'I Hate You 'Cause I'm Lonely': A Violent Revolt Against The New
	found on The Atlantic written by chiaboy, edited by Peter (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Fri 23 May 2:35am
		More and more people are becoming fearful about the direction in which the modern, secular nation state is going. At the core of that concern about modernism is an ethical crisis. The message that the modern world carries is that we have no absolute standard on which to make moral judgments. The bin Ladens of the world and the Kaczynskis of the world are reacting against that. Much of the terrorism in the world today, I think, represents a revolt against modernism. So says Alston Chase, the author of Harvard and the Unabomber, in an interview with The Atlantic. He claims that modernism and its breeding grounds have fostered a sense of alienation and fearfulness that is bordering on catastrophic. Chase claims that political ideology is trumping communalism in a variety of ways. Coupled with the creative-destruction of modernism, this era is creating a number of dangerous reactionaries. The disease of modernism isn't a new idea, but it may change how we profile those at risk. From the opulent background of bin Laden, to the Harvard pedigree of Kaczynski, to the recent bombings at Yale (which interestingly occurred near enough to Kaczynskis's birthday to generate interest), modernism may trouble most those at its core. Chase says of the Unabomber "He was like Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment, who said, 'I didn't kill an individual, I killed an idea.'" Perhaps modernism's perils have been misconstrued.

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 64 commentsbest: 9 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Its a bit late moaning about modernism now   by chatsubo       at Fri 23 May 3:16am score of 3 compelling     seeing that it stated after World War One. Also modernism didn't create the modern world, it was a response to the modern world — the meaningless slaughter of the trenches, the technological wonders of the 20th Century and the increasing social and political ailenation caused by industrialism and then post-industrialism. Art is a mirror to the world, so there's no point blaming the mirror for your ugly face. And IMHO both bin Laden and Kaczynski are not rebelling against the modern world, but are instead, a uniquely modern and sadly common phononema — a product of a society that has lost communal values and disregards the voices of the silent and powerless majority, and instead rewards those people strong enough to impose their own individual values onto society. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Same old , same old ...   by TheColdKing       at Fri 23 May 3:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     a product of a society that has lost communal values and disregards the voices of the silent and powerless majority, and instead rewards those people strong enough to impose their own individual values onto society And since when has the world been any different ? The more things change , the more they stay the same . What we are seeing now is merely the traditional end of an old age which is just the prelude to the start of a new one . TRUST NO ONE; USE EVERYONE   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   8.  Re: Same old , same old ...   by chatsubo       at Fri 23 May 5:30am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 4     I disagree. Repellent as many of the 20th Century ideologies were, they all had a broad communal support. Even if you try to strip away the propaganda, you still have to admit that there were millions of Russians who were committed to Communism, and just as many who were committed to Fascism. Whereas the most alarmist estimation of al-Quadia membership puts it around 50,000, and the Unabomber seemed to be in a party of one. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Same old , same old ...   by jandrese       at Fri 23 May 11:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     How do we know this? I thought the problem with the silent majority is that they don't speak up. If you don't speak up, history doesn't record your voice. This is an especially large problem in systems (like communism and facism) where dissent is treated as an affront to the state--usually with jail time or death. The silent majority that might have been reluctant to say anything bad about the government before certainly won't write anything down that might get them and their family killed. There's some entertainment value in watching people juggle nitroglycerin. -- Larry Wall   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Its a bit late moaning about modernism now   by bytesex       at Fri 23 May 6:58am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     First off, I don't think that the word 'modern' is used here in its art-historic sense. It is used more to describe the state of the western world after electricity, gasoline, aeroplanes and real big cities; in other words, the world after roughly 1850-1890. Secondly, Bin Laden and Kaxzynski are not unique to the modern world — history is littered with psychos, also terrorist ones; Giles de Rays comes to mind, and the man who set fire to the Houses of Parliament in London (Guy Fawkes ?) Don't make these people more trendy than they are already. Casey.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: Its a bit late moaning about modernism now   by vorfeed       at Fri 23 May 9:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 10     Secondly, Bin Laden and Kaxzynski are not unique to the modern world — history is littered with psychos, also terrorist ones Nor are they unique to America. Kinkakuji? Heck... perhaps one could say that Mishima's last act was one of terrorism, as well. Anti-modern terrorists have existed around the world, for almost as long as modernism has existed. I'm not sure one can conclude that modernism is somehow causing them, though... IMHO it's probably just that modernism (along with its attendant technology) provides terrorists with more powerful potential weapons, and a greater chance for their message to be heard by the public. Vorfeed's Black Metal Reviews   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  No, I don't think I'd say that.   by maml       at Fri 23 May 10:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 27     Heck... perhaps one could say that Mishima's last act was one of terrorism, as well. If he'd taken out a room full of people, yes, one could say that was terrorism. As it is, it was a politically motivated suicide, but the lack of damage to other people takes out the terror element. It's a pretty strong gesture, and infinitely more honorable than blowing up a busload of commuters or a nightclub or something. Still, he probably would have been better off writing another novel. I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: No, I don't think I'd say that.   by vorfeed       at Fri 23 May 1:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 