I'm not sure how much longer independent social media will remain independent, but it exists for now and sometimes it's a source of genuinely alternative views. Here are some recent highlights from Twitter.
First, a comment on the purposes of art:
The thread continues:
Liberals wanting our sex to not matter is still a thing. In the U.S., the House has voted to change the following terms in official communications:
On multiculturalism:
Here's a woman expressing one angle of female nature when it comes to relationships:
These rules never hold for all people in all phases of life. But I think we all know what she is getting at. For many women, the status of the man she is able to attract is felt to be some sort of measure of who she herself is. There is both a lesson for society here, but also a challenge. The lesson is that the more men a society can place in positions of status, the more successful marriages there are likely to be. The challenge is that it's not possible for all men to stand out when it comes to status, so there has to a managing of expectations if family formation is going to work well.
Here's another one on the topic of womanhood:
I always find it interesting when I read liberal philosophy that it so often hinges on a concept of human flourishing in which it is assumed that individuals will realise themselves in some sort of creative, high-end career, such as being a concert violinist or a celebrated author. The problem is not just that it's not possible for everyone to stand out in this way, nor that it's so hopelessly an individualistic view of human society, but that it is blind to the meaning to be found within family and parenthood. To procreate, after all, is to participate in the ultimate act of creation, that of a human person.
And now for some black-pilling:
There is a reason why fathers dread the dating choices of their daughters and why there was once some effort to apply limitations. There are some women who are simply not physically attracted to "got together" men - these men don't meet them at the level of chaos and drama they are seeking. They want a Heathcliff.
Before the men reading this get too downcast, none of this rules out women being raised to accept marriage to decent men - it has happened before and can happen again. It just can't be taken for granted.
Finally, a positive message that I think hits the right note:
It seems to me there is a type of person, who will gravitate to the Left, who has somehow absorbed the idea that every instant of the day must be occupied by moral thinking or doing. This type person literally thinks it is wrong to enjoy life for its own sake. So, for such a person, you can't enjoy art, or literature, or films, or *anything* just for the sake of enjoyment. Art has to "make you think" (about morality), literature must have a "message", even where the author has said there is no message. And of course, when such a person is in charge of making a movie, it is insufferably PC.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me there is a type of person, who will gravitate to the Left, who has somehow absorbed the idea that every instant of the day must be occupied by moral thinking or doing. This type person literally thinks it is wrong to enjoy life for its own sake.
DeleteI think that's more of an American thing than a Left thing. The politicisation of every aspect of life is an appalling development and it's something that seems to have originated in the US. I think it's the Puritan influence in the US. To Puritans everything has to be analysed to see if it's a sin. To American political puritans everything has to be analysed to see if it's a political sin.
"I think it's the Puritan influence in the US."
DeleteExcept that Puritans and their ilk sought understanding of sin via the Bible, something that provides actual standards of right and wrong. Many people on the Left are appalled at the very idea of moral right and wrong since it implies that someone or something is sitting in judgment of them. This interferes with their autonomy, and of course with their own judgment of others by arbitrary and mutable standards.
Actually the variance is between those who seek to control themselves and those who seek to control others. Generally those who are liberal seek to control others, because they are at the center of their universe. Conservatives, by contrast who function using a received moral code that is invariant control their own behavior.
Deletepuritains, as a later progenitor to freemasons and a retread of gnosticism, were singularly concerned with their bodies and were really just as perverse as the modern left.
DeleteI think any absolute, either left or right is wrong and so is generalisation.
ReplyDeleteI met morally corrupt conservatives as well as very responsible liberals.
Change for changes sake is not only wearing to the soul but is sapping energy away from meaningful development. Political correctness is one of this fashionable changes forced upon the unsuspecting individual.
As it was stated at Bond University:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, and illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of dung by the clean end."