in reply
This is in reply to another post, but I coudln't find the old one.
"it doesn't matter whether you use language, religion, culture, politics, history, violence, economics, misogyny or racism to express dissent, but it comes down to this."
I think there's an answer to your concern. There's a quote, "Force convinces".
"The wretched 'evil' of liberal humanism" is in liberal humanism attempting to create absolute values, means which are always considered apart from their ends. You're saying it doesn't matter how you dissent, but only that you dissent? But if there are in fact real circumstances that need to be changed, a different use of "language" won't necessarily change things, though it can. I don't see how misogyny and racism constitute dissent? But political, violent, economic changes- these changes are much deeper and more basic than the other levels of change, such as a change of belief or of theoretical interpretation. Beliefs and ideas can only occur within a specific context and are limited by that context.
But liberal humanism attempts to deny all that. It just seeks to create an image of a legally equitable and feasible system, where all parties to a contract are held liable, but in the end does not address the crucial questions of life and death. It leaves these decisions- the questions over the physical control over the levers of power- to those with the means to pursue control. In other words, the owners of the means of production and finance make the final decisions over life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness: war, tyrrany, and the crushing of dreams.
Liberal humanism begins with what ought to be, but never quite reaches what is. Carefully alluding to the objective circumstances, but constantly eluding them in chase of absurd claims masked in meaningless hypotheticals.
The fact of the matter is, our "rights" are trampled upon, but we must question our every tactic and its ripple effect on the balance of the universe. Our homes are taken from us, but we must smile as we carry our things to the refugee camp. Our water is poisoned, but we must let the regulators do their job while the regulees wine and dine them.
There is no solution to political problems which can be found in thought alone, because politics is in essence a balance of forces. Conflict, in fact, is occasionally physical, violent, bloody, and deadly. Clearly violence must be limited, in law, to the hands of the state, therefore, violent revolution is immoral. Yet at the very heart of the paradox, is that the story of the greatest nation was paved in bloody combat against an imperialist overlord. And here they are together, the imperialists and the Yankees. The Yankees are god-damned violent. Shit man. There’s rampant homosexuality in the army, general. And a culture of sexual sadsim, especially with prisoners.
"it doesn't matter whether you use language, religion, culture, politics, history, violence, economics, misogyny or racism to express dissent, but it comes down to this."
I think there's an answer to your concern. There's a quote, "Force convinces".
"The wretched 'evil' of liberal humanism" is in liberal humanism attempting to create absolute values, means which are always considered apart from their ends. You're saying it doesn't matter how you dissent, but only that you dissent? But if there are in fact real circumstances that need to be changed, a different use of "language" won't necessarily change things, though it can. I don't see how misogyny and racism constitute dissent? But political, violent, economic changes- these changes are much deeper and more basic than the other levels of change, such as a change of belief or of theoretical interpretation. Beliefs and ideas can only occur within a specific context and are limited by that context.
But liberal humanism attempts to deny all that. It just seeks to create an image of a legally equitable and feasible system, where all parties to a contract are held liable, but in the end does not address the crucial questions of life and death. It leaves these decisions- the questions over the physical control over the levers of power- to those with the means to pursue control. In other words, the owners of the means of production and finance make the final decisions over life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness: war, tyrrany, and the crushing of dreams.
Liberal humanism begins with what ought to be, but never quite reaches what is. Carefully alluding to the objective circumstances, but constantly eluding them in chase of absurd claims masked in meaningless hypotheticals.
The fact of the matter is, our "rights" are trampled upon, but we must question our every tactic and its ripple effect on the balance of the universe. Our homes are taken from us, but we must smile as we carry our things to the refugee camp. Our water is poisoned, but we must let the regulators do their job while the regulees wine and dine them.
There is no solution to political problems which can be found in thought alone, because politics is in essence a balance of forces. Conflict, in fact, is occasionally physical, violent, bloody, and deadly. Clearly violence must be limited, in law, to the hands of the state, therefore, violent revolution is immoral. Yet at the very heart of the paradox, is that the story of the greatest nation was paved in bloody combat against an imperialist overlord. And here they are together, the imperialists and the Yankees. The Yankees are god-damned violent. Shit man. There’s rampant homosexuality in the army, general. And a culture of sexual sadsim, especially with prisoners.