Even britbongs are okay, it seems like the mayos only showed up once the burgers started rolling out
Stop, I can hear the dole addicted NEETs of /r/unitedkingdom, /r/Scotland (and likely r/australia) masturbating at the very thought of being excluded from mayo'ness from here.
They're literally defending sati in that Twitter thread, the same practice where they threw widows onto the pyre because they were afraid they'd become whores without a husband. We're approaching peak retard, what happens when we hit critical mass?
Primary reasons for human sacrifice was all around general lack of knowledge about how nature works and how babies are made. So, some shaman high on mushrooms figured out that his superstitious hallucinations are what is needed.
However, there is something to be said about relative strength of South American ‘shrooms in eliciting the worst nightmares thus converting into really bad customs.
In the old times, tribes in what is now southern Europe, would sacrifice a male king every full moon and replace him with another who would last 28 days, or one menstrual cycle. When women ruled, men were as disposable as tampons.
This sounds interesting. Have women really ruled anywhere in ancient times? How did they get around the fact that men are stronger and like weapons?
The literature is scarce on this but it’s about the tribes before Hellenic invasion. Their explanation is that in those early days, men were seen as nothing but a tool while women were actually bringing life. So women were seen as Earth/Nature itself and thus were worshipped and they actually had men tournaments where the winner would have sex with the queen. The winner was a king for few weeks and then all over again. It took a while for a king to change the customs and find a “king instead” (usually a young man) to be sacrificed.
The only thing about reproduction they knew is the wind and pollen so it’s funny to read that they’d turn mare ass towrd the window hoping it will get pregnant.
Once the relevance of coition to child-bearing had been officially admitted man’s religious status gradually improved, and winds and rivers were no longer given credit for impregnating women.
Graves says nothing about the connection to human sacrifice you mentioned, though yeah lots of people have not gotten the whole connection between sex and reproduction, the anthro literature is full of primitives thinking the sky knocked up their bitches.
Hittities weren't in Southern Europe, they were in Anatolia, which is Asia Minor. That being said, there's nowhere on the planet where the scale of human sacrifice reached the levels seen in mesoamerica and west africa.
No, human sacrifice was present on all continents, that has been known, well, forever. Only differences have been motive and scale. People kill each other for a wide variety of motives, unfortunately, an religiosity is definitely one of them.
"Anatolia is the birthplace of Europe" -- hmm? I mean you can make some argument re: Greek colonies on the Anatolian mainland, though those were never the big cultural centers compared to the ones on the Greek mainland. Anatolia has never considered Europe, from the beginning of the concept of Europe (from the earliest mentions which refer to the west coast of the Aegean as "Europe").
and no, Anatolia is not considered the birthplace of Western Civilization, you're thinking of Greece, though if you want to go back further, you're talking Sumer, which was not in Anatolia either. Neolithic/Chacolithic settlements in Anatolia were pretty much all dead by the time anything resembling Europe existed.
I'm recalling all this from Guns, Germs and Steel, which I haven't read in a while. Of course Greece was one of the first great European cultures, but really in that ancient time "europe" was not an entity. I'd argue that the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean was a more important geographical area - after all, the Greeks copied Egyptian art and the Phoenician alphabet.
Europe, as a thing, basically dates to around 500 BC, and at that time just meant the western Aegean coast. after that it bnasically became the ural/caucasus as the border between Europe and Asia.
Fun fact -- "Asia" comes to us from the Romans, who used it to refer to the province in western Anatolia.
continents as we know them were not a thing at all until way, way later.
and yeah the Greek alphabet (again as we know it not, not the linear scripts) was adapted from Phoenician, though they were a Mediterranean civilization. while the Greeks definitely did borrow from the Egyptians, who didn't? Egypt was the sina qua non of greatness in those days, an ancient empire which had been around for thousands of years. And Egypt mainly survived the Bronze Age Collapse which took out most of the city states in the region, including most of the Greek ones, around 1200BC.
but pegging Anatolia as the "birthplace of Europe" is a big stretch. and GGS is a terrible, terrible work that should never be cited at all, it's full of cherry picking and geographic determinism, ick
point is, women are once again attempting to seize the matriarchy through a kind of religion. it might be an actual religion, but an ideology, which is similar.
Women lead tribes were prominent in Europe before the Indo-European invasions. Indo-European tribes were male led and were more agressive then their old european counterparts. They had domesticated the horse and used chariots to conquer Europe. Usually it is more associated with langauge but look up the Khurgan Hearth Theory if you are interested.
Men got out of this predicament only when they figured out that their dick sperging is what makes babies.
I'm pretty sure people knew that fucking lead to babies for quite a long time prior. Its a simple cause and effect thing. People were not complete idiots.
It also wasn't every 28 days but more of a yearly thing, you know death and rebirth of the seasons.
Full moon sacrifice was done as part of female worship for her child-bearing capabilities. One of the first observations was that full moon and menstrual cycle have same cycle.
Weren't most of the sacrificed people non-Aztec war captives? if I remember correctly, most of their neighbours also thought the human sacrificing was immoral and joined up with the spaniards against the aztecs.
yes, though not all. human sacrifice was rife through all of mesoamerica -- mayanists used to like to maintain it was mainly mexica and some olmec groups, but no, mayans were into kiddie killing also.
not to mention skinning young girls and wearing their skinsuits, so pretty much like Buffalo Bill with leopard skins and feathered head dresses
Mayans lived nowhere near the Aztecs you retard, the civillisation had 0 co fact with each other. I'm talking about the Aztecs actual neighbouring civillisation which they fought with.
um, where exactly did i state that the mayans and the mexica were anywhere near one another? they were hundreds of miles away, Yucatan vs Tenochtitlan, and more importantly, separated in time by a thousand years.
my point was that mayanists used to maintain that the maya didn't slaughter people wholesale for religious purposes, but the archaelogical record ended up being irrefutable.
nah they really didn't though, they just objected to them being sacrificed. human sacrifice was present in all Nahua peoples, and the Flower Wars were agreed upon -- the Tlaxcalans and the rest of them were primarily pissed about the extension and dominance of Mexica power, not the human sacrifice bit. If you've got a contrary source, I'd love to see it, but so much of that period is really quite unknown and characterized by archaelogical speculation.
what the fuck are you talking about? yes the people are still there but the maya civilization, referring to the Classical Maya, ain't. and wasn't when the mexica / triple alliance rose to prominence, which was hundreds of years after the collapse of the Classical Maya civilization in 900ad. that's all i was referring to.
Not quite. The enemies of the Mexica (Aztecs) practiced human sacrifice as well. It defined the rules of engagement for all the nahuatl speaking peoples of the region. War was seen as an act of piety.
There is a moral tale of a Tlaxcalan warrior who was captured by the Mexica and set to fight a gladiatorial exhibition with his death to be a religious tribute. He ended up killing a dozen Mexica warriors and was offered a pardon to reward his valor. The Tlaxcalan warrior is said to have turned down the offer and willingly accepted his own sacrifice in service of the supernatural forces that kept the world functioning.
The Tlaxcalans initially attacked the spanish and fought to a bloody stalemate. They realized that their years of endemic warfare with the Mexica might finally turn in their favor. After the Tlaxcalans worked with the spanish to defeat the Mexica the spanish reportedly gave the Tlaxcalans a certain measure of tolerance for their bloody religious practices, but it didn't last under the long term conversion efforts of the spanish.
Sorry no citations. On phone. Pm me if youd like to know more later.
that, plus the idiot musings of Critical X Theory (where X is whatever you want it to be, hell we've got Critical Plant Theory now). those guys are completely retarded.
A large portion of these people unironically want to genocide the entire 'rural' United States, as it's just 'flyover country' full of hillbilly trash to them.
Fucking pinko trash, is this literally the only thing you're capable of -- when confronted with challengers of your trash ideology you can only accuse your detractors of being 'insane'. Fucking metal defectives, send them to the gulags with the other dissidents, amirite comrade?
See? You're just randomly accusing me of shit. I literally posted today about how all prisons should be abolished and you talk about how I want to throw people in gulags.
One, this isn't a safe-space sub and I hate most people in here.
Two, I don't go to your dumpster fire anarchist subs and call you insane, despair shilling and trolling your trash subs -- because I'm not a malignant, wet pile of steaming pinko shit.
Unironically you are the one going back to your 'safe-space'.
What's ridiculous about his assertion? Shall I go find comments of people on Reddit actually talking about what he's saying?
I mean it's pretty heavily implied time and again in TYT's election night coverage. "Oh Kentucky? Ahhhh we don't care about Kentucky. West Virginia? Of course it's West Virginia, West Virginia doesn't even matter" literally rinse and repeat for any state in middle America that didn't go their way. All these people are looked at as stupid and irrelevant and all the world's problems are their fault somehow and if we could just get rid of these middle American crackers.
I'm actually surprised people ignore the disdain and dehumanization of entire groups of the population merely by geography.
People generalizing by geographic origin is bad now? What about Mexicans and people from shithole countries? Calling immigrants an infestation is fine but calling someone a redneck is literally turning the faucet on the gas chambers. Get real. What camps are democrats gonna put a hundred million people in?
For the ONE MILLIONTH time, no one gives a fuck if you're Mexican, get your papers in order. Period. We're a nation of laws, Donny.
Literally calling out a Salvadorian gang by name, the sort of gang that likes to torture people alive and flay their faces, and people scream "REEEEEEEEacist!"
Mention rape trees and the conversation always goes real quiet real fast.
"I care about migrants!"
"Thousands of them, maybe tens of thousands, are raped on the journey here, taken advantage of by those they paid to bring them across safely"
"Yeah well fuck you racist Drumpftard!"
Never mind I've been talking about rape trees and border security since I moved to southern AZ in 2013 and saw some of this shit firsthand.
The problem with people like you is you have zero room for nuance. You hear Mexicans and just go REEEEEEEEEE. When someone specifies that, hey, there's some real fucked up people coming in here, they're still called racist. Democrats defending MS-13. Never thought I'd see the day.
The 'Drumpfkin' actually cares about what's going on at the border and doesn't want to see people raped and murdered? Doesn't want to see an estimated 70% of single women be raped while trying to break the law in this country? Doesn't want to see bodies left to die in the back of an 18 wheeler?
I mean it's pretty heavily implied time and again in TYT's election night coverage. "Oh Kentucky? Ahhhh we don't care about Kentucky. West Virginia? Of course it's West Virginia, West Virginia doesn't even matter" literally rinse and repeat for any state in middle America that didn't go their way. All these people are looked at as stupid and irrelevant and all the world's problems are their fault somehow and if we could just get rid of these middle American crackers.
This is the result of the way elections work in the US. For similar reasons Republicans don’t care about New England and the West Coast.
If I had to choose between giving power to commiefornia or giving it way down southern dixie, even if cali sucks im still going to choose them 9.5 times out of ten. Fuck the electoral college and the states that unironically voted for George Wallace.
I'll repeat what I said when this was posted like two days ago.
Anthropologists are literally the biggest dipshits on the planet and are almost singlehandedly responsible for the BUT MUH CULTURAL RELATIVISM that has ruined the liberal arts and social sciences. Imagine unironically stating "It's hard for me to imagine that people wanted to be sacrificed, but that's my own biases and cultural conditioning talking."
Literary critique isn't a science. Jung was a good occultist, that doesn't mean that anyone taking his stuff seriously in a scientific context isn't a retard.
Sociologists wanted to figure out why the other scientists didn’t consider them scientists, so they conducted a single variable survey and asked one person
physical anthro and archaelogy are both fine. they have actual things to reference, as opposed to psych anthro which is basically Just So Stories the whole way down
What's wrong with other anthro? Just because something can't be quantified or isn't material doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or is not important to study. Plus archaeology has a fuckton of political problems that make it difficult to impossible for researchers to challenge long-standing theories.
It's not about theories being repressed, but never challenged because nobody provides the funds for any sort of research.
