NEW CONTRAPOINTS - ENVY

[Retinend]

I'm envious that all this top tier Nietzsche chat is not taking place in my Shelf Abuse thread specifically about this video and Nietzsche.

[Dr Rock]

Trying posting a. first. and b. in the correct forum.

[Retinend]

miaow

[Johnny Yesno]

miaow

I've just posted the obligatory standard response in your thread, if it helps.

[greenman]

It was also interesting seeing Envy on the back of the Plymouth shooting, Wynn's idea being that incel culture is one driven by envy. Envy as opposed to greed or jealousy, in that a sufficient outcome is 'If I can't have it/them, no one can.'

That does I think make a lot of sense since really dispute claims of traditional masculinity being protected the real ideals for the whole net bro movement tend to be rich sucessful men not some 50's steel worker supporting a family in suburba. The idea that selfish ambition should automatically give them a similar life to some bro CEO and that if it doesn't then some kind of liberal enemy is to blame.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

aphorism 341?

Yes! Great stuff.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

[moved to Shelf Abuse]

[chveik]

Okay I shall qualify by saying that for a layman like me this high level philosophy with it's language and terms is very inaccessible and comes across as insanely obtuse, so to have it processed and simplified is a good thing.

the problem here isn't that it's simplified but that's its a wrong interpretation imo. vulgarisation doesn't have a virtue in itself, you have to evaluate if it works or not. if there was no reasons for the langage to be opaque at times, you'd just have to read an encyclopedia to know everything about concepts

i would also say you don't need to read nietzsche and anyone to disagree with her political assessment

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Fair play she was on point in describing why the Genealogy is so good to read. Its far from my favourite but it does read like Mephistopheles spunked it on to the page right in front of my stupid face.

[jsgibble]

Overall I feel this video was more nuanced than it was given credit for (by the people praising it, even).

Maybe the contrarianism of the tone in her videos is laid on a bit thick. Nonetheless, the ideas here are interesting. I also remember really liking the video about JK Rowling that went into how moral outrage is used by reactionaries.

[TrenterPercenter]

Ah wondered where the discussion was on this.  Why not keep it in the actual "Contrapoints" thread or is it best now to take each video as it's own thing.....anyhoo.

In the main I enjoyed it; though I recognised it was massively flawed in lots of areas.  As I've mentioned before I only listen to these things whilst I'm doing some work so the whole theatre, costumes etc.. are lost on me but it means I don't really care about the length longer the better imo as it's something to listen too.  That being said I agree as some have pointed out this was an overly long treatise on something quite simple and "common sense" based really on one trick of going ahhhh did you know "envy" is different from "jealousy" ahhhh. Errr Yes.

VGF2K has some key points about needing to read the text yourself but this of course is what philosophers do if they want to be philosophers (even if they are lay philosophers); they then develop they're subjective thinking and insight on things - "how to" is different from "what it is".  However in any real world sense this is limited; and in compensation there is a lot of mixing up of armchair psychology in all of these things; I mean why do you need to postulate on things why not go and test them in the real world? (because it's more fun to be a philosopher I guess).  This can sometimes have the impression that there is some underlying "philosophy of humanity"  that is generally very poorly linked to realities of having brains and minds interacting in environments (good to see CP brought in some of the overly maligned Freud in here who was actually a positivist and not just a psychoanalytical theorist - we've got better models to work with now that are a bit more sophisticated than the Id etc..but Freud is a good foundational starting place).  Still this stuff is massively important for discussions and a kind of blue sky thinking which I think CP does really well at doing.

I was great to see CP also vindicate some things I've been saying for years now about the mental environments leftists have surrounded themselves with; how this has lead to corrosive reactive mindsets that are based on little more than someone displaying their distress through the medium of moralistic elitism (if you need a 2hr philosophical exploration of Envy to get this, fine whatever it takes, this is CPs skill as a communicator I guess).  She even directly pointed to feminist viewpoints that have fed into this, literally my point of what she was failing to recognise in her last video (that apparently I didn't watch ffs).  The video is largely a big vehicle to say to people that have convinced themselves of their own righteousness and moral superiority on group identity issues to stop being such arseholes.  Which is about time, but anyone paying attention would see this is already being spoken about in much better real life and solution focused ways elsewhere.   This is CPs major failing in that she rarely provides any solutions; it's much easier to preach than protect and it means she can never be pinned down too much and can turn around as she does regularly and say "but this was all a drunken joke anyway, I don't know what to do, I'm messed up myself no one should listen to me" (but please subscribe to my patreon).  I still would because I think at this stage there is still a net benefit occurring; here again it's great audience "levelling" that gives access to the materials.

