the idea of caviar ... actual caviar — Benkei

I had to use google for this, which for some reason makes me feel superior.

I still like actual caviar.

it's not any person's views or words but a general sexual practice. — jamalrob

It's my fucking practice, so he's condemning me. Really that is a completely pathetic dodge on your part.

Thanks, but I wasn't aware of dodging anything. I think it was a good point. You opposed two things that seemed to me unrelated, so I pointed it out.

So your point is that you're offended because a philosopher has negatively judged your sexual practice? And I'm pathetic?

I had to use google for this, which for some reason makes me feel superior. — jamalrob

I thought being uninformed and disconnected from meme-rable pseudo-artistic works like two girls, one cup just makes you old (don't look that one up, trust me) but I'm happy to grant you this one.

So your point is that you're offended because a philosopher has negatively judged your sexual practice? And I'm pathetic? — jamalrob

Not you, your practice dodge.

See?

No, that's not my point. My point is that my language is proportional to Scrotum's language, and it makes no sense, to condemn mine and excuse his, on some notion that behaviour, views, and people are separable.

It is rather like his defence of a remark that I can't be bothered to reference again, that "homosexuality is abnormal" as 'factual'. He knows that 'abnormal has a dual sense of 'uncommon' and 'deviant'( in the condemnatory sense). And I know because my special subject at ninnyversity was "Abnormal Psychology" that the common meaning in academia (and the rest of the world) is not the neutral factual one; I wasn't studying unusually smart people or unusually empathic people, but various kinds of insanity. He pretends to a neutrality but in fact he condemns homosexuality, and depends on the equivocal language to avoid the condemnation he deserves in return.

And again it is not one solitary phrase, or one solitary dubious association, but there are many just on this thread that add up to an intemperate and frankly arrogant and hate-filled attitude to otherness of every kind.

Anyway, I reckon obscenity and disgust are crucial in any comprehensive discussion of sexuality, so I don't see any problem with that language. — jamalrob

Per New Testament scholar Dale Martin, the traditional preference for missionary style sex and the condemnation of homosexuality is directly related to a sexist outlook. The penetrator is supposed to be superior to the submissive and passive penetrated. Thus the male should do all the penetrating and the woman should lay quietly still.

How are you judging a conservative perspective without knowing anything about its background?

Anyway, I reckon obscenity and disgust are crucial in any comprehensive discussion of sexuality, so I don't see any problem with that language. — jamalrob

Indeed. We might, for example, want to distinguish one's partner's clitoris from one's mother's, in terms of disgust and/or obscenity. That is to say as a relational matter not an absolute one. This this the discussion that is pre-empted by Scrotum, because his personal feelings are presented as the absolute arbiter of some universal property of things that applies to every right-thinking Englishman.

The attack is against his views precisely because that's where the sexism is located. It's his view which is the problem.

He's put out the call to society about how disgusting the clitoris rubbing women is, not because of the act itself is disgusting, but because, supposedly, it violates some right of the husband to be the only immediate control of her body. He is projecting this is who people are and how relationships are meant to be.

There are countless reason to be disgusted with a sexual practice. The barrier for this is very low. To merely find an act was disgusting in itself, would be enough for someone to remove themselves/be justified in objecting someone doing it infront of you-- that's a large part why it's not okay just to go around masturbating in front of people-- but this isn't the problem for Scroton.

Sex is not what's cited as disgusting here. It's women. Women, if they are people who take action or have immediate control over their bodies. The disgust is a power play. She is disgusting not for the act of rubbing here clitoris, but for being a person who has certain control of her body.

Scruton is advocating we should find women disgusting if they aren't just objects for men to please. He's drumming up hate against women for not just being a button for a husband to press. He's suggesting it's disgusting to think relationships are about a connection between two people/free agents, that it is not a true connection unless we hold our wives to be an arcade machine by which we attain a pleasure high score with specifically our penis or hands.

I don't like the guy from what I've read but what you wrote seems a lot to be inferred from what was quoted in this thread. So either you know more about him than I do, in which case it would be enlightening for you to share the relevant passages or quotes or you should stop making stuff up.

I'm strictly talking about the quote women rubbing the clitoris and his account of how it is disgusting. My point here has to do with no other statement or belief.