Other area, similar issue: Germany or rather several German federal states heavily invested into full-time schools ~10 years ago because they assumed this will provide better school performance. So far, all research conducted by independent researchers has been in the comparison between full-time schools and the transition of regular schools to full-time schools. However, there have only been two (2!) studies funded so far that compared full-time schools to regular schools and whether the initial hypothesis has been correct. Both of those studies also saw no difference between performance in full-time and regular schools.
Strietholt, Rolf & Manitius, Veronika & Berkemeyer, Nils & Bos, Wilfried (2015). Bildung und Bildungsungleichheit an Halb- und Ganztagsschulen. In Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaften 18, 737-761.
Sadly I don't know/remember, but I've heard from a few grad students that you basically have to wait for someone to die to challenge their narrative if they have any clout and that findings that don't make sense in the context of a dominant theory are more or less hand-waved away and better explanations based on evidence aren't entertained because everyone's afraid of destroying some big wig's life's work and/or getting blacklisted (which is incredibly easy to do in academia where only tenured and tenure-track professors have any form of job security because academia is shit).
it's a gigantic mess of bizarro-world pomo and critical theory?
Just because something can't be quantified or isn't material doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or is not important to study.
Not sure how you're using "material" here, plz to be doing the needful and clarify.
And I'd have to disagree about things impossible to quantify. There aren't any. You may think certain attempts to quantify things are insufficient and/or wrong, but you can certainly quantify anything, and that's a critical part of formalization, which the softer flavors of anthro (cultura, social, psychological, etc) fail utterly to do. Those fields are still encompassed by obscurantist bullshit to a large degree, and deeply colored by ideological rules and dogma.
it's a gigantic mess of bizarro-world pomo and critical theory?
How so? I'm sure there are academic circles where they're all about that, but I highly doubt that all of the 'softer' fields have gone completely nuts. I imagine that it's similar to sociology where all of the ___ studies people distract the public from the fact that most fields of sociology have moved towards more rigorous/quantitative methods or otherwise have nothing to do with things like critical theory.
Not sure how you're using "material" here, plz to be doing the needful and clarify.
Tangible and possible to quantify. Sure, you can 'quantify' things like human interaction or cultural norms by counting the amount of times something happens in an hour or sending out a survey asking people how much they value a cultural norm or some other dumb bullshit, but in most cases that's so ineffective at capturing an aspect of a culture that it's meaningless. There's a reason why many fields of science that deal with human behavior/cognition are at least beginning to pick up qualitative methods again after having largely abandoned them. Quantitative methods alone are sufficient for describing low-level behavior and cognition like motor control and attention, but for anything more complex it doesn't even begin to give a full picture, and when you're talking about things like describing a culture or complex systems of interaction quantitative methods are only useful in limited contexts. Even in fields that still have a stigma against qualitative methods, like perception research, teach students that the quantitative data doesn't provide a full picture and doesn't describe the experience of something like vision or pressure.
Those fields are still encompassed by obscurantist bullshit to a large degree, and deeply colored by ideological rules and dogma.
Is there anywhere I can read more about this? It sounds like another case where fringe or pop academics color public perception of the field at large.
I highly doubt that all of the 'softer' fields have gone completely nuts
I'm not anywhere near a specialist on the subject but I've read a few books my grandpa had that were from sociologists talking about science/physics. I was struck by how confident and assertive they were at spouting completely wrong bullshit.
How so? I'm sure there are academic circles where they're all about that, but I highly doubt that all of the 'softer' fields have gone completely nuts. I imagine that it's similar to sociology where all of the ___ studies people distract the public from the fact that most fields of sociology have moved towards more rigorous/quantitative methods or otherwise have nothing to do with things like critical theory.
Sure there are. History hasn't been walloped as much as say, Soc or Anthro, much less Lit. And I wouldn't say most in terms of soc (though no, I ain't got a list), but there's definitely significant people out there that are not into that kind of thing, mainly social statisticians like Andy Gelman. Unfortunately most soc / anthro people can't math for shit (and some of them are quite proud of that). Critical _______ Studies definitely does have a heavy impact on the social sciences these days though -- I'd wager there's not a single anthro program in the country that doesn't have units on that. If there is, that's where I should have done undergrad :)
So, if you're saying "material" means "tangible and possible to quanity" (which isn't how I'd use it but YMMV since I'd use a more philosophical definition rooted in eliminative materialism). Right, so I'd doubt there are really any things that fall into the immaterial category based on "possible to quantify" but "tangible" needs to be further defined, in cases like x-rays, etc. which are not strictly tangible, yet definitely exist, and whose resulting effects on the reality can definitely be seen and quantified in a very granular sense.
but for anything more complex it doesn't even begin to give a full picture, and when you're talking about things like describing a culture or complex systems of interaction quantitative methods are only useful in limited contexts.
Agreed, the distinction between data and hypothesis is an important one to make. My core philosophical objection is to streams of thought that ignore quantitative metrics, or have a very loosey-goosey sort of approach to anything quant-ish at all, all of which are present in the academy today, and really have been on the freudian/marxist side since before WWII. A perfect example is a fantastic work of scholarship which is just plain wrong -- The Ghost Dance by Weston LaBarre -- whose main thrust is that the origin of religion itself is via crisis cults. It's a voluminous, well-cited, well-researched work that fails because of its ideological underpinnings in Marx and Freud, which while very contemporaenous for the time it was written (1970), has not aged well.
Even in fields that still have a stigma against qualitative methods, like perception research, teach students that the quantitative data doesn't provide a full picture and doesn't describe the experience of something like vision or pressure.
So true. There's only so much you can get from data points before analysis comes in -- that's really the whole point of things, I just deeply distrust innumerate people using either light/no data points, or the type of free association logic that is so often a problem in those domains. Plus there's a giant amount of soft-headed bullshit still floating around in those fields: people like Derrida, Lacan, etc; Womens/Critical/Indigenous/X Studies, most of social psychology, these fields are full of reprobate ideologues who do Opposite Science -- determine their results first, according to whatever ideology is fashionable at the time, and then do their "studies" -- which quite often are things like a small sample size, poorly writtem, self-selected poll like you would find on Buzzfeed, with a 65% non-response rate, which is then bandied about as proof positive of some extremist position or another. Or all the papers whose innumerate authors failed to correctly calculate P, or used incorrect statistical tests, or just plain made math errors -- there's tons of these floating about.
Is there anywhere I can read more about this? It sounds like another case where fringe or pop academics color public perception of the field at large.
Anywhere really. Crack open Of Grammatology or Anti-Oedipus or anything along those lines, all of which are taught in anthro schools, hell even Levi-Strauss wasn't exactly a paragon of clarity. These are not fringe academics. Or just look at the influence upon the field by people like Saussaure, whose linguistics (proven badly wrong in the 1960s) is an integral part of semiotics and the works of people like Derrida (who mangled it completely) who've had massive impacts not just on soc, but anthro also. Even Geertz, who I actually quite like at times, and who was a really nice guy, is deeply obscure in his writing. In my experience, anthropologists generally cannot write, or do math. It's sad really. At least the historians can write :)
Or look up the Chagnon affair, to see the impact of these types of ideologues. Or how the Noble Savage myth still exists, just morphed into the "Indigneous peoples did no wrong, they lived in pure peaceful harmony until the Big Bad White Man came!" shit that litters the field, from carefully massaged and excluded homicide rates among hunter gatherers, to the long-time denial of the scale, and sometimes the very existence, of Aztec + Mayan + Native American human sacrifice and cannibalism. Though those guys have mainly given up, since it's kinda hard to argue with thousands upon thousands of skeletons at the bottom of cenotes and giant pyramids of skulls. I mean, look at the post the other day with the twitter academic's ongoing apologetics around that issue. That type POV is fairly common.
Now, you're totally right in terms of saying that the outbursts of vocal minorities in the field definitely color the popular perception, but that's only possible since the more reasonable people tend to hide in books and avoid conflict. And the "more reasonable" way of doing this is not really ascendant in the social sciences at the moment -- and I say that not based on outragefilter shit from TiA or somewhere along those lines, but from what my friends still in academia, mostly in the social sciences, tell me. A few of them have gone over to the dark site recently also, which is always a shame. And let's not forget official publications by groups like the AAUP and the APA and the AAA.
tbf, I think clinical/medical psychology is pretty respected
Sure, if you ignore the recent replication crisis controversy that saw half of published studies in the field being unrepeatable. Not as bad as social psychology where it was something like 2/3 of published study results weren't able to replicated.
You mean that time a physicist decided to bait a minor cultural studies journal with no real peer-review process into publishing an article they knew to be impossible to pretend, played on their willingness to engage with somebody on the basis of his scientific reputation, and then refused to make even the most minor of corrections in order to purportedly show up a whole set of fields of which they were not representative?
I really like that super revealing article in the TES, which shows up both him and Bricmont as, essentially, sniggering schoolboys having a laugh at the teacher's expense. It even opens with them sniggering over random sentences in a sociology textbook they think sound funny.
I can't find it on a brief search in my current physical state, but it's an interview with the pair of them in, I'm pretty sure, the Times Educational Supplement
Tbf it's pretty dumb to get offended about anything anyone did a thousand years ago... when you look at things from a scientific perspective, you are not usually interested in throwing around judgements on people, you're just describing what happened.
Which is why what this idiot on Twitter said is so stupid. She should of been like "dude I'm just reporting the way it was, I doesn't matter if you to like it." Instead she spent a bunch of tweets trying to convince everybody that what they did was totes cool and it's the white people that should be the ones ashamed of their history.
That ain't what this lady said though. She was explicitly trying to moralize human sacrifice instead of looking at it from a neutral scientific perspective.
No one in philosophy defends relativism. It's not defensible in it's normative or meta-ethical forms at all. But anthropologists make the mistake of seeing relativism in it's descriptive and methodological validity and extend that to making meta-ethical claims all the fucking time. This mistake has literally been happening since the 1920s. If this dummy uses the logic she applied to the Aztecs she can't condemn Hitler for all his hi jinks either.
Especially considering both murderous rampages were conducted on top of cultural complicity and conditioned helplessness, and motivated by esoteric occultism.
I couldn't have said this better myself. There's a pretty big fucking difference between adopting cultural relativism as a research conceit (which was done in the first place because early anthropology was conducted almost exclusively by British and German dudes in pith helmets who thought the natives they were studying were literal subhumans--obviously you don't want that) and extending it to normative situations. Worse yet, this retardness has seeped into the discourse at large. It's why white coastal libruls think people in middle America are dipshits for going to church on Sunday but will gladly defend Muslims and Africans whose social views are by any rational standard 100x more regressive and harmful. Sorry for the serious post but this rustles my jimmies like few other things.
Relativism is necessary to accurately describe a culture though. If a researcher forms a bias then it's going to color their work and make it more likely to be inaccurate. It's a research tool as much as the null hypothesis is. However, when it's extended beyond an academic context then it becomes an issue.
Russell Blackford, one of the most prominent philosophers working today, defends the views of "thoughtful relativists" such as David Wong and Jesse Prinz, who are both also prominent philosophers, even though he ultimately disagrees. So that's three "ones" in philosophy who indicate you probably didn't check google before you made this claim.
The second one, sure, I don't really care. The first one is bullshit: dude said relativism is indefensible amongst philosophers, Blackford thinks it's defensible even if wrong.
It's not defensible in it's normative or meta-ethical forms at all
Traditionally, people who know what they're talking about in philosophy, and who wish to give something back to a world that isn't always fully cogniscant of the relevant stuff, don't consider it, at their best, a good thing say things which directly contradict their later statements like, quote,
Wong's pluralistic relativism is a different doctrine with some very soft meta-ethical consequences compared to actual cultural/moral relativism
Notice that the word "relativism" appears in all of these comments, even though what you've said is that "relativism" is indefensible. So what's going on here?
It's not defensible in it's normative or meta-ethical forms at all
Traditionally, people who know what they're talking about in philosophy, and who wish to give something back to a world that isn't always fully cogniscant of the relevant stuff, don't consider it, at their best, a good thing say things which directly contradict their later statements like, quote,
Wong's pluralistic relativism is a different doctrine with some very soft meta-ethical consequences compared to actual cultural/moral relativism
Notice that the word "relativism" appears in all of these comments, even though what you've said is that "relativism" is indefensible. Worse, you say that "actual relativism" ("cultural/moral") is different from "pluralistic relativism". So is a "pluralistic relativism" not in fact a form of "actual relativism"? Is Wong just wrong to call this view "relativism"?
