Joe Rogan IG Post, a Mind Infected by Ideology

[Epikur]

4 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

I would say for the current state of black america for example, that the focus needs to be changed from blaming white supremacy, the system etc. To a focus on personal responsibility and empowerment. How can you change the culture that reinforces single motherhood and criminal behavior? I want these questions to at least be addressed and dealt with in a meaningful way by people on the left like Vaush,

I would agree they are interdependent. But only one side of the equation is discussed in online leftist political thought.

When you point out something like black on black violence, or the dramatic single motherhood rates, there is a label placed on you and the discussion gets shut down before it begins.

Can you show me where a leftist thinker seriously addresses the issue of black woman having multiple children by multiple men, and then rejecting male influence because the government can provide sufficient resources to raise the children. Which leads to men raised by only woman, which then contributes heavily to the dysfunctional culture of black america

 

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The reason personal responsibility is mentioned less is because it's obvious grade school level stuff that nobody denies the importance of, meanwhile the entire right-wing ideology is about actively denying the importance of structural change, so of course that is where you'll see the pushback.

If you were to actually educate yourself on the meaning of empowerment as a social intervention, you'll see that it has both systemic and individualistic aspects to it. It's also the case that structures provide a base for individuals to exercise their power in the first place. You can't build stable family dynamics on top of a pool of lava. You need to start on a firm ground. This is just a rehash of the bootstrap meme.

I wonder when a black person kills somebody how much responsibility does he have like how  much percentage? Or is it wrong to ask that question?

[Carl-Richard]

22 minutes ago, Epikur said:

I wonder when a black person kills somebody how much responsibility does he have like how  much percentage? Or is it wrong to ask that question?

Why you trolling a perfectly good conversation?

[hoodrow trillson]

 

[Epikur]

50 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why you trolling a perfectly good conversation?

Just maybe because I do not think it is trolling

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Epikur said:

Just maybe because I do not think it is trolling

You're conflating retroactive responsibility (e.g. liability) with proactive responsibility (taking action). The former is often a legal issue while the latter is mainly a moral issue. You don't necessarily go to jail for failing to take action and become a value-contributing citizen, especially if you're privileged (e.g. you're leeching off inherited wealth). On the other hand, if your environment is shit, the probability of it turning into a legal matter is much higher. However, this doesn't mean underprivileged people don't have liability.

[Epikur]

29 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You're conflating retroactive responsibility (liability) with proactive responsibility (taking action). The former is a legal issue while the latter is mainly a moral issue. You don't necessarily go to jail for failing to become a value-contributing citizen, but the probability of it becoming a legal matter increases when when there is a lack of privilege, because it's harder to take proactive action within the law when your environment is shit. However, this doesn't mean underprivileged people don't have liability.

I thought about a situation where a black guy kills another person with intent. Let us say it is an average murder case. Let us say his upbringing is a 3. The range is between one and ten.

Let us say we are talking about this in the forum. How much responsibility do we give him for his acts? Range from 1 to 10?

Let us say the same situation for the a white guy. What is his responsibility number? 


 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Epikur

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Epikur said:

I thought about a situation where a black guy kills another person with intent. Let us say it is an average murder case. Let us say his upbringing is a 3. The range is between one and ten.

Let us say we are talking about this in the forum. How much responsibility do we give him for his acts? Range from 1 to 10?

Let us say the same situation for the a whithe guy. What is his responsibility number? 
 

You're talking about a structure aware practice of law, which essentially doesn't exist . I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to let structures affect liability. Just fix the structures.

[Epikur]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You're talking about a structure aware practice of law, which essentially doesn't exist . I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to let structures affect liability. Just fix the structures.

I am not talking about the law actually. More about a guy talking about responsibility regarding a case.

Like let us say you could rate rittenhouse's responsibility for the killing from 1-10. Same might be done with my example. One could also use a real case btw.

[Carl-Richard]

14 minutes ago, Epikur said:

I am not talking about the law actually. More about a guy talking about responsibility regarding a case.

Like let us say you could rate rittenhouse's responsibility for the killing from 1-10. Same might be done with my example. One could also use a real case btw.

It's semantics, I know, but you said it's a murder case. Murder is a legal term, and murder cases are about establishing the extent of liability and punishment. I guess retroactive responsibility isn't necessarily a legal issue. Ok let's say I give a low score. What's your point?

[Epikur]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's semantics, I know, but you said it's a murder case. Murder is a legal term, and murder cases are about establishing the extent of liability and punishment. Ok let's say I give a low score. What's your point?

What is the number for the black guy and for the white guy? Are they the same?

Anyway this is one way to talk about the responsibility problem.

 

[Ry4n]

I went through a lot of hard times in my life and it made me stronger. The end.

More accurately what really creates weak men is high unrealistic expectations of life often resulting from being coddled as a child, alongside having zero direction and understanding of oneself and the grounding that comes from that. Learn to bear suffering and embrace it and you'll be strong.

The world is your oyster after that. Life owes you nothing.