30     As it is, it was a politically motivated suicide, but the lack of damage to other people takes out the terror element. Keep in mind, the politically motivated suicide came only after a failed attempt at a military coup, staged by a few extremists with a political agenda. Mishima certainly intended to damage other people — he meant to use the Defence Force to overthrow the current government and reinstate the emperor. He failed, but I'm not sure that makes him any less of a terrorist. Sorry about that, though, I didn't make my meaning clear. I should have said Mishima's last acts, not act, since I meant to refer to his coup attempt, not just the suicide. Vorfeed's Black Metal Reviews   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Future tense   by Invisible Agent       at Sat 24 May 1:16pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 1     ...and instead rewards those people strong enough to impose their own individual values onto society Never mind the "modern world"; biology has been rewarding those strong enough to impose their will on the environment for a few billion years. I see a disturbing tendency in people to believe that the world owes a voice to the voiceless. Helping the downtodden and oppressed have an opportunity to make their mark is a very good thing. Insisting that the the passive, meek, and luddites have a right to not be alienated by human progress is hopelessly naive. Modern technological civilization has existed for a mere moment in the history of human societies, and is still only a whisker away from disaster. The world is still a frontier, and it should come as no surprise that the strong and forceful set the direction. I think it's far better to celebrate those clearing the path to a better world than pity those alienated few who would rather stay where they are. chatsubo feels that bin Laden and Kaczynski are "product[s] of a society that has lost communal values". I am not aware of the golden age society whose "communal values" I would endorse. That society exists in our future, not our past. Invisible Agent - This post is a mirror; when a monkey stares in, no philosopher gazes out.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: Future tense   by nb       at Sun 25 May 4:32am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 67     I see a disturbing tendency in people to believe that the world owes a voice to the voiceless. The world, of course, owes nothing to anyone. But behaving as though it does may produce beneficent results, especially in this case.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Very Modern   by cargoculture       at Fri 23 May 3:21am score of 2.5 brilliant     Hmm... You could look at it that way but lets throw in these (possibly contradictory) thoughts... 1) Isn't Al Queda a decentralised network, made possible through globalisation and communications technology? Whereas America is this sort of lumbering 19th Century imperialistic behemoth at the moment that relies on gunbboat diplomacy and the concept that your enemy must have a country to bomb? Wouldn't that make Al Queda the more modern of the too? 2) Also doesn't being "modern" in the 20th century sense require you to have some kind of utopian ideology, like the Fascists or the Communists? Despite its enthusiasm America lacks that, preferring to muddle along with a mix of democracy, pragmatism and capitalism. 3) Why is America ? Europe is far more secular, and in many ways very modern compared with America as the mid-century wars wiped out a lot of old institutions and made way for new ones, but asside for Al Queda tragi-comicly mistaking Norway for Denmark in it's recent statements doesn't seem to attract nearly the same degree of ire. Successful breeder   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Re: Very Modern   by chatsubo       at Fri 23 May 3:34am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Whereas America is this sort of lumbering 19th Century imperialistic behemoth at the moment that relies on gunboat diplomacy and the concept that your enemy must have a country to bomb? Actually, I think America is being very postmodern in its imperial strategy — reinventing the old British Empire strategy of 'gunboats and gurkhas' for the 21st Century. For gunboats read B-52's and for gurkhas read the Kurds, or the Northern Alliance. The reason the British Empire worked so well is that it never relied on massive land based armies like its European rivals, but could project force as and when it was needed. The more things change the more they stay the same. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   5.  Re: Very Modern   by cargoculture       at Fri 23 May 3:42am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 3     But Al Queda is even MORE post modern because Al Queda is basically just an idea, a call to arms not tied to any organisational structure or geographical location. Hence Al Queda can strike anytime, anywhere and will be practically impossible to wipe out... 'course, that means its pretty much useless for anything but killing people, but it's still extremely modern. Successful breeder   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Meme out of control   by maml       at Fri 23 May 7:12am score of 1.5 scholarly   in reply to comment 5     Al Queda is not "just an idea". Al Queda is/was a decentralized network for distributing ideas and materials. The fundamentalist Islam they believed in was an idea. Cellular organization is an idea. They are powerful ideas that work well together. But Al Queda is a real (decentralized, really hard to kill, easily replaced) thing. I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Very Modern   by chiaboy       at Fri 23 May 9:51am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     2) Also doesn't being "modern" in the 20th century sense require you to have some kind of utopian ideology, like the Fascists or the Communists? I think you are head on in this context. He speaks of just that in the article: Ideology is the disease of the modern era. From the fifties to today we've seen a proliferation of ideologies. An ideology is nothing more than a political philosophy. It's fine to have a political philosophy, but when a person who holds a political philosophy reaches the point of such absolute certainty about it that he or she can't believe it could possibly be false and is not interested in debating its truth or falsity with others, it can become dangerous. Can a puma challenge a lion for king of the jungle?