Right I see what you're saying. Relativism in philosophy is almost always taken to mean moral or cultural relativism, a pretty specific line of thinking. If you take relativism to mean anything but moral objectivism - that's actually wrong too. So if you want to talk about pluralistic relativism, which is the work of a single philosopher who takes some very rough lessons from descriptive relativism to inform his doctrine, I think you're being overly pedantic. Especially considering Wong's premises - where he essentially argues relativism can or does exist on a bedrock of an objective moral criteria.
Just because a guy once put a word in front of a long established argument in philosophy does not mean I have to consider that in conveying the general consensus of said argument.
Dude you literally just said BLACKBURN who is also a big name in relativism. Why would I not suppose if you SAID BLACKBURN I would not think of BLACKBURN. Get off your high chair. Ok. BlackFORD doesn't defend relativism either. so whats your fucking point
It's right there in the first comment, which is also why you should have thought of Blackford instead of Blackburn, because that is the "Black-" that we've been talking about this entire time:
No one in philosophy defends relativism
Russell Blackford, one of the most prominent philosophers working today, defends the views of "thoughtful relativists" such as David Wong and Jesse Prinz, who are both also prominent philosophers, even though he ultimately disagrees. So that's three "ones" in philosophy who indicate you probably didn't check google before you made this claim.
Oh that comment yesterday (?) sorry I was responding to comment you made one minute ago. No we have no been talking about Blackford because I didn't even take note of that comment as it is retarded.
"who are both also prominent philosophers, EVEN THOUGH HE ULTIMATELY DISAGREES. So that's three "ones" in philosophy who indicate you probably didn't check google before you made this claim"
I'm really confused how you got to the point of being able to recognise names like "Simon Blackburn" or "Russell Blackford" without being able to keep in mind basic things like "the topic of this conversation" or ever learning to read.
Because this conversation holds little importance to me? This only became about Blackford retrospectively because you needed SOMEONE who defends relativism, yet what you failed to realize is that he does not actually defend relativism.
The topic of conversation is your confusion over generally accepted terms of moral theories. No amount of furiously googling someone who once said something different is going to alter the fact the when you speak of moral or cultural relativism people don't associate that with Wong's pluralistic relativism - which isn't really a position even close to moral or cultural relativism at all.
Also, if you're pulling quotes from my history(which shows you have some sort of emotional baggage to work through) please acknowledge their context. That was me attempting to talk a teenage SJW off the cliff. But actually, what is so wrong with suggesting reading Jung makes looking at fiction more interesting? At the very least the pattern recognition involved should be fun for blockhead like you.
I don't think I'm the one with the emotional baggage here.
For what it's worth, whatever you learned in first-year undergrad about Wong, Russell Blackford takes it as a sufficiently relativist account to include it in his stuff about moral relativism. You're welcome to read his work.
Trolling through someones post searching for a 'got cha!' moment suggests you need something else to spend time on. Also who in first year is reading about Wong's pluralistic relativism lol.
Next time I talk about relativism I'll make sure to mention Wong, despite the fact part of his argument for pluralistic relativism uses one of the most common arguments against moral/cultural/meta-ethical/normative relativism.
Are you confused about the fact the just because you reject objectivism that does not then mean you are taking a relativist position? Lol
Anyone I have to go today we're learning about 'Utilitarianism'!
Also who in first year is reading about Wong's pluralistic relativism lol.
I guess some of us had educators with more confidence in our abilities than others.
Next time I talk about relativism I'll make sure to mention Wong, despite the fact part of his argument for pluralistic relativism uses one of the most common arguments against moral/cultural/meta-ethical/normative relativism.
Yes, which is the point: Wong's rejection of naive relativism ends up with something which is still, for some people, a form of relativism. Hence he defends relativism. Why is this so hard for you?
Trolling through someones post searching for a 'got cha!' moment suggests you need something else to spend time on.
It's called procrastination. Those of us with some academic training happen to be good at procrastination that involves using research skills.
Yeah I think for sure you belong to a special group! :)
Wong's pluralistic relativism is possibly the only non-garbage defense of "relativism" that we both know of, but the problem is, it's not a defence of 'relativism' at all... ??????? I've read his stuff. It's his fault for him to work within the terms of relativism.
"Those of us with academic training" did you really just write that YEEUSH, You stink adn you know it. I'm not a phil major. I'm working towards a phd in epidemiology if U must know
It's not relativism. Moral objectivism requires simply 1 moral rule that is true in all cases (something like one should never torture babies for fun) I mean if you want to go 101 the argument for cultural relativism is something like
P1. Different cultures have different beliefs about what is right and wrong
P2. Beliefs about what is right and wrong are then relative to one’s culture
C1. Therefore, there is no objective right and wrong that extends to all cultures (moral objectivism is false)
So the most basic argument against this is that A., just because there is disagreement does not mean there is no objective truth (flat earth- Rachels) and B. Pojman, and many others say there are certain moral rules that are required in order for society to exist and not destroy itself - like don't kill for fun in any case.
Wong suggests that morality has a functional purpose to sustain group cooperation (Darwinian morality). So wong talks about basic norms that morality must require, stuff like reciprocity, , but again this is just basic Darwinian morality, then wong talks much like Kant about agency or Kant would say autonomy i suppose, basically a ability to be moral. But the point is Wong's relativism relies on a basis of objective moral goals, on which he argues then can societies and cultures build their own relative moral codes, he does this using epistemological arguments mainly. I can quote wong here talking about moral pluralism: "there are a few basic moral principles that all cultures should follow" - I mean, that's literally an argument for objectivism...
So I think Wong is mistaken using the word relativism in his work.
It literally is cultural relativism at play. Imagine that the human sacrificing middle eastern cults wiped out judaism and we had a world where 1/3rd of the population practiced human sacrifices. Those people would look at Hindu and Buddhists as culturally strange. Literally the only reason people in this thread find this idea hilarious is because judeo-christianity took over and until recently morality was derived from that source.
I think secular humanism will eventually solve the issue of whether human sacrifices was an absolute human wrong or not.
I'm pretty sure people would be averse to being murdered in the name of Huacapottapotumus the Jaguar God regardless of whether they came from a Judeo-Christian tradition or not you euphoric neckbeard fartsniffer
why? if your whole belief system centralizes how you die over how you live, and sacrificial death is viewed as basically the best way to die (like this lady says it worked for the aztecs), it doesn't seem that hard to imagine someone being totally down for being sacrificed. i mean jehovah's witnesses in america right now refuse life-saving blood transfusions entirely because of religious belief. a particular aversion to ritual sacrifice over other forms of death is absolutely culturally encoded
In theory some were totally OK with sacrifice in much the same way that Christians are OK with giving away all their worldly possessions and Muslims are down with tolerating other religions. In practice, not so much. People don't like giving away their life or property, whudda thunk. In practice, the Aztecs sacrificed tons of non-Aztecs for this very reason, which is why the non-Atzecs were on board with the Spaniards fucking the Aztecs' shit up.
Sure, you have vanishingly small minorities of zealots who believe otherwise, but, they're vanishingly small minorities for a reason and everyone else thinks they're retarded.
Further, I like to think that because we as humans are capable of logic and stuff, we can call upon values and rationales beyond whatever the religion of our culture is, or at very least trust our basest instincts of AVOID DEATH and LIVE EASIEST LIFE POSSIBLE to avoid hyper-zealot death cult faggotry. If you couldn't, (1) shitposting on the Internet and (2) chucking spears at capybara on the banks of the Amazon while wearing a loincloth would seem like equally appealing options. Yet here you are doing the former. I bet the desire to do that latter has never once crossed your mind, fancy that.
this is a really weird and stupid argument. i agree that pretending all the aztecs would actually, on an individual level, buy into their metaphysics to the death is a stupid proposition, because of our lizard-brain instincts, but your proposal of some set of transcendental "values and rationales" as a ward against bad ideas isnt any less retarded. people generally seem to possess self-interest, and that generally seems to incline them towards acts that are not immediately deadly (although the prevalence of suicide proves even this can only be argued with serious caveats), i don't really think theres any universal claims you can make about human psychology beyond that. theres certainly no such thing as an intrinsic "logic" we possess that couldnt easily be convinced human sacrifice is justified, it just seems that way because the value system we're immersed in is very anti-human sacrifice. yeah, self-interest makes the case for why you, in particular, should be sacrificed much harder, but the practice in general? easily.
and the desire to hunt capybara in the amazon has never crossed my mind because i live on a different continent and our sociopolitical structures make it impossible to even be a hunter-gatherer anyway. i dont really know why you think this says anything about anything.
the desire to hunt capybara in the amazon has never crossed my mind because i live on a different continent and our sociopolitical structures make it impossible to even be a hunter-gatherer anyway
So you're saying doing so would be against the self-interest we both agree exists and is the primary human motivation?
dont even know what point youre trying to argue anymore lol. and im saying becoming tarzan in the amazon would be impossible, which comes prior to any statement about its desirability
finds random group of people in (insert pacific island) or (insert native group of people)
they do really weird stuff sometimes
“Alright boys this explains why the entire system of values used by centuries of people is wrong.”
"The Aru Islanders of the north coast of Australia invert their penises and practice a form of male concubinage of youths. This is why self castration and pedophilia is totally fine."
Can you explain to me what is exactly wrong with what you quoted. Someone who is raised in a completely different environment will think very differently, what is incorrect about that?
I remember taking legal anthropology and it was a very interesting class about law and society interaction in history. I don't know how anthropology is in its pure form but I would definitely recommend the legal part of it. But then again, we didn't have a retarded mayo chick as our lecturer but an actual professor with decades of experience.
They whitewashed, pun intended, the mesoamerican exhibit in the Field Museum, to the point where their religion was all awesome and there is NO mention of human sacrifice, and everything was peaceful and wonderful. Interestingly they also narrow the Spanish conquest down to one small section in a narrow hallway.
I think it was done with the intention of just talking about the "good things" but its beyond sugar coating.
It is a reaction to previous exhibits that were just like "THEIR ENTIRE SOCIETY CONSISTED OF HUMAN SACRIFICE AND THERE IS NOTHING ELSE IN THEIR CIVILIZATION"
So they fought stupid charicatures of Aztecs as bloodthirsty psychos with stupid charicatures of Aztecs as tree-hugging peaceniks. Quoth Lrrr:
Lrrr: Wait. What am I saying? If I poach this beast's lower horn, am I any better than that ranger with his demented foot lust? Yes. But not by enough.
Pinkos are literal demons. Their entire ideology in all of it's form is born out of spite and spite alone, all of their works are destruction and "deconstructionism".
The Mexica, like many Mesoamerican cultures, believed that without human sacrifice, the sun would stop rising and the world would end. They saw the skulls on the tzompantli as seeds they planted to insure the existence of future generations of people.
My people believe that if we give the women the right to vote the sun would stop rising and the world would end. We see women in the kitchen as seeds we plant to insure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
I think that it's time to have a discussion on why it's time for a discussion on why this practice is not "horrific" or "loaded [with] evil," as some of you have said.
What is it with crazy leftists and lacking historical knowledge? The Spanish were able to conquer the Aztecs because their neighbors rose up in mass rebellion for having their members sacrificed and treated like shit.
I unironically see what she's trying to say to the Aztecs and the like, sacrifice was (theoretically) viewed as a great honour and those who were sacrificed were treated like kings before they were killed, and were supposed to go to the highest levels of Mesoamerica "heaven".
However that does not actually mean that human sacrifice is right, it's objectively wrong. But to be fair I don't think she's arguing that human sacrifice is right, just that the Aztecs and general mesoamerica had some "justification" for it in their world views.
Also, right now we have people literally blowing themselves up in part because of their religious beliefs about the afterlife. But, we aren't supposed to study a culture based on what they believed about themselves and how they viewed the sacrifice.
