Why do certain people kowtow before ideologies that are antithetical to the values they profess? Are there any books that investigate this phenomenon?
I think of it as 'Ideological Stockholm Syndrome', but usually get accused of armchair psychology/etc when I bring it up.
Other urls found in this thread:
Because ideologies involve paradoxes, and you may not have considered all of them. Feminism, for instance, is supposed to involve personal freedom and autonomy for women over their own bodies. It may seem contradictory to then argue that women should be allowed to wear something we associate with oppression, but it doesn't take much reflection to realize that forcing a modest woman to wear a bikini "for their own good" is hardly giving them freedom, any more than forcing a nudist to cover up is.
Everyone loves their enemies. Conservative militia groups are based on communist and terrorist cell structures, and don't get me started on the migration of torture techniques.
>forcing a modest woman to wear a bikini "for their own good" is hardly giving them freedom
This doesn't happen.
Someone can choose not to wear a bikini without consequences.
It obviously doesn't go both ways.
Be more specific OP. Are you talking about pic related?
Because in that case it's simple. Everything the West does is wrong, and everything every other culture does is right, no matter how debasing it is to women or to humanity in general.
You see the same kind of behavior among anthropologists who fetishize the "noble savage".
We're all in agreement that Islam is right on this particular issue, right?
Yes.
Western Liberalism's constant cocksucking of Islam, you could say.
Liberalism is internally contradictory, Marx already pointed this out over 170 years ago. Liberal values such as individuality/independence/autonomy/privacy/self-determination/etc contradict the non-liberal values of community/solidarity/encouragement of virtue through social pressure/etc.
The only real alternative to liberalism today on the table today is naive totalistic philosophies which promise you internal consistency but can't really deliver due to their own internal tensions. Consumer capitalism, religious fundamentalism, technofuturism (the singularity, posthumanism) aren't going to bring you out of this.
Why do certain people constantly shitpost on the literature board?
this
It's been really bad lately.
Liberalism is the belief that people should be allowed to do stuff that doesn't harm other people even if you vehemently disagree with it.
Thus the famous liberal idea of "I don't like pornography, but I like people's right to pornography."
Or that famous American quote by some famous historical guy: "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight ot the death for your right to say it."
These are the foundations of our liberal society. It often supports its own antithesis.
Liberalism must negate itself in the end to overcome itself and so history can move on. Liberalism isn't the end of history and ideology isn't dead.
>This doesn't happen.
It's just been in all the western newspapers about French police intervening over a burkini.
Why are you unaware of this user?
this is cognitive dissonance. everybody does it in some form or other, but you probably don't realise it.
they made her remove the burkini
they didn't force her to wear a bikini
stop this binary thinking
That image is well beyond retarded.
Letting women wear whatever they like except for nothing is a bit different from beating or killing them if they don't cover their hair. Fucking niggers
I love how it's being reported as "Muslim women forced to undress." As if the police stripped them naked on the beach. As titillating as that thought is I have to point out to my liberal friends that there are modest swimsuits that aren't burkinis.
Plus, this isn't really about women's rights, it's about forcing the carpet kissers to assimilate. Also a bit of collective punishment for all the murdering their coreligionists do in France.
The state should fuck off out of people's private lives regardless of what your personal opinions are of Islam.
The state has zero legitimate right to police people's clothing choices, regardless of whatever the fuck justification they have.
t. Ahmed bin Acid al Wife's Face
t. fat neckbeard /pol/tard
>The state has zero legitimate right to police people's clothing choices
What about flashers/indecent exposure?
Personally I think whether the state has a right to perform an action is missing the point too, although I feel living in Britain Brit politics has left me jaded.
>What about flashers/indecent exposure?
Is that the same thing as controlling the actual apparel people wear? No it isn't, is it.
Try going into a bank with a motorcycle helmet, bub.
>Dear Reader: The title of this book is composed of three words from my novel Cat's Cradle. A "wampeter" is an object around which the lives of many otherwise unrelated people may revolve. The Holy Grail would be a case in point. "Foma" are harmless untruths, intended to comfort simple souls. An example: "Prosperity is just around the corner." A "granfalloon" is a proud and meaningless association of human beings. Taken together, the words form as good an umbrella as any for this collection of some of the reviews and essays I've written, a few of the speeches I made.
Cat's Cradle itself would probably suit your needs as well.
It's not illegal.