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Very Modern   by scottfeldstein       at Fri 23 May 11:07am score of 2.5 astute   in reply to comment 29     Ideologies have been a problem since the fifties? I beg to differ. when a person who holds a political philosophy reaches the point of such absolute certainty about it that he or she can't believe it could possibly be false and is not interested in debating its truth or falsity with others, it can become dangerous. Replace "political philosophy" with "religious belief" and we'll talk. In fact religious belief is by its very nature a belief which is impervious to facts...inherently dangerous without needing to be embodied in some "extreme." Even the most "moderate" religious belief qualifies as dangerous in this regard. And if anything, humanity has been moving away from that kind of dogma, that's the whole theme of the last couple of centuries. It's being played out right now, still. Witness 9-11. What is that except a bunch of people who hold a belief so unshakably that it has "become dangerous"? At least there's something for them to rebel against here in the modern world. At least we have open, tolerant, societies for them to take aim at. The Osama bin Ladens and the Unabombers of the world are a sign of progress. They used to be running the show whereas now they are fringe elements with no recourse except terrorism. scott d. feldstein - on the web at scottfeldstein.net, AIM: TheBeeWolf   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  religion and reactionaries   by scottfeldstein       at Fri 23 May 7:02am score of 1.5 astute     No absolute standard upon which to make moral judgements? That is the source of the problem? I suppose the world would be better off if someone stood up and claimed to have an absolute standard upon which to base them? If people started thinking that, next thing you know we'd be using that absolute standard to do horrible things like exterminate entire ethnic groups, despoil the environment, demonize those that didn't share our "absolute" values...fly airplanes into buildings because we know freedom of thought and belief and speech pisses off our Big Friend In The Sky... Oh, wait. Religion has already been invented. Besides, one can't criticize a phenomenon like "modernism" simply by pointing out that it's "reactionaries" are insane. That really kind of makes the opposite point. scott d. feldstein - on the web at scottfeldstein.net, AIM: TheBeeWolf   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  Re: religion and reactionaries   by stogie       at Fri 23 May 9:44am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     one can't criticize a phenomenon like "modernism" simply by pointing out that it's "reactionaries" are insane. That really kind of makes the opposite point. As much as I agree with the rest of your comment, the fact that rejection can be so severe in some cases does point to a flaw in the system that must be addressed, much as (please forgive the not-so-subtle and still contorversial analogy) back-alley abortions were a point against restrictions on birth control. "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy." -Tom Waits   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Chase Is Putting De Horse Before DeCartes   by n29_w95       at Fri 23 May 7:30am score of 2 succinct     "...modernism and its breeding grounds have fostered a sense of alienation and fearfulness that is bordering on catastrophic. Chase claims that political ideology is trumping communalism in a variety of ways. Coupled with the creative-destruction of modernism, this era is creating a number of dangerous reactionaries." So Bin Laden, Kaczynski, McVeigh/Nichols-bros blew people up because they longed for the "good-ol'-days" of a communal society? Calling bullshit. I doubt if any of those guys would last a day in a communal society because they're a bunch of creepy weirdoes. I'm willing to bet that they turned to the dangerous ideologies of loners because everyone else around them were sick of putting up with their shit — sort of the same reason that the "born-againers" finally find Jesus. ---Pie is good!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

34.  Re: Chase Is Putting De Horse Before DeCartes   by thegooch777       at Fri 23 May 10:26am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 13     "I doubt if any of those guys would last a day in a communal society because they're a bunch of creepy weirdoes" wouldn't they feel right at home then? All I want is a burrow owl, just like my old man   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Modernism, modernism...   by JackH       at Fri 23 May 7:49am score of 1     Is there any other word that has so little inherent meaning? Modernism is used by academics to signify all that is good and pure about the world. And so, by definition, anyone questioning modernism is questioning The Truth. Anybody with an iota of common sense might, after figuring out that so many people are disturbed by the direction in which a society is going, conclude that it might be a good idea to listen to these voices, or at least give them safety valves of some kind before they start blowing people up. Ah, but not the worshippers of modernity. Just like ideologues and religionists before them, they, too, shall embark upon jihad to suppress and destroy those who disagree. Compromise is weakness. Compromise is evil. Compromise with the enemies of God... sorry, the enemies of modernity is betrayal. And so it goes, on and on and on and on and on and on. And people wonder why the fundamentals of power and suffering never truly change. Oh, and by the way, Chase doesn't know jack about those "green anarchist anti-globalization people" (I don't think I've ever heard of a "green anarchist anti-globalization person" before. Maybe he means the Black Bloc — you know, those dozen-or-so teenage idiots who like to smash things and are almost completely infiltrated by agents provocateurs). Reading Thomas Friedman's columns does not make one an expert, my friend. Even if you don't agree with their positions, shoddy overgeneralizations like that seriously erode credibility. Kind of like the advocates of Paleolithic European Goddess-worship, who found images of the Goddess in what everything from bull horns to sewing needles, Chase is creating facts to support his theory. We see what we want to see. Isn't that right, Mr. Chase? Exactly like those nasty, nasty anti-modernists do, in fact... "If you demonstrate a personality deficit in comparison to the likes of John Kerry, you've got major problems" - Anon   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Modernism, modernism...   