Cause human sacrifice for spiritual strength and climate change beliefs is infantile and evil, but if you are a euro torturing and killing masses so they believe in your God is a-ok with the mayos lol. Anyone that can’t understand her argument here is dumb dumb dumb.
I really shouldn't be surprised that Gregory Malchuk is up in her replies talking about infant circumcision. This is like the 5th time this week that I've been looking at something completely unrelated to baby penises, yet there is Gregory Malchuk in the comments sperging out about foreskins and how the Jews are running a multi-million dollar circumcision racket.
I've noticed that faggots are particularly into foreskins and ass-eating and so forth. Like they have to demonstrate their cock-fervor by getting into the grossest possible sex acts.
Without the harvesting of faggot and nigger skulls, my crop will not grow and my children will starve. Killing if I get lucky and find a faggot nigger, I can skip having to kill one for a week.
Human sacrifice was a sign of a very interesting cognative revolution where people were toying with the basics of investment, sacrifice a little now for a lot later, sacrifice a lot now for even more later. What's more than a human life? Unfortunately that was before they learned that there was no karmic entity that balanced the books of suffering and pleasure so their sacrifices were total wastes and then Spanish people killed them.
The surplus population that was consumed by sacrifices because not employable but still consuming, is the same population that now writes SJW stuff on the internet, thanks to Capitalism terrible mismanagement of excess labour. Let it sink in.
imagine being such a colonialist that you think the sun will continue rising if we don't murder thousands of people and display their skulls! Fucking ignorant westerners!
It’s all fun and modern to hate on the Spaniards who landed in central and South America but they saw some really horrific shit. Doesn’t excuse everything that went down but some of the records they returned with were all sorts of fucked up.
white women are literally of the devil and should be mass killed. here's why (and that's a good thing). take any evil act, and you'll find these thots to be the most enthusiastic supporters of it. fucking mindless retards.
well i mean, she isn't wrong to a certain degree. it's hard to imagine wanting to go to war and hoping you die in battle, but that's exactly what vikings where like, cause they believe dying in battle means you get to go to a heaven dimension where you get to beat the shit out of each other, fuck hot wenches, and be perpetually drunk for eternity.
who's to say some people getting sacrificed didn't also feel psyched about whatever pretend dimension their whacky religion said they would get to party in? also, modern day example, people LITERALLY ASPLODE THEMSELVES because they believe they get to party with 70 tight young virgins for eternity.
Her: "When trying to understand historical events it's crucial to be aware of how your own culture influences how you interpret and perceive these events".
Complete Retards: "OMG STOP DEFENDING HUMAN SACRIFICE?"
As Canadians, I don't think I'm able to fully appreciate the culture which led to child immigrants being separated from their parents at the border and being detained, so I refuse to call it evil.
291 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-06-27
This is not the time or place for another black-dick joke
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-06-27
Too much femsplaining
1 strathmeyer 2018-06-27
Imagine having to explain to an adult why human sacrifice might be seen as evil.
1 someonecool43 2018-06-27
They're just mad Natives got conquered by Spaniards 500 years ago
1 theconceiver 2018-06-27
Spaniards are white peepo, right?
1 Spoobit 2018-06-27
No.
1 wow___justwow 2018-06-27
In Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion
1 subliiime4668 2018-06-27
Even britbongs are okay, it seems like the mayos only showed up once the burgers started rolling out
1 Plexipus 2018-06-27
Can't have burgers without mayos!
1 Anaseb 2018-06-27
Stop, I can hear the dole addicted NEETs of /r/unitedkingdom, /r/Scotland (and likely r/australia) masturbating at the very thought of being excluded from mayo'ness from here.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2018-06-27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15QFAppht5o
1 theconceiver 2018-06-27
I have Irish, Scottish, Swedish, Polish, German, Czech and "Gypsie" blood heritage and I am darker than any Spaniard. Spaniards, to me, are "white".
1 The-Ghola-Hayt 2018-06-27
gadje gadjensa, rom romensa
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-27
The emotional labor is beyond draining.
1 Feanorfanclub 2018-06-27
They're literally defending sati in that Twitter thread, the same practice where they threw widows onto the pyre because they were afraid they'd become whores without a husband. We're approaching peak retard, what happens when we hit critical mass?
1 newcomer_ts 2018-06-27
Primary reasons for human sacrifice was all around general lack of knowledge about how nature works and how babies are made. So, some shaman high on mushrooms figured out that his superstitious hallucinations are what is needed.
However, there is something to be said about relative strength of South American ‘shrooms in eliciting the worst nightmares thus converting into really bad customs.
1 Frptwenty 2018-06-27
This sounds interesting. Have women really ruled anywhere in ancient times? How did they get around the fact that men are stronger and like weapons?
1 newcomer_ts 2018-06-27
The literature is scarce on this but it’s about the tribes before Hellenic invasion. Their explanation is that in those early days, men were seen as nothing but a tool while women were actually bringing life. So women were seen as Earth/Nature itself and thus were worshipped and they actually had men tournaments where the winner would have sex with the queen. The winner was a king for few weeks and then all over again. It took a while for a king to change the customs and find a “king instead” (usually a young man) to be sacrificed.
The only thing about reproduction they knew is the wind and pollen so it’s funny to read that they’d turn mare ass towrd the window hoping it will get pregnant.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
I'd love an actual source on this, since it sounds like something cribbed from a rejected Neil Gaiman comic
1 newcomer_ts 2018-06-27
There's some of this in The Greek Myths by Robert Graves
I mean the line from the book says:
Also, H.G. Guterbock wrote on Hittite myth of simple minded Appu and is more detailed on this subject.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
Graves says nothing about the connection to human sacrifice you mentioned, though yeah lots of people have not gotten the whole connection between sex and reproduction, the anthro literature is full of primitives thinking the sky knocked up their bitches.
Hittities weren't in Southern Europe, they were in Anatolia, which is Asia Minor. That being said, there's nowhere on the planet where the scale of human sacrifice reached the levels seen in mesoamerica and west africa.
1 newcomer_ts 2018-06-27
Sorry, I don’t understand… are you arguing that there was no human sacrifice in Europe? Is that where you’re coming from?
Also, for all intents and purposes Anatolia - and few places around - is a birthplace of Europe.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
No, human sacrifice was present on all continents, that has been known, well, forever. Only differences have been motive and scale. People kill each other for a wide variety of motives, unfortunately, an religiosity is definitely one of them.
"Anatolia is the birthplace of Europe" -- hmm? I mean you can make some argument re: Greek colonies on the Anatolian mainland, though those were never the big cultural centers compared to the ones on the Greek mainland. Anatolia has never considered Europe, from the beginning of the concept of Europe (from the earliest mentions which refer to the west coast of the Aegean as "Europe").
1 xXsnip_ur_ballsXx 2018-06-27
The "hilly flanks" area in Anatolia is considered to be the birthplace of Western civilization.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
agriculture != europe
and no, Anatolia is not considered the birthplace of Western Civilization, you're thinking of Greece, though if you want to go back further, you're talking Sumer, which was not in Anatolia either. Neolithic/Chacolithic settlements in Anatolia were pretty much all dead by the time anything resembling Europe existed.
1 xXsnip_ur_ballsXx 2018-06-27
I'm recalling all this from Guns, Germs and Steel, which I haven't read in a while. Of course Greece was one of the first great European cultures, but really in that ancient time "europe" was not an entity. I'd argue that the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean was a more important geographical area - after all, the Greeks copied Egyptian art and the Phoenician alphabet.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
Europe, as a thing, basically dates to around 500 BC, and at that time just meant the western Aegean coast. after that it bnasically became the ural/caucasus as the border between Europe and Asia. Fun fact -- "Asia" comes to us from the Romans, who used it to refer to the province in western Anatolia.
continents as we know them were not a thing at all until way, way later.
and yeah the Greek alphabet (again as we know it not, not the linear scripts) was adapted from Phoenician, though they were a Mediterranean civilization. while the Greeks definitely did borrow from the Egyptians, who didn't? Egypt was the sina qua non of greatness in those days, an ancient empire which had been around for thousands of years. And Egypt mainly survived the Bronze Age Collapse which took out most of the city states in the region, including most of the Greek ones, around 1200BC.
but pegging Anatolia as the "birthplace of Europe" is a big stretch. and GGS is a terrible, terrible work that should never be cited at all, it's full of cherry picking and geographic determinism, ick
1 ferongr 2018-06-27
Oh boy.
1 ______________pewpew 2018-06-27
As it should be
1 TransexualWiener 2018-06-27
i didn't expect to get a history lesson on /r/drama, but this entire comment section has been fascinating.
1 Diogenes2XLantern 2018-06-27
By dying, or by being isolated enough to not attract any attention for a while.
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
yeah, a lot of places. They all had some level of “separate spheres” power-sharing though, and usually got invaded eventually.
When push came to shove? They didn’t. They “seized” power mostly through religious appeals.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-06-27
if one views modern feminist as a cult of cult...then.....
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
i guess if you’d call any ideology a cult
1 TransexualWiener 2018-06-27
point is, women are once again attempting to seize the matriarchy through a kind of religion. it might be an actual religion, but an ideology, which is similar.
1 freet0 2018-06-27
Each Iroquois longhouse was ruled by a woman
1 ncm54321 2018-06-27
Women lead tribes were prominent in Europe before the Indo-European invasions. Indo-European tribes were male led and were more agressive then their old european counterparts. They had domesticated the horse and used chariots to conquer Europe. Usually it is more associated with langauge but look up the Khurgan Hearth Theory if you are interested.
1 parduscat 2018-06-27
AFAIK there's never been proof found that matriarchies existed anywhere in the world. The "Old Europe" theory is baseless.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
only if you listen to the insane ramblings of radical feminist wiccans.
1 Bluest_waters 2018-06-27
fucking shroom people!
everything is always somehow about the mushroooms with you fucks
lol
1 ErictheRedding 2018-06-27
What tribes?
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
this is why we couldn't elect hillary
1 newcomer_ts 2018-06-27
But then ended up with a tampon, nevertheless.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
in the sense that he is a bloody mess, for sure
1 TransexualWiener 2018-06-27
"women are the real victims of war" - killary.
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
I'm pretty sure people knew that fucking lead to babies for quite a long time prior. Its a simple cause and effect thing. People were not complete idiots.
It also wasn't every 28 days but more of a yearly thing, you know death and rebirth of the seasons.
Where the fuck did you come up with this?
1 newcomer_ts 2018-06-27
Full moon sacrifice was done as part of female worship for her child-bearing capabilities. One of the first observations was that full moon and menstrual cycle have same cycle.
The book is somewhat obscure but is often referenced - The Strange World of Human Sacrifice by JN Bremmer
All of this is a conjecture, of course.
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
Yep....
1 ffbtaw 2018-06-27
Cultural Anthropology in a nutshell
1 PalKitten22 2018-06-27
RREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEpost
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-27
Weren't most of the sacrificed people non-Aztec war captives? if I remember correctly, most of their neighbours also thought the human sacrificing was immoral and joined up with the spaniards against the aztecs.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
yes, though not all. human sacrifice was rife through all of mesoamerica -- mayanists used to like to maintain it was mainly mexica and some olmec groups, but no, mayans were into kiddie killing also.
not to mention skinning young girls and wearing their skinsuits, so pretty much like Buffalo Bill with leopard skins and feathered head dresses
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-27
Mayans lived nowhere near the Aztecs you retard, the civillisation had 0 co fact with each other. I'm talking about the Aztecs actual neighbouring civillisation which they fought with.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
um, where exactly did i state that the mayans and the mexica were anywhere near one another? they were hundreds of miles away, Yucatan vs Tenochtitlan, and more importantly, separated in time by a thousand years.
my point was that mayanists used to maintain that the maya didn't slaughter people wholesale for religious purposes, but the archaelogical record ended up being irrefutable.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-27
And I was talking about how the Aztecs neighbours thought human sacrifice was immoral, not the Mayans.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
nah they really didn't though, they just objected to them being sacrificed. human sacrifice was present in all Nahua peoples, and the Flower Wars were agreed upon -- the Tlaxcalans and the rest of them were primarily pissed about the extension and dominance of Mexica power, not the human sacrifice bit. If you've got a contrary source, I'd love to see it, but so much of that period is really quite unknown and characterized by archaelogical speculation.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-27
Fuck off.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
one can dream, faggot, one can dream
1 portodhamma 2018-06-27
What the fuck are you talking about. Mayans are around to this day. And the Aztec's tributary system extended almost all the way to the Yucatan
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
what the fuck are you talking about? yes the people are still there but the maya civilization, referring to the Classical Maya, ain't. and wasn't when the mexica / triple alliance rose to prominence, which was hundreds of years after the collapse of the Classical Maya civilization in 900ad. that's all i was referring to.