[Epikur]

38 minutes ago, Knowledge Hoarder said:

I remember he once said on his podcast, that one of the main causes of fall of Roman Empire, was that men were starting to get weaker (lol), and willingly invited barbarians into their society and army (which was a cringe jab at modern refugee crisis), and thus Roman Empire got conquered by stronger, more savage men, aka barbarians? Of course, he couldn't be further from the fucking truth, but this is exactly what happens when you're ideological, and you're not informed on the topic. You're just spewing shit and diarrhea.

As it was being pointed out already countless of times, this whole narrative about cyclical development of society (good times - bad times nonsense), doesn't even make sense. What's really happening is, society is slowly but surely becomming more progressive, more liberal, free, conscious, with a lot of conservative setbacks.

Fall of Rome can be viewed as a setback at the first glance, and it certainly seems that way from a cultural and technological standpoint. However, life in roman society was not a good life, as the common folk was being taxed into oblivion to mantain a huge army. Medieval feudal system can be viewed as a progress, compared to that living hell of a life of common "free" roman farmers.

Quote

It’s clear that there was a collapse in learning and much technical capacity as a result of the fragmentation and chaos that followed the fall of the Roman Empire in Western Europe. In places such as southern Gaul or northern Spain, this collapse was a slow decline over several hundred years. In others, such as Britain, it was much more sudden and catastrophic. Modern surveys of archaeological and documentary evidence, such as those summarized by Bryan Ward-Perkins in The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization show that this means a clear decline in material culture and technical capacity between the later Roman era and the seventh century. 

https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/01/medieval-history-why-are-the-middle-ages-often-characterized-as-dark-or-less-civilized.html

[Carl-Richard]

16 minutes ago, Epikur said:

Quote

It’s clear that there was a collapse in learning and much technical capacity as a result of the fragmentation and chaos that followed the fall of the Roman Empire in Western Europe. In places such as southern Gaul or northern Spain, this collapse was a slow decline over several hundred years. In others, such as Britain, it was much more sudden and catastrophic. Modern surveys of archaeological and documentary evidence, such as those summarized by Bryan Ward-Perkins in The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization show that this means a clear decline in material culture and technical capacity between the later Roman era and the seventh century.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/01/medieval-history-why-are-the-middle-ages-often-characterized-as-dark-or-less-civilized.html

One paragraph later:

Quote

The myth of the Middle Ages as a “dark age” does not lie in the fact that things declined markedly after the fall of Rome—they did. It lies in the idea that this situation persisted until the dawning of something called “the Renaissance,” which somehow rescued Western Europe from the clutches of the Catholic Church, revived ancient Greek and Roman learning, reinvented “good” (i.e. realistic) art and made everything OK again.

This is the part of the story that is the myth.

 

[Epikur]

17 minutes ago, Knowledge Hoarder said:

@Epikur Yeah, just like I said. It was a cultural and technological setback. And temporary, short term one. Things got better a few centuries later. However, this was not a setback in quality of life of common folk, which in 5th century Western Roman Empire, was trully dogshit. For anyone interested in this topic, I recommend reading Fall of the Roman Empire by Michael Grant. Really gets into not only causes of the fall, but also describes the cruel taxes imposed on common taxpayers (90% of those were farmers). At least in feudal system, farmers could somehow survive. In late Roman society, surviving as a farmer was very hard, if not impossible.

The biggest irony is that, Italy under the rule of Ostrogoths was actually no different, and almost more prosperous than under Roman rule. And just a century after the fall of the western half, when Byzantines (remnants of Romans) reconquered Italy, they left it in a catasthrophic state. Destroyed infastructure, depolated cities, Rome left with barely 30 thousand people. THAT is what I call a setback.

700 years setback is for some a big thing

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Epikur said:

700 years setback is for some a big thing

"700 years setback" is an unclear statement. If you mean that society lost 700 years of development, that would mean you would have to literally turn the clock back 700 years. That is obviously not the case, because not everything from the Roman Empire was lost. Technological innovation did not stop, and neither did philosophical thought. Single examples do not give a comprehensive picture, because reality is a complex system. That is also why development is non-linear, because apparent setbacks are only partial, never total.

[Raptorsin7]

On 11/30/2021 at 9:32 AM, Carl-Richard said:

The reason personal responsibility is mentioned less is because it's obvious grade school level stuff that nobody denies the importance of, meanwhile the entire right-wing ideology is about actively denying the importance of structural change, so of course that is where you'll see the pushback.

I think it is not accurate to say personal responsibility is understood and that is why it is not mentioned in leftists political thought.

Look at leftist political organizations. The protestors, organizers etc clearly have a blue shadow, which explains the tolerance and condolence of looting and rioting behavior. This only becomes an issue after you transition into blue, at red there would be no reason to value community property, etc

Take black america as an example. The community is struggling with the transition from red to blue. Stage blue is where values like personal responsibility, accountability, family structures etc are valued, and these are the values that are deficient in black america right now imo. I am not denying the importance of structural change, I would argue for both. I just want an honest conversation about the topic, that includes discussing all facets.

