Yeah I think it fits your theory somewhat well. I don't think it fits the narrative you're criticising very well. It seems a vestige of a more gender-stratified economy and society. Whereas there's no reason women shouldn't be on the front lines, wearing hard hats, or heaving metal on a rig. — fdrake

I think this is a very perplexing situation actually. I can imagine why women would not want to do this stuff. It is very risky and does not pay particularly well, especially in relation to the physical risk involved. It seems also that men do not like women to go to the front lines which is even more perplexing. The only reason I can think of is the control over the use of violence is key in any conflict.

Internet Dating, Beasley and Holmes (2021), p31 — fdrake

I will read that article when I have time. It sounds really interesting and on topic! Thank you.

I suppose we shall see. — fdrake

Yes, I take it by no means as a given. History may be rolled back.

It starts here. Values have no sex. So we are talking about values and perhaps virtues and vices that have been traditionally ascribed to and associated with masculine and feminine identities. — unenlightened

Thank you. I like that definition and with referencing you as a source incorporated it in my original post.

Then, the thesis is that these associations have been changing. The world has changed, for example, with the introduction of "the Equaliser". This charmingly lethal apparatus negates the physical advantage of strength in combat. No one can out-run a bullet, and even a delicate feminine finger can pull a trigger - hence the name. The facts of industry and technology have devalued masculine muscle. — unenlightened

Yes, I tend to agree with you. I am a social constructivist, but social construction is not 'immaterial' in the sense that some constructions are easier than others. Physical strength enables physical dominance and the threat of violence means that some groups have more opportunity to impose their social order on others. Such symbolic or discursive orders are tenacious though, even with a change in material conditions they are not upset easily. I did not bring up the issue of physical strength exactly because it tempts one to a certain essentialism.

The problem is that traditional male virtues have lost their value. And the solution is either a luddite reversion to primitive preindustrial society or a change of identification, of what it is to be a man, and particularly a good man. And of course women are involved with this re-evaluation of all values, because 'man' and 'woman' are identities in relation to each other. — unenlightened

Also very much in agreement, yet what I miss in many discussions on this subject is exactly this two way street. We are right now in a time in which is not self evident how and with what man should identify. The general consensus on the left seems to be that man should change and that since they are the problem they should figure it out while the general consensus on the right should be that men should reassert their classical role as the 'head of the table' so to speak. On the one hand, masculinity is being unreasonably problematized, on the other hand it is being reinforced by certain political groups and social media.

I would like to hear more about how you understand the relation between the social construct of masculinity you are associating with the right, and conservative populist thinking in its wider scope. Do you think the former explains the latter, the reverse, or is there some more complex relation between the two? — Joshs

Well, I do not like monocausal explanations. I think conservative thought offers the social construct of masculinity traditionally conceived as one of its proposals. A proposal that is attractive to some men and women. It is not the only one though. Another is the idea that every country should put its own citizens ahead of the rest, so there is a lot of nationalism involved. There will be many other ideas that explain its attraction. How I understand the relationship is as follows:
Conservative thought offers a vision of masculinity that is attractive to many young men. It is attractive because they feel that their position as man has become insecure and precarious. They were granted a certain set of burdens and privileges, social roles that they could follow, from times immemorial. Now it seems that following this traditional mold is frowned upon by some women, coupled with socio-economic trends that actually favour women. The result is a backlash that is formally condemned, but sanctioned to some extent in pop-culture. What this actually causes is debatable, but I think this is a pathological strain in modern society that facilitates in any case quaint reactions like the 'manosphere', but also more virulent fantasies of violence.

You did not explain anything you just thought they were a waste of time because they are used to 'slap the most ridiculous generalizations on people'. Serious scientists have written libraries full on the subject but well we have our very own Tzeentch, who explains things with one sentence.

I never spoke about insidious women I wrote: "more insidious feminine forms of control". I should have put 'feminine' between quotation marks though. That would have been better. What I alluded to is a form of control or discipline not by force but by negotiation, in line with the Hofstede's view on conflict resolution through negotiation. You are right it needed unpacking. As you are ending your participation in the thread I will not elaborate much more about it though. It is not the primary concern of the thread and from what I have seen so far, you do not bring much to the table beyond dismissive one liners.

1 ) If masculine values become more disincentivised on a societal level, how ought the relative stability of some aspects of gender norms to be explained over time? I have in mind that the boys at school are rewarded by peers for violence, bravado and competition, but punished by their teachers for it. They're taught to be as sensitive and emotionally aware as the girls, but the girls are not mocked in the playground for displays of emotion. — fdrake

I wonder how stable they are. I try to base myself on at least a modicum of facts and figures and for this I do not have them at hand. I do know that a lot of schools now have 'bullying protocols' and that this issue is now often discussed. The point which I tried to make though and which you also picked up on (thanks for that) is that a lot of these values actually stay the same and that overt formal condemnation and demand for change is countered by informal 'subterranean' reinforcement. I feel stereotypical male values are formally opposed and informally reinforced.