I don't have any doubt he'll have beliefs women are not just objects. Most sexists do. They love their mothers, daughters, sisters, friends. Many even care about the personhood and control of women, many a sexist will find a back alley rapist monstrous for treating women like an object.

But that doesn't make their sexism not sexism. Nor does it change what they are advocating about women in a social context. The position Scruton argues for in the quote, and which I described in my previous post, isn't any less sexist or different based on his treatment or beliefs about women in other contexts. Sexism isn't a sum total of one's lack of sexism and sexism, it a feature of specific actions and positions.

I would be quite happy to agree with you about that and plead guilty to participation, if only you were as resolute in your criticism of Scrotum's language as you are of mine. His, after all is demonstrably more extreme, and hugely more influential. I say 'sexist', he says 'obscene' and 'disgusting', and you do not seem to think his language needs criticism. — unenlightened

Scruton wasn't attacking any specific individuals (he wasn't really attacking people, as far as I know, he was attacking masturbation and specifically masturbation during sex, not women per se). If his views are legitimately sexist then you've got every onus and right to decry them, and him, as such, but you've got to get it right (otherwise you're personally attacking him for no justifiable reason).

When Scruton states his views about how masturbation is disgusting or harmful, you should be trying to combat those ideas, not his personage. By seeking to impose social sanctions against him for holding political beliefs we disagree with, we become authoritarian bullies who seek to shut down the discourse of our opposition.

So what if Scruton is disgusted by masturbation? Prudish conservatism is nothing new, and just because he has some malformed views tucked away in esoteric books exploring sexual desire, it doesn't mean we should lift a finger against him in any way other than debate and dialogue. (by lift a finger I don't mean engage in violence, but more broadly the kinds of informal social sanctions that pretty much ruin lives (letter campaigns to employers from the professionally aggrieved, misleading smear articles in the media, and a torrent of online harassment, for example)).

These kinds of sanctions are technically within our rights to employ, and maybe in some situations we really ought to, but Scruton represents a sizeable chunk of our diverse political beliefs, and while he does express some backward views, he is not belligerent, he is not (as far as I know) proselytizing anyone with said backward views, I do not see any possible violence emerging from his beliefs, and he delivers his rhetoric to private audiences who pay for the "privilege". He's not an enemy to be vanquished, he's a person to be persuaded or dissuaded. If we start trying to win The Game of Democracy by attacking people instead of ideas, then eventually we'll all be given the business end.

Yes, for the sexist impact here is upon the the individual.

The problem isn't a comparison of men and women, it's the devaluing of the personhood of an individual. If one is finding a women (or man) disgusting for not being an an object within one's control, since that is the social relation thewomen (or man) ought to be in, one is engaged in a sexist objectification. The disgust is present at the woman (or man) being a person who is more than one's object.

I've not changed the meaning of anything. All along the problem has been that Scruton is advocating a position we ought be disgusted by women (or men, if applied to them) if they dare be more than an object under our direct control. It's precisely this viewpoint which is the problem.

Disgust with sex isn't the issue here, it's the disgust with women who are more than a body for a husband's dick or hands. The issue I'm talking about here isn't a sexual disfunction. It's one of who people are to each other, relationships and power.

And the problem started with institutions like corporation etc. creating PR departments. Political parties are naturally even more prone to this. And if someone thinks that this is only right-wing biased view (because the thread is about Roger Scruton), just think about the typical event where a muslim liberal or leftist politician criticizes Israel and get the wrath of being an anti-semite. — ssu

It's definitely a problem endemic throughout most political camps, but different camps tend to wield their own flavor. From the left it's typically inter-sectional grievance politics, and from the right it's typically fear driven nationalism and isolationism. We've reached a situation where defensive (substantive) politics is no longer relevant, and all that matters is your ability to attack and destroy the other side.

RationalWiki says he has a history of sexism and homophobia, buy he's reformed. Maybe the quote that was presented was old.

What remains odd is jamalrob's dismissive attitude.

Yes, for the sexist impact here is upon the the individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Negative impact on the individual is just called "harm" sexism is when it happens on the basis of sex.

Sexism does not mean "harm to an individual". It just doesn't.