by JackH       at Fri 23 May 7:49am score of 1.5 astute     Is there any other word that has so little inherent meaning? Modernism is used by academics to signify all that is good and pure about the world. And so, by definition, anyone questioning modernism is questioning The Truth. Anybody with an iota of common sense might, after figuring out that so many people are disturbed by the direction in which a society is going, conclude that it might be a good idea to listen to these voices, or at least give them safety valves of some kind before they start blowing people up. Ah, but not the worshippers of modernity. Just like ideologues and religionists before them, they, too, shall embark upon jihad to suppress and destroy those who disagree. Compromise is weakness. Compromise is evil. Compromise with the enemies of God... sorry, the enemies of modernity is betrayal. And so it goes, on and on and on and on and on and on. And people wonder why the fundamentals of power and suffering never truly change. Oh, and by the way, Chase doesn't know jack about those "green anarchist anti-globalization people" (I don't think I've ever heard of a "green anarchist anti-globalization person" before. Maybe he means the Black Bloc — you know, those dozen-or-so teenage idiots who like to smash things and are almost completely infiltrated by agents provocateurs). Reading Thomas Friedman's columns does not make one an expert, my friend. Even if you don't agree with their positions, shoddy overgeneralizations like that seriously erode credibility. Kind of like the advocates of Paleolithic European Goddess-worship, who found images of the Goddess in what everything from bull horns to sewing needles, Chase is creating facts to support his theory. We see what we want to see. Isn't that right, Mr. Chase? Exactly like those nasty, nasty anti-modernists do, in fact... "If you demonstrate a personality deficit in comparison to the likes of John Kerry, you've got major problems" - Anon   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Enjoy it, or destroy it, or give it purpose.   by Remus Shepherd       at Fri 23 May 8:11am score of 3.5 brilliant     Hmmn. I'm torn. On one hand I'm a product of modern society. I work as a rocket scientist (true!), I have a physics degree, and I revel in high technology gadgets, toys, and entertainment. On the other hand I'm a misanthropic hermit with a deep-seated violence streak and a cynical belief that the world is heading to hell in a Walmart-branded handbasket. Some days the malheur and callousness of the modern world tips me over the edge, and I find myself wishing it would all fly apart in an orgy of destruction and fire so that afterwords I could rebuild civilization...using the notes I've kept on my trusty PDA, of course. Okay, so Mad Max I'm not. The problem, I feel, is not that the modern world is secular and thus immoral. Secular states can be as moral or moreso than religious states, as long as ethical guidelines are established and agreed upon. Otherwise everything is relative, and subjective moral precepts are worthless in a global society. The problem, I feel, is that the modern world has no soul. When asked 'what is the purpose of life', ancient people would talk about their gods or their place in the natural order of the world. Our secular state eschews gods and refutes natural law at every opportunity. If you ask young people what their purpose of life is, they're likely to talk about how many Nike sneakers they can collect before they die. We need something to give meaning to our civilization, and from that meaning (by judging our actions in how it advances that purpose), we can derive ethical values and a soul. What we need is a purpose, a vision, a collective goal. Fuck, I wish the space program was doing better than it is now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

33.  Re: Enjoy it, or destroy it, or give it purpose.   by slaphappy       at Fri 23 May 10:21am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 19     Have you ever actually talked with "young people"? That's unlikely the answer you'll get. Some want to be vetenarians, others want to be cops or fireman, and others want to be rock and roll stars... while most won't end up where they envision, the freedom to dream a purpose for themselves is an inalienable one in our society. This is a Good Thing. Life's purpose is something philosophers have been wrangling with since before Plato's time, and it is ultimately up to a free individual to decide what their purpose is. Only slaves have it mapped out for them in advance. Tribalism can offer many things modern society cannot, this is true... but tribalism has it's darkside, mired in ceaseless warring with other tribes and social ostracization (or worse!) for those with a different point of view. These dangers are greatly reduced in "modern" society. slap*happy   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Enjoy it, or destroy it, or give it purpose.   by Remus Shepherd       at Fri 23 May 11:20am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 33     Yes, I've talked with young people. And although I was being sarcastic and a bit hyperbolic in my previous post, my opinion stands — most people are looking for minor individual accomplishments, not society-binding purposes. My point is that, to avoid the ethical crises that Chase talks about, we need common goals with which to ground our common morality. We need some common goal for young people to consider as part of their life's purpose. They have freedom of choice whether to accept it or blaze their own path, but those who choose the common goal will help form a common moral framework from which the entire society can benefit. Religion and the glorification of dieties is one such goal, one that as a society we have rejected mostly because religion becomes a cultural mandate that removes individual freedom of choice. You might say that people in highly religious societies were slaves, and in some respects you'd be right. But I believe that it is possible for modern society to emulate the good parts of old religious society, and be both purposeful and moral without being tyrranical. All we need is for our leaders to give us a worthy secular goal. (Boy, I'm being a wordy asshole today. My inner cynic must be a fucking orator — who knew?)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: Enjoy it, or destroy it, or give it purpose.   by MrConnieLingus       at Sat 24 May 9:39am score of 1   in reply to comment 19     If you ask young people what their purpose of life is... There is only one "purpose of life", and that is to perpetuate our DNA strand...haven't you read Dawkins or watched Attenborough? Everything else we do is just a byproduct of the forces of natural selection that have allowed home sapiens to prosper on this mudball we call Earth. Man's quest for "deeper" meaning was pretty much answered centuries ago by Kant and Descartes. Unfortunately, the "average" Man is an immoral being that, if pushed to the edge, would choose to kill you, eat your food, and rape your wife. Religion is the most powerful meme to subjugate "the masses" into behaving in a somewhat "moral" (although even that is, of course, very relative) manner. MrConnieLingus's member profile karma: -786 (disingenous incoherent brainDead onDope)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  Two things about change:   by Dvandom       at Fri 23 May 8:31am score of 2 succinct     1) It Happens. 2) Some embrace it, many fear it. ---Dave   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

