RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[South Odreria 2]

The cult of dionysus varied widely in its practices over the years, as shown in the Percy Jackson books.

[Fahran]

They’re really not.

Why not?

Lèse-Majesté, by the way, is equally shit.
I don’t know if that counts as a whataboutism.

This is an exceedingly modern or even post-modern assessment and one that would have been alien to people throughout much of history because they had a genuine faith and fear of the divine and were not radically removed and alienated from social institutions with the alternative to pursue secular theological abstractions. You'd, of course, have a select few individuals who experienced resentment, alienation, and nihilism but it would have manifested quite differently.

[Fahran]

The cult of dionysus varied widely in its practices over the years, as shown in the Percy Jackson books.

Dionysus's cults, and their pre-Mycenaean and Mycenaean equivalents, existed for around three thousand years in all likelihood, beginning with the diffusion of wine to Greece and ending at the close of the Hellenistic Age. Mycenaean Dionysus, Orphic Dionysus, and the Dionysus which Marcus Antonius worshipped would have been almost incomprehensible to one another because, fundamentally, they were almost distinct deities that were separated by hundreds if not thousands of years and all existing in unique social and theological contexts.

[Sildorian Empire]

They’re really not.

Why not?

Lèse-Majesté, by the way, is equally shit.
I don’t know if that counts as a whataboutism.

This is an exceedingly modern or even post-modern assessment and one that would have been alien to people throughout much of history because they had a genuine faith and fear of the divine and were not radically removed and alienated from social institutions with the alternative to pursue secular theological abstractions. You'd, of course, have a select few individuals who experienced resentment, alienation, and nihilism but it would have manifested quite differently.

I mean, the fact the guy in charge made it a law that "We shall punish everyone that says something about me that I don't like" doesn't make that law any less stupid. It just makes the person making that into law extremely petty.

[Fahran]

I mean, the fact the guy in charge made it a law that "We shall punish everyone that says something about me that I don't like" doesn't make that law any less stupid. It just makes the person making that into law extremely petty.

Handling civic disrespect harshly wasn't and isn't necessarily about being petty. The underlying assumption behind it isn't too distinct from arguments in favor of human dignity - the respect and reverence we owe to someone solely due to their status as human beings. The argument is that the sovereign, whether that be the polis or a king, intrinsically deserves a particular amount of respect and reverence because of their status and social role. It's not really been a revolutionary idea throughout human history. We see, for instance, that as early as Hammurabi parents were seen to deserve a certain level of respect from their children by virtue of birthing and rearing them and occupying a position of authority over them. In the context of that paradigm, a sovereign or deity would deserve infinitely more respect in many cases.

[Sildorian Empire]

I mean, the fact the guy in charge made it a law that "We shall punish everyone that says something about me that I don't like" doesn't make that law any less stupid. It just makes the person making that into law extremely petty.

Handling civic disrespect harshly wasn't and isn't necessarily about being petty. The underlying assumption behind it isn't too distinct from arguments in favor of human dignity - the respect and reverence we owe to someone solely due to their status as human beings. The argument is that the sovereign, whether that be the polis or a king, intrinsically deserves a particular amount of respect and reverence because of their status and social role. It's not really been a revolutionary idea throughout human history. We see, for instance, that as early as Hammurabi parents were seen to deserve a certain level of respect from their children by virtue of birthing and rearing them and occupying a position of authority over them. In the context of that paradigm, a sovereign or deity would deserve infinitely more respect in many cases.

"We've done it this way for a long time" doesn't make something any less stupid -or wrong- though. It was just as stupid during Hamurabi's reign (when it was "if you insult your parents you get legal punishment") as it is now in Thailand. And honestly, Lèse-Majesté was never about human dignity. It was about a class of thin-skinned, petty people who couldn't handle being insulted by their "lessers".

[Deacarsia]

"We've done it this way for a long time" doesn't make something any less stupid -or wrong- though. It was just as stupid during Hamurabi's reign (when it was "if you insult your parents you get legal punishment") as it is now in Thailand. And honestly, Lèse-Majesté was never about human dignity. It was about a class of thin-skinned, petty people who couldn't handle being insulted by their "lessers".

“I think it is stupid” and “old things are bad” are not good arguments either.

[Valrifell]

"We've done it this way for a long time" doesn't make something any less stupid -or wrong- though. It was just as stupid during Hamurabi's reign (when it was "if you insult your parents you get legal punishment") as it is now in Thailand. And honestly, Lèse-Majesté was never about human dignity. It was about a class of thin-skinned, petty people who couldn't handle being insulted by their "lessers".