If you change the definition of sexism to "harm" and go around using it in that way, you're just going to confuse and infuriate a bunch of people who will have no clue what you're talking about.

The problem isn't a comparison of men and women, it's the devaluing of the personhood of an individual. If one is finding a women (or man) disgusting for not being an an object within one's control, since that is the social relation thewomen (or man) ought to be in, one is engaged in a sexist objectification. The disgust is present at the woman (or man) being a person who is more than one's object.

I've not changed the meaning of anything. All along the problem has been that Scruton is advocating a position we ought be disgusted by women (or men, if applied to them) if they dare be more than an object under our direct control. It's precisely the viewpoint which is the problem.

Disgust with sex isn't the issue here, it's the disgust with women who are more than a body for a husband's dick or hands. The issue I'm talking about here isn't a sexual disfunction. It's one of power in relationships — TheWillowOfDarkness

There's a difference between "sexual objectification" and "sexism".

Get it right!

Whatever the case, I contend we should be concerned with the actual beliefs, not the person, or how to characterize them.

That people can change and reform is a pretty compelling reason to resist attacking anything but their ideas...

But that's precisely the issue: harm on the basis of sex or to someone of a sex, it is not a comparative measure.

When sexism occurs, it affects a sexed individual. Acts or situations of sexism aren't a reason or intention something happens, they are a action, relation or postion with a harmful effects upon an individual. Sexism is not a reason, it is a material condition upon an individual.

No doubt it infurates people who think it's something else, but the point is they have an inadequate view. They are too busy worrying over whether someone said to be sexist, whether they wanted to intentionally use sex to make some kind of exclusion, to recoginse sexism is a social relation which affects individuals.

That's exactly why we attack their ideas.

If we just stood by, for example, congratulating Scroton on his perfectly acceptable opinion women were disgusting for being more than a button for their husbands to push, we would have a culture which accepted the position. We would be teaching it was a fine way to think about women.

Instead, we do not. We say that it's a serious problem, and sexism, if one suggests a husband should consider his wife a disgusting bitch if she dare to be more than his object. Anyone, including Scroton, has not just a reason, but an obligation to change his position. A failure to change means telling a falsehood about women and holding an immoral, sexist position on what constitutes a relationship.

It is how view points change . We describe the new correct/moral postion and the failings of the mistaken/immoral one. If Scruton has changed his position, it's is on account of his idea being attacked, either from by others and then himself (e.g. others describe the error of his position and he agrees) or from himself (e.g. he describes the issues with his position).

harm on the basis of sex or to someone of a sex — TheWillowOfDarkness

Harm to someone of a sex?

So if I harm another male, for whatever reason, I'm being sexist against men, even if their being male had nothing to do with my reasons for harming them?

No doubt it infuriates people who think it's something else, but the point is they have an inadequate view. They are too busy worrying over whether someone said to be sexist, whether they wanted to intentionally use sex to make some kind of exclusion, to recognize sexism is a social relation which. affects individuals. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is just too fast and loose.

The charge of sexist action without a sexist mind is not fully coherent. You're just borrowing the term in order to be provocative, which then devalues it when we need to apply it to actual sexists... This is the Ouroboros I keep warning you about. You could make all of your points be 100% coherent and agreeable if you didn't insist on redefining terms like racism and sexism. Your heart is in the right place, but you've chosen the wrong strategy/tactic.

That's exactly why we attack their ideas. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Insisting on the label of sexism is a far cry from attacking ideas (it's semantics at best). You've laid out your position on sexual objectification, and for what it's worth I think there is some merit to that framework, but this has failed to address the crux of the passage you're objecting to (it's anti-masturbation roots).

You've established that his views are bad because they repress sexed individuals (sex is irrelevant), but you've not established that the source of those particular views are his hatred of women, or his desire to treat women differently because they are women (misogyny and sexist discrimination against women).

When you export this particular attack (under the broadened and weakened definition of sexism) into average political discourse you actually wind up confusing people, entrenching their disagreements in emotion, and doing an overall disservice to your primary goal (to address outcomes). To fix outcomes, especially under your view, we need to change systems. And as you will surely agree, such systems are buried deep in the minds of every individual, where interaction allows our conscious and unconscious biases to impact or determine the unequal distribution of boons and burdens or outcomes between visible social demographics (deep breath). But here's the problem: you can't change that system without changing minds, and you can't change the minds by merely addressing the system or its outcomes. You need to address the minds; not groups, not institutions, not demographics, not outcomes, but minds and their ideas.

