Current Affairs The New Middle

[dholliday]

Every basic element is tribalistic. Every human emotion has a base tribalistic history and the nuances as you say, disguise the fact that you either care about others regardless of reward or recognition or you don't. It really is that simple.
How information is fed to you and digested determines where about you sit between those poles.

I profoundly disagree, Juan. Group-Tribalism is an option, not a fact of life. Jordan Peterson promotes individualism and that mirrors my thoughts on truly-progressive human psychology. He's also a fan of Jung and I'm a fan of Leary, the only tribe we feel part of is the one we're all connected to: all of us and everything. This sensation can shape human emotion far more than separatist group tribalry, which by its nature of being a mere specialist group limits emotional (& intellectual) response to a pre-set idealism.

This limited response is fun & interesting in some ways, like how we follow Everton and thus follow a pre-set state of ideals. But in serious discourse a limited response has, by its nature of being limited, less use than an open independent mind would have within the same debate.

This is why this New Middle is gaining so much ground, people are hungry for open-minded analytical discourse, and are even funding it directly (through Patreon and the like). Those that are tribalist seem to be losing influence: the reputation of mainstream TV & online-news is broken, Twitter & Facebook offer no depth, and university-culture is slowly being outed as a haven for pre-set idealism rather than as a challenging place for learning.

Interesting times.

 

[ilikecheese]

Anyway, you're essentially saying similar to my opener:



Except, unless they're truly hateful or crazy types, I wouldn't totally shut down extremist views. I probably won't agree with much extremist thinking, but then again things like prohibition of psychedelics or legalising gay marriages were once viewed as 'extremist' thinking, so you'd have to specifically define what you mean by 'extremist' before announcing you wouldn't listen to any of it.

Please see the 'another shooting' thread for extremist tribalism from the radical 2A defenders.

 

[magicjuan]

I profoundly disagree, Juan. Group-Tribalism is an option, not a fact of life. Jordan Peterson promotes individualism and that mirrors my thoughts on truly-progressive human psychology. He's also a fan of Jung and I'm a fan of Leary, the only tribe we feel part of is the one we're all connected to: all of us and everything. This sensation can shape human emotion far more than separatist group tribalry, which by its nature of being a mere specialist group limits emotional (& intellectual) response to a pre-set idealism.

This limited response is fun & interesting in some ways, like how we follow Everton and thus follow a pre-set state of ideals. But in serious discourse a limited response has, by its nature of being limited, less use than an open independent mind would have within the same debate.

This is why this New Middle is gaining so much ground, people are hungry for open-minded analytical discourse, and are even funding it directly (through Patreon and the like). Those that are tribalist seem to be losing influence: the reputation of mainstream TV & online-news is broken, Twitter & Facebook offer no depth, and university-culture is slowly being outed as a haven for pre-set idealism rather than as a challenging place for learning.

Interesting times.

Sorry but that's just the 'new rock n roll' sales pitch.
Early society developed from necessity, conscious caring and experiental development.
This ideal of individualism is rampant darwinism and is used and has been to prop up anything from politics to eugenics.
You help protect or save someone's cbild you have gratitude, under certain extreme circumstances, you will be worsipped, rewarded, heroically remembered. You do it to save the child makes you one type of person, do it knowing you can benefit too, makes you a different type of person.

 

[dholliday]

Sorry but that's just the 'new rock n roll' sales pitch.
Early society developed from necessity, conscious caring and experiental development.
This ideal of individualism is rampant darwinism and is used and has been to prop up anything from politics to eugenics.
You help protect or save someone's cbild you have gratitude, under certain extreme circumstances, you will be worsipped, rewarded, heroically remembered. You do it to save the child makes you one type of person, do it knowing you can benefit too, makes you a different type of person.

honestly most people would just save the child to save the child, be they a jungian hippy or a Tory businessman or a trans uni professor. Tribalism or lack of it has almost zero to do with the instinctive act of helping someone. Helping is a humanistic response, not a polarised tribal one.

Individual narcissists are the exception which proves the above rule.

 

[dholliday]

Please see the 'another shooting' thread for extremist tribalism from the radical 2A defenders.

I agree that's an extremist view I personally have no time for. UK & Aussie have perfectly demonstrated how effective a guns ban can be.

I also have no time for arguments supporting certain violent Israeli military reactions or US drone bombs. It's abhorrent to support policies which actively kill innocent people. But if that same person has sensible views on other topics I wouldn't necessarily tune out, it depends on the overall impression that person makes and/or how hateful he comes across.

i.e. Shapiro 'n Milo still get my time, but someone like Don Black would not regardless of what else he had to say.

 

[The binman chronicles]

I've been a third way socialist since the mid-nineties. Seems daft that we can't take the best of what the right and left have to offer and strike a balance between the two. Ok you may not excel at either ends of the spectrum but you create a society with a bigger saftey net and more adapt to change than one controlled by the right and a more stable/sustainable system than one that would come from the left alone.

The painful thing is that the left have almost disowned the two biggest exponents in recent history of the third way in Clinton and Blair. While neither were angels they did bring a lot to the table. I hope Macron has a cleaner legacy that will hopefully give a timely boost to this ideology. The left have to realise that old fashioned socialism is dead in the water and even if it was elected due to just the need for change it would be a brief interlude between right wing governments.

