to achieve exactly opposite goals.

[Daktoria]

And what is the relevance of that? You're trying to hold me to some axiom that no one can be bothered with?

Particularism is your axiom, not mine. When you switch from addressing decisions to decision making processes, you're abandoning your own axiom.

You're not really contradicting my point, you're just calling 'awakening', 'dreaming in slumber', while echoing my point back at me. You and 9000 other liberals feel the same.

National mythology does not require consciousness. It only requires people to be mesmerized enough to believe in it.

If anything, consciousness yields skepticism, yet you only keep insisting that group dynamics are the default perspective without explaining why.

Society, by definition, is not natural. It's artificial. It is composed from its indivisible components just like how compounds are composed from molecules and atoms are composed from sub-atomic particles.

Without micro, there is no macro.

[Rei Murasame]

Particularism is your axiom, not mine.

I don't recall subscribing to that axiom beyond the position that the ethnic group is a particular entity which we will defend.

When you switch from addressing decisions to decision making processes

You're being ridiculous, since if we didn't talk about processes it would be impossible to have neocorporatism or guild socialism in the first place. You're simply erecting straw-men.

National mythology does not require consciousness.

Have you ever heard of the terms 'class consciousness' and 'ethnic consciousness'? You would really like to have an argument with me over whether those two terms should be conveniently renamed for the benefit of liberal-capitalists?

If you want, we can examine the motivations behind that new attempt of yours right now. Really, this strategy is a funny one, I never dreamed you'd resort to claiming that group consciousnesses are not consciousnesses.

[Daktoria]

I don't recall subscribing to that axiom beyond the position that the ethnic group is a particular entity which we will defend.

Moral particularism requires epistemological particularism. In order to reject the notion of overarching moral principles, you need to also reject the necessity of methodological knowledge for factual knowledge.

For example, moral particularism would allow you to claim black people seeming dumb as an ethical value without considering how black people are studied.

You're being ridiculous, since if we didn't talk about processes it would be impossible to have neocorporatism or guild socialism in the first place. You're simply erecting straw-men.

That's rather dishonest. You've claimed before that the value of third way positions is how they're results oriented (which is not task oriented).

Have you ever heard of the terms 'class consciousness' and 'ethnic consciousness'? You would really like to have an argument with me over whether those two terms should be conveniently renamed for the benefit of liberal-capitalists?

If you want, we can examine the motivations behind that new attempt of yours right now. Really, this strategy is a funny one, I never dreamed you'd resort to claiming that group consciousnesses are not consciousnesses.

All forms of "collective consciousness" are misnomers because consciousness is more than merely having the same idea. Consciousness is having an actual mental faculty which is impossible at the collective level.

People are not telepathic even if it's rational to lie about it.

[Rei Murasame]

Moral particularism requires epistemological particularism. In order to reject the notion of overarching moral principles, you need to also reject the necessity of methodological knowledge for factual knowledge.

It would be great if I actually knew what any of that meant.

That's rather dishonest. You've claimed before that the value of third way positions is how they're results oriented (which is not task oriented).

But we choose those methods because they deliver rather nice results. I'm not sure what you're angling for, but whatever you're trying to say is probably so far off the mark that it would explain why I didn't understand the first statement you made either.

All forms of "collective consciousness" are misnomers because consciousness is more than merely having the same idea.

Then this can't really go much further since you've answered by acknowledging that you don't think group consciousness exists. It would be injurious to the goals of your ideology to say otherwise anyway, since then you wouldn't be able to claim that trade unionists are 'deluded', for example, which is a key claim that you guys needed in order to promote things like strike-breaking.

[Daktoria]

Rei, I don't have any scruples with trade unions. They're associations made up of individuals as much as any other (you could call unions labor firms if you wanted to). If anything, strikebreaking is a corporatist incident, not a capitalist incident, because it involves the government acting in the national interest.

Capital and labor are not the only parties at hand. You have households as well who don't want to deal with capital-labor conflict.

But we choose those methods because they deliver rather nice results.

OK.

In laymen's terms, particularism means, "The ends justify the means." Methodism means, "The means justify the ends."

[Rei Murasame]

In laymen's terms, particularism means, "The ends justify the means."

Then yes, this is generally the position I take. Any systemic changes that I suggest are based on that view. This is part and parcel of being on the Third Position.