If you persuade nobody, you achieve nothing, so why do you insist on the polemic language for such a weak address of Scruton's weak position? You should strongly and directly address Scruton's strong position (steel-man his arguments if you need to). If you can dismantle those, you dissuade his followers and maybe even the man himself. By using your own confrontational and charged language, you're just making yourself incomprehensible to them. The only people who can navigate the nuance of your position are already in the choir, so you're basically persuading no one.

I think you have a big heart Willow, and I really wish that you would be more careful and persuasive in your writing. Just remember that a J'accuse! attitude is a great way to escalate a conflict, and you should understand that it's almost never going to work except through sheer social force. The more rigidly we stick to criticism of a person's ideas, and the less we involve criticism of the person, the easier we make it for people to dissociate away from them. I think you are trying to criticize the ideas, but the language of "sexism" overshadows your actual critique and makes it about Scruton the man.

That people can change and reform is a pretty compelling reason to resist attacking anything but their ideas... — VagabondSpectre

Absolutely. But we shouldn't be apathetic about their words and the effect of their words.

Absolutely. But we shouldn't be apathetic about their words and the effect of their words. — frank

I agree, but quote mining 30 year old literature isn't exactly the front-line of social justice.

When it comes to countering the effect of Scruton's words, if they are sufficiently harmful then at some point sanctions of arbitrary force are justifiable, but if they are rooted in a larger framework of ideas (that many of his followers share), then ostensibly silencing through de-platforming wont actually work (other than to create a poster-(man)-child). So long as he has the right to hold and express his views, we need to primarily attack his ideas and their foundations rather than his platform, else were undermining our own right to hold and express our own views. In so far as he occupies any governmental advisory position, elected or otherwise, and in so far as we disagree with his beliefs and political views, it is also perfectly fine to lobby our representatives to ignore and replace him, but we should not take away his very right to be a lobbyist through social and emotional persecution.

What benefit would it serve to have him fired from a private conservative institution which follows his ideas? They'll just replace the man with an updated model and carry on with more of the same, so the underlying ideas, and their effects, remain undamaged.

I agree, but quote mining 30 year old literature isn't exactly the front-line of social justice. — VagabondSpectre

True. But it doesn't make sense to respond to the quote-mining with 'That's a legitimate political stance, not sexism.' That's what I understood to be jamalrob's view. It was sexism and therefore it doesn't qualify as a legitimate stance worthy of engagement.

They'll just replace the man with an updated model and carry on with more of the same, so the underlying ideas, and their effects, remain undamaged. — VagabondSpectre

True. If it was possible to eliminate sexism, homophobia, and the scapegoating of Muslims by firing a few people, it would already be gone. In fact, I don't think intolerance and general assholedness is ever going to go away. But I do think we should pay attention to the message we broadcast.

What's the effect of doing nothing when a person makes inappropriate remarks? Doesn't that send the message: 'Yes, that's ok. We're fine with that.' Doesn't that have to potential to create complacency?

That's what I understood to be jamalrob's view. It was sexism and therefore it doesn't qualify as a legitimate stance worthy of engagement. — frank

As far as I can tell what has been quoted so far isn't clearly sexist. It's crass, puritan, and insensitive (or over-sensitive?) but it's not sexist. The fact remains that a huge chunk of American's hold these kinds of sexually conservative views. Characterizing them as mainly sexist might to some degree be true, but it's not going to get us anywhere, and it's not productive to persecute Scruton as an effigy of sexism in general.

In fact, I don't think intolerance and general assholedness is ever going to go away. But I do think we should pay attention to the message we broadcast. — frank

I think we've been learning a lot lately about the problems of excessive division (especially as a result of social media), so we might be able to tone it down significantly. As Dr. King would have said, it is far better to be strong enough to return intolerance with love, because hate only begets more hate. Perhaps that's an impossible standard for many reasons, but it's the cure to our intolerance.

