It depends on your goals I guess. I can very happily make a political discussion promoting my beliefs but keep respecting factual evidence and prevent myself from making a claim that isn't supported well enough by data/research even though it might be beneficial for my political argument.
Data/research is a very narrow lenses to look through (but important nevertheless). This master/slave morality is a very famous discussion started by philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and it's not something very scientific. Doesn't mean it's wrong.
It's not all about data and research I agree. My point is that something concrete must back up my points. Even if that is a strong reasoning system when data/research are absent. Nevertheless, cherry picking stuff to make an artificiall point is not how i roll
The comments on the thread seem to be by people who reacted emotionally to loaded words. For instance a good fraction of commenters read the term ‘slave’ associated with Christianity as ‘Christianity supports slavery’ whereas I see it opposed in the dyad against ‘master’ and believe the poster means the opposite.
What I find amusing about the counter-narrative on ‘critical theory’ is that the opponents of critical theory both accuse their opponents of having a victim mentality while themselves they thoroughly seem to think they are victimized. (E.g. ‘if I use the wrong pronoun I will be flayed alive by transsexuals, you think you are safe now because you always call them by name or call them “that person” but just wait till they come for you…’)
It is sad in many ways because it doesn’t confront the real failures of those movements at all (e.g. Hilary Clinton is as contemptuous of those people as they are) but it doesn’t matter because the counter-narrative is good for political mobilization. (Why else would somebody under 70 vote Republican?)
Nietzsche set up the dichotomy of master vs. slave morality. He characterizes slave-thinking by it assuming “stupid/dumb/ignorant is good”.
This trichotomy seems to further split up slave morality into slave vs. victim.
At first I thought it's the same thing but found it interesting that maybe a new morality (or a new branch) is forming now. Certainly interesting thought! Have to reread On the Genealogy of Morality...
10 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 53.7 ms ] threadWhat I find amusing about the counter-narrative on ‘critical theory’ is that the opponents of critical theory both accuse their opponents of having a victim mentality while themselves they thoroughly seem to think they are victimized. (E.g. ‘if I use the wrong pronoun I will be flayed alive by transsexuals, you think you are safe now because you always call them by name or call them “that person” but just wait till they come for you…’)
It is sad in many ways because it doesn’t confront the real failures of those movements at all (e.g. Hilary Clinton is as contemptuous of those people as they are) but it doesn’t matter because the counter-narrative is good for political mobilization. (Why else would somebody under 70 vote Republican?)
Interesting take, now when I think about it you are probably right. Actually this maybe shows that the "victim" morality is a thing...