1 portodhamma 2018-06-27
Ok then say Classical Maya, because this guy was talking about contemporaries of the Mexica
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
if that's the case then his comment is even more retarded, as if we're talking just ethnic maya
1 portodhamma 2018-06-27
It really is. Which is why I was confused with you agreeing with him
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
this is why i shouldn't post while on conference calls
1 piper06w 2018-06-27
Malinche was sold to Maya groups as a slave and she was Nahua. Not exactly 0 contact.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-27
Fuck off with your facts.
1 nomad1c 2018-06-27
they were like right next to each other
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-27
Not in time you retard.
1 nomad1c 2018-06-27
they overlapped actually. it's not like they popped out of existence after their peak
1 ironicshitpostr 2018-06-27
wtf I hate the spaniards now
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2018-06-27
Never heard this skinning thing, is there more info?
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
Xipe Toltec festivals to begin with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xipe_Totec
Azteca were all kinds of psycho, man.
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2018-06-27
Good riddance
1 newborn_babyshit 2018-06-27
Not quite. The enemies of the Mexica (Aztecs) practiced human sacrifice as well. It defined the rules of engagement for all the nahuatl speaking peoples of the region. War was seen as an act of piety.
There is a moral tale of a Tlaxcalan warrior who was captured by the Mexica and set to fight a gladiatorial exhibition with his death to be a religious tribute. He ended up killing a dozen Mexica warriors and was offered a pardon to reward his valor. The Tlaxcalan warrior is said to have turned down the offer and willingly accepted his own sacrifice in service of the supernatural forces that kept the world functioning.
The Tlaxcalans initially attacked the spanish and fought to a bloody stalemate. They realized that their years of endemic warfare with the Mexica might finally turn in their favor. After the Tlaxcalans worked with the spanish to defeat the Mexica the spanish reportedly gave the Tlaxcalans a certain measure of tolerance for their bloody religious practices, but it didn't last under the long term conversion efforts of the spanish.
Sorry no citations. On phone. Pm me if youd like to know more later.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-27
Lol fuck off with your facts and shit.
1 newborn_babyshit 2018-06-27
Completely forgot which sub this was. Ill see myself out.
1 Feanorfanclub 2018-06-27
They joined up with him for more than that, the Aztecs were just really brutal fucks. Everyone hated them really.
1 Folf_IRL 2018-06-27
Imagine having your head so far up your own ass that you think ritualistic human sacrifice is in any way justifiable
1 JHFAS 2018-06-27
P O S T M O D E R N I S M
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
that, plus the idiot musings of Critical X Theory (where X is whatever you want it to be, hell we've got Critical Plant Theory now). those guys are completely retarded.
1 portodhamma 2018-06-27
This is relativism, not post-modernism. Anthropologists have been doing this since the 20s
1 BumwineBaudelaire 2018-06-27
relativism is the bedrock pomo is built on
1 Cajoal 2018-06-27
Gotta go deeper. Relativism is the conclusion of nihilism.
1 portodhamma 2018-06-27
Nihilism is the result of secularization of society, which is a result of the Protestant Reformation. Blame Martin Luther for Foucault.
1 DistortedLines 2018-06-27
Daddy memerson?
1 SirShrimp 2018-06-27
It may not be perfect, but it's the best system we have.
1 bat_mayn 2018-06-27
A large portion of these people unironically want to genocide the entire 'rural' United States, as it's just 'flyover country' full of hillbilly trash to them.
1 portodhamma 2018-06-27
You are absolutely insane
1 bat_mayn 2018-06-27
No. I'm not.
Fucking pinko trash, is this literally the only thing you're capable of -- when confronted with challengers of your trash ideology you can only accuse your detractors of being 'insane'. Fucking metal defectives, send them to the gulags with the other dissidents, amirite comrade?
1 portodhamma 2018-06-27
See? You're just randomly accusing me of shit. I literally posted today about how all prisons should be abolished and you talk about how I want to throw people in gulags.
1 bat_mayn 2018-06-27
Go back to wherever it is you came from, whatever trash 'anarchist' subs you inhabit and keep sniffing your own farts.
1 portodhamma 2018-06-27
Yeah ok I'll leave you to your safe space where you won't be bothered by people challenging your ridiculous assertions.
1 bat_mayn 2018-06-27
One, this isn't a safe-space sub and I hate most people in here.
Two, I don't go to your dumpster fire anarchist subs and call you insane, despair shilling and trolling your trash subs -- because I'm not a malignant, wet pile of steaming pinko shit.
Unironically you are the one going back to your 'safe-space'.
1 portodhamma 2018-06-27
Lmao like I'll actually leave. I've been subbed here for years
1 wolfdreams01 2018-06-27
I just wanted to let you guys know that I upvoted both of you for contributing to the mission of this sub. Well done!
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
u/Darqwolff approved commentary
1 Anarcho_Autism 2018-06-27
Now that's the type of radical centrism I like to clap my bussy to!
1 Son_of_the_Wrench 2018-06-27
seriousposting on drama smh
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-27
Y-you too 😓💓
1 RealJackAnchor 2018-06-27
What's ridiculous about his assertion? Shall I go find comments of people on Reddit actually talking about what he's saying?
I mean it's pretty heavily implied time and again in TYT's election night coverage. "Oh Kentucky? Ahhhh we don't care about Kentucky. West Virginia? Of course it's West Virginia, West Virginia doesn't even matter" literally rinse and repeat for any state in middle America that didn't go their way. All these people are looked at as stupid and irrelevant and all the world's problems are their fault somehow and if we could just get rid of these middle American crackers.
I'm actually surprised people ignore the disdain and dehumanization of entire groups of the population merely by geography.
1 portodhamma 2018-06-27
People generalizing by geographic origin is bad now? What about Mexicans and people from shithole countries? Calling immigrants an infestation is fine but calling someone a redneck is literally turning the faucet on the gas chambers. Get real. What camps are democrats gonna put a hundred million people in?
1 RealJackAnchor 2018-06-27
For the ONE MILLIONTH time, no one gives a fuck if you're Mexican, get your papers in order. Period. We're a nation of laws, Donny.
Literally calling out a Salvadorian gang by name, the sort of gang that likes to torture people alive and flay their faces, and people scream "REEEEEEEEacist!"
Mention rape trees and the conversation always goes real quiet real fast.
"I care about migrants!"
"Thousands of them, maybe tens of thousands, are raped on the journey here, taken advantage of by those they paid to bring them across safely"
"Yeah well fuck you racist Drumpftard!"
Never mind I've been talking about rape trees and border security since I moved to southern AZ in 2013 and saw some of this shit firsthand.
The problem with people like you is you have zero room for nuance. You hear Mexicans and just go REEEEEEEEEE. When someone specifies that, hey, there's some real fucked up people coming in here, they're still called racist. Democrats defending MS-13. Never thought I'd see the day.
1 portodhamma 2018-06-27
Lmao
1 RealJackAnchor 2018-06-27
The 'Drumpfkin' actually cares about what's going on at the border and doesn't want to see people raped and murdered? Doesn't want to see an estimated 70% of single women be raped while trying to break the law in this country? Doesn't want to see bodies left to die in the back of an 18 wheeler?
What a fucking racist.
1 portodhamma 2018-06-27
Yeah I'm sure the best option for helping them is to round them all up into concentration camps
1 RealJackAnchor 2018-06-27
Good thing no one is doing that then.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
this was a lot of words to just say, "pls don't call daddy racist again" my man
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-27
lmao imagine being this afraid of the darkies
1 RealJackAnchor 2018-06-27
Imagine not caring about innocent people dying to these folks.
1 jerkedpickle 2018-06-27
Finally another rape tree aficionado. Preach brother
1 Tzcar 2018-06-27
This is the result of the way elections work in the US. For similar reasons Republicans don’t care about New England and the West Coast.
1 RealJackAnchor 2018-06-27
"don't care" and "think they're pretentious cunts" are two separate things
1 Plexipus 2018-06-27
"Ballot box or the ammo box"
"The Tree of Liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots"
"Free helicopter rides"
"FEMA camps"
"Why do commies use such violent rhetoric 😭"
1 BasedRubby 2018-06-27
this but economically
1 jaja10 2018-06-27
That's self defense
1 BasedRubby 2018-06-27
based schizopost
1 Sarge_Ward 2018-06-27
I didnt realize that anthropologists are so evil.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
where's the lie tho
1 RecallRethuglicans 2018-06-27
Flyover country has colleges and other tiny areas of sanity that don't deserve to be punished.
1 FcpEcvRtq 2018-06-27
What the fuck is this non-mayocide bs
1 shallowm 2018-06-27
Your comment is the other side of "Nazis are taking over the United States and Führer Drumpf wants to round up all brown people!"
1 Artremis 2018-06-27
Tbh I don't see why that's a problem.
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2018-06-27
So they're half right
1 LightUmbra 2018-06-27
*cough* /u/pizzas hill *cough*
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
Yeah clearly not wanting rural people to have 3x the political power they should have is wanting to genocide them.
1 bat_mayn 2018-06-27
Sorry, this isn't the "United State of California"
1 pizzashill 2018-06-27
TIL citizens of California are less equal than citizens of Alabama.
And the logic for that is they follow public health expert opinion in relation to HIV.
1 Sarge_Ward 2018-06-27
If I had to choose between giving power to commiefornia or giving it way down southern dixie, even if cali sucks im still going to choose them 9.5 times out of ten. Fuck the electoral college and the states that unironically voted for George Wallace.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-06-27
Who wants to expend the energy? Just let fentanyl do it's magic.
1 SlackBabo 2018-06-27
What about letting a guy with a terminal illness live on the sacrificial alter until he dies naturally. Or just building a hospice on top of it.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
I'll repeat what I said when this was posted like two days ago.
Anthropologists are literally the biggest dipshits on the planet and are almost singlehandedly responsible for the BUT MUH CULTURAL RELATIVISM that has ruined the liberal arts and social sciences. Imagine unironically stating "It's hard for me to imagine that people wanted to be sacrificed, but that's my own biases and cultural conditioning talking."
1 rothkochapel 2018-06-27
I studied it, can confirm
1 Zizac 2018-06-27
luckily, philosophy has left the 1960s and have pretty much abandoned relativism and positivism.
1 watermark02 2018-06-27
What was wrong with positivism?
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
Fucking lol this one is especially good.
1 tfdidido 2018-06-27
Positivism will comr back stronger than ever just give it time
1 throwawayact69 2018-06-27
These people have been a joke ever since the sokal affair. Anthropology is a laughing stock even among social scientists...
tbf, I think clinical/medical psychology is pretty respected.
1 Dallenforth 2018-06-27
Even clinical psychology is beong invaded DAE FREUDE MYSOGGYKNEES
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-27
Imagine unironically caring about Freud and calling yourself a scientist.
You're one step above people who take Jung's philosophical ramblings seriously.
1 Dallenforth 2018-06-27
He was still very important for the foundation of psychology, reguardless of some of his specific misconceptions and debunked theories.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2018-06-27
Psychology died as a official science when pussies stopped us from experimenting on Children and putting Pigeons in Missiles
1 casprus 2018-06-27
Jung is important in literary critique, maybe not so much in clinpsych but Freud is just shit where ever he shoves his hooked nose
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
lol wat
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
nah the french still love freud. i guess that's what comes of having a commie mayor in paris.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-27
Literary critique isn't a science. Jung was a good occultist, that doesn't mean that anyone taking his stuff seriously in a scientific context isn't a retard.