2 ) Some explanation is required for girls outperforming boys in school at every level and in every subject {up to some demographic factors}. Boys are much more likely to be suspended or permanently excluded too. — fdrake

Well, if I am write one explanation is that boys are taught to be active and hands on, girls are taught to be passive and verbal. Being hands on and active was great for most professions in the 1900s but in a service sector economy it pays of much more to be verbal. Add to that that higher education is verbal to the core and it comes as no surprise. The decreased tolerance for violence and unruly behaviour means boys (who are informally by rewarded by peers for this behaviour) get more formal sanctions.

3 ) Some explanation is required for the rigidity of gender norms in high risk and physical workplaces - the overwhelming majority of construction workers, military personnel and offshore workers are still men. Compare the overwhelming split the other way for nurses and human resources professionals. — fdrake

Why does this need explanation? It fits the theory rather well no? In a more feminine society, these are the roles ascribed to men.

Though now the economic dimension of those norms has levelled considerably as of the last 5 years, and people in general see women and men as equally capable of jobs women were traditionally excluded from. — fdrake

Yes and if I am write the pendulum will swing in women's favour. They will be seen as more capable of verbal jobs that require both rational and emotional intelligence, such as judge, university professor, upper management. It will take time, but if my theory is right it will happen.

The former highlighting that generalisations like "white man", "masculinity", "femininity" are insufficiently localised and contextualised {intersectional} to make an iota of sense... and the latter that people ought be considered on a more person by person basis without the use of stereotypes. — fdrake

Indeed! And as far as I am concerned both positions are equally detrimental.

I think we just got used to talking out of our arses about relationships between men and women, and gender in general, and selectively forget how to think about it. — fdrake

Yes, that is the point of this thread. With missteps of course as is common on a forum like this. I do agree with you though. I also think the topic is so polarized that everyone assumes there is some political agenda behind the words of another. I feel the deadlock on this topic needs to be broken. Thanks! :ok: :flower:

Then why did you write this? — Joshs

What I found interesting in that article is not so much the evolutionary psychology behind it, (but in this case it is nice it supports the point as many in this forum do seem to embrace it) what I found interesting is the correlation between perceived attractiveness as a dating partner and delinquency. I think the answer for it lies more in the concept I explained as 'subterranean values', social values that are presented but seldom 'officially' articulated, then in some evolutionary psychology.

In threads such as these, the terms 'masculinity' and 'femininity' just become a fig leaf used to slap the most ridiculous generalizations onto people. — Tzeentch

You will have to generalize when you do sociology. Sure everyone is different, great but that does not explain anything. Perhaps Hofstede is not a good source, might be, do you have anything better? Or are we forbidden to analyze the subject of masculinity and femininity altogether? Yes, I accept it is a social construction, somehow I doubt you do, but hey. Analyzing these social constructions is interesting especially because it may lay bare some presupposition we might have. I do it because I find the analyses offered in the other threads one sided, so I try to take the theory a step forward.

What do you expect me to make of this? — Tzeentch

I am expecting an analysis of the question at hand. What do you make of the fact that Trump is most popular among men, that extreme right wing parties attract more male than female voters? Perhaps in your view it is a counter reaction of a power grab by women, or perceived power grab, or perhaps it has nothing to do with masculinity and femininity at all. By all means explain! Do so with something that resembles an analysis.
Of course it is easy to pick apart my proposal and you are welcome to do it, but the condescension you display is baseless unless you offer something convincing. Otherwise just pick apart my arguments, show me where I go wrong, but realize you have not put forward anything like a counter proposal yourself.

I'm guessing something is lost in translation here. If I were at work at started talking about "feminine values" as described in the OP, I'd have to run behind the corner to avoid being hit by whatever objects are in the environment. You can't predict what a person will value based on what they have between their legs, right? — frank

These are values culturally ascribed to men and women, in our western cultural context, at least according to Hofstede. They are ideal typical in the sense that one will never find them unadulterated. Also in answer to @Joshs, I hold a social constructivist view myself. However, that does not mean that such values are not constructed in such a way. Saying that x is a social construction just means that there is nothing essential about x, but not that x does not exist. That there is a difference in value patterns can also be shown in the voting behaviour of men and women. Women are more left leaning than men. Here is the voting result from the Dutch election in 2019:

Both VVD and FVD are conservative where the FVD can be considered far right (the party with the little pillar. In the US a gender gap among voters exist as well. See here: [url=http://]https://cawp.rutgers.edu/gender-gap-voting-choices-presidential-elections.[/url]

So no, you cannot predict what someone thinks but you can predict that when you see a woman it is more likely that she voted for Harris and when you see a man it is more likely he voted for Trump.

Really, if I were a woman, I would prefer Trump's approach. Don't treat me like a child who has to be protected. Tell your sexist jokes, grab body parts, but in the end, reward me for kicking ass. The far right does have a point, that when we finally stop worrying that so-and-so is a woman, so-and-so is black, latino, asian, etc., we've finally made progress. I realize that all sorts of toxic stuff gets drawn into that and if someone quotes that without this subsequent acknowledgement, I won't respond — frank

I agree with you, but I think it is not that simple. I wish the far right really didn't worry about such issues. Yet the values far right parties have embraced were all masculine values in which women as a class had little to say and their function was to beget men. Not just men though, men of a particular type favored by 'the nation' whatever that may be. In specific hiring functions it may well be that women are employed that is not the philosophy behind it. They may also employ an immigrant or refugee, yet their policies are consistently anti-immigration usually with some notion of purity or religious preference attached to it.

