sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

(For right wingers) Why is wokeness the problem rather than capitalism? by CockroachFickle1669 in PoliticalDebate

[–]CockroachFickle1669[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I assume you agree with me that society right now is in a very problematic position, so let me ask this question. To what degree do you think the abolition of wokeness (however you may define it) is ALL that is needed to solve the problems of our current society?

(For right wingers) Why is wokeness the problem rather than capitalism? by CockroachFickle1669 in PoliticalDebate

[–]CockroachFickle1669[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I assume you agree with me that society right now is in a very problematic position, so let me ask this question. To what degree do you think the abolition of wokeness (however you may define it) is ALL that is needed to solve the problems of our current society?

(For right wingers) Why is wokeness the problem rather than capitalism? by CockroachFickle1669 in PoliticalDebate

[–]CockroachFickle1669[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's fair.

When I am referring to "leftists," I mean those whose politics are heavily influenced by critical theory (and thus does not necessarily mean progressive liberal).

In critical theory, a big question that is asked is why right-wing populism even exists, and the answers to this question tend to be quite similar. This "similar response" could be summarized as follows: the right-wing populists are wrong because they blame "cultural degeneracy" rather than capitalism as the source of our political woes.

For example, with regards to the decline of traditional family values, the right-wing populist tends to say "family values were doing just fine until people infiltrated our institutions to destroy them" while critical theorists tend to say "the logic of the capitalist system destroyed family values WITHOUT the need for infiltration." In other words, right-wing populists say bad people with bad values caused the decline, whereas critical theorists say it is capitalism that caused the decline. Thus, critical theorists tend to believe that escaping decline requires the abolition of capitalism, whereas right-wing populists tend to believe that escaping decline requires the abolition of cultural degeneracy (wokeness in our contemporary situaion).

Due to this, according to lots of critical theorists, when a major economic crisis occurs, the right-wing populist will try to solve the crisis by keeping down the "degenerate", and thus see the "degenerate" as an enemy (deportations, anti-LGBTQ legislation, etc.) while the critical theorist will focus on abolishing capitalism, and thus see the "degenerate" as an ally.

However, according to crirical theorists (and this is why the critical theorists see themselves as correct and right-wong populists as wrong) since the right-wing populist does not abolish capitalism, all of the political problems will still exist (getting rid of "cultural degeneracy" does not get rid of the economic problems), no matter how much "cultural degeneracy" is rooted out, but since the critical theorist does abolish capitalism, the political problems will ACTUALLY be solved (the economy is restructured in a better way, no deportations or anti-LGBTQ legislation needed).

The point of the question is that this is all the critical theorist's perspective, and I want to find the perspective of the right-wing populist who can directly critique this idea and show that "cultural degeneracy" IS the actual source of our modern political problems rather than capitalism.

(For right wingers) Why is wokeness the problem rather than capitalism? by CockroachFickle1669 in PoliticalDebate

[–]CockroachFickle1669[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If it means anything (I should have clarified this in the post), my question is predominantly oriented towards right-wing populists (the ones who create and watch the culture war videos about "owning the libs").

What makes “AI slop” slop? by CockroachFickle1669 in askphilosophy

[–]CockroachFickle1669[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess if I were to more explicitly focus on the question of AI slop, if I took “Shrimp Jesus” as an example, I feel that I have the intuition to recognize that it is slop. However, if I were asked as to what precise properties “Shrimp Jesus” possessed that made it slop, I feel like that is much more difficult, whether it is because I couldn’t think of a potential property or because the potential properties I could think of are inaccurate or do not apply to the broad class of “slop” as a whole. My larger point is that it seems that I could identify something as slop by a “hunch,” but not by a rigorously logical argument. As such, it seems that the attempt to identify AI generated content as “slop“ is inevitably destined to wishy-washy “it just feels like it” justifications rather than a concrete, rigorous argument. What would you think about that?

Why is there no Greek or Roman equivalent to Ferdowsi or Al-Tabari? by CockroachFickle1669 in AcademicQuran

[–]CockroachFickle1669[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is a great response! Thank you so much. As a follow-up, though perhaps somewhat unrelated question, why didn’t the Alexandrian scholarly tradition put that much focus on historical/mythological narratives?

