Re my last post I am seeking exactly this clarification with our new mod browser in the Mod thread, as he SEEMS to be taken the position that if ANY word has multiple interpretations, some good and fine and others a person would see as negative, that word is problematic to use in this forum and should not be used.

Meaning it is not the use you intend that matters, but rather the way the other person might take it that matters. I see that as a significant obstacle as so many words like 'discrimination' can be good of bad.

Obviously the peak was when cultural elites didn’t think women or non whites could contribute to human progress.

It does not change anything in my counter point. However its clear that you argued more than that because you made concrete reference to sociol and economic outputs of said elites, which I can quote for clarification here:

So you seem to be backpedalling.

However none of this counters my argument to your obviously false claims.

Cultural elites of the time you reference where as a matter of historical record producing intellectual output that used "understanding" of human nature to justify slavery/ massive racial discrimination, exploitation, women as property and to justify imperialism and subjugation of "natives" etc.

If you genuinely believe your claim then you must also believe that racial discrimination etc is justified by understanding human nature.

If we want to change cultural elites of 200 hundred years ago to cultural elites from 200s years ago that are still considered relevant in the modern age, then that is a different discussion.

But then, of course thinkers at the height of the enlightenment seem less cynical than those writing after the numerous failures of the enlightenment project such as two massive brutal global conflicts.

Two hundred years ago it was genuinely believed by some cultural elites, the ones that tend to still be relevant, the human reason was going to solve everything.

More contemporary writer's have to content with the failures of reason and thus of course seem more cynical.

Yeah if you compare "today" to all of history I'd agree.

But flip side- in todays society I think we've got the broadest spectrum of human experience at any specific time than at any other moment in history purely by volume of people alone, and, hopefully given technology more of the cultural value will survive and be shareable!

Ridiculous post.

Why?

Obviously not all elites thought that, but you also have to consider who was actually elite at the time, and who is considered elite by history.

Someone can be absolute obscure in their own time and go onto be considered elite later on.

The point is that the preponderance of opinion of elites of the time are absolutely fairly represented by ED.

Anyone proposing that women and non whites could contribute was a radical of that period.

Well yeah. Thinking that people 200 years ago understood stuff about pretty much anything better than people today is ridiculous.

The current discussion around slavery is actually a pretty good example of the hypocrisy of our times. Our culture elites have a lot to say about chattel slavery of the 17-20th centuries (this date range probably isn't completely accurate, but you get the point) and the actions we need to take to repent (eg reparations) , but very little to say about all the forms of slavery going on today and our implicit involvement in it.

Off the top of my head precious metal child labor in Africa and the straight up slavery that took place in the building of the World Cup stadiums in Qatar come to mind.

It all just comes off as completely cynical and dishonest.

--Also, as far as the failures of "The Enlightenment/Reason," I suspect the current course is taking us towards something far, far worse if taken to its logical conclusion. However, on the brighter side short of a civilization ending calamity, I am guardedly optimistic that the ideas coming from our current cultural elites are so impractical and unworkable they will be quickly discarded. One way or another I dont think cultural elites will be talking about "equity" in 50 years.

And I think at some level the cultural elites realize all this, which is why they are so concerned about controlling information flow and silencing their critics; as they see this as the way to maintain control despite horrible, unworkable ideas.

....Are you sure about this?

Also- who do you consider todays "cultural elites"? Why?

I know you tend to not want to flesh out your posts or ideas often and just 'state them' as if that is enough, but i too would appreciate seeing you flesh out your reasoning behind this thought process.

Plenty of "elites" are critical of the things you mention, but again that is apples and oranges, staying silent about a issue X and Y is not the same as intellectually justifying a whole socio economic system built on the superiority of the white race.

Secondly, in all important issues reason is still well in control and neo liberalism charges ahead, its just that everyone knows it will only achieve so much and not achieve the enlightenment goal of man transcendent in man.

Heck you look at the slavery in China assembling our Iphones

Or the Green Elite crowd that are so concerned with Climate change that they ignore child slavery to get the minerals for their batteries or the willingness to destroy ecosystems in their own country to get those minerals

Look what the USA did when it overthrew the government in Libya they have open market slave auctions now

Lets not forget that as recently as 1954 dominant elite ideas about human nature led war hero Alan Turing to commit suicide as he was prosecuted for homosexuality and forcibly chemically castrated.