“I think it is stupid” and “old things are bad” are not good arguments either.

Critically analyzing the past and traditions we have now is tad more nuanced than either of those things.

[Bear Stearns]

Good morning everyone! Let's get this bread.

[Diopolis]

Good morning everyone! Let's get this bread.
(Image)

*Checks the loaf for NWO tracking devices*

[Valrifell]

Good morning everyone! Let's get this bread.
(Image)

Bread is a leftist construct, welcome to the struggle, Comrade.

[Diopolis]

Good morning everyone! Let's get this bread.
(Image)

Bread is a leftist construct, welcome to the struggle, Comrade.

On the contrary, bread is right wing.

[Cekoviu]

Bread is a leftist construct, welcome to the struggle, Comrade.

On the contrary, bread is right wing.

only when it's cooked by submissive repressed housewives

[Diopolis]

On the contrary, bread is right wing.

only when it's cooked by submissive repressed housewives

This is probably the worldwide(not to mention historic) norm.

[Cekoviu]

only when it's cooked by submissive repressed housewives

This is probably the worldwide(not to mention historic) norm.

according to revisionist patriarchal HIStory, yes

[Diopolis]

This is probably the worldwide(not to mention historic) norm.

according to revisionist patriarchal HIStory, yes

I'm not super down with secular prehistory narratives, but isn't patriarchy there supposed to be the result of agriculture(which is basically necessary for bread to be a dietary staple)?

[Cekoviu]

according to revisionist patriarchal HIStory, yes

I'm not super down with secular prehistory narratives, but isn't patriarchy there supposed to be the result of agriculture(which is basically necessary for bread to be a dietary staple)?

removing the irony mask for a second: iirc, those gender roles mostly developed in early human society because women were incapacitated much of the time due to constant pregnancy (because of the lack of birth control), which means they couldn't help as much with growing food, going to war with other ethnicities for no reason, etc. cooking would be somewhat easier because it requires less exertion
now we have birth control and medications though, so that doesn't hold up at all for the modern day :)

[Fahran]

"We've done it this way for a long time" doesn't make something any less stupid -or wrong- though.

That's not the whole crux of the argument. My point is that we're approaching class-based and hierarchal respect from what is probably the closest to a classless society we've ever come and making a lot of assumptions about why it existed and the social function it played.

It was just as stupid during Hamurabi's reign (when it was "if you insult your parents you get legal punishment") as it is now in Thailand.

I'm not in favor of lese-majeste laws but to dismiss them as mere stupidity or conceit isn't a critical analysis. And, frankly, we should still seek to preserve some of these forms of respect and reverence through social censure. It's ill-mannered to curse at your mother or an elderly person for instance. It's puerile and vulgar to disrespect Supreme Court justices. It's blasphemy to insult G-d. Etc. etc. etc.

And honestly, Lèse-Majesté was never about human dignity. It was about a class of thin-skinned, petty people who couldn't handle being insulted by their "lessers".

I never asserted that it was. Human dignity is the respect you receive automatically for being a human being regardless of your worth to society, your station, your basic morality, or your gravitas. I'm merely pointing out that some people are owed more respect by virtue of the attributes or station - and that defaulting to human dignity isn't always appropriate. In a lot of contexts, it disrupts social order and is crass. Lese-majeste isn't about being petty. It's about insisting on what is deserved in social context and about insisting on respect and loyalty to the community and principles of justice. Thailand, to some extent, is a society that puts emphasis on dharma and the King is meant to uphold dharma and justice. Disrespecting him is disrespecting those concepts. It's a lot more complex than having your feelings hurt by a troll.

[Fahran]

This is probably the worldwide(not to mention historic) norm.

according to revisionist patriarchal HIStory, yes

Why do you abuse Latin etymologies so?

[Remaris]

“I think it is stupid” and “old things are bad” are not good arguments either.

Critically analyzing the past and traditions we have now is tad more nuanced than either of those things.

I started writing this post in response to the above but ended up going on a bit of a tangent. Still, I think it's a worthwhile contribution to the thread.