1 rrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeee 2018-06-27
Sociologists wanted to figure out why the other scientists didn’t consider them scientists, so they conducted a single variable survey and asked one person
1 Patsy02 2018-06-27
No, they launched a science research project based consisting of a thorough critical autoethnography.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
physical anthro and archaelogy are both fine. they have actual things to reference, as opposed to psych anthro which is basically Just So Stories the whole way down
1 snallygaster 2018-06-27
What's wrong with other anthro? Just because something can't be quantified or isn't material doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or is not important to study. Plus archaeology has a fuckton of political problems that make it difficult to impossible for researchers to challenge long-standing theories.
1 Bluest_waters 2018-06-27
what theories are being repressed?
1 Shabazza 2018-06-27
It's not about theories being repressed, but never challenged because nobody provides the funds for any sort of research.
Other area, similar issue: Germany or rather several German federal states heavily invested into full-time schools ~10 years ago because they assumed this will provide better school performance. So far, all research conducted by independent researchers has been in the comparison between full-time schools and the transition of regular schools to full-time schools. However, there have only been two (2!) studies funded so far that compared full-time schools to regular schools and whether the initial hypothesis has been correct. Both of those studies also saw no difference between performance in full-time and regular schools.
1 TrannyPornO 2018-06-27
Links?
1 Shabazza 2018-06-27
Strietholt, Rolf & Manitius, Veronika & Berkemeyer, Nils & Bos, Wilfried (2015). Bildung und Bildungsungleichheit an Halb- und Ganztagsschulen. In Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaften 18, 737-761.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
excuse me, I speak nazi
1 Mictlantecuhtli 2018-06-27
Like what? Provide specifics as it pertains to archaeology and archaeological research.
1 snallygaster 2018-06-27
Sadly I don't know/remember, but I've heard from a few grad students that you basically have to wait for someone to die to challenge their narrative if they have any clout and that findings that don't make sense in the context of a dominant theory are more or less hand-waved away and better explanations based on evidence aren't entertained because everyone's afraid of destroying some big wig's life's work and/or getting blacklisted (which is incredibly easy to do in academia where only tenured and tenure-track professors have any form of job security because academia is shit).
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
lol
1 nyekks 2018-06-27
everyone here knows about planck because its the only way we can measure our dicks
1 heavenlytoaster 2018-06-27
No, it means you can't study it.
1 snallygaster 2018-06-27
I take it you don't know anything about research methods...
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
it's a gigantic mess of bizarro-world pomo and critical theory?
Not sure how you're using "material" here, plz to be doing the needful and clarify.
And I'd have to disagree about things impossible to quantify. There aren't any. You may think certain attempts to quantify things are insufficient and/or wrong, but you can certainly quantify anything, and that's a critical part of formalization, which the softer flavors of anthro (cultura, social, psychological, etc) fail utterly to do. Those fields are still encompassed by obscurantist bullshit to a large degree, and deeply colored by ideological rules and dogma.
1 snallygaster 2018-06-27
How so? I'm sure there are academic circles where they're all about that, but I highly doubt that all of the 'softer' fields have gone completely nuts. I imagine that it's similar to sociology where all of the ___ studies people distract the public from the fact that most fields of sociology have moved towards more rigorous/quantitative methods or otherwise have nothing to do with things like critical theory.
Tangible and possible to quantify. Sure, you can 'quantify' things like human interaction or cultural norms by counting the amount of times something happens in an hour or sending out a survey asking people how much they value a cultural norm or some other dumb bullshit, but in most cases that's so ineffective at capturing an aspect of a culture that it's meaningless. There's a reason why many fields of science that deal with human behavior/cognition are at least beginning to pick up qualitative methods again after having largely abandoned them. Quantitative methods alone are sufficient for describing low-level behavior and cognition like motor control and attention, but for anything more complex it doesn't even begin to give a full picture, and when you're talking about things like describing a culture or complex systems of interaction quantitative methods are only useful in limited contexts. Even in fields that still have a stigma against qualitative methods, like perception research, teach students that the quantitative data doesn't provide a full picture and doesn't describe the experience of something like vision or pressure.
Is there anywhere I can read more about this? It sounds like another case where fringe or pop academics color public perception of the field at large.
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
I don't know why you're even acknowledging the possibility that this isn't the only thing this person is talking about
1 HINDBRAIN 2018-06-27
I'm not anywhere near a specialist on the subject but I've read a few books my grandpa had that were from sociologists talking about science/physics. I was struck by how confident and assertive they were at spouting completely wrong bullshit.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
Sure there are. History hasn't been walloped as much as say, Soc or Anthro, much less Lit. And I wouldn't say most in terms of soc (though no, I ain't got a list), but there's definitely significant people out there that are not into that kind of thing, mainly social statisticians like Andy Gelman. Unfortunately most soc / anthro people can't math for shit (and some of them are quite proud of that). Critical _______ Studies definitely does have a heavy impact on the social sciences these days though -- I'd wager there's not a single anthro program in the country that doesn't have units on that. If there is, that's where I should have done undergrad :)
So, if you're saying "material" means "tangible and possible to quanity" (which isn't how I'd use it but YMMV since I'd use a more philosophical definition rooted in eliminative materialism). Right, so I'd doubt there are really any things that fall into the immaterial category based on "possible to quantify" but "tangible" needs to be further defined, in cases like x-rays, etc. which are not strictly tangible, yet definitely exist, and whose resulting effects on the reality can definitely be seen and quantified in a very granular sense.
Agreed, the distinction between data and hypothesis is an important one to make. My core philosophical objection is to streams of thought that ignore quantitative metrics, or have a very loosey-goosey sort of approach to anything quant-ish at all, all of which are present in the academy today, and really have been on the freudian/marxist side since before WWII. A perfect example is a fantastic work of scholarship which is just plain wrong -- The Ghost Dance by Weston LaBarre -- whose main thrust is that the origin of religion itself is via crisis cults. It's a voluminous, well-cited, well-researched work that fails because of its ideological underpinnings in Marx and Freud, which while very contemporaenous for the time it was written (1970), has not aged well.
So true. There's only so much you can get from data points before analysis comes in -- that's really the whole point of things, I just deeply distrust innumerate people using either light/no data points, or the type of free association logic that is so often a problem in those domains. Plus there's a giant amount of soft-headed bullshit still floating around in those fields: people like Derrida, Lacan, etc; Womens/Critical/Indigenous/X Studies, most of social psychology, these fields are full of reprobate ideologues who do Opposite Science -- determine their results first, according to whatever ideology is fashionable at the time, and then do their "studies" -- which quite often are things like a small sample size, poorly writtem, self-selected poll like you would find on Buzzfeed, with a 65% non-response rate, which is then bandied about as proof positive of some extremist position or another. Or all the papers whose innumerate authors failed to correctly calculate P, or used incorrect statistical tests, or just plain made math errors -- there's tons of these floating about.
Anywhere really. Crack open Of Grammatology or Anti-Oedipus or anything along those lines, all of which are taught in anthro schools, hell even Levi-Strauss wasn't exactly a paragon of clarity. These are not fringe academics. Or just look at the influence upon the field by people like Saussaure, whose linguistics (proven badly wrong in the 1960s) is an integral part of semiotics and the works of people like Derrida (who mangled it completely) who've had massive impacts not just on soc, but anthro also. Even Geertz, who I actually quite like at times, and who was a really nice guy, is deeply obscure in his writing. In my experience, anthropologists generally cannot write, or do math. It's sad really. At least the historians can write :)
Or look up the Chagnon affair, to see the impact of these types of ideologues. Or how the Noble Savage myth still exists, just morphed into the "Indigneous peoples did no wrong, they lived in pure peaceful harmony until the Big Bad White Man came!" shit that litters the field, from carefully massaged and excluded homicide rates among hunter gatherers, to the long-time denial of the scale, and sometimes the very existence, of Aztec + Mayan + Native American human sacrifice and cannibalism. Though those guys have mainly given up, since it's kinda hard to argue with thousands upon thousands of skeletons at the bottom of cenotes and giant pyramids of skulls. I mean, look at the post the other day with the twitter academic's ongoing apologetics around that issue. That type POV is fairly common.
Now, you're totally right in terms of saying that the outbursts of vocal minorities in the field definitely color the popular perception, but that's only possible since the more reasonable people tend to hide in books and avoid conflict. And the "more reasonable" way of doing this is not really ascendant in the social sciences at the moment -- and I say that not based on outragefilter shit from TiA or somewhere along those lines, but from what my friends still in academia, mostly in the social sciences, tell me. A few of them have gone over to the dark site recently also, which is always a shame. And let's not forget official publications by groups like the AAUP and the APA and the AAA.
1 nicholasalotalos 2018-06-27
Sure, if you ignore the recent replication crisis controversy that saw half of published studies in the field being unrepeatable. Not as bad as social psychology where it was something like 2/3 of published study results weren't able to replicated.
1 throwawayact69 2018-06-27
It's pretty much the same in economics, medicine and some of the hard sciences. Across the broad we see a replication crisis
1 nicholasalotalos 2018-06-27
to varying degrees, psychology's replication crisis is particularly bad though.
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
You mean that time a physicist decided to bait a minor cultural studies journal with no real peer-review process into publishing an article they knew to be impossible to pretend, played on their willingness to engage with somebody on the basis of his scientific reputation, and then refused to make even the most minor of corrections in order to purportedly show up a whole set of fields of which they were not representative?
1 wokeupabug 2018-06-27
... and then proceeded to non-ironically publish a book on social theory using a poverty of rigor or research as ridiculous as the deliberate parody>
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
I really like that super revealing article in the TES, which shows up both him and Bricmont as, essentially, sniggering schoolboys having a laugh at the teacher's expense. It even opens with them sniggering over random sentences in a sociology textbook they think sound funny.
1 MLK-Junior 2018-06-27
Never succumb to the temptation of bitterness.
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
?
1 ManifoldPrime 2018-06-27
he said sniggering not niggering, fix your shit bot
1 If_thou_beest_he 2018-06-27
What article is that?
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
I can't find it on a brief search in my current physical state, but it's an interview with the pair of them in, I'm pretty sure, the Times Educational Supplement
1 watermark02 2018-06-27
Tbf it's pretty dumb to get offended about anything anyone did a thousand years ago... when you look at things from a scientific perspective, you are not usually interested in throwing around judgements on people, you're just describing what happened.
1 cleverseneca 2018-06-27
Which is why what this idiot on Twitter said is so stupid. She should of been like "dude I'm just reporting the way it was, I doesn't matter if you to like it." Instead she spent a bunch of tweets trying to convince everybody that what they did was totes cool and it's the white people that should be the ones ashamed of their history.
1 69TEKASHI6IX9INE69 2018-06-27
That ain't what this lady said though. She was explicitly trying to moralize human sacrifice instead of looking at it from a neutral scientific perspective.
1 reallynicebookcase 2018-06-27
No one in philosophy defends relativism. It's not defensible in it's normative or meta-ethical forms at all. But anthropologists make the mistake of seeing relativism in it's descriptive and methodological validity and extend that to making meta-ethical claims all the fucking time. This mistake has literally been happening since the 1920s. If this dummy uses the logic she applied to the Aztecs she can't condemn Hitler for all his hi jinks either.
1 theconceiver 2018-06-27
Especially considering both murderous rampages were conducted on top of cultural complicity and conditioned helplessness, and motivated by esoteric occultism.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
I couldn't have said this better myself. There's a pretty big fucking difference between adopting cultural relativism as a research conceit (which was done in the first place because early anthropology was conducted almost exclusively by British and German dudes in pith helmets who thought the natives they were studying were literal subhumans--obviously you don't want that) and extending it to normative situations. Worse yet, this retardness has seeped into the discourse at large. It's why white coastal libruls think people in middle America are dipshits for going to church on Sunday but will gladly defend Muslims and Africans whose social views are by any rational standard 100x more regressive and harmful. Sorry for the serious post but this rustles my jimmies like few other things.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
well said though
1 Patsy02 2018-06-27
what /u/CarnistHappyCamp said
1 elwombat 2018-06-27
Philosophy is barely a subject. 'God is real because that would be hella good.' How dumb are philosophers?
