I’d be interested to hear more about what your political views are.
I am not too fond of sticking labels onto myself. It’s probably easier to answer this question in negatives. I’m not a liberal in the contemporary American sense. I am not a conservative. I’m not a neo-reactionary, though I’m sympathetic to and tend to cheer their skewering of sacred cows. On the other hand I have absolutely no desire to return to the imagined past of enlightened monarchy, benevolent aristocracy, and firmly established social order.
I thought that’s what reaction is, essentially?...it seems “reactionary” as generally used refers to someone who counter-argues against prevailing ideas that are new and recently fashionable.
I wasn’t intending to imply that you cluster with moldbug or neo-reactionaries specifically.
I thought that’s what reaction is, essentially?...it seems “reactionary” as generally used refers to someone who counter-argues against prevailing ideas that are new and recently fashionable.
“Reactionary” in the political context is primarily a derogatory term, usually meaning “a conservative I really don’t like”.
Not to mention that sacred cows are skewered by revolutionaries much MUCH more often than by conservatives :-)
I’m not so sure about that. The sacredness of an idea doesn’t come from its longevity, it comes from attachment to memes that make it immune to criticism; if there are already a lot of those memes floating around in a subculture, and if the binding criteria are loose or inconsistently applied, new sacred cows can evolve rather quickly.
Do you have any examples in mind? It may be that we just have different connotations and associations for the words “sacred cow”. I think the being a sacred cow implies more than just the social unacceptability of criticizing it, there must be, basically, a well-established tradition.
I’d rather not get into examples; too many of them are politically charged. But no, “sacred cow” doesn’t necessarily connote long-established tradition to me.
They’re probably more likely in association with long-established traditions, since there you don’t have to deal with a recent history of people challenging them. But an insular culture or a strong ideology can get past that hurdle.
Well, the view that homosexual relationships are just as acceptable as heterosexual relationships and that thus opposing gay marriage is evil, is an idea that has already managed to acquire sacred cow status despite not even being fully implemented yet.
Okay, I should write a script or something preventing me from replying to a comment unless I’ve seen all of its ancestors, because just telling myself not to do so clearly doesn’t work. :-)
I am not too fond of sticking labels onto myself. It’s probably easier to answer this question in negatives. I’m not a liberal in the contemporary American sense. I am not a conservative. I’m not a neo-reactionary, though I’m sympathetic to and tend to cheer their skewering of sacred cows. On the other hand I have absolutely no desire to return to the imagined past of enlightened monarchy, benevolent aristocracy, and firmly established social order.
I thought that’s what reaction is, essentially?...it seems “reactionary” as generally used refers to someone who counter-argues against prevailing ideas that are new and recently fashionable.
I wasn’t intending to imply that you cluster with moldbug or neo-reactionaries specifically.
“Reactionary” in the political context is primarily a derogatory term, usually meaning “a conservative I really don’t like”.
Not to mention that sacred cows are skewered by revolutionaries much MUCH more often than by conservatives :-)
that’s news to me. Reactionaries seem rather more self-consistent compared to conservatives.
It’s a matter of which sacred cows are being skewered—the old, established sacred cows or the young, upcoming, and popular ones.
There is no such thing as a young upcoming sacred cow. If it’s young and upcoming it’s not sacred.
I’m not so sure about that. The sacredness of an idea doesn’t come from its longevity, it comes from attachment to memes that make it immune to criticism; if there are already a lot of those memes floating around in a subculture, and if the binding criteria are loose or inconsistently applied, new sacred cows can evolve rather quickly.
Do you have any examples in mind? It may be that we just have different connotations and associations for the words “sacred cow”. I think the being a sacred cow implies more than just the social unacceptability of criticizing it, there must be, basically, a well-established tradition.
I’d rather not get into examples; too many of them are politically charged. But no, “sacred cow” doesn’t necessarily connote long-established tradition to me.
They’re probably more likely in association with long-established traditions, since there you don’t have to deal with a recent history of people challenging them. But an insular culture or a strong ideology can get past that hurdle.
Well, the view that homosexual relationships are just as acceptable as heterosexual relationships and that thus opposing gay marriage is evil, is an idea that has already managed to acquire sacred cow status despite not even being fully implemented yet.
Many of us have been implementing the acceptability of homosexual relationships for decades.
Um, civil unions, much less gay “marriage”, have only been around for just over a decade.
That’s true.
But in the last few years certain people on the Web have (ahem) reclaimed the term.
Right, but in the grandparent post Ishaan specifically said that moldbuggery is not what she means.
Okay, I should write a script or something preventing me from replying to a comment unless I’ve seen all of its ancestors, because just telling myself not to do so clearly doesn’t work. :-)
(“moldbuggery” is a great word)