3 ms·

>> I found it difficult to read the entire essay, so I didn't. I had problems with a lot of the characterizations. ... >> Remember too the author writes for t

>> I found it difficult to read the entire essay, so I didn't. I had problems with a lot of the characterizations. ... >> Remember too the author writes for the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank. As such, works from them are more likely to be aligned with conservative views, and not, say, rail against patriarchy. There's no need to politicize the article and then make subjective judgements based on your affiliations... Read the article for its merits. She talks about a lot more than just veggies.

innguest 12y ago
It is important to know who is making the argument in order to evaluate possible incentives, biases or an agenda. The parent isn't politicizing anything, they are saying a true statement that they think can be important for discriminating minds to help evaluate the claims in a richer context of important background information. Your knee-jerk reaction to this particular truth says a lot about you. For the benefit of others, however, I'd appreciate if you would let us read what others have to say, instead of encouraging censorship.
- pdeuchler 12y ago
  Apologies. I will stop preventing other people from reading the GP with my silly comment, which was placed nefariously under the exact post I was trying to undermine. Maybe you can help me become more discriminating in my thinking as well? I'd hate to commit more thought crime.
hrktb 12y ago
I read the whole thing, and am also quite disturbed. I also had the feeling that while there is a some discussion surrounding food, an awful lot of small jabs are made at people's sexual views. There is a repeated point driven accros that people of this area are morally depleted, in difference to previous generations. It's summed up in the introduction statement: > * things we might signal by shorthand as mindful eating, and mindless sex* This goes along though the whole piece, a lot of mentions goes toward porn, some about drugs, and the main point is again summed up at the end: > [Nietzsch]He could not possibly have foreseen our world: one in which sex would indeed become “morally neutral” in the eyes of a great many people — even as food would come to replace it as source of moral authority. A lot of words and energy is spent presenting current people's sex life as mindless, morally depleted where as in "the good old days" it wasn't the case. It's so egregious that it feels like the food talk is just a red herring and this essay just really wants to grieve about people's sexual life. So I'd agree with you, the author talks about a lot more than just veggies, actually it would mainly be about her thought on sex. You can't fault anyone pointing out that it's written by a conservative think tank.
- pdeuchler 12y ago
  I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the article, why would you assume either way? I think she's got some very interesting points but I'm more inclined to think the phenomenon she addresses has more to do with humanity's newfound ability to work their way up Maslow's hierarchy, and the issues we encounter while society evolves away from trying to reduce risks (i.e. stockpile this food so we have something to eat during the winter) to managing them (i.e. plan global agriculture infrastructure to be able to provide a constant level of food for the greatest amount of people). If my original point wasn't clear, it's dumb to pattern match based on supposed political affiliations and then make judgements without allowing the arguments to stand on their own. On the same note, I think you are projecting your stereotypes of "conservatives" onto her observations of society... I don't think she's necessarily advocating for one side or the other.
  - dalke 12y ago
    There have always been people at the top of Maslow's hierarchy. I gave as an example the aristocracy of the 1600s. I gave as another example JFK, whose many affairs were well known, but never tut-tutted as much as, say, the teenager in high school who suddenly had to visit with family out of state for 8 months. One of my stereotypes is that that conservatives tend to not analyze history as an oppressive patriarchy where social structures are set up to reinforce certain discriminatory behavior. Do you disagree with that characterization of most conservative analysis? I think it's an important factor. I quoted another essay which goes into why those are important factors. Since the essay did not address them (that I could tell), I thought it was lacking.
  - hrktb 12y ago
    Personally I don't really care if she is conservative or not (I'm not even in the US and am not sure to really understand the party system). What bothers me the most is that the article wants to tackle sex, and eventually food, but the claims on both subjects are peculiar, unrealistic and mainly unfounded. People aren't less moral than they were centuries ago, be it towards sex or anything else. Different people can now openly have different moralities, different POV have come to be tolerated and the law and society has changed in its view of sexual orientation and marriage. But these sexual behaviors or way of thinking didn't just become a thing now that they are legal or accepted, people were just doing them behind closed doors, were openly seen as exceptions, or got banned from society/killed/deported. Arguing that morality has gone south in two centuries is just an other way of saying "Society as a whole should have a single moral compass, the one of two centuries ago, let's bash any different moralities". And sadly the same goes for the food argument. There is so much "junk" food now because people produce and actually consume it. Arguying that we've become more morally concerned about food when literally thousands of tons of generic food is produced and eaten everyday is also delusional. Some peope care a lot more about what they it, of course, just as centuries ago rich people would also care about who makes their bread, what is their meat, if it's poisoned, and if it's nutritionous and tasty. There's no way a bourgeois would eat the same food as a farmer, and with choice comes educated behaviors, preferences and opinions. People didn't just judge with the same criteria, and it would be misleading to say that prefering organic vegetables to sanglier meat is a more moral choice.

