4 ms·
It's not my theory, but it is an interesting framework to view politics through. Myth doesn't necessarily mean false. Even though that's the way the original
by wildmusings 11y ago
It's not my theory, but it is an interesting framework to view politics through. Myth doesn't necessarily mean false. Even though that's the way the original poster used it, I think the framework is actually stronger with the more general definition of myth. Answering whether the handing out of resources is fair or not is also not necessary for this framework to be insightful.
And of course we should engage the content of political beliefs. But we should also seek to understand politics as a phenomenon in itself. Our understanding of the beliefs is otherwise hollow.
- arrrg 11y agoIt’s so general as to be useless … basically what you are demonstrating here is one huge exercise in moving the goalposts, turning the theory into unrecognizable mush. So “invent a necessarily preposterous myth” is out. It’s now just about some belief, doesn’t matter how it came to be or what it is. Can be true, can be false, can be anything. If that’s the starting point then all the rest falls apart, really. It’s senseless. You can talk about the role of signaling or whatever, but the connective tissue is missing and the entire interesting and potentially insightful part of the theory is missing.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- marcoperaza 11y agoYou keep conflating me with this thread's OP and attributing to me quotes that are not mine.