L'etat c'est nous.
I might also remind you that France is in Europe, not the Land of Liberty. The rules are different there.
I think you'll find that yes it is. If I cannot choose to wear something that exposes my erect penis to strangers without breaking laws and facing state reprisal/enforcement etc that is a level of control.
Well I didn't say it wasn't a level of control, did I?
I said it wasn't the same. If you think flashing your erect penis is the same as arresting people for wearing clothes you don't like, you're either a retarded degenerate, or a /pol/-tard, or both.
No, the message of picrelated is ridiculously simple and I don't know how you missed it. It's a simple matter of personal liberty, which is one of the cornerstones of western civilisation. Picrelated stands in support of the ideals of western civilisation.
>We're all in agreement that Islam is right on this particular issue, right?
No, Islam is asiatic despotism unsuited to the civilised world.
Indecent exposure is a meme and there is nothing wrong with nudity.
It's not about the clothes buddy friend pal. It's like saying a crucifix is two pieces of wood. You're missing the point and weeping and moaning about the wrong issue.
You should be standing up for cultural relativism and the right for immigrants to refuse assimilation.
>Well I didn't say it wasn't a level of control, did I?
>I said it wasn't the same.
But you see on some level they are the same because they involve control over clothing.
>you're either a retarded degenerate, or a /pol/-tard, or both.
This sort of reasoning is quite common in legal debate/discussion and is the sort of thing I am trying to ape, nothing to do with opinions or w/e.
>It's like saying a crucifix is two pieces of wood.
Well it is. The question is, should people be arrested for wearing them, because someone somewhere doesn't like Christianity?
>You should be standing up for cultural relativism and the right for immigrants to refuse assimilation.
The thing is, for an immigrant to truly be part of the culture they must also be able to control it. In practice a similar argument to relativism but points out the hypocrisy of this kind of assimilation.
I've noticed tho it's a pointless argument most of the time in Britain due to general stupidity
>those people who wear burkas should all go back home if they don't like it
But a lot of them are from here, they already are home
>yeah but they should just go home
Honestly the level of conversation.
>because someone somewhere doesn't like Christianity
It isn't that people don't like it. France likes having a secular society.
If Christians were setting off bombs and driving tractor trailers into peaceful crowds and beheading priests and stabbing women then yes, the French would have to take a hard look at Christians and force them to disavow their more barbaric cultural practices.
If I moved to a Muslim country, I would have to forgo certain things that are dear to me, like the right to free speech. I don't get why Muslims shouldn't be expected to do the same when they move to the West.
>France likes having a secular society.
Secular means separating religion from politics. It doesn't mean arresting people for wearing religious clothes.
They aren't religious clothes. They're cultural.
There's no Islamic mandate for the burkha/etc.
>for an immigrant to truly be part of the culture they must also be able to control it
There should be something to the effect of a cultural constitution.
>But a lot of them are from here, they already are home
They're about as "at home" as the gypsies and Jews are. Deracinated and lost. There's something pathetic about Britain, the modern urbanization contrasts so strongly with the former coolies and peasants who occupy it. It would be like taking Eskimos and planting them in St. Barth.
There's no Christian mandate for nuns wearing the garb they wear either, and yet nobody arrests them.
Nuns don't cover and conceal their faces, either.
We're not talking about the fucking headscarves. We're talking about the Ring Wraith outfits.
Well I don't care. I am more worried about the state putting it's nose where it doesn't belong, than I am worried about a woman bathing in a beekeeper suit.
I don't care what the state does to Muslims desu. If they decided to round 'em up and give them a Zyklon B Jacuzzi, I'd be pretty chill with it.
I know you do. But lets hope it's you instead.
Hope all you want, it won't be me :^)
Won't be Muslims either.
Generally I support freedom of expression, but I don't mind curbing this in order to fuel the alienation and abuse of Muslims. I think it's important for Muslims to understand that they are considered social poison to the West and should be despised for their intellectual and cultural inferiority
Why are you the one who decides where the state belongs or not?
You people act like the state exists in a vacuum, and isn't responsible to the electorate. The state would mandate sharia law for everything if that was a popular opinion.
You commit the same fallacy as the /pol/tards when they say that Hollywood is "pushing" degeneracy. The only thing Hollywood is pushing is ticket sales. If enough people want to see a white female protagonist and a black male costar, that is what Disney will provide.
L'etat c'est nous.