I occasionally dip in to this corner of the DW Forum, and when I do, I frequently find myself itching to comment. However, I refrain, because I strongly suspect that I and my views would be highly unwelcome here. So, what are the "boundaries", so I know just how far beyond them into the thickets of intolerable unacceptableness I am located? "Outright flaming" is kind of fuzzy, and are their political positions which it is considered here "outright flaming" to hold/state?
"If you
wish to converse with me, define your
terms."
--Voltaire
I'm not Bob, but I've posted here fairly often ...
If you're talking about events or your own opinions of events, there shouldn't be any problem. If you're talking about particular people, my guideline is "say only what I'm willing to defend in court". Insulting other posters is a no-no; we're here to talk about events, not about each other. (The forum rules here are "Have Fun, and Play Nice". Being nasty on purpose isn't playing nice.)
One "edge case" is when one person posts what he or she thinks is an opinion, but somebody else thinks is an insult. That's a case where (IMHO) everybody should be willing to discuss the difference between the two - we're all grown-ups here (or, at least, pretending to be grown-up), and that's what grown-ups do. Understanding and apologies on both sides mend many fences, if both sides are willing to understand and listen to apologies.
As for unpopular opinions, I have three observations. First, if we were all the same, this would be a boring world. Second, if somebody annoys me repeatedly and regularly, I can switch on Yuku's "Ignore User's Posts" option; I've only had to do that once in the last decade (regarding somebody who wasn't willing to discuss the matter). Third, Bob has often mentioned that he was one of the people who left TVTropes in part because unpopular opinions were being suppressed there; I doubt he'd be willing to allow unpopular opinions to be suppressed here.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Quote:I doubt he'd be willing to allow unpopular opinions to be suppressed here.
There's "unpopular opinions", and then there's
me. All right, at the risk of being banned for being too evil to tolerate, I'll be more direct. I'm an (irreligious) reactionary. I'm a self-described kyriarchist. I think, that outside the narrow elements of the natural sciences and (most) technology, the entire "Enlightenment project" was a dire mistake, and that the last 500 years (at least) of social "progress" are nothing of the kind.
I'm a Monarchist — but for neither constitutional monarchy nor the "absolutist" monarchies of the Early Modern period, but the comparitively weak monarchs, balanced by powerful lords and barons, of the Medieval period (think King John and the Magna Carty). I'm in favor of hereditary aristocracy. I'm moderately opposed to "capitalism" — not in favor of socialism or any other proposed "post-capitalism", but in favor of
pre-capitalism; that is, (manorialist-style) feudalism. I think marriage went wrong not with gay marriage or no fault divorce, but with the rise of "romantic love" and the decline of arranged marriage, and marriage as about a deal between families for the propagation of bloodlines. I'm an atheist, but I'm a fan of the Inquisitions, the Crusades, and Arnaud Amalric and the "Albigensian Crusade". I think the "Founding Fathers" of America were vile traitors who should all have been hung for their inexcusable crimes against their Rightful Monarch, and that the "Glorious Revolution" was not glorious at all. That Martin Luther should have been executed for his heresy and all his works burned — and the same for William Wilberforce. Xunzi, described as the Hobbes to Mencius's Rousseau, is not only my favorite Confucian philosopher, but one of my favorite philosophers period. Pretty much every form of inequality and "oppression" the modern Left (and even the modern mainstream Right) denounces, I'm for it. I don't belive in "equality"; of the Confucian Five Relations that make up society, four are explicitly cast as unequal, between a "superior" and a "subordinate", and even in the fifth (friends/colleagues/coworkers), issues of seniority make them unequal in practice as well.
In short, by the beliefs of pretty much the vast majority of the political spectrum, I'm pretty much Evil Incarnate.
"If you
wish to converse with me, define your
terms."
--Voltaire
Okayy...about 500 years since the Divine Right of Kings, but your call.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
That's definitely a minority viewpoint nowadays.
However... when I started my career in the Canadian civil service, I swore an oath to uphold the interests of the Sovereign and her rightful heirs and successors. I did not swear an oath to obey the Sovereign, to uphold democracy or Parliament, or to follow the wishes of the electorate or the elected. I never renounced my oath.
I think I can find at least a small amount of common ground with you.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
I suspect that your point of view is going to be so variant it'll be hard to find a meaningful intersection between it and modern (American, at least) politics where excess friction could occur, but I see no reason to say it's unwelcome.
As for rules and whatnot, Rob often does such a good job of summarizing my forum management style that I frequently can't find a reason to post anything more than "what he said" when he does so, so you can accept his take on matters as given above as pretty much unofficially official.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
I would endorse an absolute monarchy if the monarch was Tsukino Usagi. I wouldn't mind living in Tenjou Utena's principality, either. I've always thought that
Leviathan had a solid point -- given a truly good monarch, it is the best, most effective form of governance. As a Christian, I'm totally OK with the Kingdom of God being an actual kingdom (though I suspect its something more quintessential). As a Lutheran, I'm a bit offended that you suggest executing Martin Luther, but hey you are far from alone, historically speaking, from that opinion.
But the rub is that choosing a truly good monarch is exceedingly hard; even the Catholic church fails more often than it succeeds. If you're looking for the accident of bloodline to do better than this, well, good luck with that. That's not to say that there aren't utilitarian advantages to having a nobility rather than letting commoners run things (exhibit A: Trump), but that there are also serious downsides to doing so (exhibit B: Caligula).
And I think that Mr. TheTwisted won't really like my choices of ideal monarch anyway, as they are all relentlessly postmodern. Yes, even God, who made everything including: faith, science, and the law.
But I'm totally OK with talking to you, partially because I love talking to all of the weird people that I meet at protests. And nothing you say will change things, because
liberalism is an elder god that has continued to devour society for 500 years. I enjoy the whole essay, but you can skip down by searching for "Moldbug" if you want to get to the gist. Or the summary, which is:If you ever piss off Phèdre nó Delaunay,
run and never stop running.
-- ∇×V
You'd have to debate strongly with me about the Founding Fathers, as well as the place of romance within marriage. The thing is that I am a huge believer in the concept of Free Will - it's a huge cornerstone in the belief system of Latter-Day Saints since we believe that the war in heaven was due to Lucifer believing that everyone should have their entire lives laid out for them. This, of course, opposed to having the ability and the will to make your own choice... even though that means people make mistakes. But then we start to get into some of the more nitty-gritty of LDS theology, which, while interesting, is not the topic here.
Suffice to say, I'm big on people having a choice in how they live their lives.
Personally, I've no mind against a monarchist government, but only so long as there is a strong democratic element to balance out not only the power of the monarch, but that of the feudal lords as well. A sort of popularly elected lower house, if you will.
I've no real quarrel against capitalism, but I feel that it is something that must be strongly regulated - things like an effective living wage must be defended because it is the income of the working man that is the lifeblood of an economy. And on that note, I have socialist leanings in that I feel that all public services - infrastructure, healthcare, education, and even necessities such as water, electricity, and fuel - are all of paramount importance to The State and should thus be operated by The State and the State alone. As for the funding... eh. So long as these things are managed with care, funding will usually take care of itself, even if you do have to pay upfront for water, electricity, and gas.
(Though it'd be pretty interesting if all public utilities were provided by taxpayer's dollars... You may pay a bit more in taxes than other countries, but at least you never have to worry about power or water getting shut-off.)
Interestingly enough, I'm not terribly against surveillance, so long as it is strictly passive except where otherwise mandated by a court order. I don't mind my image being captured impassively by stationary cameras. What I do mind is corporations monitoring all my purchases and every link that I click on the Internet. Besides, I feel it's flawed. They feel as though they can dictate to me what I want. Trust me, what I want and what I buy and look at online are VERY different things.
I feel that Humanity should not be confined to this one rock. I feel that we need to be out there and exploring, in person, and only sending drones forward where the risk is absolutely too great. I like to argue that after we landed on the moon, we more than certainly had the technology to continue on to explore the rest of our home system. It would have been an effort of sheer brute force, but the amount of money that the Department of Defense had been funneling into NASA at the time would have seen to that. What might have we accomplished if the Russians had worked the kinks out of their economy and continued to push the Space Race?
Vorticity, I'm well familiar with that essay, and much of Scott Alexander's writing in general — I prefer
How the West was Won for describing modern "universal culture" as "an alien entity from beyond the void which devoured its summoner and is proceeding to eat the rest of the world." You'll find me in the comments over at SSC occasionally under the name "Kevin C."
And since I apparently wasn't clear enough, I'm
not, repeat,
NOT in favor of "absolute monarchy", as that's too modern. I'm in favor of weak medieval kingship; not Louis XIV "L'état, c'est moi", but King John, forced by his lords to sign the Magna Carta. Or even better, many periods (mostly pre-Song) of Imperial China. A number of classical Chinese thinkers liken the Emperor to the north star — the pole star is essential to navigation; it's the starting point of feng shui, of orienting and laying out homes, buildings, streets, cities; the heavens revolve around it. But it serves this function, does all this, by
not moving. That is to say, a proper monarch's role is more to
hold power than to
wield power; to serve as a human Schelling point around which society may be ordered, and a limit on upward ambition by keeping "the top" occupied. Otherwise, to quote Tolkien, "give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers."
And Bob, to answer where the "meaningful intersection between it and modern (American, at least) politics where excess friction could occur" lies, that's "identity politics". I should be more clear in defining terms with which people are unfamiliar, such as when I call myself a "kyriarchist". "
Kyriarchy" is the term coined by feminist theologian Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza as the intersectionalist extension of the feminist concept of patriarchy beyond gender to other axes of privilege and oppression. To quote Wikipedia "Kyriarchy encompasses sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, economic injustice, colonialism, militarism, ethnocentrism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of dominating hierarchies in which the subordination of one person or group to another is internalized and institutionalized." So, when I say I'm a kyriarchist, I'm saying that I'm for all that: racist, sexist, et cetera.
"If you
wish to converse with me, define your
terms."
--Voltaire
Ah. Yes. In that case, I do believe there will be more than a little friction on that front. Most of the currently vocal voices here will find most of that agenda quite offensive.
As long as all discussion is polite and does not devolve into ad hominem attacks, though, it would be a violation of my own ethics and values to forbid you (or anyone else) from participating in discussions here.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.