25.  The American Paradox   by advancedatheist       at Fri 23 May 9:06am score of 1.5 intriguing     I don't see how the modern outlook leads to the sort of alienation which makes for an unlivable society. America is the most religious and traditional of all the developed democratic societies, but also the most violent and dysfunctional. The more religious and traditional parts of the U.S. are worse than the more secular and modern ones. For example, in the year 2000, Jesus-loving Texas's murder rate was slightly higher than "cynical" and "alienated" New York's. By contrast, the secular developed countries with proper social-democratic governments generally have a high quality of life, despite all the propaganda in the U.S. about the evils of nonbelief and a government that looks out for the welfare of ordinary people instead of letting them fight for survival like gladiators to amuse the ruling classes. Americans prove the worth of these alternative social systems by willingly going on vacation to them, even to much-maligned France. So there's something wrong with this picture. "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  Re: The American Paradox   by tjb       at Fri 23 May 10:05am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 25     The US has a higher murder rate than European countries, but the overall violent crime and property rates in the US are much, much lower than in the France, Germany or much of Europe and even Canada. According to The Economist's "Pocket World in Figures", Australia has the highest rate of serious assault (708 per 100,000), France is 11 (162), Canada (!) is 15 (140), Germany is 16 (139), the US doesn't even make the top 20. For theft, Denmark has the highest rate (7687 — damn!), Australia is #2 (6215), Canada #5 (3968), Germany #6(3849), Switzerland 7, France 8, Finland 14, and again, the US doesn't make the top 20. Tim   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: The American Paradox   by advancedatheist       at Fri 23 May 10:59am score of 1   in reply to comment 31     I never said there was a Santa Claus. Social democracies just have a different mix of problems than the U.S., but on the whole they seem to have worked out a better deal when it comes to the things that matter. You can replace property, but not a life. "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Re: The American Paradox   by snarkism       at Fri 23 May 6:41pm score of 1 astute   in reply to comment 31     According to The Economist's "Pocket World in Figures", Australia has the highest rate of serious assault (708 per 100,000), France is 11 (162), Your figures do not show the big picture. How much of this is because of different rates of reporting of crime? The US police are so overworked that they will usually ignore minor assaults. In Australia, the police are under-worked, so they often go reporting and responding to minor crimes that would not be a blip on the US radar. If you look more closely, you are more likely to be mugged or murdered by a stranger in the US or suffr from serious crime. In Australia, you are more likely to be busted over a fight in a bar rather than an assault or murder. snarkism That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   73.  Re: The American Paradox   by emperorpenguin       at Mon 26 May 2:20pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 31     According to The Economist's "Pocket World in Figures", Australia has the highest rate of serious assault (708 per 100,000), France is 11 (162), Canada (!) is 15 (140), Germany is 16 (139), the US doesn't even make the top 20. There's a perfectly good explanation for that: the US was for some reason left off the list. I googled around for a comparison of crime rates and found this from Statistics Canada, indicating that the serious assault rate in the US is in fact 324 per 100,000 (Canada's figure here is slightly higher than the "Pocket World in Figures" number, due to the inclusion of a few additional categories of assault). I double checked this figure with statistics from Interpol, just to be safe, and it gives the same rate. It appears that for violent crime rates at least, the US is still well ahead of Canada or Europe. Property crime is another matter, many of these nations being comparable to or ahead of the US. everything moves real slow when it's forty below   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: The American Paradox   by tjb       at Fri 23 May 11:53am score of 2 scholarly   in reply to comment 36     I was actually more concerned with the serious assault category. While Australia's numbers are likely massively inflated by a bar-brawl culture (should that really count as serious assault?), the fact is, you're more likely to get beaten up and/or robbed in, say, Canada, than in the US. So much for Michael Moore's thesis. And even by the numbers you gave for HDI, the US comes in at a very close 6th, ahead of social democratic countries such as France, UK, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Finland, etc. Ahead of the US are two Scandanavian countries, one of which (Norway) has enormous oil wealth to fund its social welfare programs. Canada and Australia are also ahead of the US, but its debatable whether they are actually social democracies (Australia and Canada are, socio-economically speaking, more similar to the US than France in many important ways, excluding health-care and guns). And Belgium, the final country ahead of the US, while certainly social-democratic, is a borderline micro-state. So tell me again how that's proof that life in social-democracies is so much better than in the US? Tim   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Re: The American Paradox   by tjb       at Fri 23 May 10:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 53     I qualified that in my second post — I don't believe the actual "assault" (by general standards) rate in Australia is that high so as to be a large multiple of, say, France. However, excluding the Australia numbers, anecdotal evidence from my European friends does indicate that random beatings are somewhat more prevalent in Europe than in the US. A Belgian friend of mine was in a college-street-gang-type-thing (apparently a fairly common thing in Brussels) and used to go around beating up Turks (he's now a kinder, gentler xenophobe). French acquaintances have indicated such violence (against Muslim immigrants) is also rather prevalent in France. Not shootings, nobody gets killed, and the immigrants give as good as they get, but it does go on and I imagine it contributes in large part to the assault numbers (and LePen, but that's a different topic) And I wouldn't say that the police in the US are overworked in general. Mostly, crime is contained in a few (relatively speaking) neighborhoods that resemble demilitarized zones and most of the violent crime is drug related (by far the best reason to legalize drugs). Not that this is necessarily the best state of affairs, but if you stay out of the bad neighborhoods and stay away from the narcotics business, you're everybit as safe, if not moreso, in the US than anywhere else in the world. Tim   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   60.  