1 snallygaster 2018-06-27
Wat
1 elwombat 2018-06-27
That was basically Kant's reasoning.
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
I know you guys are deliberately dipshits, but this isn't even funny by /r/drama standards
1 ComedicSans 2018-06-27
He didn't even go for the low-hanging Kant/cunt pun. Disappointing.
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-06-27
DAE STEM MASTER RACE?
1 LightUmbra 2018-06-27
Someone has to pay for welfare.
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-27
Yes.
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-27
GOOD post
1 snallygaster 2018-06-27
Relativism is necessary to accurately describe a culture though. If a researcher forms a bias then it's going to color their work and make it more likely to be inaccurate. It's a research tool as much as the null hypothesis is. However, when it's extended beyond an academic context then it becomes an issue.
1 reallynicebookcase 2018-06-27
Yeah relativism is necessary as a methodological principle... any other form is bad news
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
Russell Blackford, one of the most prominent philosophers working today, defends the views of "thoughtful relativists" such as David Wong and Jesse Prinz, who are both also prominent philosophers, even though he ultimately disagrees. So that's three "ones" in philosophy who indicate you probably didn't check google before you made this claim.
1 tfdidido 2018-06-27
No one, almost no one, not too big of a djfference fam
besides i still think wong is an objectivist pluralist and not a relativist
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
The second one, sure, I don't really care. The first one is bullshit: dude said relativism is indefensible amongst philosophers, Blackford thinks it's defensible even if wrong.
1 tfdidido 2018-06-27
😲
1 reallynicebookcase 2018-06-27
Wong's pluralistic relativism is a different doctrine with some very soft meta-ethical consequences compared to actual cultural/moral relativism.
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
Sure, but you said, quote,
You also said, quote,
Traditionally, people who know what they're talking about in philosophy, and who wish to give something back to a world that isn't always fully cogniscant of the relevant stuff, don't consider it, at their best, a good thing say things which directly contradict their later statements like, quote,
Notice that the word "relativism" appears in all of these comments, even though what you've said is that "relativism" is indefensible. So what's going on here?
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
Sure, but you said, quote,
You also said, quote,
Traditionally, people who know what they're talking about in philosophy, and who wish to give something back to a world that isn't always fully cogniscant of the relevant stuff, don't consider it, at their best, a good thing say things which directly contradict their later statements like, quote,
Notice that the word "relativism" appears in all of these comments, even though what you've said is that "relativism" is indefensible. Worse, you say that "actual relativism" ("cultural/moral") is different from "pluralistic relativism". So is a "pluralistic relativism" not in fact a form of "actual relativism"? Is Wong just wrong to call this view "relativism"?
So what's going on here?
1 reallynicebookcase 2018-06-27
Right I see what you're saying. Relativism in philosophy is almost always taken to mean moral or cultural relativism, a pretty specific line of thinking. If you take relativism to mean anything but moral objectivism - that's actually wrong too. So if you want to talk about pluralistic relativism, which is the work of a single philosopher who takes some very rough lessons from descriptive relativism to inform his doctrine, I think you're being overly pedantic. Especially considering Wong's premises - where he essentially argues relativism can or does exist on a bedrock of an objective moral criteria.
Just because a guy once put a word in front of a long established argument in philosophy does not mean I have to consider that in conveying the general consensus of said argument.
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
This still doesn't work because we're discussing forms of moral relativism
1 reallynicebookcase 2018-06-27
And does Blackburn defend moral relativism? Or does he defend something called quasi realism
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
Jesus fucking Christ you are dense
1 reallynicebookcase 2018-06-27
Lay it out to me then champ
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
"Simon Blackburn" is a different person from "Russell Blackford", whom we have been talking about this entire time.
1 reallynicebookcase 2018-06-27
Dude you literally just said BLACKBURN who is also a big name in relativism. Why would I not suppose if you SAID BLACKBURN I would not think of BLACKBURN. Get off your high chair. Ok. BlackFORD doesn't defend relativism either. so whats your fucking point
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
It's right there in the first comment, which is also why you should have thought of Blackford instead of Blackburn, because that is the "Black-" that we've been talking about this entire time:
1 reallynicebookcase 2018-06-27
Oh that comment yesterday (?) sorry I was responding to comment you made one minute ago. No we have no been talking about Blackford because I didn't even take note of that comment as it is retarded.
"who are both also prominent philosophers, EVEN THOUGH HE ULTIMATELY DISAGREES. So that's three "ones" in philosophy who indicate you probably didn't check google before you made this claim"
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
I'm really confused how you got to the point of being able to recognise names like "Simon Blackburn" or "Russell Blackford" without being able to keep in mind basic things like "the topic of this conversation" or ever learning to read.
1 reallynicebookcase 2018-06-27
Because this conversation holds little importance to me? This only became about Blackford retrospectively because you needed SOMEONE who defends relativism, yet what you failed to realize is that he does not actually defend relativism.
The topic of conversation is your confusion over generally accepted terms of moral theories. No amount of furiously googling someone who once said something different is going to alter the fact the when you speak of moral or cultural relativism people don't associate that with Wong's pluralistic relativism - which isn't really a position even close to moral or cultural relativism at all.
Also, if you're pulling quotes from my history(which shows you have some sort of emotional baggage to work through) please acknowledge their context. That was me attempting to talk a teenage SJW off the cliff. But actually, what is so wrong with suggesting reading Jung makes looking at fiction more interesting? At the very least the pattern recognition involved should be fun for blockhead like you.
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
I'm not sure I'm the one with the emotional baggage here
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
I don't think I'm the one with the emotional baggage here.
For what it's worth, whatever you learned in first-year undergrad about Wong, Russell Blackford takes it as a sufficiently relativist account to include it in his stuff about moral relativism. You're welcome to read his work.
1 reallynicebookcase 2018-06-27
Trolling through someones post searching for a 'got cha!' moment suggests you need something else to spend time on. Also who in first year is reading about Wong's pluralistic relativism lol.
Next time I talk about relativism I'll make sure to mention Wong, despite the fact part of his argument for pluralistic relativism uses one of the most common arguments against moral/cultural/meta-ethical/normative relativism.
Are you confused about the fact the just because you reject objectivism that does not then mean you are taking a relativist position? Lol
Anyone I have to go today we're learning about 'Utilitarianism'!
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
I guess some of us had educators with more confidence in our abilities than others.
Yes, which is the point: Wong's rejection of naive relativism ends up with something which is still, for some people, a form of relativism. Hence he defends relativism. Why is this so hard for you?
It's called procrastination. Those of us with some academic training happen to be good at procrastination that involves using research skills.
1 reallynicebookcase 2018-06-27
Yeah I think for sure you belong to a special group! :) Wong's pluralistic relativism is possibly the only non-garbage defense of "relativism" that we both know of, but the problem is, it's not a defence of 'relativism' at all... ??????? I've read his stuff. It's his fault for him to work within the terms of relativism.
"Those of us with academic training" did you really just write that YEEUSH, You stink adn you know it. I'm not a phil major. I'm working towards a phd in epidemiology if U must know
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
Right, so there is at least one non-garbage defence of relativism, along with Blackford etc. I'm glad we agree that your initial statement was wrong
And I was, maybe some epistemic humility is in order.
Epidemiology is interesting, I do philosophy of science. Please to meet you.
1 reallynicebookcase 2018-06-27
It's not relativism. Moral objectivism requires simply 1 moral rule that is true in all cases (something like one should never torture babies for fun) I mean if you want to go 101 the argument for cultural relativism is something like
P1. Different cultures have different beliefs about what is right and wrong P2. Beliefs about what is right and wrong are then relative to one’s culture C1. Therefore, there is no objective right and wrong that extends to all cultures (moral objectivism is false)
So the most basic argument against this is that A., just because there is disagreement does not mean there is no objective truth (flat earth- Rachels) and B. Pojman, and many others say there are certain moral rules that are required in order for society to exist and not destroy itself - like don't kill for fun in any case. Wong suggests that morality has a functional purpose to sustain group cooperation (Darwinian morality). So wong talks about basic norms that morality must require, stuff like reciprocity, , but again this is just basic Darwinian morality, then wong talks much like Kant about agency or Kant would say autonomy i suppose, basically a ability to be moral. But the point is Wong's relativism relies on a basis of objective moral goals, on which he argues then can societies and cultures build their own relative moral codes, he does this using epistemological arguments mainly. I can quote wong here talking about moral pluralism: "there are a few basic moral principles that all cultures should follow" - I mean, that's literally an argument for objectivism... So I think Wong is mistaken using the word relativism in his work.
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
You know best, obviously
1 ErictheRedding 2018-06-27
No, no they aren’t. You’re thinking of sociologists.
1 SageKnows 2018-06-27
Found the anthropologist!
1 1171798 2018-06-27
What about physical Anthropology?
1 SageKnows 2018-06-27
Is that an actual thing or are you trolling?
1 UnexpectedLizard 2018-06-27
She kind of has a point. Many highly devout traditions emphasize death as something good, including modern Muslims.
But three guesses if she would call the white Christian evangelical martyrs an example of an innocent CULTURE OF PEACE.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
I remember taking an anthropology class at lsu and being pissed when I found out we weren't gonna' be diggin up dinosaur bones
1 Mictlantecuhtli 2018-06-27
That's your fault for taking an anthropology class and not a paleontology class.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-27
congratulations on getting the joke XD
1 BatemaninAccounting 2018-06-27
It literally is cultural relativism at play. Imagine that the human sacrificing middle eastern cults wiped out judaism and we had a world where 1/3rd of the population practiced human sacrifices. Those people would look at Hindu and Buddhists as culturally strange. Literally the only reason people in this thread find this idea hilarious is because judeo-christianity took over and until recently morality was derived from that source.
I think secular humanism will eventually solve the issue of whether human sacrifices was an absolute human wrong or not.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
I'm pretty sure people would be averse to being murdered in the name of Huacapottapotumus the Jaguar God regardless of whether they came from a Judeo-Christian tradition or not you euphoric neckbeard fartsniffer
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-27
why? if your whole belief system centralizes how you die over how you live, and sacrificial death is viewed as basically the best way to die (like this lady says it worked for the aztecs), it doesn't seem that hard to imagine someone being totally down for being sacrificed. i mean jehovah's witnesses in america right now refuse life-saving blood transfusions entirely because of religious belief. a particular aversion to ritual sacrifice over other forms of death is absolutely culturally encoded
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
In theory some were totally OK with sacrifice in much the same way that Christians are OK with giving away all their worldly possessions and Muslims are down with tolerating other religions. In practice, not so much. People don't like giving away their life or property, whudda thunk. In practice, the Aztecs sacrificed tons of non-Aztecs for this very reason, which is why the non-Atzecs were on board with the Spaniards fucking the Aztecs' shit up.
Sure, you have vanishingly small minorities of zealots who believe otherwise, but, they're vanishingly small minorities for a reason and everyone else thinks they're retarded.
Further, I like to think that because we as humans are capable of logic and stuff, we can call upon values and rationales beyond whatever the religion of our culture is, or at very least trust our basest instincts of AVOID DEATH and LIVE EASIEST LIFE POSSIBLE to avoid hyper-zealot death cult faggotry. If you couldn't, (1) shitposting on the Internet and (2) chucking spears at capybara on the banks of the Amazon while wearing a loincloth would seem like equally appealing options. Yet here you are doing the former. I bet the desire to do that latter has never once crossed your mind, fancy that.