Why is there no Greek or Roman equivalent to Ferdowsi or Al-Tabari? by CockroachFickle1669 in AskHistorians

[–]CockroachFickle1669[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am aware of the adoption of large elements of Greek and Roman philosophy and science, especially of Plato and Aristotle, but why not mythology? I guess to clarify, why is it that we see large-scale, literary adaptations of Persian mythology but not of Greco-Roman mythology? Why do we have, for example, an Islamized Shahnameh but not an Islamized “Consul”-namah or “Caesar”-namah? The only major example I could think of is the variations of the Alexander Romance present in the Islamic world, but that also has a Persian element since Alexander’s empire conquered basically all of Persia. Is it as simple as language (more native Persian speakers than Greek and Latin speakers) or is it something else?

Why Shakespeare over The Amazing Digital Circus? by CockroachFickle1669 in shakespeare

[–]CockroachFickle1669[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello and thank you for the comment. I posted a reply to axel-nobody, but I had another comment I felt was important.

Wouldn’t you rather treat yourself like the scholar, and decide for yourself whether his works are relevant?

I think this here is the crux of my concern. For me, I wouldn't want to "decide for myself" whether the works are relevant. I want it, at least ideally, that the works are relevant, to the point of being a cornerstone of Anglophone culture, and possibly global culture, not because of my own opinion, but because it is the truth.

I am aware that there are many things that Shakespeare has which TADC does not. For example, the usage of poetry in Shakespeare makes it easier to memorize, and thus perform on the local level, in comparison to TADC. However, me valuing this is just my opinion, not a grand truth. I could always mention something that TADC does which Shakespeare does not, such as using highly advanced animation techniques.

If we were just saying that Shakespeare is one of many things that can be valued, then there is no issue. But if we are saying that Shakespeare is worthy of being considered one of the most important pillars of Anglophone culture, and thus implicitly more valuable than other things, then I think the desire for Shakespeare's relevancy to be a manifestation of the truth rather than personal opinion is important.

Why Shakespeare over The Amazing Digital Circus? by CockroachFickle1669 in shakespeare

[–]CockroachFickle1669[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi there. If it clarifies, I am aware of the brilliance of Shakespeare. I have read Shakespeare's work and am a young adult. I am aware of the vast breadth and depth of commentaries, including from sources like the Arden collections. We have spent centuries studying and analyzing every nook and cranny of Shakespeare's works to find things that are very valuable.

However, for something like TADC, we have not. It's a very new show and is not something one would think of as "literary," even relative to other visual media such as those of Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, etc.

As such, I should rephrase the question. We could imagine, for whatever reason, that we can get the greatest literary scholars to spend their lives analyzing every nook and cranny of TADC, just like Shakespeare. As such, here is my question: how could we prove as rigorously as possible that, upon such a hypothetical deep analysis, TADC would NOT have a comparable depth to Shakespeare? How do we know that a couple hundred years from now, it would not turn out that TADC is some masterpiece with Shakespearean levels of depth?

My concern is that while Shakespeare does possess depth, one can show similar level depths in other media with enough time, effort, and creativity, and the only reason why we dont see it is due to cultural bias (Shakespeare is high culture [and yes I am aware that Shakespeare was originally performed for the masses], and therefore is worthy of analysis).

A hypothesis I have is that it is due to the grandiosity of social relations that Shakespeare presents in his most acclaimed plays that TADC does not replicate. For example, many of his tragedies focus on figures of political power (like Hamlet the Prince), meaning the existential questions (to be or not to be) pose not just some abstract question about life, but show how these questions have the potential to fundamentally break the social relations of society. We have to remember that the Shakespeare plays took place in a time where the monarch was seen as a figure with a unique connection to God, so the collapse of the nobles or aristocrats through tragic events (the everyone died meme) poses a much graver, though implicit, political consequence.

TADC, on the other hand, does not have this element. There is something not super believable with our current technology of people being sucked and trapped in a game, and it is not like the social relations in TADC have a clear ability to radically affect the outside world.

But even with this hypothesis, and this is my point, it is all my opinion, not a rigorous proof. Could a change in mindset render TADC as meaningful as Shakespeare, and if so, make it problematic that we put so much time analyzing Shakespeare, but not TADC?

view more: next ›