This says it all - "the problem of masculinity." Keeping in mind I'm a registered Democrat and a liberal who thinks Biden was the best president in my adult life, here are what I see as the root of the problem, at least in part.

White men are tired of being treated with contempt and blamed for all our society's problems.
The Democratic Party has failed to address the issues that affect working people.
More conservative people are tired of having radical changes in social and political values rammed down their throats. — T Clark

Actually I agree with you. I do not think calling it 'the problem of masculinity' says it all though, but maybe I should have been more clear. I think that masculine values as they are traditionally conceived march out of tune with the way society is developing. I think society will turn feminine as Hofstede defined it, more and more. It is not a moral claim, it is a factual claim. It may also turn out wrong. If it is not wrong though masculinity as a specific set of values runs into problems and if we have a class of people embracing values that are actually not very productive anymore, we face a problem of masculinity. It is not a moral claim at all, just a rather cold power based analysis.

I do not think that all social problems are the fault of white men, on the contrary. I dislike identity politics. What I do like to delve into is mechanisms of control. Blaming men, is, I feel, a control mechanism and is one that is equally oppressive as blaming women for everything. It is a control mechanism though that rendered progressive politics ineffective, as it has embraced identity politics to a significant extent.

100% agree. This feels more like a pop culture argument with very poor definitions of masculinity and femininity that are tools to argue a political point. — Philosophim

By all means do a better job. I tried to provide definitions actually used in sociology. Two lines are a bit disappointing, but I am happy hearing where the argument goes wrong.

One could argue that this is something structural in the human mind, except there's genetic evidence that Celtic societies were female-dominated. Navajo relationships were at the whims of women, not men. I agree with Nietzsche that good and evil can switch poles depending on a society's underlying agendas, so I don't think it's structural. I think it's a symptom, side-effect, aspect of? certain kind of cultural journeys. It's definitely a whale in the psychic sea, though. It's ancient. — frank

Well yes, I think it is a symptom, but a symptom of what? And what is the symptom exactly the emergence of the far right or the resentment of many young men? What I am curious about is, is whether traditional analyses of power structures in which the rise of the far right is simply conceived as a pathological reaction to the emancipatory struggle for equal rights, with an analysis a repression of masculinity.

If it is an effect of the kind of society we have, i.e. exclusion of a certain part of society, then you would think the way to avoid it festering in the fringes, is to change society so there are included. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, but what should change? I have the idea we hear the fringes on each side far louder than in the past?

With threads like these, I honestly have to squint to find anything I find vaguely agreeable. It's like you all are living in a different world or something. — Tzeentch

Why is that? Could you perhaps elaborate a bit more?

Problematizing 'masculinity' and men in general is no different than what certain cultures have done to women historically. It's just as archaic. Just as damaging. — Tzeentch

I do not think problematizing something is inherently damaging. Problematizing for instance climate change was perhaps necessary to get people to understand their predicament. I also do not see how I am problematizing masculinity perse as if it is some kind of fixed category. What I am pointing out is that the power grab of the far right can be considered as solely a result of a backlash of some sort of patriarchy against equal rights, but may be more fruitfully considered as both the result of anxious masculinity and other more insidious feminine forms of control through which the self image of masculinity is becoming perilous.

It feeds off the primal insecurities many people harbor for the opposite sex (those being an understandable result of unrequited desires) - it's just the pendulum swinging to the other side of the spectrum. — Tzeentch

This is actually an argumentum ad hominem. Trying to analyze and understand something is psychologized as some sort of anxious reaction of the analyzer. Or did you mean something different?

Seldom do I see more dehumanizing, less compassionate takes on what healthy societal relations between men and women would look like. — Tzeentch

Again, I have trouble following you. I did not offer any proposal on what 'healthy' relationships would look like, I am just identifying rather dehumanizing trends. I just think dehumanization is not a one way street.

The happiest and most enviable men who are those can go home to a wife and kids that love them. It's not the Andrew Tates of the world. A man must be able to integrate "feminine" values to some extent. My advice - read the Bible. Jesus was a man who managed to successfully integrate masculine and feminine traits in a way that made him such a powerful human. The choice doesn't need to be Andrew Tate or be a doormat. If the dichotomy of alpha asshole/submissive beta is causing you mental strain then step outside of it. — BitconnectCarlos

Your post show your adherence to conservative values. You state that the most enviable men are those that go home to a wife and kids. This means that in your conception of the world, the man goes out into the world, only to come home to where his wife already is. It is a simple and crude picture of happiness that never really existed. Men would not come home but when out to drink with their mates. It is simply an old recipe, adhere to some supposedly natural order given to you by the bible and all will be great. We are living in a different world though. Women also go out and work, men also do care work. It is precisely the attraction to the old recipe that fuels extreme conservative movements.