What's the effect of doing nothing when a person makes inappropriate remarks? Doesn't that send the message: 'Yes, that's ok. We're fine with that.' Doesn't that have to potential to create complacency? — frank

We should respond, but we should respond proportionately, and in pursuit of truth, not heads. The deplatform movement is a great example of how we can respond inappropriately; it's might makes right.

Characterizing them as mainly sexist might to some degree be true, but it's not going to get us anywhere, and it's not productive to persecute Scruton as an effigy of sexism in general. — VagabondSpectre

Probably not, but I wasn't looking to crucify anyone. We know Scruton is conservative and we know he's made comments about what women should and shouldn't do in bed. Suppose you tell me that you think it's sexist. Instead of telling you that I understand why you would think that, I tell you it's not sexism. There are two reasons I might do that:

1. I'm just really ignorant of the sexism attached to traditional attitudes about the sex act.
2. I am very worried about people over-reacting to every little sign of sexism, racism, religious intolerance, homophobia, etc. so that innocent people are being attacked. IOW, I'm over-reacting to the over-reacting.

I don't know what jamalrob's excuse was. I'm happy to drop it. It's not important.

but it's the cure to our intolerance. — VagabondSpectre

As long as we remain dedicated to condemning intolerance, I don't have any problem with loving the crowd who engages in it.

The deplatform movement is a great example of how we can respond inappropriately; it's might makes right. — VagabondSpectre

Who was inappropriately deplatformed?

Once again, don't see why anyone should care if well-known philosopher Roger Scruton lost a Government job over recent comments that are clearly inappropriate for someone in a public position to have. If one is simply vexed over the issue of free speech then this story regarding a children's speech pathologist in Texas who was fired because she refused to sign a pledge stating that she would not engage in any economic boycott of Israel should be more alarming.

If one is simply vexed over the issue of free speech then this story regarding a children's speech pathologist in Texas who was fired because she refused to sign a pledge stating that she would not engage in any economic boycott of Israel should be more alarming. — Maw

I agree. The issue you raised is an alarming one, in more ways than one.
It is another sign of power. And I think that power struggles are fundamental to both.

To return to the issue of Sir Scruton and his privileged, powerful position as outlined in the article on his Knighthood:
Not just a philosopher but a...moralist, novelist, barrister, composer, conservationist, conservative and campaigner.

The 'job' was as Commissioner for beautiful buildings. This was controversial and divisive from the start. Although the aims sound pretty good, the battle seems to lie in a narrow definition of 'beauty'.

'The three main objectives laid out by the commission are to promote more beautiful buildings and places, facilitate consent from communities with new developments, and improve the planning system to work with "better design and style, not against it".
From:
https://www.dezeen.com/2018/11/06/building-better-building-beautiful-commission-uk-architects-react-news/

'Architect and writer Douglas Murphy described Scruton as a "ludicrous curmudgeon".

"Roger Scruton has spent decades decrying modern culture of all types," Murphy said, adding that he had recently "become a darling of an alt-right aesthetic movement". The alt-right is a neo-fascist movement operating primarily online and centred around an ideology of white nationalism.

"The fact is that architecture has left the culture wars of the 1980s far behind, and the best contemporary work gets closer to a synthesis between timeless pattern and contemporary technique than ever before," said Murphy.

"Our housing crisis has almost nothing to do with aesthetics, modern or traditional, but rather is to do with land, wealth and exploitation. This commission is just an easy distraction from far bigger problems that the government have no intention of doing anything about."

'Holland said he supported the commission's drive for local communities to be more involved in decisions, but that the commission's focus on beauty is a "vehicle for a patently ideological programme to attack contemporary housing and undermine the architecture of social democracy".
...Hatherley accused the think tank of campaigning to "make thousands of council tenants homeless for the sake of aesthetics". He also drew links between the commission and the rising popularity of an "alt-right fringe" of Twitter accounts celebrating traditional architecture.'

[ emphases added ]
--------------

Returning to the power struggle and the vicious.

Perhaps not quite as 'sexy' as previous discussion on clitoral stimulation but hey, it all matters.

George Monbiot writes in the Guardian:

'After an organisation he [ Chris Packham ] helped to found – Wild Justice – successfully challenged the unlawful killing of several bird species, two dead crows were left hanging from his gate, whose lock had been glued shut.

Harassment of this kind is familiar to rural people who challenge shooting or foxhunting interests.

Bullying and intimidation associated with foxhunts that run riot in the north of England while the police look the other way have been reported,, one in the Independent, the other in the online magazine The Overtake. There’s an almost Sicilian culture of fear: people are frightened into silence or forced to move house. Locals complain of mob rule as hounds and horses rampage through their gardens and trash their businesses. Hunt monitors, documenting blatant lawbreaking, are beaten up with impunity while their vehicles are scratched and smashed. Everyone knows it’s happening. No one seems able or willing to stop it.'
[emphasis added ]

From:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/01/britain-countryside-bullies-chris-packham

Who are the bullied again ?

Probably not, but I wasn't looking to crucify anyone. We know Scruton is conservative and we know he's made comments about what women should and shouldn't do in bed. Suppose you tell me that you think it's sexist. Instead of telling you that I understand why you would think that, I tell you it's not sexism. There are two reasons I might do that:

1. I'm just really ignorant of the sexism attached to traditional attitudes about the sex act.
2. I am very worried about people over-reacting to every little sign of sexism, racism, religious intolerance, homophobia, etc. so that innocent people are being attacked. IOW, I'm over-reacting to the over-reacting. — frank

Should we find him guilty of being conservative or wanton opinion-having? Being sexually conservative isn't the same as being sexist, though there is often overlap.

It's not just that the quotes provided don't actually establish him as sexist, it's that we all seem to be on-board with head-hunting once we've agreed about his sexist nature. Not only can we easily get it wrong, but en masse we can't help but leave scorched earth in our wake.

Who was inappropriately deplatformed? — frank

Here's one short list from 2016.

Let's say a conservative student group rents out a university auditorium and invites Ben Shapiro to speak, but the event is shut down due to security concerns caused by protestors intending to disrupt the event.

On the one hand, Ben Shapiro is an annoying jackanape and I could care less about his success, but on the other hand, people have a right to to hear what he has to say without interference if that's their paying wish. In the same thread, putting PR pressure on the university to disallow such controversial speaking events is a dangerous game, because we're trying to achieve political gains by forcefully shutting down the speech of our opposition. It tends to backfire in numerous ways, and it's unjust to begin with.

Who are the bullied again ? — Amity

While we're completely changing the subject, I would strongly suggest that these are not separate species, the bully and the victim, more of a circle of life. I should say that I cannot vouchsafe that subtitles in the following bear any relation to the words spoken, which could be cake recipes for all I know. I wonder, these days, if there is any depth at all at which one stops saying 'legitimate' 'out of context' and has to admit that something rather nasty is going on.

While we're completely changing the subject, I would strongly suggest that these are not separate species, the bully and the victim, more of a circle of life — unenlightened

It isn't a complete change of subject. But perhaps a broadening or deepening into another topic.
Power play and manipulation is integral to humanity and its progress or regress.

Yes. In a sense, there is a circle of vice ( the vicious) where the bullied (victims) can become the bullies.

However, there is also the circle of virtue ( the virtuous ) and probably a whole lot of other moral hoops we can jump through personally, socially, politically, whateverly.

The fact that any social progress concerning human rights has been made is in no small part due to those virtuous putting a spoke in the wheel of the vicious and divisive.
And yes, it is too easy to use these moralistic terms, especially of good and evil. Them and us.
That doesn't help.

As jamalrob suggests:

this is an issue for debate, not for shutting people down. — jamalrob

What we don't want is a regress.

But then again, I hear the hula hoop is making a comeback. The joys of the 50's :starstruck:

Not only can we easily get it wrong, but en masse we can't help but leave scorched earth in our wake. — VagabondSpectre

You know me, I'm all about scorched earth. It occurs to me that we're locked in a vicious cycle. I'm concerned about a Trump-era relaxation of sanctions against intolerance, and you're worried about a leftist lynch-mob. We're both seeing the signs that it's already gone too far.

If unity is what you're after, you should at least throw the lynch mob a bone. Tell them you understand why they're concerned. Acknowledge their fears. Acknowledge the tragic events that are generating their angst. Maybe then point out to them that there are victims they're overlooking, one of them being the first amendment.