Is Deconstruction a Tool of Conservative Subversives in Liberal Clothing? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14806902
I argue this point because in real life, the real problem of conservatism isn't that it's an ideology of principle, but that it's non-ideological.

Conservatives basically come in three forms depending on class:

Aristocratically elitist spoiled brats,

Conformists who are obsessed with going along with the flow and not rocking the boat, and

Anti-intellectuals who are about folk community common sense.

All three of these groups have deconstructive senses of time. They have a way of life while ignoring the potential for diversity in society. If you try to have a reasonable conversation with them, then they label you as ridiculously absurd while insisting on learning from experience to get away with appeals to tradition. They want proof which depends on an attempt which depends on proof which depends on an attempt, so the vicious cycle goes on and on, amounting to a self-fulfilling prophecy of a stubborn status quo. Their goal in using deconstruction is to nitpick at the details of being openminded. For example, if you claim they shouldn't push their values onto others in expecting others to live their way of life, they say you insisting on them being tolerant is you pushing your value onto them despite how that's not the same point. There's a difference between a personal value and a social value. The first is your own opinion on what's valuable in life. The second is a standard on how people interact among our lives.

In any case, we see a lot of this sort of behavior within the left today, but it doesn't actually achieve any progress. In reality, what it enables is people being wise guys in academia only to get battered in the real world. It doesn't actually achieve any sort of equality. Instead, it attacks reformists on the conservative side of the equation who are trying to fix this problem from the inside out. The problem continues to fester, and when the reformists are destroyed, those who destroyed them get destroyed next. We see this now with how Trump supporters are destroying the left today by embarrassing it into looking like a bunch of sensitive snowflakes, and we saw this before from how the Nazis destroyed the communists in Weimar Germany after Zentrum was dismantled within the Weimar Coalition.

The bottomline is deconstruction does not help the left. It only sets it up for disaster. It enables the prejudices of the right to carry on behind the scenes while targeting others who really aren't the problem. In turn, those who actually are prejudiced on the right continue with their prejudices, and the victims of those prejudices are never actually liberated.
#14806905
When I was fifteen, I used to come up with crap like this.

I eventually decided it was the mental version of masturbation.

To cure myself of this, I decided not to believe these musings unless I could empirically verify them or disprove them.

Is that the case with this?
#14806907
I gave up on empiricism at a very young age after realizing it doesn't work in the real world.

Abusive people often hide behind plausible deniability by taking advantage of how records aren't kept of every fact that happens, and authorities are often corrupt because they expect people to go along with the tried and true way of life instead of considering how alternative lifestyles are feasible.

It lead me to believing, "Empiricism is utopian. Idealism is pragmatic."
#14806908
Dubayoo wrote:I gave up on empiricism at a very young age after realizing it doesn't work in the real world.


Lol at irony.

Abusive people often hide behind plausible deniability by taking advantage of how records aren't kept of every fact that happens, and authorities are often corrupt because they expect people to go along with the tried and true way of life instead of considering how alternative lifestyles are feasible.

It lead me to believing, "Empiricism is utopian. Idealism is pragmatic."


See my previous post.
#14806910
Dubayoo wrote:Mate, I didn't come here to get driven around in circles.

If you want to make a point, then make it.


I think my point is clear:

There is no reason to think your argument is any more realistic than the argument that the Earth is flat.

Both can be supported logically, and neither have any empirical support.
#14806912
I've no idea how you're coming to that conclusion. You're talking about nature there. I'm talking about society.

The difference is nature operates according to fixed rules. It has a predetermined flow of time.

People, in contrast, have their own internal senses of time. We recognize the many-to-one and one-to-many relationships between cause and effect. Perhaps it's because of random emotions or thinking before we act, but one way or another, many things can happen.

I will say you're coming off as a conservative subversive here who doesn't want the truth revealed though. You're talking like those who believe in predestined callings, work ethic, and judging people according to their performance of good works.

Also, you seem to be confusing artistic with idealistic paradigms just because both are abstract. Anyone who imagines a sphere in their mind grasps how looking out to the horizon and only seeing so far isn't a deductive conclusion as to whether our world is flat or not.

This confusion is the same problem that conservative engage in that I described above when confusing personal with social values.
#14806915
People are as much part of nature as anything else. Simply claiming that we just can't analyze society so you don't have to actually show any evidence is just silly.

You don't even have a blog post of someone describing their ideas along the lines you've presented. You are just asserting that people do this.
#14806916
Dubayoo wrote:I've no idea how you're coming to that conclusion. You're talking about nature there. I'm talking about society.


And you want me to pretend that society cannot be empirically analysed?

The difference is nature operates according to fixed rules. It has a predetermined flow of time.

People, in contrast, have their own internal senses of time. We recognize the many-to-one and one-to-many relationships between cause and effect. Perhaps it's because of random emotions or thinking before we act, but one way or another, many things can happen.


