qui
U wrote all that on the go..? I somewhat admire; and red it as well. (=I do in fact think this be yer views, perso and authentic. Otherwise blow yer raspberry now, eh!)

Meanwhile, I must say: if u find the political carrion picking of post WW2 more significant than human devastation during it, or right after it, we are just worlds away. "Savage Continent" - and u just brush it away?

I think different about it.

Cultural relativism might be tempting, but then again, I dare say you would violently reject a piss-poor roll - say; u were a female infant born in Somalia;

98 percent probability, if u fated this roll; that your clitoris; inner and outer labia were rasped away; and stitched back together for mass of scar tissue.

This is wrong; I think; fair n square - because it is very harmful n traumatic; and typically imposed upon children whom have a life-long savagery to suffer; without never having the choice of making an informed or independent choice (precocious or adult),

I will never accept all standards. And if u like RPG's - DA2 is quite a bit more complex that that. ;-)

"Hello, Dick Tatortot"

I write fast but I talk even faster :) The thing with writing is I re-write a lot. Hence sometimes I'm sure it ends up looking over laboured as well as passing along some of my growing frustration with myself.

That said, if I trust the person I'm talking with, I will start writing more like I talk. Unfortunately nowadays the number of people interested (exclusively it seems) in taking sentences out of context and attacking you personally is growing. The SJW phenomena in a nutshell...

So yes. I wrote the above on the fly pretty much - then rewrote it maybe 3 time top to bottom. And yes, they are my personal views. Whose else would they be? I find this constant suspicion that you and other folks I try to talk with have about my intent to be both puzzling, humourous and often times infuriating. I try not to be offended and take it more a la Pauline Kael "No one I know voted for Nixon" but it does border on being dismissive, as if my opinions were somehow illogical, inconsiderate, or outright repulsive.

Anyway, not intending this to be a personal attack, but as usual you are shifting the debate topics. I kind of like it, as it keeps the dialogue fresh, though I also dislike how we never actually get to understand why and how exactly we disagree.

So two comments:

First, on geopolitical traumas. Kindly remeber you opened that topic. Kindly go back and notice I did not compare humanitarin and political costs of WW2 (also, the political costs carried with them large humane costs - forced migration is no joke). What I did was try to point to you that the end of the Cold War is much more of a cause to what we've benn discussing than WW2 - it's just obvious temporal proximity. But you will forgive me the jab, I know you folks on the left try to forget about the end of the Cold War :p

Second, on female gential mutilation. I dispute only that if I was born in Somalia and a female I would be against it. Many Somali women are the ones defending the practice, and I have no idea if I would be one of them or more of an Hirsi Ali. Whoever that person would be, I very much doubt it would be me in any sense. Then I don't know what your point is. Do you think I am interested in defending the practice? I find it barbaric. It is a very good topic though, and I recall a wonderful article detailing how the different approaches - activist confrontational, versus tolerant disagreeement work out so differently, with the first basically entrenching the practitioners and raising the specter of "white woman burden" to enlighten the savages, whereas the second helped almost a whole country move away from the practice. Wasn't Somalia though, maybe Nigeria or Kenya... anyway, it's now the second time I try to find the darn article without luck. My Google Fu is failing me...

Anyway, it's not the first time I am implicitly accused of being a cultural relativist. Which is interesting as it's completely wrong, if anything my ethical judgments are usually quite strict, and I have no problem with the implications. It's just the "solutions" usually pushed by impatient and arrogant "cultural imperialists" can be even worse. The people doing FMV might be barbarians, but they are still humans and fundamentally worth exactly the same as you and me. They deserve respect and tolerance, despite disagreement and even active efforts to change them.

There you go, only one reread, rewrite top to bottom. See how much I trust you? :)

"Go Set a Watchman"..? ;-)


And how about Prime Suspect? I did in fact have just quite recently a discussion about Tatort with a dear friend of mine while lounging about Rhein. The subject matter îs not very flippant; nor casual - otherwise such writing would not just be.

U appreciate I did not just mirror your rhetorical style, right?

U do not take praise, too well - do u?a I was not sarcastic at all about admiring that response - if I did no think it was yours; I would not have bothered to respond as I did.

But also - do not kid yerself. I think it is fairly straightforward to know that we cannot agree because of our values clash. U are, I suspect; ... something... And me something else ;-)

And why would u deride the "SJW" - unless to be unkind? What is so untoward about wishing "social justice"? I do in fact sometimes need to remind myself that there is amore than a random chance of changing the world admirably; without taking to violence.

Martin Luther King. Nelson Mandela, Gandhi.

Already three there: or can u say: "Puahh, insignificant!"

And even so, there is Aung San Suu Kyi. Quite insignificant; her sacrifices; and oh so compliant her achievements: eh`

U think an elderly female relative abetting a child rights' violation that cannot be undone is "sort of ok" - because... u know ... it just happens? And some people just go on about it, and do it, so if it is done a lot - ...?

My bother would never accept it. For me especially not, but not for anyone else either. And u wonder about this cultural relativism, eh?

Hmmm, I see we're taking this to a more personal level. Indeed, I both welcome that and am slightly suspicious of it. Perceptive of you.