The Marie Antoinette bit was abysmal and seemingly only based on the well known fact she didn't actually say let them eat cake as opposed to anything else.  Obviously thinking all disputes of integrity are based on envy is shit for cunts you don't need any master and slave dynamic to understand this (massive Nietzsche yawn - YTubers usually right-wingers can't get enough!).  Resentment develops, is changeable and can have multiple causations and flavours.  The environment of which hierarchies are a key part of create the conditions for hatred to occur but as I've said elsewhere because of the rewards and benefits of moralistic elitism there is a reluctance for broader attempts at empathy being enacted outside of the groups deemed "worthy" of it.  Envy is also a two way street but very little was said of the monetarisation of desire (a key base of advertising and internal confidence building).  The solutions here are complicated and will be unable to account for individuals and identity demands; therefore they need to be based out of necessity, and these will of course be approximations that are to be negotiated; but and you can't negotiate with people that are screaming racist or sexist at people because they know it holds currencies in the hierarchies they have a vested interest in maintaining.  Which is really useful for people that never want to see change......perhaps think about this and why so much of what CP has said here maps so well to neo-liberal thinking.

[chveik]

the real world eh

[TrenterPercenter]

the real world eh

Another misery post.  Seriously though yes in the "real world" people do not simply behave by the philosophies of syphilitic (frequently flat out wrong) 19th century thinkers; there is much more to consider than these broad brushstroke ideas on human thought and behaviour; it's why we have since developed new sciences to understand this all better and not be reliant on, usually white, usually relatively well off, usually archaic and therefore messianic like "thinkers" to decide how everything works. 

Freud to his credit was actually an empiricist who tried to prove his ideas with real life data.

[chveik]

no misery, it's a terrible take that reeks of anti-intellectualism and a lack of historical perspective (and aren't you supposed to be against this kind of silly reductionnism?, marx was white too) i know all too well the insecurity psychologists have towards philosophy, dunno why they couldn't coexist peacefully

[bgmnts]

Just stop being so miserable people.

[TrenterPercenter]

no misery, it's a terrible take that reeks of anti-intellectualism and a lack of historical perspective (and aren't you supposed to be against this kind of silly reductionnism?, marx was white too) i know all too well the insecurity psychologists have towards philosophy, dunno why they couldn't coexist peacefully

Eh? There is no insecurity here is there I love philosophy??! I think it might be you that is being insecure as you seem to think what I've written is saying philosophy is worthless or something; when all I said was it was limited and specifically when it is trying to be specific about human psychology.  Of course philosophy and psychology coexist peacefully; that coexistence is based on the limitations and acceptance of each other.

I'm saying philosophies that are trying to quantify and classify human thoughts and behaviour are improved by including the psychological evidence-based understandings of human thought and behaviour that has been accrued over the last century - how the fuck that is anti-intellectualism I've no idea.  I'm not against saying the majority of western philosophy is compromised of old affluent white dudes because it is evidently true; I'm against suggesting that whiteness has a psychological basis and that psychology is biologically reducible to race.  Something very different from pointing out there are a lot of white people in a particular group (I'm pro-positive discrimination where disparities in representation exist as a temporary lever of social change; I'm just not pro race and gender reductionism because you know......it's racist and sexist).

PS - I don't think you know anything about psychologists insecurities or otherwise btw, you seemed to only just learn they weren't the same as psychiatrists yesterday.

[TrenterPercenter]

Just stop being so miserable people.

Not quite; stop (not unlike incels) festering your brains in miserable environments run by bully boy moral elitism; because it will unsurprisingly make you feel miserable (oh and do fuck all about anything ever).

[bgmnts]

Not quite; stop (not unlike incels) festering your brains in miserable environments run by bully boy moral elitism; because it will unsurprisingly make you feel miserable (oh and do fuck all about anything ever).

l

I live a vegan lifestyle, shop as ethically as I can and vote with my conscious, not much more I personally can do, or most could, against the things I despise about the world.

I know you're better than all of us but you can't stop some people being miserable because the world is how it is. Until it gets better, we wont get better.

[chveik]

PS - I don't think you know anything about psychologists insecurities or otherwise btw, you seemed to only just learn they weren't the same as psychiatrists yesterday.

of course i know, i've spent quite a lot of time in both services, you probably minsunderstood me, as usual

[Blumf]

Am I jealous or envious of people reading other threads right now?