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-27
this is a really weird and stupid argument. i agree that pretending all the aztecs would actually, on an individual level, buy into their metaphysics to the death is a stupid proposition, because of our lizard-brain instincts, but your proposal of some set of transcendental "values and rationales" as a ward against bad ideas isnt any less retarded. people generally seem to possess self-interest, and that generally seems to incline them towards acts that are not immediately deadly (although the prevalence of suicide proves even this can only be argued with serious caveats), i don't really think theres any universal claims you can make about human psychology beyond that. theres certainly no such thing as an intrinsic "logic" we possess that couldnt easily be convinced human sacrifice is justified, it just seems that way because the value system we're immersed in is very anti-human sacrifice. yeah, self-interest makes the case for why you, in particular, should be sacrificed much harder, but the practice in general? easily.
and the desire to hunt capybara in the amazon has never crossed my mind because i live on a different continent and our sociopolitical structures make it impossible to even be a hunter-gatherer anyway. i dont really know why you think this says anything about anything.
1 SizeOfThisLad 2018-06-27
So we agree?
So you're saying doing so would be against the self-interest we both agree exists and is the primary human motivation?
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-27
dont even know what point youre trying to argue anymore lol. and im saying becoming tarzan in the amazon would be impossible, which comes prior to any statement about its desirability
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-27
we all know what the amazon is like, i mean didn't we all read Hovitos: The Innocent People, I. Jones, 1932?
1 llapingachos 2018-06-27
Huh? The Hindu tradition contains at least a few different forms of human sacrifice.
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
I believe this woman is a journalist
1 Leftist_Degenerate 2018-06-27
Hmmm.
Yep, it works on multiple levels.
1 noactuallyitspoptart 2018-06-27
Your mother!
1 Slamzizek247 2018-06-27
1 a_thumb_in_my_bum 2018-06-27
"The Aru Islanders of the north coast of Australia invert their penises and practice a form of male concubinage of youths. This is why self castration and pedophilia is totally fine."
1 Destirigon 2018-06-27
Daily reminder that gassing jews is just part of Nazi culture so please don't say it's bad.
1 llapingachos 2018-06-27
sorry, but that's just part of my culture, so please don't say that saying gassing jews is bad is bad.
1 RainbowEffingDash 2018-06-27
Can you explain to me what is exactly wrong with what you quoted. Someone who is raised in a completely different environment will think very differently, what is incorrect about that?
1 hitlerallyliteral 2018-06-27
Were the founding fathers evil for owing slaves? If not why does BUT MUH CULTURAL RELATIVISM apply to cultures separated by space but not by time?
1 SageKnows 2018-06-27
I remember taking legal anthropology and it was a very interesting class about law and society interaction in history. I don't know how anthropology is in its pure form but I would definitely recommend the legal part of it. But then again, we didn't have a retarded mayo chick as our lecturer but an actual professor with decades of experience.
1 FcpEcvRtq 2018-06-27
This is why we need mayocide NOW
1 WeWuzKANG5 2018-06-27
2018, when people started defending pedophilia and human sacrifice...
1 ______________pewpew 2018-06-27
I should get a twitter account. So much drama
1 Automaticus 2018-06-27
Imagine getting 700 likes an 350 retweets on tweet that basically says slavery wasn't evil because the slavers didnt see melanin rich as ppl
1 Bluest_waters 2018-06-27
I agree with her
also all the those jews gassed in WWII ? it was an honor to sacrifice their lives for the glory of the grand Aryan race
their surviving relatives should send us a thank you card
1 CommonThroat 2018-06-27
Trick question there were no gas chambers the holohoax is a Jewish supremacist myth
1 Leftist_Degenerate 2018-06-27
You have broken through the gas ceiling
1 Not_RCMP_ 2018-06-27
This but post ironically
1 Bluest_waters 2018-06-27
the best is all the dumb fucks agreeing with her
holy shit these people cant be for real
1 bat_mayn 2018-06-27
Pinkos aren't human.
McCarthy literally did NOTHING wrong.
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
They whitewashed, pun intended, the mesoamerican exhibit in the Field Museum, to the point where their religion was all awesome and there is NO mention of human sacrifice, and everything was peaceful and wonderful. Interestingly they also narrow the Spanish conquest down to one small section in a narrow hallway.
I think it was done with the intention of just talking about the "good things" but its beyond sugar coating.
1 watermark02 2018-06-27
It is a reaction to previous exhibits that were just like "THEIR ENTIRE SOCIETY CONSISTED OF HUMAN SACRIFICE AND THERE IS NOTHING ELSE IN THEIR CIVILIZATION"
1 Chicup 2018-06-27
Or warfare. It would be like giving a history of the Vikings or Rome and not mentioning war or religion.
1 youcanteatbullets 2018-06-27
So they fought stupid charicatures of Aztecs as bloodthirsty psychos with stupid charicatures of Aztecs as tree-hugging peaceniks. Quoth Lrrr:
1 GIANT_BLEEDING_ANUS 2018-06-27
And eating babies
1 ffbtaw 2018-06-27
REVISIONIST REACTIONARIES OUT!1!
1 911roofer 2018-06-27
Absolutely degenerate.
1 bat_mayn 2018-06-27
Pinkos are literal demons. Their entire ideology in all of it's form is born out of spite and spite alone, all of their works are destruction and "deconstructionism".
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-27
damn you make me sound even cooler than i am
1 BIknkbtKitNwniS 2018-06-27
I unironically think this is okay and correct.
But you can't then turn around and say slavery and colonialism were the worst things in the world without excusing it for the same reasons.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-27
My people believe that if we give the women the right to vote the sun would stop rising and the world would end. We see women in the kitchen as seeds we plant to insure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
I think that it's time to have a discussion on why it's time for a discussion on why this practice is not "horrific" or "loaded [with] evil," as some of you have said.
1 gyrotur 2018-06-27
I wanna make fun of this but i really don't have anything. This is just fucked up.
1 PhysicsIsMyMistress 2018-06-27
The social "sciences" were a mistake
1 its_never_lupus 2018-06-27
Why are the mens on this thread so mad?
1 parameciidae 2018-06-27
1) A woman said something. 2) see #1
1 IFuckedZoeQuinn 2018-06-27
Absolute state of lefty academia
1 grungebot5000 2018-06-27
sounds like she’s saying it’s just the regular amount of evil
1 The_runnerup913 2018-06-27
It wasn’t “horrific”.
What is it with crazy leftists and lacking historical knowledge? The Spanish were able to conquer the Aztecs because their neighbors rose up in mass rebellion for having their members sacrificed and treated like shit.
1 GrimDeer 2018-06-27
I unironically see what she's trying to say to the Aztecs and the like, sacrifice was (theoretically) viewed as a great honour and those who were sacrificed were treated like kings before they were killed, and were supposed to go to the highest levels of Mesoamerica "heaven".
However that does not actually mean that human sacrifice is right, it's objectively wrong. But to be fair I don't think she's arguing that human sacrifice is right, just that the Aztecs and general mesoamerica had some "justification" for it in their world views.
1 parameciidae 2018-06-27
Also, right now we have people literally blowing themselves up in part because of their religious beliefs about the afterlife. But, we aren't supposed to study a culture based on what they believed about themselves and how they viewed the sacrifice.
1 Lezzymclezface 2018-06-27
Cause human sacrifice for spiritual strength and climate change beliefs is infantile and evil, but if you are a euro torturing and killing masses so they believe in your God is a-ok with the mayos lol. Anyone that can’t understand her argument here is dumb dumb dumb.
1 __Toradorable__ 2018-06-27
TBH I'm not against this. I'm all for human sacrifice as long as they make it public.
1 _Suprememe_ 2018-06-27
Only if the executioners are privatized outfits.
1 __Toradorable__ 2018-06-27
Agreed. I hate it when governments legalise something only because they want to give their buddies a monopoly on it.
1 SexyCannibal 2018-06-27
I really shouldn't be surprised that Gregory Malchuk is up in her replies talking about infant circumcision. This is like the 5th time this week that I've been looking at something completely unrelated to baby penises, yet there is Gregory Malchuk in the comments sperging out about foreskins and how the Jews are running a multi-million dollar circumcision racket.
1 Leftist_Degenerate 2018-06-27
I've noticed that faggots are particularly into foreskins and ass-eating and so forth. Like they have to demonstrate their cock-fervor by getting into the grossest possible sex acts.
1 CHADCYBERBULLY 2018-06-27
Without the harvesting of faggot and nigger skulls, my crop will not grow and my children will starve. Killing if I get lucky and find a faggot nigger, I can skip having to kill one for a week.
1 CommonThroat 2018-06-27
Imagine being so liberal you think refusing to bake a cake is bigotry but humans being sacrificed to idols is diversity
1 snallygaster 2018-06-27
I like her twitter avatar
1 aqouta 2018-06-27
Human sacrifice was a sign of a very interesting cognative revolution where people were toying with the basics of investment, sacrifice a little now for a lot later, sacrifice a lot now for even more later. What's more than a human life? Unfortunately that was before they learned that there was no karmic entity that balanced the books of suffering and pleasure so their sacrifices were total wastes and then Spanish people killed them.
1 Leftist_Degenerate 2018-06-27
Imagine getting conquered by fucking Spain
1 TheRealTrueDarkLord 2018-06-27
We do need to bring back virgin sacrifices, but that would mean most of Reddit's audience would be lost.
1 UnexpectedLizard 2018-06-27
This woman is a fucking moron.
The Mexica almost always sacrificed people from other tribes who didn't even believe in their death cult religion.
She got even her central premise wrong in her eagerness to virtue signal.
1 Mishima-Yukio 2018-06-27
Their ideology is so strange. They don't seem to understand that the Aztecs were the local slavers and imperialists. Cool article anyway.
1 Chobeat 2018-06-27
The surplus population that was consumed by sacrifices because not employable but still consuming, is the same population that now writes SJW stuff on the internet, thanks to Capitalism terrible mismanagement of excess labour. Let it sink in.
1 blocksyourpath2 2018-06-27
imagine being such a colonialist that you think the sun will continue rising if we don't murder thousands of people and display their skulls! Fucking ignorant westerners!
1 Leftist_Degenerate 2018-06-27
Aztec slavers are pretty OP in Civ6
1 Raminelwolf 2018-06-27
"Ruling-class barbarity is fine as long as brown people do it."
1 leparsdon 2018-06-27
Well waddaya know? Evil and good aint always soooo black and white. Got some gray bits in there too
1 ffbtaw 2018-06-27
Yes, they definitely wanted it, little sluts.
1 Sks44 2018-06-27
It’s all fun and modern to hate on the Spaniards who landed in central and South America but they saw some really horrific shit. Doesn’t excuse everything that went down but some of the records they returned with were all sorts of fucked up.
1 zhaoliya 2018-06-27
>Thinking anthropology is a science
1 shitINtheCANDYdish 2018-06-27
PEAK DEGENERACY
1 partyinyourgrave 2018-06-27
white women are literally of the devil and should be mass killed. here's why (and that's a good thing). take any evil act, and you'll find these thots to be the most enthusiastic supporters of it. fucking mindless retards.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-06-27
well i mean, she isn't wrong to a certain degree. it's hard to imagine wanting to go to war and hoping you die in battle, but that's exactly what vikings where like, cause they believe dying in battle means you get to go to a heaven dimension where you get to beat the shit out of each other, fuck hot wenches, and be perpetually drunk for eternity.
who's to say some people getting sacrificed didn't also feel psyched about whatever pretend dimension their whacky religion said they would get to party in? also, modern day example, people LITERALLY ASPLODE THEMSELVES because they believe they get to party with 70 tight young virgins for eternity.
religion is kooky.
1 muck4doo 2018-06-27
Not their faults. It was started by the Phoenicians, Africans, and Chinese who arrived and started the Olmec empire.
1 Patrick_Magee 2018-06-27
Her: "When trying to understand historical events it's crucial to be aware of how your own culture influences how you interpret and perceive these events".
Complete Retards: "OMG STOP DEFENDING HUMAN SACRIFICE?"
1 nithingpole 2018-06-27
Except she thinks all her cultural references involve white guilt.
1 Patrick_Magee 2018-06-27
What the fuck are you even talking about?
1 Burnnoticelover 2018-06-27
Imagine being dis fucking WOKE
1 throwawayact69 2018-06-27
This bullshit is why prof memerson got big in the first place.
1 saint2e 2018-06-27
As Canadians, I don't think I'm able to fully appreciate the culture which led to child immigrants being separated from their parents at the border and being detained, so I refuse to call it evil.