Re: The American Paradox   by Payool       at Sat 24 May 2:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 40     the fact is, you're more likely to get beaten up and/or robbed in, say, Canada, than in the US. I don't know... I'm not disputing your figures, but I've lived most of my life in Toronto, including some "bad" neighbourhoods, and I've never been beaten up and/or robbed; nor has anyone I know. I've never even really heard an anecdote about someone who's a friend of a friend of a friend being beaten up and/or robbed. In contrast, I know several people who have been beaten up and/or robbed on trips to the United States. I realise this is purely anecdotal, but I'm having a hard time accepting your claim because of my experience. Can there be some reason why the figures might be artificially inflated or deflated?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: The American Paradox   by Adipic Acid       at Sat 24 May 9:24am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 60     I've spent most of my life in American cities, including the "cesspool of crime" that is Washington, DC. I've never been beaten up or robbed either, and the one person I know who has been fairly severely beaten actually started it. Should I have a hard time accepting Canada and Europe's claims that the U.S. is a violent society because of my experience? That's the problem with anecdotal evidence. It's easy to find one atypical case. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Re: The American Paradox   by nb       at Sun 25 May 2:23am score of 1   in reply to comment 53     How much of this is because of different rates of reporting of crime? ...Let alone massive differences in legal systems and reporting methodologies. I hope somewhere in the preface of that book is a warning to take external factors like these into account when comparing statistics across countries.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Jesus-loving Texans   by ray       at Fri 23 May 1:05pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 25     The killers down here don't find Jesus until after they're convicted. The real Jesus-lovers sit on the juries that hand out the death penalty to minorities and retards. Someone should put us out of Dick Cheney's misery.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: Jesus-loving Texans   by gordon shumway       at Fri 23 May 1:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 44     Once they are convicted and on death row it's easy for killers to find Jesus because there are two of him.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  Minima Moralia   by mrwarmth       at Fri 23 May 10:49am score of 3 brilliant     Oh God, what nonsense. Chase seems to have been living under a rock for the last 30 years. "Modernism" is dead. "Post-modernism" now only describes a style of furniture. During the last 30 years the West has successfully disentangled itself from its previous, religious, moral foundations and reestablished them based on the new religion of human rights. The West is now absolutely committed to the propagation of moral absolutes. Relavitism is dead — or, as we say in LA — over and out. The relatavistic moment in the West was merely how the West gave itself some breathing space to rethink what it was about. It was never a serious commitment. Now that the West is done thinking, it is very busy reestablishing itself as the exporter of absolute morality to the rest of the world. The notion that the West is beset by contentless relativism that is terrified of making moral assertions is just bizarre, since there is no evidence to support it. I think, however, that Chase is indulging in that oldest of intellectual tricks: presenting a substantive moral argument under the guise of a formal moral argument. That is to say, what Chase is really arguing isn't that we have no morality, but that we don't have the right morality. But he himself is apparently too modernist to just come out and say this, so he has to pretend the problem is that the very concept of morality itself has disappeared. Only someone mired himself in the malaise of modernism would take such a tack. Ironies abound, as ever. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

41.  No Greater Pet Peeve   by Screename2000       at Fri 23 May 12:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 35     of mine than going through a host of comments with a brilliant idea only to find the very last comment to say exactly what you're thinking and far more eloquently than you could have done so. The only possible addition I can make to your absolutely (no pun intended) correct post Niall is: the West has successfully disentangled itself from its previous, religious, moral foundations and reestablished them based on the new religion of human rights Given the imperial role of the U.S. in the emerging geopolitical balance of power, and our nation's re-entanglement with religious, moral foundations thanks to an incredibly effective Conservative grassroots campaign over the past 50 years, I'd say your new religion of human rights of the West might, unfortunately, have to be replaced with "nondenominational, liberal Christianity." And it's that realignment, coupled with the threat of post-Soviet American cultural dominance that is disturbing the Muslim/culturally conservative (most divergent from American conservatism in the sexual sphere) al-Qaeda's of the world.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: No Greater Pet Peeve   by mrwarmth       at Fri 23 May 1:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 41     Except that the US also uses the vocabulary of rights to justify and explain its actions in the world. Bush doesn't say, "We are conquering Iraq for Christ, to convert them to Christianity." He says, "We are conquering IRaq to bring them the religion of human rights and convert them to its benefits." -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: No Greater Pet Peeve   by mrwarmth       at Fri 23 May 1:09pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 41     And one more thing: The religion of rights is actually an American thing. Yes, I know the French got in on the act in the 18th century, but the US was really the first country to ground the entirety of its law on rights. That Europe has been converted, over the last 20 years, to the religion of rights is ironic, since they used to portray exclusive reliance on rights as an American peculiarity. The European religion of rights is just one aspect of its Americanization. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: No Greater Pet Peeve   by Screename2000       at Fri 23 May 1:37pm score of 0.5 incoherent   in reply to comment 43     "Because God wants us to."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: No Greater Pet Peeve   by mrwarmth       at Fri 23 May 2:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 46     but appealing to God is not inherently Christian, though it is inherently religious. American civil religion has always been deistic, but not Christian. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: No Greater Pet Peeve   by Screename2000       at Fri 23 May 3:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 49     Ok then, "Because Christ told me to." The "wonder-working," Biblical, Bob Jones University, Christian conservative, anti-Muslim references and associations of many U.S. politicians are enough for me to proclaim America's religious movement distinctly Christian.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  The European variety is different   by Jonas Cord       at Fri 23 May 4:57pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 45     You're right about the "religion of rights," but I have to say, from reading the Constitutions of European Countries, EU and UN treaties, their religion differs greatly from the American variety. Whereas the American variety generally relies upon a right to a lack of government interference, the European version is a right to government interference. Additionally, traditional "Bill of Rights" style rights in Europe tend to have useful loopholes written right in — i.e. the EU Charter of Rights says you have the right to free speech, unless it's hate speech, and unless we change our mind.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: The European variety is different   by mrwarmth       at Sat 24 May 9:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 52     But what I'm referring to is using the notion of rights itself to ground your law. A nation's sense of what rights are available to its population may vary, but European nations increasingly now justify their political and moral claims by appeal to rights. The UK, for example, used to be both amused and bemused at the US insistence on rights. Since the legal tradition of the UK guaranteed most of the same things without appeal to rights at all. Canada got along quite well without a bill of rights until quite recently. Yet now everyone talks as though belief in human rights is the sine qua non of having a just society. Which is just not true, as recent history shows. But these days telling someone you don't have to believe in rights to be just is like telling someone two hundred years ago that you could not believe in God yet still be moral. Another reason why belief in rights is itself a new religion, not a replacement for it. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   70.  Re: Minima Moralia   by sven_haagendaas       at Sun 25 May 3:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 35     Ironies abound, indeed. The United States, the major "exporter of absolute morality to the rest of the world," just contravened nearly every tenet of international law (of which it is a primary author) and engaged in a war on the flimsiest of pretexts, if not out-and-out lies. I'd say relativism is alive and kickin'. That's not to validate Chase, whose hound is chasing the wrong fox. It's not Western morality that drives someone like bin Laden, it's a twisted interpretation of it — and I think a similar case could be made for the Unabomber. I think it's a mistake to obsessively conduct a Silence-of-the-Lambs psychoanalysis of bin Laden. But it's just as big of a mistake to write off terrorism without acknowledging the role U.S. foreign policy continues to play. It sparks the resentment that leads people to seek solace in the whacked-out, even postmodern, writings of Qutb and his ilk. It's amazing how people think we've suddenly attained moral clarity, when the needle on the hypocrisy meter is pegged at the other end of the spectrum. Looking critically at our actions in the Middle East is somehow seen as caving in to the terrorists' demands, when the exact opposite is true. The only thing giving terrorists a shred of legitimacy in the Middle East — and thus support — is our shortsighted and hypocritical bumbling around the globe. If Chase is too eager to paint Western morality with a black brush, the West's apologists are too eager to give it a whitewash. There are plenty of shades of gray to ponder.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   72.  Re: Minima Moralia   by mrwarmth       at Mon 26 May 10:09am score of 1   in reply to comment 70     Yes, relativism is alive and kicking. In Europe. Your post is an excellent example of it. The EuroLeft position is that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal, immoral yadda yadda because it did not have the sanction of the UN. That's the position you state in your post. This position implies that the person taking that stand believes that military action against another nation carried out without UN approval is illegal/immoral, etc. Yet in 1999 Europe was united in support of the bombing of Serbia by NATO. Recall that the UN Security Council actually vetoed a request for approval. This lack of UN validation means the bombing of Serbia was illegal, immoral, a betrayal of every international principal, etc. Yet most of the people now condemtning the US action in Iraq and baying at the moon about how it is always wrong to act without UN sanction — those were the same people saying, not four years ago, that UN approval did not matter. So in fact it is Europe that is knee-deep in brazen hypocrisy. Since the US has never assented to the principal that lack of UN approval means military action is illegal/immoral, it is certainly not being hypocritical in Iraq. Since you're the hypocrite in this matter, it's a kind of meta-hypocrisy for you to accuse others of the same. Or is it just consistency? -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

42.  what a fucking wank   by snut_rucket       at Fri 23 May 12:54pm score of 3 astute     please excuse me for being blunt, but this is an unbelievable wank 1) "the disease of modernism". What the hell is Alston Chase talking about? As noted several times upthread the meaning of the word 'modern' always keeps shifting around. Modern.... relative to what? When? 1911? 1862? 1812? 1514? Back to the Age of Chivalry when we all had secure social positions and human relationships were sooooo much nicer and healthier? Gimme a break. 2) if 'modern' is a slippery word, 'modernism' is next-to-meaningless. In the absence of some more exact definition, I'd say that Alston Chase defines 'modernism' as 'those conditions which cause alienation and violence', which is a handy conceptual slipknot isn't it. 3) Chase: The message that the modern world carries is that we have no absolute standard on which to make moral judgments. The bin Ladens of the world and the Kaczynskis of the world are reacting against that. What was the connection between bin Laden and Kaczynski, exactly, again? That they're both reasonable, rational, well-socialized people driven to violence because of a lack of moral fiber? I'm amazed at how this position combines intellectual weakness, inductive reasoning, the pretense of knowing both men's motives, and moral superiority. It's really kind of impressive. For an irrelevant conceptual wank. 4) What are we supposed to do with this information? from the piece: You argue that in order to forestall the development of future Ted Kaczynskis, we need to de-emphasize conformity in schools, restore a broad liberal arts grounding to the college curriculum, and "rethink the role of ideologies in modern life." Oh well then, I'll get right to work de-emphasizing and rethinking. Fuck. If Alston Chase can point to some previous sylvan earthly paradise in the past, before this disease of modernism blighted the planet, when random violence and human conflict and dissatisfaction were unknown, I'd be happy to buy him and his bundle of nostalgic urges a ticket home.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