There is a collective backlash against stage blues values on the left, and on the forum tbh, and that is why I believe values like personal responsibility are downplayed, because there is an automatic association between blue and low consciousness. If you were to give an analysis saying that black america is suffering from the toxic elements of red, and a struggle to transition to blue, i'd argue most leftists would argue that you are being racist and judging black people negatively. "What do you mean they are stage red, that is so racist, are you saying they are inherently stage red!". 

On 11/30/2021 at 9:32 AM, Carl-Richard said:

If you were to actually educate yourself on the meaning of empowerment as a social intervention, you'll see that it has both systemic and individualistic aspects to it. It's also the case that structures provide a base for individuals to exercise their power in the first place. You can't build stable family dynamics on a pool of lava. You need to start on a firm ground. This is just a rehash of the bootstrap meme.

Yeah I never denied both elements exist. I'm arguing only one side is being discussed, and as a result you are only dealing with 1 side of an equation when trying to solve the issue that requires the other side.

Can you explain to me how black america is in a pool of lava?

The jews were in a pool of lava in the holocaust. To say black america is in an analogous situation to a situation like the Jews in Nazi Germany is not accurate imo. But this is how the issue is framed by leftist groups like BLM. They would rather blame an amorphous structure like the government and white supremacy, rather than deal with the nitty gritty reality of what is really going in their communities.

[DocWatts]

29 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

I think it is not accurate to say personal responsibility is understood and that is why it is not mentioned in leftists political thought.

Look at leftist political organizations. The protestors, organizers etc clearly have a blue shadow, which explains the tolerance and condolence of looting and rioting behavior. This only becomes an issue after you transition into blue, at red there would be no reason to value community property, etc

Take black america as an example. The community is struggling with the transition from red to blue. Stage blue is where values like personal responsibility, accountability, family structures etc are valued, and these are the values that are deficient in black america right now imo. I am not denying the importance of structural change, I would argue for both. I just want an honest conversation about the topic, that includes discussing all facets.

There is a collective backlash against stage blues values on the left, and on the forum tbh, and that is why I believe values like personal responsibility are downplayed, because there is an automatic association between blue and low consciousness. If you were to give an analysis saying that black america is suffering from the toxic elements of red, and a struggle to transition to blue, i'd argue most leftists would argue that you are being racist and judging black people negatively. "What do you mean they are stage red, that is so racist, are you saying they are inherently stage red!". 

Two things can be inherently true at the same time; that black communities faced with difficult social conditions are struggling with transitioning out of Red, and also that the existence of Red in these communities is a survival response to oppressive external social conditions.

If anything, the existence of communities struggling with the transition out of Red in a wealthy country whose center of gravity is at Orange is indicative of a systemic societal failure.

I think you're failing to see how Red can develop as a survival response to a challenging survival situation that's imposed by external oppression. Address the terrible social conditions to which Red is a sensible survival response, and you'll actually make headway in helping these communities transition out of Red 

Also, there exists plenty of healthy Blue in black communities; look to black history and you'll see the church's role in community life and as a point of social organization during the civil rights movement.

Red is by no means a majority, even if it's causing problems. After all, even in bad neighborhoods it's a small minority of people committing violent crimes (something that unfortunately gets associated with black people in general). Namely that of gangs which fight for territory, something that can be directly linked to economic deprivation and the black market created by drug prohibition laws.

Edited December 1, 2021 by DocWatts

[Matt23]

On 11/27/2021 at 11:56 AM, Preety_India said:

Yes tough situations do create strong people but that does not mean that we should be inviting tough times.

Wisely said.  Nice. 

 

I also find Joe Rogan to be kind of a weird, unique, un-pinnable kind of guy.  Strange.  Cuz, ya, he's got this macho guy sort of persona and attitude (martial arts, hunting, whiskey drinking, etc.).  But then he goes out and talks about Kali Yuga and civilizational structures and "infinite processes".  Implying that he's got some weird mixture of Machismo + Openminded-Love-Guru-Psychonaught.  ... To me those don't jive... But that's my mind I suppose.  

He's an enigma.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Matt23

[Carl-Richard]

@Raptorsin7 This is the crux of the issue: the environment is the bedrock of the individual. The environment is not equivalent to personal responsibility – it is what makes personal responsibility possible. This is basic ecology, sociology, psychology. It does not suffice to hand-wave it away by saying "oh yes, that's one part of the equation too." When you're pointing to the real-life examples of the successes of personal responsibility, you're pointing to places of structural privilege. It's not a coincidence.

 

1 hour ago, Raptorsin7 said:

I think it is not accurate to say personal responsibility is understood and that is why it is not mentioned in leftists political thought.

Look at leftist political organizations. The protestors, organizers etc clearly have a blue shadow, which explains the tolerance and condolence of looting and rioting behavior

If that is the case, what is it that the left doesn't understand about personal responsibility? People who condone looting are fringe radicals high on schadenfreude.

[Lyubov]

The same people nodding and going "yes" to a post like this are watching those weird cult of personality motivational Elon Musk videos on youtube where it's like a mashed together monstrosity of various clips and exciting music with flash transitions.