Respecting the past and tradition is of course the fundamental characteristic of conservative political thought, but it would be a mistake to think that means preserving some kind of ossified society where nothing ever changes for eternity. The world is a dynamic place, and governments and societies need to be able to change and adapt in response wider changes in geopolitics, technology and scientific understanding amongst other things. Nonetheless, the distinction conservatives make between "organic" and "inorganic" change is a worthwhile one even if it may sometimes be difficult to see the difference. We should assume that traditions, laws and institutions are generally created for a reason and are therefore better left alone unless there is a clear practical reason to do otherwise. Enacting change in response to a particular situation that demands it is what we'd call organic change, as opposed to launching a succession of radical changes aimed purely at achieving a particular ideological goal by reshaping society according to the ideal of the "reformers," which is what the left has historically sought to do and often succeeded in doing. Society and state should be thought of as an organic entity, like a plant requiring occasional pruning to remain healthy. Radicals of various stripes tend to think of the constitution of the state more like a mobile phone- something to be tossed out periodically and replaced with the latest model. Likewise, wider society is continuously being "reinvented" by top-down social engineering.

I think that lèse-majesté, at least in the extreme form that exists in Thailand, can justifiably be considered a tradition that needs altering or eliminating. However, in a more general sense I do not believe that it is healthy for us to keep obsessively "criticising and re-evaluating" existing traditions or institutions. In general the government governs best that governs least, and that means leaving existing laws and processes of government intact as far as possible. Otherwise we end up like France, going through two empires, two kingdoms and five republics all in the space of around 200 years.

[Fahran]

Critically analyzing the past and traditions we have now is tad more nuanced than either of those things.

Except asserting that lese-majeste laws are the result of pettiness isn't really a critical analysis because it doesn't attempt to understand the philosophical and theological underpinnings that justified and, in some places, still justify them.

[Diopolis]

I'm not super down with secular prehistory narratives, but isn't patriarchy there supposed to be the result of agriculture(which is basically necessary for bread to be a dietary staple)?

removing the irony mask for a second: iirc, those gender roles mostly developed in early human society because women were incapacitated much of the time due to constant pregnancy (because of the lack of birth control), which means they couldn't help as much with growing food, going to war with other ethnicities for no reason, etc. cooking would be somewhat easier because it requires less exertion
now we have birth control and medications though, so that doesn't hold up at all for the modern day

I think you're underweighting the role of upper body strength in gender roles. Things like killing bears with a spear, plowing a field, cutting down trees, swinging a battering ram, and laying bricks take more upper body strength than baking and spinning.

[Diopolis]

according to revisionist patriarchal HIStory, yes

Why do you abuse Latin etymologies so?

That's a Greek etymology.

[South Odreria 2]

Critically analyzing the past and traditions we have now is tad more nuanced than either of those things.

I started writing this post in response to the above but ended up going on a bit of a tangent. Still, I think it's a worthwhile contribution to the thread.

Respecting the past and tradition is of course the fundamental characteristic of conservative political thought, but it would be a mistake to think that means preserving some kind of ossified society where nothing ever changes for eternity. The world is a dynamic place, and governments and societies need to be able to change and adapt in response wider changes in geopolitics, technology and scientific understanding amongst other things. Nonetheless, the distinction conservatives make between "organic" and "inorganic" change is a worthwhile one even if it may sometimes be difficult to see the difference. We should assume that traditions, laws and institutions are generally created for a reason and are therefore better left alone unless there is a clear practical reason to do otherwise. Enacting change in response to a particular situation that demands it is what we'd call organic change, as opposed to launching a succession of radical changes aimed purely at achieving a particular ideological goal by reshaping society according to the ideal of the "reformers," which is what the left has historically sought to do and often succeeded in doing. Society and state should be thought of as an organic entity, like a plant requiring occasional pruning to remain healthy. Radicals of various stripes tend to think of the constitution of the state more like a mobile phone- something to be tossed out periodically and replaced with the latest model. Likewise, wider society is continuously being "reinvented" by top-down social engineering.

I think that lèse-majesté, at least in the extreme form that exists in Thailand, can justifiably be considered a tradition that needs altering or eliminating. However, in a more general sense I do not believe that it is healthy for us to keep obsessively "criticising and re-evaluating" existing traditions or institutions. In general the government governs best that governs least, and that means leaving existing laws and processes of government intact as far as possible. Otherwise we end up like France, going through two empires, two kingdoms and five republics all in the space of around 200 years.

“Government governs best that governs least” > literally an abstract “ideological goal” that right wingers trash tradition to reshape society according to

[Fahran]

Why do you abuse Latin etymologies so?

That's a Greek etymology.

And so it is.