I admit I didn't perceive admiration as praise on your earlier statement, rather admiration as surprise. In my defense, I have often told you I find it hard to understand you. More importantly, I have experience with being banned and mobbed online and those experiences do not make me paranoid, but certainly contribute to suspicion.

The fact we will not agree is why I want to talk more. I'm curious like that. I don't want the disagreements to be made explicit in order to beat you up on it, arguing about things is to me a process of discovery and understanding as long as the participants tolerate and respect each other.

So, on Social Justice. I have half jokingly (so kind of seriously) said sometime past, somewhere around here that I am a SJW. But the Social Justice I fight for is different than the Social Justice others fight for. My social justice is rather meritocratic, individualist, tolerant, pacifist. The other social justice is entitled, communist, intolerant, aggressive. Obviously those others will disagree with me about the descriptors, call me elitist, selfish, amoral, passive... which is tolerable... and I have no problem admitting that both social justices are justified on the basis of all the great human ideas: they both are for freedom, for justice, for love, etc... I think I can argue effectively and logically why I'm right, and I admire and desire others that believe the same of their ethical beliefs and engage me. The problem of course, and it's a perfect example of the dynamic I mentioned earlier, is that if I go most places online and say I believe journalism should be objective, or I believe capitalism is moral, I will not just be ridiculed, I will be attacked personally. The first is fine and I can mostly handle it, unsavory as it is and inconsiderate of more fragile egos, the second is to me never acceptable.

On to cultural relativism. My point is maybe subtle, but fundamental, and I think you are still kind of missing it. To me cultural relativism is the belief all cultures are ethically equivalent. I absolutely do not believe that at one level while believing it at a lower level. As I understand the intent of someone accusing me (it's fine to accuse, but listen to the denial please) of cultural relativism, the point they are making, the point you are making, is that I should not respect barbaric cultural practices, and should actively try to stop them. I understand this, I disagree with this, and yet I don't see that as my being cultural relativist.

So, explicitly already I used the word barbaric a few times. This in itself should be proof that I don't see all cultures as ethically equivalent. I don't use the word barbaric to imply technological backwardness - I use it here precisely to indicate my ethical disapproval. Words have meanings (even if multiple and fuzzy), and there is an objective reality they refer to. This is exactly my beef with disingenuous statements of the kind: you are not Xist, but your statements are. Maybe the people saying that believe it, but it is to me a delusional and largely illogical belief.

So that's the proof I'm not a cultural relativist. Now the other side of the coin. I do believe all humans are ethically equal: male or female, young or old, black or white... make up whatever natural or artificial dichotomies you want, doesn't matter. This fundamental belief in human equality comes with associated implications to human agency and responsibility. Humans join up, and mostly by accident cultural habits originate and perpetuate. A priori, they are equivalent. I don't see this as cultural relativism at all, this is simple humanism, or whatever word you have for it.

So, no, I don't think it is morally good that a mother mutilates their daughters. I also don't think abortion, suicide, self-mutilation, alcoholism are morally good. But for all of these, I likewise don't think it's morally good to usurp the agency of the people doing what I think are moral mistakes. Which means depending on the specific situations, what we have is always a choice between evils. You can call that original sin if you want, though I'm so much a lapsed catholic that it isn't even funny how often I find this stuff parallels my upbringing.

Closing the loop and highlighting how the two topics SJW and FGM converge. My problem is not with people that choose the evil of interfering over the evil of acceptance. It is with people that interfere, while blind that in their usurpation of power they have done evil. I am exaggerating somewhat by the way. There are ways of interfering which are not evil at all, similar to the kind of non-coercive arguments we are choosing to continue. Nothing evil about that.

Another issue I have is with people that believe their choice is the only correct one. I tolerate people that want to forcefully stop FGM. In fact, I am very close to not having to tolerate it, because if given the power I would very likely forcefully stop it, no matter how corrupting that would be to myself. In practice I also tolerate people that perform FGM, and understand they think what they are doing is good, despite my disagreeing.

Bottom line. Your moral certainty is something I both envy and am repulsed by. If you absolutely believe you and your brother, if born in this other culture, would hold similar moral beliefs to what you hold today... well, I think you're wrong. That's the thing you see. I hold to my moral certainties, while tolerating others. Tolerating does not mean I like it, or think it's right. I don't need to tolerate what I like and think is right... what would be the point of that? It would be like tears in the rain.

Amusingly, we Finns are morally most narrow within Scandinavia per study (as reported in HS.fii) - meaning how narrow we feel is entitlement of fundamental rights and, by some view, eh ;-) - nice to haves.

Be it right to life, dignity, equitability, subsistence - or "fancier" things such as access to education, freedom of thought etc - the question was: does it only concern me; my near n dear; my countrymen; fellow Scandinavians; fellow Europeans - etc etc.

I am not saying none of the persons currently practicing FMG would not do it - but also, do they have access to information, access to education, social mobility, freedom not to marry, freedom from community censure?

But I dare say, the difference would be significant, in view of the clinical evidence. U disagree, maybe?