[TrenterPercenter]

I live a vegan lifestyle, shop as ethically as I can and vote with my conscious, not much more I personally can do, or most could, against the things I despise about the world.

Your individual vegan lifestyle and your individual ethical shopping and your individual voting isn't going to save the world.  That's the first thing you need to accept; the next thing is that people don't listen to those that are miserable, frequently angry and ready to dish out very poorly thought out and hypocritical systems of morality.

I know you're better than all of us but you can't stop some people being miserable because the world is how it is. Until it gets better, we wont get better.

Sorry lad but it's a pretty desperate switcharoo you are trying here.  I'm also not stopping you from being miserable I'm telling you that this better world that you want won't be created by masses of people following your approach.  I'm massively up for heat death; an end to individual suffering of a sorts for me; however I don't think it is fair on the kids that follow which means the left getting it's fucking shit together and stopping it's whiney temper tantrum and its unconscious emulation of rightwing reductionists.

[TrenterPercenter]

Your both having a go at me; but take this to Contrapoints as she is the one calling out this shit and literally giving you an explanation (that I just think could be improved) along the way of why it is the case.

I'm just in agreement with her.

[TrenterPercenter]

of course i know, i've spent quite a lot of time in both services, you probably minsunderstood me, as usual

If I've misunderstood you then I apologise; but I think this is reciprocal in that you quite clearly misunderstood the difference between saying something has limitations and engaging in "anti-intellectualism".  Please more intellectualism not less.

[chveik]

Your both having a go at me; but take this to Contrapoints as she is the one calling out this shit and literally giving you an explanation (that I just think could be improved) along the way of why it is the case.

I'm just in agreement with her.

not i'm not envious of you. i've previously written why i didn't agree with her, if you're not bothered to read them fine but don't put words in my mouth. also citation needed on where i said being miserable was some kind of solution.

[TrenterPercenter]

not i'm not envious of you. i've previously written why i didn't agree with her, if you're not bothered to read them fine but don't put words in my mouth. also citation needed on where i said being miserable was some kind of solution.

I didn't say you were envious of me??.  Bizarre comment again with no grounding in anything said; again you are arguing with her not me.

I've read what you said and I agree that regarding all criticisms as envy and resentment is flawed (and I've said as much in what I wrote but you decided to ignore that in favour of some guff about anti-intellectualism).  CP is correct in calling out what has become an elitist moralistic crusade with very little consideration for it's impacts or what it actually does (because there isn't anything there) she is over reliant on Envy as the primary vehicle when there are multiple factors that align around several themes, primarily; elitism yet a refutation of elitism; power in discourse yet a dismissal that their discourse is powerful; empathy avoidance and systems of maintaining this void and reductionism both biological and moral.  This has much more to the do with the impact of online discourse, communication and the relationship between this and personal psychology; what is being termed prolificity (here some modern philosophy for you https://read.dukeupress.edu/new-german-critique/article-abstract/46/2%20(137)/1/139152/From-Authenticity-to-ProfilicityA-Critical).

This egocentrism and moralistic obsession is what leads you keep making gotcha sorry failed gotcha posts and never recognising or apologising for them; you seem to think (like someone else) that never recognising your own mistakes is a badge on honour when really it's just what cunts do; but if you are a cunt that has told yourself it's ok to be a cunt because your morally superior then you never have reflect on this or puzzle at this hypocrisy; and that is the main message that CP is actually saying in the video that she has just housed into envy to soften the blow.

[chveik]

I've read what you said and I agree

i'm glad to hear this

[bgmnts]

Is having a consistent set of ethical principles a moralistic obsession? Seems an odd stance to me that but I'm down in the muck with the rest or lefties.

[TrenterPercenter]

Is having a consistent set of ethical principles a moralistic obsession? Seems an odd stance to me that but I'm down in the muck with the rest or lefties.

No having a consistent set of inclusive ethical principles is great.  Having a set of inconsistent exclusionary ethical principles and using them to game arguments, humilate and belittle others whilst displaying zero reflective capacity on this is very wrong.

It's just like when evangelicals hold a set of ethical principles because they believe they are special, chosen by god and are of a different sort to the sinners; are different from those people that genuinely want to help others.  The pious are the very antithesis of the humble.

[chveik]

i have no clue what any of this means i'm afraid