Sex

shock_the_monkey wrote:

perejil wrote:How do you know there's no "external gain" /nothing positive accomplished, besides "feeling good" or superior?

... let me ask you this: what would it have been?

In Contrast's case? Maybe the guy actually believed what he was saying and felt it was worth taking a stand for, even if ultimately he failed to persuade. Maybe he thought it was cowardly to be silent and complacent in the face of something morally objectionable. Maybe he wasn't doing it in order to jockey for political power but because he actually meant it.

In the case of this forum or anywhere else? Same thing.

Calling out someone's shady tactics can accomplish more than just nursing the "caller's" self righteous superiority.

Firstly, it gives other people permission to feel the same, people who might have been afraid to speak out. People who might have been afraid to even think such a thing because everyone else appeared to think otherwise. They were alone. Maybe they were just crazy, or stupid, or overreacting. What was wrong with them? Saying "such-and-such is true" is validating for everyone who also believes that such-and-such is true. It's comforting for people to know they're not alone, that the spin being put on a situation is simply that: spin, politics, expedient. And not reality itself. And it's still comforting to know that, even if nothing else changes.

Secondly, it preserves the integrity of the truth, objective truth, apart from political expedient. The danger of claiming the emperor is wearing clothes or that so-and-so is a Communist (for example) isn't in saying it. The real danger is in coming to believe that it's true. Reality seems so malleable: people fail to think for themselves. Reality and the truth becomes whatever everyone says that they are. Calling people out sometimes curtails this errosion of the truth. The tendency to go with the flow, follow the herd. It forces people to think for themselves instead of just believing what is convinient or what other people tell them. Of course, no one person has a corner on The Truth, but challenging the status quo never did much harm, I think.

Also, it forces people to consider the moral question rather than sweeping it under the rug with a shrug and a "no one can do anything about this anyway, so why bother?" People ought to be able to justify their actions in terms of right and wrong, not just in terms of what works/what is easy/what everyone else is doing.

So... that.

^ I agree. More or less what the Bear said as well:

1PolarBear wrote:Posturing is important if you want to separate yourself from some people or behavior, otherwise you end up complicit. I would say it is the reverse of pathetic, but it can be if that is all you do to some degree. Mainly about image I suppose, but not necessarily, if you truly believe in something.

I'm not sure about the posturing thing ...

I mean, if you're in touch with your emotions, and what you feel in the moment aligns with whatever position you are defending, why posturing? You can always access the appropriate emotion to support your stance.

So posturing as an expedient maybe ...

What do emotions have to do with anything?

If you are against killing cats, and you are in a group where people kill cats, and you can't really stop them, then you will posture, and say you disapprove, and might possibly leave that group, otherwise, you are complicit in the behavior. It's about principles, not how you feel. So there is nothing pathetic in doing that, aside that you are powerless to change anything, but at least you tried.

What is pathetic is virtue signalling. So you are in a group against cat killing, and then you accuse people of cat killing, so that you are more accepted in the group. Either that, or you are hypervigilant to find an heretic in your group, and the virtue signal in order to ostracize people that are not extreme enough. That is pathetic. And it is pathetic because it is shallow and has no reason of substance except for a semblance of power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

I'm not sure I could name a virtue I hold above myself. Could anybody here?

-- Tue May 15, 2018 7:14 pm --

Most of my issues would probably be related to lacking a Superego by Freud I think

solemnlysworn wrote:I'm not sure I could name a virtue I hold above myself. Could anybody here?

... one. though i don't really count. and any self-respecting panentheist would say that.

WHAT? what does that mean? because i want to answer of course but i am not sure i understood it correctly because wtf

(also i have no idea what was that previous discussion about and what happened which is weird apparently i don't read the forum as much as i thought.

i agree with polarbear.it can also be done the opposite way ,when someone tries to be cruel to fit in.
eh..
do you know how many assholes claim to be empathetic and religious and do cruel things in the name of god and love.hypocrites.people need to learn to see actions and not words

-- Tue May 15, 2018 10:59 pm --

Especcially with narcissism that they care about impression and what others think.if society thinks is more admirable to be moral. then you will say that and even believe it ,nomatter what you really are.It's never about what you really are,is about what others admire

i hold above me the unity of all that was, is, and will ever be.

solemnlysworn wrote:I'm not sure I could name a virtue I hold above myself. Could anybody here?

I don't know.

solemnlysworn wrote:I'm not sure I could name a virtue I hold above myself. Could anybody here?

Depends, I guess. How perfect at it do you have to be before you can claim to hold a certain virtue?