If anything, strikebreaking is a corporatist incident, not a capitalist incident

Strikebreaking can potentially be a corporatist incident if the business groups scupper the negotiations (except when the state bans strikebreaking, which most corporatist countries tend to do).

You're just having a laugh if you want to claim that strikebreaking is 'not a capitalist incident' though. Please explain how liberal-capitalism would prohibit or prevent strike-breaking. I bet you can't.

I await your completely ahistorical response, since I can guess you're going to talk about some magical world in which private companies will willingly sign contracts with union-workers that would permit them to go on strike at any time, and that they would then honour those contracts out of the kindness[!] of their hearts.

[Daktoria]

Then yes, this is generally the position I take. Any systemic changes that I suggest are based on that view. This is part and parcel of being on the Third Position.

OK, so if the ends define importance, then why do you care about polyamory (as a means) discriminating against monogamy?

Strikebreaking can potentially be a corporatist incident if the business groups scupper the negotiations (except when the state bans strikebreaking, which most corporatist countries tend to do).

The national interest doesn't necessarily have to do with production (capital-labor conflict). It can deal with consumption as well.

You're just having a laugh if you want to claim that strikebreaking is 'not a capitalist incident' though. Please explain how liberal-capitalism would prohibit or prevent strike-breaking. I bet you can't.

I await your completely ahistorical response, since I can guess you're going to talk about some magical world in which private companies will willingly sign contracts with union-workers that would permit them to go on strike at any time, and that they would then honour those contracts out of the kindness[!] of their hearts.

Hold up.

Strikes are fine when workers are betrayed. If workers are promised $10/hour and they're only getting paid $9/hour, then yea, they can strike. Likewise, if workers are promised certain safety precautions which aren't upheld, then they can strike as well.

If a union contracts all its members to stand up for themselves when violations occur, then of course strikebreaking would be illegal.

Companies can also hire freelancers as independent contractors on a perpetual basis too such that they can quit at any time... so what's the problem?

Granted that if a firm is contracted as a closed shop, freelancing won't take place, but I don't see how that inhibits striking.

[Tribbles]

In the future we might all be a huge "global village" and fancy words such as "Glocalisation" will be on everybodies lips.

Also, we will be ruled by a coalition of chinease and Hindu-people, since these categories have the most people.

Hopefully, they will be followers of technocratic functionalism:-)

[Rei Murasame]

OK, so if the ends define importance, then why do you care about polyamory (as a means) discriminating against monogamy?

Is there a typo somewhere in there? I'm not sure what you're actually asking me.

The national interest doesn't necessarily have to do with production (capital-labor conflict). It can deal with consumption as well.

I agree, but I don't see how that is a response to what I said. If we take a policy of not using strike-breaking, it means that if a strike occurs we have to find another way to solve the problem, namely calling everyone back to the negotiation table and trying again.

Granted that if a firm is contracted as a closed shop, freelancing won't take place

Exactly. The idea would be prevent them from ever setting up a situation where everyone could go on strike and it somehow having no effect. Since you know that I'm a Neocorporatist, it should be obvious that my view would be that if the union goes on strike, then the company is basically going to have to go to the table and deal with the problem, rather than trying to cut around it.

[starman2003]

Also, we will be ruled by a coalition of chinease and Hindu-people, since these categories have the most people.

Do the arabs dominate Israel because they vastly outnumber it? Neither China nor India seems eager to become a global political leader.

Strikes are fine when workers are betrayed.

Not according to real world fascists. Workers didn't live much above subsistence level. That's the way it's bound to be in any serious Statist system. The idea is to minimize resources for the individual to maximize resources for the State.

[Rei Murasame]

That's the way it's bound to be in any serious Statist system. The idea is to minimize resources for the individual to maximize resources for the State.

Are you just saying that in order to sound tough though?

[Tribbles]

Not according to real world fascists. Workers didn't live much above subsistence level. That's the way it's bound to be in any serious Statist system. The idea is to minimize resources for the individual to maximize resources for the State.

This is not true. Workers-rights improved under Mussolini, and under Metaxas in Greece, 8-hour workdays became the law.

These "doctor-evil" fascists have no respect for the actual doctrine.

[Fasces]

Starman believes in Starcraft fascism.

[Rei Murasame]

Also, I don't think Starman takes into account the fact that the entire working class would inevitably revolt against the sort of order he wants to see, since basically they get literally nothing from it.