I am more concerned of inequality, oppression and poverty; in practical sense.

If those who significantly practice FMG still would do it even after having, say, Swedish standard of living, openness of society, democracy and education system - for a couple of generations - then I would have to concede a sad, sobering defeat on my belief that humans are rather naturally good than ill.

But even then - I would certainly hope that Finland would proviade such infants humanitarian protection, wherever possible, based on our child protection ideals. I was positively pleased when Finland gave refugee status to a Russian gay couple, in a similar vein, normally we are pretty restrictive.

Your "morally good" list seems quite Judaeo-Christian in spirit, btw.

Looping back to EU - still not wild about J-C Juncker, and worried what will happen.

No, I don't disagree with your explicit statement. I do disagree with an implicit assumption though.

So, explicitly, because of equalitarian humanism, I have no problem at all agreeing that the material and cultural circumstances are what caused the specific barbaric actions to exist, no need to go into details, though you list several from education onwards to poverty.

Now, implicitly, what I find objectionable is your statement that perpetuation of the practices after material circumstances change significantly and enough time has passed would indicate something new and disturbing about human nature. On one hand I understand what you mean, but I find the materialism assumed to be quite misguided. Cultural practices are perpetuated mainly via tradition and reinforced by social othering dynamics. Social activists are very right about that... I see economic incentives as much more effective than coercion though.

It's more complicated than any of those. A lot of the parliamentaries for different countries were put in place, voted by people who wouldn't knowingly have voted for Juncker or other issues like TTIP, so called Social-democrat parties. Now, we would be getting into a completely different issue, that is, if voters are really prepared for democracy which itself entails being able to make informed decissions, and what plays part in people being informed to make those decissions, like for example mass media and who owns that mass media, etc.

You have to understand the context Buorchat is coming from. I don't think he's misinformed about Junckers' election, he's just being provocative about his legitimacy, which is a much more complex and gray area.

It may be that with the globalization and easier availability of information about different cultures the grip the local culture has on people loosens. For example I know several European-Asian relationships and the children of these surely have to mix their cultures somehow. So, with a higher mobility and intermixture and large availability of information, maybe there will indeed emerge something like a global culture or global moral belief system with much less variability than today.



So Juncker may be a democratically elected dictator because of un/mis-informed people voting for the wrong guy?

Still a bit better than just an ordinary dictator.

That... all you have to worry about? I wish I lived in this version of the USA. Heck I would welcome this as a requirement for public office were it our largest political problem.

Yeah, well, if you choose to omit the half of my message in which I talk about how people have voted for parties that are supposed to be all about the redistribution of wealth and then these parties vote for Juncker...

So you say... but beyond the rhetoric, what is it that you mean?

I say that in Scandinavian sort of society (example: Sweden) where persons have access to a lot of "soft" benefits such as democracy, universal education and social security; the idea of mutilating a child would not be very popular.

I say that besides, there is the liberal and inclusive understanding of intrinsic value of human dignity and rights of a child; as brought forth by enlightened or UN declaration.

I mean to say - few children are mutilated under such state of affairs; and this is a good thing.

Ah, sorry if you didn't get the point. When I feel like I'm addressing a deeply held belief I try to not be very direct...

So I'll be direct now. I just disagreed with your pessimism which I see as implied in what you had said earlier. As I understood you (paraphrasing now) you basically said if improving materials conditions did not eliminate barbarism you'd despair at the human condition. I see that as a conflation of what are orthogonal things, somewhat related but more correlating than causating the other directly (there are causal relations, I just dn't think they are dominant).

So to expand, as someone that sees a lot of good in material improvement by itself (hence one important leg of why I find capitalism very moral), I can also say that said material improvement is far from the end of the story when it comes to the ethical humanism that we desire to be adopted broadly in our societies. So lack of societal progress when there is material progress is not necessarily an indictment of anything regarding humans or the economic/political system. Just like the existence of socially and materially advanced culure proves nothing. The two things are not directly causatory - you can have inhumane yet "advanced" cultures (need I voice the obvious XXth century examples?), and very "backwards" yet deeply ethical cultures.

So when considering the scenario that you fear will make you despair, I'd rather ask that you see it as a signal for hope. When material aspects are taken care of, the other stuff won't probably improve automatically, but at least now one can focus solely on that ethical humanist area.

Really, I almost wonder at myself negatively for replying even - but let us put that down to my desperation of the human condition being not very savvy, but a little naïve; even as I am supposed to be all material about it.

Not sorry: u know your previous post was verbal smoke n mirrors - because you did not wish I had replied earnest; and wanted to smoke-bomb your eventual committed going-in position.

Fine by me - but unless you are very ingénue(e) - you must have understood that the Swedish example was about access to democracy, information, and informed choice.

Materia helps, surely. When one is staving; it for sure becomes hard to think beyond subsistence.

I would guess Gandhi, Mandela, M.L. King, Augn San Suu Kyi never changed the world from a highly impoverished / unprivileged position - do you think they ever hungered? (+/- Mandela depending what was South African prison regime)

But they did change the world, and I do not think it was just because they had enough to eat; but it helped. As did access to enough information and education, to develop independent thinking.