> Philip Pilkington wrote:
>
> I see we both repulse each other... you by your puritanical
> moralism... me by my contrarianism.
>
> Interesting points by both, lets not try and negate either by crass
> appeals to my keeping "playing the harp". No one else has tried to
> deploy this judgement within this entire thread for obvious reasons. I
> haven't "insulted" anyone, I've simply criticised... to think that
> I've actually "insulted" anyone is exactly the "victim-moralism" I'm
> talking about...
>
>
> Appeal to my points, and not my apparent "insults".
>
> ...............
>
>
>
> Philip, it's really not possible to appeal to your points since your
> points are based on the idea that someone, somewhere (and apparently
> in crypto form, since you can't find any examples) has been indulging
> in what you call "victim-moralism".
>
>
> But since no one's done that, it's difficult to know precisely what
> you're objecting to.
>
>
> Listen, I get it. You have this argument neatly packed and you're
> dying to use it here. In other contexts and with a different audience
> it's really been a bombshell.
>
> Trouble is, it doesn't actually apply to the people you're currently
> trying to lecture. In fact, they're all aware of the phenomena you
> describe and agree with you that it happens in the big old wide world.
>
> It just didn't happen here, on this list, in this thread, at this time.
>
>
>
> The original discussion was about the mechanics of how the Prop 8 vote
> in California turned out. Some blamed the Bible and the South,
> others looked to subtler explanations. And still others -- well, just
> you really -- pulled out some notes long kept in a back pocket and
> recited them, regardless of whether or not they applied.
>
>
> And the greatest irony is that you claim your parsings, unlike others,
> are delving into the particulars of individual cultures. For example,
> when you replied to Jordan that I'm a "puritanical moralist" because I
> supposedly:
>
>
> apply[...] the moral framework which you've learned from a certain
> segment of society to others which are completely different... which
> is a variation of the following: every culture should be similar and
> familiar to my own...
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> But of course, by championing explanations from history and citing
> actually relevant works I, along with shag and D. Claxton, have been
> talking all along about the way African American life has been
> individually shaped by general American trends.
>
>
> Charles Grimes did the hard work and wrote about his findings here:
>
>
> "Social conservatism, revisited"
>
> <
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20081201/020472.html
> >
>
>
> I suggest you do the same. I suspect however, that you'll just keep
> on pretending this is some graduate philosophy seminar and keep
> announcing ideas most of us are deeply familiar with as if they're
> shockingly "contrarian" and startlingly new.
>
>
>
>
> I suppose you'll next show up at a medical school and breathlessly
> declare the germ theory of disease.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .d.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
My precise objection?
A smothering of particular cultural manifestations through an appeal to some sort of higher perfection. That's all. Really.
I mean this on both a practical and idealistic level. First, on a practical level:
(1) I don't believe that people in general (not blacks, hispanics, Americans, Irish... any race you want, but obviously it varies to a greater or lesser degree etc.) can be forced to adhere to certain moral frameworks and hence I suggested that those trying to gain legal rights should "shoot for the real"; i.e. try to recognise that an awful lot of people will remain bigoted for a long time to come and that those that want to push something through should probably try and work around this.
Secondly:
(2) That any attempt to force ANY culture to adhere to a certain moral framework upon various cultures is digusting. This is precisely what I meant by "puritanism". When I said that some were trying to absolve certain cultures from predjudice I saw this as merely an attempt to deny that these cultures produced these predjudices in the first place. Okay, think about it... lets say that I deny a certain predjudice from a certain culture... am I not half way there from dictating exactly what that culture is?
THIS is what I meant by puritanism. And I'm not "cool" with it. To be honest if you look at how the world is currently culturally developing, this isn't simply a "philosophical question" which has been "preformed", this is something which is going on day by day in many countries and cultures.