Actually, we see such causative relationships in nature all the time, as well as society. The way we see time has nothing to do with it.

I will say you're coming off as a conservative subversive here who doesn't want the truth revealed though. You're talking like those who believe in predestined callings, work ethic, and judging people according to their performance of good works.

Also, you seem to be confusing artistic with idealistic paradigms just because both are abstract. Anyone who imagines a sphere in their mind grasps how looking out to the horizon and only seeing so far isn't a deductive conclusion as to whether our world is flat or not.

This confusion is the same problem that conservative engage in that I described above when confusing personal with social values.


No, this is just you making lots of stupid assumptions.

I only pointed out that none of this is supported by actual facts.
#14806917
mikema63 wrote:People are as much part of nature as anything else. Simply claiming that we just can't analyze society so you don't have to actually show any evidence is just silly.

You don't even have a blog post of someone describing their ideas along the lines you've presented. You are just asserting that people do this.


Any sort of ideological discussion depends on assertions. The point is to construct consensus about what words mean and how ideas come together.

As for evidence, it's silly to believe everything that happens is recorded, or that everything that's feasible happens. The point of ideology is to bridge these gaps.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And you want me to pretend that society cannot be empirically analysed?



Actually, we see such causative relationships in nature all the time, as well as society. The way we see time has nothing to do with it.



No, this is just you making lots of stupid assumptions.

I only pointed out that none of this is supported by actual facts.


What I want doesn't matter here.

What needs to be realized is the course of events that happens in society has limits on how it's investigated. The fact is surveillance equipment doesn't exist everywhere, and even if it did, it wouldn't prove everything that can be done.
Last edited by Dubayoo on 21 May 2017 17:04, edited 1 time in total.
#14806918
Can you give examples of what you think 'deconstruction' is, in the political sphere?

Dubayoo wrote:Mate, I didn't come here to get driven around in circles.

If you want to make a point, then make it.

Dubayoo earlier wrote:Empiricism is utopian. Idealism is pragmatic

You seem to be driving yourself around in a circle quite happily.
#14806922
Dubayoo wrote:Any sort of ideological discussion depends on assertions. The point is to construct consensus about what words mean and how ideas come together.


No, this is not what ideological discussion is for.

As for evidence, it's silly to believe everything that happens is recorded, or that everything that's feasible happens. The point of ideology is to bridge these gaps.


No one is saying that everything is recorded.

Something does not need to be already recorded to , for example, make verifable predictions.

What I want doesn't matter here.


I completely agree.

What needs to be realized is the course of events that happens in society has limits on how it's investigated. The fact is surveillance equipment doesn't exist everywhere, and even if it did, it wouldn't prove everything that can be done.


This is still just you making excuses for not having any actual evidence.
#14806929
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, this is not what ideological discussion is for.



No one is saying that everything is recorded.

Something does not need to be already recorded to , for example, make verifable predictions.



I completely agree.



This is still just you making excuses for not having any actual evidence.


If everything isn't recorded, then verification leads to framing.

Ideology addresses the problem of framing.
#14806939
Dubayoo wrote:I could, but your second sentence suggests you're careless, so there's no point to bother.

Is this an example of deconstruction? Rather than trying to make your own arguments, you just deconstruct other people's posts to find excuses to not reply?

I would have thought that if you believe someone else is 'careless', it's a good opportunity for you to put them right, and thus give support to your own ideas being well thought out (you presented a couple of oxymorons, which just seem to lead around in circles, to me).

But I really don't know what 'deconstruction' - a term associated with literary criticism - means to you, politically. You accuse both conservatives and those on the left of using it, but I can't tell how. Sometimes you appear to be talking about academia, sometimes you're saying it's the realm in which Trump supporters live - as far from academia as you can get.
#14806957
Dubayoo wrote:I gave up on empiricism at a very young age after realizing it doesn't work in the real world.

Abusive people often hide behind plausible deniability by taking advantage of how records aren't kept of every fact that happens, and authorities are often corrupt because they expect people to go along with the tried and true way of life instead of considering how alternative lifestyles are feasible.

It lead me to believing, "Empiricism is utopian. Idealism is pragmatic."