Ahhh the good ole days.

One thing i do not like or agree with is calling all forms of exploitative labour slavery too casually. That can really damage the real meaning of the word.


Poverty exploitive wages and child labour are not slavery unless coupled with some kind of 'force'.

And i am not saying force is not present in many situations and thus 'slavery' would not apply but i think it is often overly applied to any and all exploitive labour.


So, for example, something many leftist would hate but is actually good for a country's development is when a big International company seeks to open Factories in otherwise suffering countries with instability and strife and few employment options.

The naive leftist view only looks at from the vantage point of 'how much extra profits' XYZ corp is making by utilizing super low wage labour while never seeing they are amongst the highest paying and best jobs in that region THAT MATTERS. It is those companies that often prompt infrastructure like roads and electricity to be improved leading to more local jobs and international company jobs, that increase competition that see the wages rise and conditions improve.

What the activist left often does, is try to shame the company pointing at the 'low wage' and 'profits' and then the company shuts down the operations because due to risk and instability it is just better to locate those jobs elsewhere, if they have to pay more.

The activist left celebrates that as they only care that they are impacting XYZ Profits by driving them out of the low wage area. Job done, profits impacted and reduced. Meanwhile, no one looks behind them at the now unemployed people who go right next door to even a worse local job situation or no job at all. NO one gives a **** to look backwards at the damage in their wake.


That is very much an activist left issue. Doing something they see as an ideological good that all too often harms greatly the very people they purport to want to protect because they only see corporations as the problem and profits as the problem.

For all the shortcomings of reason, a deconstructionist ethos rooted in cynical and selective moral outrage is a complete nonstarter IMO. It will invariably lead to bad ideas that dont stand any test or any time.

The criminal justice system definitely has its flaws, that can and should be improved upon.

-Defund the Police was such a bad idea when implemented in practice, pretty much every city that tried to do so had to reverse course within a year. The burn is slower, but I suspect most of the recent progressive criminal justice reform efforts will suffer the same fate.

I think progress is a great idea. But it has to have some understanding of human nature and be rooted in something workable, and you have to be able to honestly determine if you are actually making positive progress. And very little coming from our cultural elites fits any of this criteria IMO.

When has the activist left done this? Can you name a single instance where an exploitive factory was closed down in the 3rd world because of the activist left? I cant.

Yeah, if modern elites are responsible for all the bad stuff that happens today but elites 100 years ago are not responsible for what was going on then of course the old guys win. But it’s a ridiculous criteria.

lol, which cities actually defunded their police?

What are you asking specifically?

Are you saying you want an example where the activist left shined a spotlight on 'exploitive factory labour' and 'immense corporate profits' that then resulted in the corporations pulling their work from the company or country where it was contracted?

overwhelming the response to Defund the Police was to increase funding to the Police across the country in line with what is done each and every year.

But there are actually quite a few example who did cuts, but I am curious to see that posters data on it not working as the only study I have seen has shown it working to great success.

Defunding the police: A seven-year case study

lol, $15M is a whopping 6% of Portland's police budget.

Also, it's hilarious that the guy who's enamored with how much better society was back in the good old days is also worried about cop budgets. The era of heavily-funded police departments with MRAPS and military-grade hardware is a very modern conception.

Ya i think what a lot of people do not understand, because they get so caught up in the horrible branding of 'defund the Police' is that all it is really calling for is a re-allocation of SOME of the police budget in certain areas to other agencies better suited to handle that work.

Cops hate 'domestic call work' more than any other, and dealing with Homeless probably is a close second, based on the common reports we see. They really dread those contacts and being first responder on those scenes.

So if you can that work away from the Cops and instead give it to another agency who are better equipped, what is the issue in reallocating that percent of the police budget to the ones now doing the work? Allow the cops to play a less work, back up role, in most instances.

That is win/win, but still certain people are against it and would see the budget remain and force the cops to keep doing the work they hate.

It happened in liberal cities in Canada as well after Floyd. Edmonton dramatically cut its budget and of all things did not provide the funding requested again by our police force but had no issue to grant 100 million for bike lanes in a city were its winter 7 months of the year.