51.  Re: what a fucking wank   by MisterMetternich       at Fri 23 May 4:32pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 42     You ought not to be confused about the terminology. Post-1979 'Islamism' is a more recent development than our post-1789 liberal democracies, and therefore more "modern" under that definition. In this context, however, the usage of the word "modern" is made quite clear, referring to that whole Western-Industrial-Capitalist-Imperialist thing. It is not intended, I would think, as some moral or even temporal judgement, so much as a convenient label.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Hello Mister Metternich   by snut_rucket       at Fri 23 May 7:34pm score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 51     You ought not to be confused about the terminology.....In this context the usage of the word "modern" is made quite clear, referring to that whole Western-Industrial-Capitalist-Imperialist thing. That phrase captures Chase's blurry, elastic thinking beautifully, thanks droogie.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

55.  yup...   by BraveNew       at Fri 23 May 8:08pm score of 1     This was said more eloquently in even the Spark Notes for Brave New World. The interesting part of solving this puzzle isn't going to be enacting some of Chase's suggestions, but figuring out why we haven't enacted them sooner. (ie. Doesn't seem like this particular theory grasps its own history as an idea.) And yes... I do feel incredibly awkward making this post.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

57.  Let It BE   by dangerous richard       at Fri 23 May 11:06pm score of 1     praise the lord and pass the C-4. look mommy, there's an airplane up in the sky...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

59.  Modernism? Luddites are everywhere.   by Nameless Cynic       at Sat 24 May 12:52am score of 1     It took a while before somebody brought up the Luddites. But, if you're going to rail against "modernism," then they're the example to bring up. It's not modernism, it's change. Everybody is frightened of change. Change is not our friend. It's scary. It means that we have to abandon safe, comfortable ideas that we've always had, and replace them with something new (and therefore scary). The Luddites couldn't conceive of life without the looms that they'd always known. Had to bust up these new machines. Can't learn something new and move on. Nope. Not us. There is always somebody who can't accept change. Look at the turn of the 20th century. "Air power will never make a difference. Airplanes can't be used to wage war." People had already contemplated how aircraft could be used, but the Wright brothers (despite being financed by the Army) didn't make a major change in US military policy. It took a visionary like Billy Mitchell to do that. (And like all good visionaries, he gave up a career and risked imprisonment to make a change.) Hell, let's go even farther back. "You don't have to kill each other. Sometimes, if you get hit, you just turn the other cheek... oh, yeah... and pay your taxes, too." We nailed Him to a tree. People hate change. Change means that they have to throw out all those easy, uncomplicated ways of thinking that they'd been using, and find a new one. They hate that. Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

61.  A quibble   by Hiro Agonistes       at Sat 24 May 5:11am score of 1   in reply to comment 59     Change means that they have to throw out all those easy, uncomplicated ways of thinking that they'd been using, and find a new one. I'd say that dealing with lots of changes means throwing out all those easy, uncomplicated ways of avoiding thought. Mind you, one should never assume that people don't know their own best interests: it's entirely likely that a large number of the people who resist changes will not adjust well to it---many people lose flexibility with age, or had it discouraged out of them when young. That being so, and since for many the holding actions only need to work a couple of decades before they're safely dead or hors de combat, their opposition to changes (meaning, only those to which they object: Ayatollah Khomeini rocked-out using cassette tapes when he was in opposition) may be largely rational.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

62.  According to Fundamentalist radio...   by Hiro Agonistes       at Sat 24 May 5:16am score of 1     ...it's post-modernism that we need to worry about---starting about a year or so, three or four programmes had shows talking about the dangers of p.m.. "At least modernism has some idea of Absolute Truth in it, even if it's wrong," they usually opined. I think the shows were Hank Hanegraaff's Bible Answer Man, the "Focus on the Family" show, and the "Concerned Women for America" show, with maybe another. (They seem to go on kicks like this---a few shows at once will go on about the dangers of evolution, or gay marriage....or maybe I'm just seeing the pattern into existence.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

71.  what the hell is modernism, anyway?   by johnwilkins       at Sun 25 May 3:34pm score of 1     Is it in the humanism that erupted after the religious wars? Is it in the change from feudalism to Mercantilism and early capitalism? Is it in the idea of liberty, equality and fraternity between peoples? Or in the idea that everything important can be known by the human mind [as in the Encyclopedia]? Is it in the idea that the morality is found first in the individual [rather than the church.]? Is it in the elevation of the individual? My suspicion is that we are all "moderns" of a sort. Post-modern thinkers emerged [located, generally, in France] after the French indochina war. One "modern" philosophy [Marxism] did not explain Vietnamese resistance. As I understand it, "post-modernism" locates itself in "identity" rather than, for example, capitalism. But if anything, the idea of the west and its goods has itself become a commodity — and thus remains within the "modern" ideology and power of capitalism. Al qaeda is reacting to economic and political hegemony. They are not reacting against modernism. If anything, a modern, rationalist critique of their behavior can adequately describe terrorist action. We still use "modern" arguments to judge the [im]morality of their behavior. In a sense, by blaming "modernism" we abstract the issue, relieving individuals from the accountability of their actions.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]