BitconnectCarlos Indeed. It's precisely because Western society failed to produce any meaningful male role models that enabled scam artists like Tate to prey on lost young men. — Tzeentch

Well, apparently Jesus Christ was one. What would a meaningful role model be in your view?

Possibly yes. I agree with you that social media is a factor, which should be taken on board in my analysis, but the post was long enough as it is. It does beg the question though why misogyny finds such fertile ground. If I would take that as a point of departure, the question: "why is misogyny rife on social media and a strong factor in the recent emergence of the far right", my analysis would be the same. There is I think an underlying problem which needs to addressed. Social media itself may inform 'us against them' sort of thinking, but does not dictate how the 'us' and 'them' are defined.

And such an informative answer it is...

That isn't the case I think, we had had emergence of far right movements in Europe for decades. — ChatteringMonkey

That is why I qualified it and stated 'recent success'.

EU countries were terrible vassals. They never paid any tribute. :grin: — frank

Of course they did. They supported the dollar as world currency, they supported the US arms industry with billions in orders, their greatest scientists went to US universities and they rhetorically backed US interventions.

Jesus. No wonder the country is broke. — NOS4A2

That list is peanuts. You also know that, please do not presume other people are silly

- $486M to the “Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening,” including

This actually makes a lot of sense. Some political processes and election procedures are in dire need of strengthening.

Hopefully European leaders get their act up as they are now meeting in Paris. They have to understand (and likely do understand, but won't say it) that the Superpower status of the US just ended and Russia is achieving it's greatest victory. The US is run now by a president whose power has gone to his head and hapless weak dicks that will ruin American leadership and status in this World. — ssu

Well, the problem seems to me that the EU is basically a rather fledgling state and has indeed resided under Pax Americana for way too long. The paradox is that the EU is only capable of cooperation in times of crisis. It should drastically reorient its policies, realistically wield its economic power and turn very quickly towards building up a credible defense policy. It has to sacrifice parts of its standards of living and that will not be popular with voters.

The NATO alliance was beneficial to both sides. By keeping the EU as US vassals militarily, also benefitted the US greatly. The EU's economic power basically supported US hegemony. If the US does not support the EU militarily, the EU will also withhold its support and its resentment towards the US will have dire consequences for both blocks. The EU should also have accepted Turkey by the way. The problem is, the EU is the Roman empire at the beginning of the Middle Ages.

It's not unlike how all the mortgage interest deduction does in the long run is drive up home prices while also increasing wealth inequality between renters and owners. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As we in the Netherlands know all too well...

In the whole European Union the alarm bells go off... but they have realized too late they need more integration and should end squabbling.

Finally, it’s time to turn the tables on the persecution and rid these agencies of the political henchmen, as appears to be occurring. It’s great to see them unceremoniously removed and denied security clearance. — NOS4A2

Yep, because someone is getting kickbacks somewhere (probably true, as the world is a corrupt place) lets turn on all civil servants without due process. Haven't you been offered a post at the ministry of justice yet? Funny thing is, I am quite confident that NOS is actually a govt informant so I am refraining from too much interaction...

I hope all is well with you, Tobias, and that your corner of the world is not yet an oligarchic shitshow. — 180 Proof

Well, it does not seem to be an oligarchy but we elected the most far right populist government in the history of the country. The Netherlands is a coalition government country and now Anti-immigration party, pro-farming party, pro-business party and a middle to conservative party which used to be popular with the people now rule the country. Most parties do not have people with a lot of administrative experience. The institutions hold, but the Cabinet Ministers simply seem not to do very much. It is the opposite of the Trump government in terms of assertiveness. I do not mind that I must say and to be fair they do not take steps to demolish institutions like the courts of law or the administrative apparatus. At least for now they operate within the law. They have floated proposals though to curb the right to demonstration, which is worrying, but they still play by the democratic rulebook at least now. Funnily enough even right wing voters by a large majority would have voted Kamala...

I do wonder why neither in Europe nor in the US the left has not found an answer. The discourse has turned solely towards meritocracy to the detriment of solidarity. It is strange because there is sympathy for proposals to tax the rich and even to make international agreements to tackle climate change. I do not think the left is out of touch with the views of the constituency, I think the views of the constituency is out of touch with the left because of years of depoliticization and embracing a liberal conservative responsibilization discourse with productivity and selling oneself as a commodity in an international market place as mantras.

Dworkin's behind a paywall; please summarize. — tim wood

There are summaries, please do the leg work yourself and look it up. It is also discussed in Michael Sandel's lecture on the subject if I am not mistaken.

Does it occur to you to ask why perhaps any one class of people might have a greater facility in some endeavor than another? The question presupposes one or the other of two possibilities, one essentially racist in itself, the other itself evidence of the need for some affirmative action. — tim wood

Yes, a great many things occur to me, thank you, but what are you implying? Indeed there might be a need for affirmative action, I am not disagreeing with that.

As to the qualifications for any profession, are you one of those who wants all practitioners to be above average? — tim wood

It would be nice, though it is impossible. If all practioners were above average, the bar for 'average' would be raised. I would like there to be competent people yes, but competency is one of the possible criteria.