innguest 12y ago

It is important to know who is making the argument in order to evaluate possible incentives, biases or an agenda. The parent isn't politicizing anything, they are saying a true statement that they think can be important for discriminating minds to help evaluate the claims in a richer context of important background information. Your knee-jerk reaction to this particular truth says a lot about you. For the benefit of others, however, I'd appreciate if you would let us read what others have to say, instead of encouraging censorship.

pdeuchler 12y ago
Apologies. I will stop preventing other people from reading the GP with my silly comment, which was placed nefariously under the exact post I was trying to undermine. Maybe you can help me become more discriminating in my thinking as well? I'd hate to commit more thought crime.

hrktb 12y ago

I read the whole thing, and am also quite disturbed. I also had the feeling that while there is a some discussion surrounding food, an awful lot of small jabs are made at people's sexual views. There is a repeated point driven accros that people of this area are morally depleted, in difference to previous generations. It's summed up in the introduction statement: > * things we might signal by shorthand as mindful eating, and mindless sex* This goes along though the whole piece, a lot of mentions goes toward porn, some about drugs, and the main point is again summed up at the end: > [Nietzsch]He could not possibly have foreseen our world: one in which sex would indeed become “morally neutral” in the eyes of a great many people — even as food would come to replace it as source of moral authority. A lot of words and energy is spent presenting current people's sex life as mindless, morally depleted where as in "the good old days" it wasn't the case. It's so egregious that it feels like the food talk is just a red herring and this essay just really wants to grieve about people's sexual life. So I'd agree with you, the author talks about a lot more than just veggies, actually it would mainly be about her thought on sex. You can't fault anyone pointing out that it's written by a conservative think tank.

pdeuchler 12y ago
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the article, why would you assume either way? I think she's got some very interesting points but I'm more inclined to think the phenomenon she addresses has more to do with humanity's newfound ability to work their way up Maslow's hierarchy, and the issues we encounter while society evolves away from trying to reduce risks (i.e. stockpile this food so we have something to eat during the winter) to managing them (i.e. plan global agriculture infrastructure to be able to provide a constant level of food for the greatest amount of people). If my original point wasn't clear, it's dumb to pattern match based on supposed political affiliations and then make judgements without allowing the arguments to stand on their own. On the same note, I think you are projecting your stereotypes of "conservatives" onto her observations of society... I don't think she's necessarily advocating for one side or the other.
- dalke 12y ago
  There have always been people at the top of Maslow's hierarchy. I gave as an example the aristocracy of the 1600s. I gave as another example JFK, whose many affairs were well known, but never tut-tutted as much as, say, the teenager in high school who suddenly had to visit with family out of state for 8 months. One of my stereotypes is that that conservatives tend to not analyze history as an oppressive patriarchy where social structures are set up to reinforce certain discriminatory behavior. Do you disagree with that characterization of most conservative analysis? I think it's an important factor. I quoted another essay which goes into why those are important factors. Since the essay did not address them (that I could tell), I thought it was lacking.
- hrktb 12y ago
  Personally I don't really care if she is conservative or not (I'm not even in the US and am not sure to really understand the party system). What bothers me the most is that the article wants to tackle sex, and eventually food, but the claims on both subjects are peculiar, unrealistic and mainly unfounded. People aren't less moral than they were centuries ago, be it towards sex or anything else. Different people can now openly have different moralities, different POV have come to be tolerated and the law and society has changed in its view of sexual orientation and marriage. But these sexual behaviors or way of thinking didn't just become a thing now that they are legal or accepted, people were just doing them behind closed doors, were openly seen as exceptions, or got banned from society/killed/deported. Arguing that morality has gone south in two centuries is just an other way of saying "Society as a whole should have a single moral compass, the one of two centuries ago, let's bash any different moralities". And sadly the same goes for the food argument. There is so much "junk" food now because people produce and actually consume it. Arguying that we've become more morally concerned about food when literally thousands of tons of generic food is produced and eaten everyday is also delusional. Some peope care a lot more about what they it, of course, just as centuries ago rich people would also care about who makes their bread, what is their meat, if it's poisoned, and if it's nutritionous and tasty. There's no way a bourgeois would eat the same food as a farmer, and with choice comes educated behaviors, preferences and opinions. People didn't just judge with the same criteria, and it would be misleading to say that prefering organic vegetables to sanglier meat is a more moral choice.