 

[dholliday]

I've been a third way socialist since the mid-nineties. Seems daft that we can't take the best of what the right and left have to offer and strike a balance between the two. Ok you may not excel at either ends of the spectrum but you create a society with a bigger saftey net and more adapt to change than one controlled by the right and a more stable/sustainable system than one that would come from the left alone.

The painful thing is that the left have almost disowned the two biggest exponents in recent history of the third way in Clinton and Blair. While neither were angels they did bring a lot to the table. I hope Macron has a cleaner legacy that will hopefully give a timely boost to this ideology. The left have to realise that old fashioned socialism is dead in the water and even if it was elected due to just the need for change it would be a brief interlude between right wing governments.

Clinton, Blair and now Merkel became bogged-down in their own cult-of-personality. They, in their own mind, became indispensable...thus ruining the chance for the good bits of their centrist philosophies to continue without them.

Narcissism...some analysts do wonder if Merkel's wir schaffen das was more to do with playing up to her Mother Europa image than an instinctive reaction to help people in need. Now the AfD is more popular than ever.

For the 'third way' to really work in the long-term it needs modest servants leading the way, not saviour-types.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Clinton, Blair and now Merkel became bogged-down in their own cult-of-personality. They, in their own mind, became indispensable...thus ruining the chance for the good bits of their centrist philosophies to continue without them.

For the 'third way' to really work in the long-term it needs modest servants leading the way, not saviour-types.

I don't disagree with that, but what I would add is that will generally happen with a leader rising to the top. In the first place they have to have a cult personality to cut through the left of the party to get them to follow the lean to the centre. Then they have to deal with the infighting for those who think it was a sell out of beliefs. This further makes them stand out on their own and making it harder to have a seamless transition.

Of course for various reasons this could have been improved upon than what actually transpired but I think it is very hard to try and pull a whole party in one direction without forming a new party (this is where Macron may be in luck), so I can't see this ever working long term with the Labour party in Britain or the Democrates in America.

 

[magicjuan]

I've been a third way socialist since the mid-nineties. Seems daft that we can't take the best of what the right and left have to offer and strike a balance between the two. Ok you may not excel at either ends of the spectrum but you create a society with a bigger saftey net and more adapt to change than one controlled by the right and a more stable/sustainable system than one that would come from the left alone.

The painful thing is that the left have almost disowned the two biggest exponents in recent history of the third way in Clinton and Blair. While neither were angels they did bring a lot to the table. I hope Macron has a cleaner legacy that will hopefully give a timely boost to this ideology. The left have to realise that old fashioned socialism is dead in the water and even if it was elected due to just the need for change it would be a brief interlude between right wing governments.

Both Clinton and Blair, especially Blair, brought representation of the left to do the bidding of the right. It wasn't a 3rd way or centrist, it was a sell out of left leaning principles. Don't try and paint it is anything else because it would just be pants.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Both Clinton and Blair, especially Blair, brought representation of the left to do the bidding of the right. It wasn't a 3rd way or centrist, it was a sell out of left leaning principles. Don't try and paint it is anything else because it would just be pants.

So I take it you would have preferred a Michael Howard/William Hague/IDS tory government instead?

 

[dholliday]

I don't disagree with that, but what I would add is that will generally happen with a leader rising to the top. In the first place they have to have a cult personality to cut through the left of the party to get them to follow the lean to the centre. Then they have to deal with the infighting for those who think it was a sell out of beliefs. This further makes them stand out on their own and making it harder to have a seamless transition.

Of course for various reasons this could have been improved upon than what actually transpired but I think it is very hard to try and pull a whole party in one direction without forming a new party (this is where Macron may be in luck), so I can't see this ever working long term with the Labour party in Britain or the Democrates in America.

good post, binman. I don't know enough about Macron myself to form any kind of opinion yet.

Both Clinton and Blair, especially Blair, brought representation of the left to do the bidding of the right. It wasn't a 3rd way or centrist, it was a sell out of left leaning principles. Don't try and paint it is anything else because it would just be pants.

Plain wrong here, mate. Blair's New Labour project introduced fantastic socialist policies. I was a beneficiary myself: was able to train in teaching & IT all paid for, I then ended up teaching classes of adults whose courses were also paid for, all with the intention of improving their job prospects.

That was right out of the SPD school of pro-active socialism.

 

[magicjuan]

So I take it you would have preferred a Michael Howard/William Hague/IDS tory government instead?

We got that anyway.

 

[The binman chronicles]

We got that anyway.

It is of course up to you how you feel about certain governments. In my own personal experience I found it to be a lot different from the 18 years of Tory rule that came before. I think the success/failure viewpoint is definitely linked to where that person stood to start with in the spectrum. So a far left/traditional Labour voter would probably always find a centre-left does not meet his or her requirements but it would gradually get more satisfactory the further towards the just left of centre line.

Did they do things that ticked me off? Absolutely. But again in my experience they did inact policies that were socialist in nature and far more progressive than you would get with a conservative government. On the balance I thought they did more good than harm.

 

[DanEFC92]

 

[DanEFC92]

Dave Rubin - wee look at his channel to see the range of guests: Katie Hopkins, Jordan Petersen, Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Scott Adams, Candace Black (who I haven't heard of, but the title of the video is 'my journey from left to right'), Greg Gutfeld (of Fox News fame).

Such diversity!