We know even from posts here on TPF there is no such thing as race. We expect, then, in any setting free of racism - or any other kind of prejudicial discrimination - to find equal representation of all kinds of people, or if not to be able to determine why not. When that day arrives of equal opportunity and equal representation, then will be the time for affirmative action to be put to rest, but not until. — tim wood

Yes, I agree. It seems we are not in disagreement, and in agreement, also with Dworkin I think. Like I said, I think there are two arguments for affirmative action. One s reparation for past wrongs and the other is equal representation. The facetious counter argument of 'color blindness' is poignantly laid to rest by 180 Proof.

@180 Proof :fire:

It's not the exact definition of the ism under which American democracy is utterly destroyed that people should be concerned about, but the means by which it is done. — Vera Mont

Good point!

Now, I appreciate the fact that a 1000 Tzeentch-coins represents a substantial value, but you're sort of missing the point. I don't care what definition of fascism you use. Use your own made up definition if you want to.

In four years no reasonable person will believe the US has become fascist by any definition of the word. — Tzeentch

But Tzeentch I do not feel the need to make up any definitions. You do when you consider that the EU's treatment of Hungary is an indication of looming fascism. Nowhere though can withholding subsidies to member nations be found as an indication of fascism, except maybe Hungarian government propaganda, but I doubt even that does not go as far. I refer to the list provided by OP and made by Robert Paxton an expert on the subject.

I agree with you that diagnosing a certain government as fascist requires that ideology should be reflected in the institutional make up of a nation and requires practical events as indicators. At least, I assumed that you made this sensible point when you posed your challenge about 'nothing of note to happen'. However you refuse to back your point up by identifying what these evens of note might be.
That is a pity and I must assume that you mentioning 'nothing of note' is just idle rhetoric.

Hasn't that already happened? The thing that each side seems to forget is that increasing the hold on power by one side is increasing it for the other as well. Both sides are stroking each other's ambitions of power while manipulating citizens like yourself into thinking short-term that it is only the other side that is power-hungry. By supporting the two-party status-quo you are enabling them and their aspirations of power.

Neither side is concerned about the country turning communist or fascist. They just want more power and authority.

After reading this thread, any reasonable person would walk away understanding that both sides are hypocrites and is pointless to keep supporting the status quo.

You want real change? Stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. — Harry Hindu

I agree with you Harry, at least partially. The dems seem to have shot themselves in the foot and also maintain the status quo, not transforming the system itself, but keep expanding the powers of the executive branch. However that they are also short sighted, also power hungry and also willing to resist change does not mean they are ideologically equal.

'

in 4 years nothing of particular note will have happened, and you all are a bunch of hysterics? — Tzeentch

Ohhh... so ' something of particular note' is limited to the whole country becoming fascist? Everything else is ' not of a particular note' and If people warn of troubling trends short of blown fascism gripping the good old U S of A, they are a bunch of hysterics. I see. Well, too bad, I would have liked those coins, but alas, people do not put their money where their mouth is no more....

I pointed not just to the EU's actions vis-á-vis Hungary, but at a wider trend in the EU, involving the fact that it is an untransparent, undemocratic, authoritarian den of nepotism and corruption, which makes it a likelier candidate to develop into fascism than the US - which isn't to say that it is likely that it will. — Tzeentch

It is untransparent, I give you that. There is a democratic deficit, yes well known and freely discussed in academic and civil society circles, but where is the authoritarian part? In what way are its actions against Hungary, an authoritarian country which ranks 85th in the RSF Press Freedom Index, indicative of fascism per Paxton or any other credible researchers list?

Secondly, military action against peaceful nations is what the US does best. If you believe that shows the US is fascist, then it already is and has been for decades. — Tzeentch

In a world of rivalry between super powers i which the US might have indeed faced existential those interventions were unlawful and altogether criminal, but might have had a different justification than simply 'America first' . What matters is the motive, per Kant, whom you know well. This motive conforms to the last two on Paxton's list:
- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success;
- the right of the select group to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess within a Darwinian struggle.

The US invades and destroys other nations like its their national pastime. But the term for this is 'jingoism', not fascism. Fascism refers to how a state is organized, not to a foreign policy. — Tzeentch

Foreign policy cannot be separated from state organization, it is a part of it. A state is characterized by the way it exerts internal as well as external sovereignty. Or put differently, it projects its ideology inward as well as outward.

In four years no reasonable person will believe the US has become fascist by any definition of the word. — Tzeentch

Secondly, military action against peaceful nations is what the US does best. If you believe that shows the US is fascist, then it already is and has been for decades. — Tzeentch

Hmm compare the two quotes. There are certainly definitions of fascism thinkable under which the US can be labeled such ' for decades' as you suggest. I would not label the US as fascist in those days at all an still would not of course. Instead of bandying such words about I think we should agree on a list of common characteristics of fascism and see if these characteristics are displayed by a ruling government. You are dodging the point though. I laid out a couple of indicative events of note. They are all indications of a government moving to the far right (or far left but as there is not any indication of that I will not consider that). Will they or will they not occur?

Let me add to events of note by the way the prosecution of scores (a substantial number, not one, not two, but at least hundreds) of political opponents through either formal or informal means via employment bans and street intimidation.