Kind of ironic to bash people who rely on "common sense" or tradition while also rejecting empiricism. What is even left at that point, maybe history? That's obviously not open to debate!
#14807186
There is a form of philosophical conservatism that I think has merit, though it bears little relation to what passes for conservatism today, at least in the US. It is based in a kind of skepticism of the Enlightenment view of reason and its ability to bring about the perfection of humanity. Essentially, the philosophical conservative argues that because no one is fully rational, and because attempts to change society often have unforeseen consequences, we ought to tread carefully when attempting to change the existing order. Many conservatives will talk about the "democracy of the dead." By this, they are referring to the collective wisdom of those who came before us, and their ability to create lasting structures that persist to this day. As such, the philosophical conservative argues against utopian projects that would reorganize society from the top down, disrupting traditional institutions and forms of authority simply because the intellectuals who dream up such utopias fail to see their usefulness. My main objection to this form of conservatism is that their "democracy of the dead" is really more of an aristocracy, preserving those institutions and forms of authority that have traditionally served the ruling class. Yet I do see wisdom in trying to meet society where it's at, and not be overzealous in overturning traditional institutions in the name of some new utopian order. Of course, in today's environment, it's the right wing that are the utopians, overturning long-standing social safety nets and legal and political institutions in the name of some idealistic capitalist project that threatens our very means of survival. Thus, there is little left of the past that we have left to cling to for stability, and it is now an all-out war for society's future.
#14807192
There is a form of philosophical conservatism that I think has merit, though it bears little relation to what passes for conservatism today, at least in the US. It is based in a kind of skepticism of the Enlightenment view of reason and its ability to bring about the perfection of humanity. Essentially, the philosophical conservative argues that because no one is fully rational, and because attempts to change society often have unforeseen consequences, we ought to tread carefully when attempting to change the existing order. Many conservatives will talk about the "democracy of the dead." By this, they are referring to the collective wisdom of those who came before us, and their ability to create lasting structures that persist to this day. As such, the philosophical conservative argues against utopian projects that would reorganize society from the top down, disrupting traditional institutions and forms of authority simply because the intellectuals who dream up such utopias fail to see their usefulness. My main objection to this form of conservatism is that their "democracy of the dead" is really more of an aristocracy, preserving those institutions and forms of authority that have traditionally served the ruling class. Yet I do see wisdom in trying to meet society where it's at, and not be overzealous in overturning traditional institutions in the name of some new utopian order. Of course, in today's environment, it's the right wing that are the utopians, overturning long-standing social safety nets and legal and political institutions in the name of some idealistic capitalist project that threatens our very means of survival. Thus, there is little left of the past that we have left to cling to for stability, and it is now an all-out war for society's future.

At last, some sense after Dubayoo's adolescent musings! :roll:
#14808009
Paradigm wrote:Of course, in today's environment, it's the right wing that are the utopians, overturning long-standing social safety nets and legal and political institutions in the name of some idealistic capitalist project that threatens our very means of survival. Thus, there is little left of the past that we have left to cling to for stability, and it is now an all-out war for society's future.


What's basically at work, IMO, is not so much utopianism as it is a long-term, well-funded, and exquisitely targeted propaganda campaign. It's aim is not a libertarian utopia itself (at least not one remotely resembling the minarchy of its theorists), but simply the destruction of the "public good" as a useful concept in public governance. In its place remains a (very) strong central government that answers to the interests of the capitalist oligarchy. This oligarchy has been in place since the end of the US Civil War, but it always faced a significant challenge. Indeed, it was forced to retrench in the era of the two Roosevelts.

What's new is the fact that the oligarchy no longer believes it can be challenged, and admits no necessity of compromise. Hillary Clinton and Trump both represent the interests of the oligarchy. You don't have to believe they are the same - just recognize the fact they are headed in the same direction, at different speeds.

Even if we imagine a hypothetical in which Sanders won and had a majority in both houses, this would not represent a 'change,' but merely a return to the mildly reformist politics that began with Teddy Roosevelt and ended with Richard Nixon (who started the EPA and tried to introduce single payer).

The past has been succesfully reframed. No one remembers that Teddy Roosevelt proposed this in 1912:
Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
Limited the ability of judges to order injunctions to limit labor strikes.
A minimum wage law for women
An eight-hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax

And no one remembers that the colonies (and later the States of the US) strictly controlled the activities of limited liability corporations. Charters were not easily obtained and they were often revoked for cause. Corporations could not own property other than that directly related to its business. They could not make charitable or political donations. The privileges of corporate persons were those granted by the legislature - they had no unalienable rights. They could not form trusts or holding companies. This state of affairs held until the rise of industrial capitalism in the pre-civil war era, and the capture of the apparatus of the state.

No one remembers the long Civil War between labor and capital that occupied most of the latter half of the nineteenth and early twentieth century in the US. This was not a metaphorical Civil War, but a real long-running guerilla war with armed combatants and significant casualties. This era culminated with the grand compromises of the Progressive Era, and a return to relative peace and prosperity.

None of this history now remains. We are at square one, and will be forced to re-fight these same battles, or chuck the very idea of reform itself. The problem is that no one can predict the outcome of such a battle, and the odds are far more weighted against workers than they were in 1912.

Trump is selling Trump Bibles for $59.99. The guy[…]

In this thread, for example, we see Palestinians d[…]

I am of the opinion, and have been for a long tim[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we[…]