For reference, these are your words from the previous post to which I reacted.

Who'd like to take me up on a bet that in 4 years nothing of particular note will have happened, and you all are a bunch of hysterics? — Tzeentch

Now you are shifting from 'nothng of particular note' to a whole country becoming fascist. It is nigh impossible to label an entire country 'fascist', what we may assess is whether a country's government embraces a fascist ideology. The OP provided a list of characteristics, which seem reasonable to me. Can I conclude you renege on your offer? Such a pity, I was already counting them Tzeentch coins...

For the moment supporting Trump seems to be conducive to making a profit. As the rule of law is removed, so is market predictability and stability. I suspect there may already be some pressure from other billionaires for that dancing clown to tone it down a bit after his salute. — Banno

They will uphold all the regulation in place necessary to support profitable markets, but cut all regulation aimed at preventing market failures. Every legal barrier to innovation will be taken away. Mind you that might not even be a bad idea, it is just a big gamble that will leave a great many people very miserable.

I'm talking about fascism, obviously. Or anything catastrophic that is beyond the scope of what is normal for US presidents and is directly attributable to Trump. Keep in mind that he'll have Biden to contend with in terms of wanton incompetence — Tzeentch

Yes, obviously, but you seem to have a rather ... peculiar... notion of what that term means. you think that cutting the subsidies of a member of the club that frustrates the clubs overall policy amounts to ' looming fascism' whereas threatening military action against against entirely peaceful nations does not. So what you consider fascism and what not is for me entirely unpredictable.

I can handle your second category but I would say that the events of the 6th of January fall out of the scope of what is normal. So I take it to mean that you hold such events will not take place anymore, that there will be a peaceful transfer of power to a legitimate successor, either democrat or republican, after fair and transparent elections and that he will indeed step down after four years, yes? Nor will there be an obvious puppet nominated after merely tokenist Republican party elections, such as someone from his family? In short, in four years elections proceed in a fashion previously considered in ways that are "normal for US presidential elections"? Moreover there will not be other significant constitutional events of note right, something like, say, an unconstitutional federal intervention in Californian policy suspending the rights traditionally held by States?

Are you really willing to put such a hefty amount of Tzeentch coins on the line?

Yes I saw this one. Though I do not think it fascist necessarily. It is a despicable act though. It does fit the play book to discredit and intimidate institutions that speak truth to power. Every government that is not blinded by ideology organizes countervailing powers that stimulate debate on the basis of best available knowledge. countries that silence such institutions tend to like to rule by emotion, appealing to the sound intuition of the masses rather then to knowledge.

I still feel that those guys from the 1930s had most to say about fascism and the way it comes to power: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1948164?seq=1

Who'd like to take me up on a bet that in 4 years nothing of particular note will have happened, and you all are a bunch of hysterics?

I bet a 1000 Tzeentch-coins on it. — Tzeentch

I certainly take you up on it. Of course we have to settle on what 'of note' means. I predict that a major constitutional event will take place that furthers or tries to further the hold on power of current government circles, including, but not limited to, Presidents being allowed a third term, prosecution of political and social high profile figures on drummed up charges, the administrative branch blatantly ignoring a supreme court verdict or something else of significant constitutional weight.

↪Banno As they do under any president. Trump's first presidency was nothing special, no fascism, no World War 3, no end of days, etc. and I see no reason to believe his second will be any different. — Tzeentch

I find the events of the 6th of January definitely a constitutional event of note.

I would also fin invading a country without any backing in international or humanitarian law to be a constitutional event of note.

You are correct - except when those policies are in force to remedy existing prejudicial practices. And in the US, racial prejudice dies hard, thus equality policies will have even a prophylactic function. — tim wood

It all depends on what we want of our institutions. If we want them to be a reflection of society, it might make sense to hire people from certain ethnic background or gender.

Take the judiciary. We want people with the most thorough knowledge of the law and sharpest argumentative skills to populate the judiciary. We also want the judiciary to be diverse in order to facilitate the exchange of ideas from different perspectives, expose cultural biases it may have and display in practice that people are judged by their peers and not by a class of people foreign to them. Those two values, legal knowledge and argumentation and equal representation may be contradictory. The language of law is steeped in tradition, its practices are culturally formed and people with a greater command of the jurisdiction's tongue are at a great advantage in law school. That might lead to the judiciary being populated by a certain class of people. However, representation is important in law, the law of the land is based on a common network of trust, a legal order we subscribe to. Without fair representation such a legal order is unstable, because certain classes of people may lose their faith in it. Therefore it may well be necessary to remedy this dynamic and engage in policies that advantage certain groups normally at a disadvantage.

Look at this piece by Ronald Dworkin
here

Note the lack of respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of Hungary, and the EU's willingness to strong-arm smaller nations into obedience. — Tzeentch

For reference I give Paxton's list below which to me seems a reasonable list of indicators of fascism. Notice how it does not include politically strong arming nations into stepping in line with a multi-level legal order of which it is part. You seem to equate fascism with policies you do not like. The great sovereign nation of Hungary though is free to leave the EU if it so pleases. The problem though is it benefits enormously from it, so it will not.

I think the EU has every right to demand a certain compliance. A monetary and economic union has no future when it does not have a certain level of political coordination. Would you feel better if the EU just decides to sever ties with Hungary or would you think that amounts to 'fascism' too?
Or perhaps you return from your misguided ways and concede you just made a rather poor argument which simply distracts from the discussion at hand?

Paxton's list

a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;
the subordination of the individual to the primacy of the group;
the belief in a collective victimhood, justifying any action against its enemies without legal or moral limits;
the fear that individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences will lead to a decline in the group
the need for a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;
the need for male authority culminating in a national chief who incarnates the group’s historical destiny;
the leader’s instincts are superior to abstract and universal reason;
the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success;
the right of the select group to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess within a Darwinian struggle.

We always compare ourselves to North European nations and wonder why we are not like you. But this is a utopia. It is impossible because our idiosyncrasies are different. — javi2541997

Spain is its own country with historical ebbs and flows. It has wonderful traditions, style and climate. Year around sun and broad stretches of flatland must be good for solar power... I am no economist, but tides will turn.

Anyway, I will always be fond of Spain, the Spanish language, its way of life. Just enjoy and do not fret much about something rather artificial as a 'country'.

Black Sabbath - Black sabbath
The Number of the Beast - Iron Maiden (I know SOASS is commonly ranked higher, it is the many memories)
Don't Break the Oath - Merciful Fate
Rust in Peace - Megadeth
Master of Puppets - Metallica

Well, if you read this, I would like to ask you:

Did you really notice an improvement in us?

Did you ever care about the death of Franco and then the born of democracy here? — javi2541997

Well, I am not Spanish speaking (basic level), not am I geographically close to Spain, but I am European and from a European perspective Spanish history is important, and bound up with its history, both personal and political. We have no idea about the 'being of Spain'. We do however very well know the importance of Spain in Europe and as I am born in 1975, we also know about the death of Franco and cared a great deal. I was just born than but many households rejoiced. Franco was the main European enemy of the leftist Europeans which were numerous in the mid-seventies.

In fact, I owe my existence to the demise of Franco, well his imminent demise. for a period in 1974 Franco abdicated as head of state due to illness and Juan Carlos took over. It was then that my parents thought it was alright to visit Spain again. They hadn't for many years due to their opposition to Franco as nearly all of the Dutch and certainly the more left leaning kind. It was during that holiday, during which they saw old friends and travelled through Spain, that I was conceived.

That holiday too my parents toasted with their Spanish friends to formally end any grievances about the '80 years war'. Just like I was conceived in Spain, the Netherlands was conceived breaking away from the Spanish empire, seceding formally in in 1581 with the Act of Abjuration and establishing the Dutch Republic. War tore through the country until 1648 when Spain recognized Dutch independence in de Westphalian peace.

You see the Dutch did expect the Spanish Inquisition, it expected more, the 'blood council' and the 'council of troubles', all religious and colonial Spanish courts. For us the Spanish inquisition was nothing to laugh at, but we learned in school is was a zealously catholic force that tried to break the spirit of protestantism. Ohh no, it was not the remnants of Islamic culture in Spain that we feared, it was the catholic fanaticism of Phillips the second. We had a motto in those days: "Rather Turkish that Papal!", it was clear where our sympathies laid and it helped that the Ottoman Sultan rather generously supported the Dutch rebellion.

The days of the Spanish fury are long gone and Spain became a beloved country for Dutch holiday makers. It was affordable and warm, cheerful and relaxed. The memory of 'vacation' will in my mind be tied to the memory of Spain because my parents went as well. Franco was dead and the paradores were open and wanted tourists and we went just like many of the Dutch. the first few words in a foreign language I learned were in Spanish: 'Un fanta por favor'. When I was four parents decided that if I wanted something I could ask for it myself and so I did. Sure, I was a small yellow blond little boy with small round glasses. not only did I get a fanta I also got a caress from the waiter or waitress who brought it. Still in my mind no people are as nice to children as the Spanish are. Yes, now still the country is flooded by my countrymen, but perhaps a different kind. Many a youngster has experienced her or his first holiday on the Spanish beaches, his first love affair, first time and first heart break.

Yes, the young now might not care about Franco, but I knew his name when I was a child and especially later when I became interested in history. You see, after the 80 years war and before Spain the holiday destination there was Spain as the first battleground against fascism. "No paseran!" was the cry of the Spanish Republicans and of the many Dutch leftist volunteers who joined the international brigades. Those were deemed heroes and when my father wrote a book with interviews with people who were young in the 1930s one of the questions was whether they went to join the Spanish civil war and if not, why not. Guernica and the unfair fight, those were the stories we were told when we talked about Spain.

Spain, yes, I understand your slightly ... melancholic post Javi. Is Spain taken seriously in the EU? Well, yes, but of course far gone are the times when Europe was drowning in the silver from Potosi, the place my lover is from. It is the curse of all imperial nations to decline and reminisce about the past. It is no France, no Germany in terms of influence. I guess in the EU its practical influence is comparable to that of the Netherlands, its old enemy. It is not as revered for its culture as Italy. Its wines rank below those of France. Its philosophical importance was once great actually, but they do not remember the Arab and Jewish philosophers from Spain's golden century. Yet still, Spain is a magical country in Europe. Owing in fact to its mix of cultures. Catholic Spain with its imperial splendid right next to the no less splendid Islamic Alhambra. The profane beaches with their endless line up of hotels next to the wonderful libraries and literature of Spain.

Yes, and those few words of Spanish I learned? They won my ex wife over when I proclaimed much to the surprise of the rest of the room that Spanish was a far more beautiful language than Italian. I sung a Spanish song for her and that sealed the deal. She is Turkish by the way... To old enemies and alliances my friends. Spain though, will always rank among my most favorite countries.

Ay Carmela, ay Carmela....

Some from places far away:
Turkey:


Puglia:



The Netherlands (Believe me it is far away, at least in time, for me):

I am the first to admit that the feeling is not entirely rational, also not philosophical... So I wonder, I have that feeling based on gut instinct, but have we all? Or is there something I have maybe missed that others do see? The meta question here might be philosophical or psychological, on what do we base our predictions of future events?

I am derailing actually, just wanting to say that, no, my feeling is not rational. It is very firm though :smile:

I really wonder on what people base their predictions, including myself actually. To me there is no shadow of a doubt that Trump will win. There are authoritarian tendencies rising in the world and the economy is hurting many people. Those two tendencies lead me to think Trump will win and there is a high turn out among republicans... Of course, the polls are even and I am not even American so what do I know. Still, not a shadow of a doubt... My feeling must be based on instinct, a hunch, some sort of worldview perhaps, but cannot be fully rational. So, my question to you, on what information / knowledge / feelings do you base your confidence that either Trump or Harris will win?

Thanks for the mention Javi, but I know nothing of corporate law. Benkei is a much better source here for Dutch law on crypto...

Indeed it is. What many don’t realize, though, is that he isn’t simply repeating Leibnitz’s question, he is deconstructing it. What he is really asking is , ‘why do we exclusively associate the copula ‘is’ with the notion of something, of presence, and not also the Nothing’? — Joshs

Thanks! I did start reading it once, (never finished) so I must have read this passage. Apparently it did not stick with me as it should have. :)

Oh yes, he "tried" this "modern idea" like a few others, iirc: Laozi-Zhuangzi, Heraclitus, Socrates, Pyrrho, Epicurus-Lucretius, Seneca-Epictetus, Sextus Empiricus ... Montaigne, Spinoza, Hume, Hegel, Nietzsche, Peirce-Dewey, Wittgenstein et al — 180 Proof

Hmm, I think there is a difference. I do not know about Heraclitus, Epicurus, Seneca. The ancients are interesting, but this sweeping comparison I dare not make because it may well be anachrinistic. I do think he does something different from Spinoza, Kant, Hegel and something very similar to Merleau Ponty, Gadamer and even Foucault. I think Nietzsche is his closest predecessor. He does not ground his phenomenology in logic and thought. He decenters res cogitans in favour of res extensa. Akin to Spinoza, but Spinoza held on to a geometric method. I do think he tried to overcome dualism, while putting practice ahead of logos.

I am a historical person and, of course, he owes a lot to others. Moreover, I do not share his craving for authenticity. I think philosophy took a wrong turn in that respect. A wrong turn with which it still wrestles, considering how many words thought is spend on the notion of 'identity' and not in a logical sense. I do think his influence on modern thought is undeniable and for that alone he deserves study.

"What is the meaning of Being (or Seyn)? I believe is Der Rektor-Führer's "main question"↪180 Proof ... At any rate, "why is there anything at all?" on my profile page is just a prompt, or TPF conversation starter – dismissal of the Leibnizian (ontotheo) fetish – and has never been my aporia¹. :smirk: — 180 Proof

I know 180, it was meant in jocular fashion. The aversion against 'onto-theology' you actually share with Heidegger. And yes, his view on authenticity you do not. Yet I think, Heidegger and you are not that far off in thinking, but are in writing and fortunately, in political belief... What Heidegger tried to do was to root thinking in practice, which is a rather modern idea. The way he did it... well, we will not quibble there I think.

Are you saying Heidegger’s main question is ‘ why is there something rather than nothing’? — Joshs

I do not know if it is 'the question'... it is his opener in his 'einführung in die Metaphysik" I believe...

No doubt, Heidi is very important but, imho, more as a negative example – how not to philosophize – than anything else. — 180 Proof

Ahhh 180 proof, bashing Heidegger again?

From your profile:
i. "Why is there anything at all?" Because
(A) 'absence of the possibility of anything at all' – nothing-ness – is impossible, to wit:
(B1) there is not any possible version of the actual world that is 'the negation of the actual world' (i.e. nothing-ness);
(B2) there is not any possible world in which it is true that 'a possible world is not a possible world' (i.e. nothing-ness);
(C) the only ultimate why-answer that does not beg the question is There Is No Ultimate Why-Answer.

You do realize you are introducing your readers to your thought, via Heidggers' main question? In good German I would say: "was sich liebt das neckt sich" ... :wink: