Jazz Hands

Windscale said:

I believe they analysed their political choices etc. to try and work out where to put famous people on the chart.

I was just making a joke about it. I'd imagine what they did was close to that, but some cherry picking must have been involved. There are some very contradictory results. For instance Gandhi was quite nationalistic and authoritarian. He was hardly liberal either. He ignored or sometimes offended a lot of the other religious groups of India (even some of the other subdivisions of Hinduism) and almost dogmatically practiced as a Vaishnava, this was also reflected in his political decisions. His position against Colonialism was a standout point in his political career, he is viewed with mixed opinion in India. His time in South Africa was disasterous and filled with vitriol, and action against the Chinese and Bantu. He was very partisan in his views. I'd say he is somewhat romaticised due to the dim view of Colonialism, even though he milked it dry in South Africa. I'm pretty opposed to the caste system, it's ******. Gandhi was pretty comfortable with it, in the Indian sphere of his public relations. The Dalit haven't forgot.

http://velivada.com/2017/06/30/beware-claiming-gandhi-caste-gandhism/

I'm not picking Gandhi because he fell close to you on their estimation. I've read quite a lot about him. It seems to me that the metrics they probably used aren't accurate. I wouldn't say he was a person who was a man of the people, there were caveats to a lot of his decisions. More personal freedoms for his very specific part of society, the others were just there to swell the numbers. I think that some of that stuff is "Cult of Personality", that they have used. He was a very naughty boy, as a lawyer, as a politician, and as a spiritual leader. As for his personal life, he was a total ***. I'm not being a revisionist proponent of critical theory, ***, it sounds like it! Seriously though Gandhi wasn't near to the alignment they have.

Windscale said:

Seems I'm in the same quadrant as you, but maybe a bit more (personal) liberal and a bit more in favour of economic regulation (i.e. less economically liberal).  That's not state control of the economy for me - just I believe there needs to be adequate legal regulation to limit the worst excesses of "the market" etc.  For me the argument about "free markets" has been lost a long time ago - we know completely unregulated markets just don't work, so the real question is only about how much regulation markets need to work efficiently, fairly and with limited injurious impact.

That's the danger of these tests in my opinion. You can often think that you are constantly going to have to think from that position. I'm very liberal in a personal sense. Personal freedoms can often be different from political freedoms. Some of the questions in that test weren't really about political freedoms. There were some very stand out political issues that were ignored.

I think most of us are in agreement about that. Even pretty dyed-in-the-wool economists are starting to have some deviations from hypercapitalism. Free trade has it's advantages and disadvantages. I think that the adverse effect on small to medium sized businesses has been telling. They are dying. British industry has been switched from tradable commodities to abstraction, especially with the destruction of many national industries like farming, fishing, and manufacturing. If a corporation is acting with responsibility, we can't cast aspersion on them just because they are successful. When they start dicatating the rules and start acting like nation states, then it's really ludicrous. The abolishion of the "gold standard" has been the start of a slippery slope over the past 100 or so years. When commodity becomes only an abstract concept, countries, coroporations and financial institutions can dictate rules more freely. With money becoming a more abstract concept, anyone can define the value of it. The larger regulatory bodies are the most dangerous in this sense. Lebanon are the only country that have kept a gold standard in operation, they operate at 50% of cash to gold. Unfortunately their debt is well over their GDP, so goodbye gold! Interestingly, Mongolia which has opened up its resources for sale, and has lots of nouveau riche influence internally, has been buying gold in. Mongolia is very nationalist, and I think they intend to keep the international finance at bay by doing this. Ironically they were the first country to spreat the FIAT system! China invented it but Kublai Khan implemented it in a massive international format. I think that things are so entrenched in the current system that the only way to avoid it would be to go "off grid".

Windscale said:

I wouldn't say that the chart shows the Dalai Lama as almost an anarchist, I would say it shows him as being strongly in favour in personal liberty.  That doesn't sound unreasonable from what little I know of him.  I would guess an out and out anarchist would be similarly keen on personal liberty, but also very keen on economic freedom, so would probably be more in the extreme bottom right corner?

Please don't spoil it for me! I would like to imagine him in a full riot. Besides I think they will revise his position after his comments in Sweden recently. I don't think they will like to be painting him in a good light, he's probably an ultra-nationalist to them now!

[*Edited by Moderator]

I believe they analysed their political choices etc. to try and work out where to put famous people on the chart.

Seems I'm in the same quadrant as you, but maybe a bit more (personal) liberal and a bit more in favour of economic regulation (i.e. less economically liberal).  That's not state control of the economy for me - just I believe there needs to be adequate legal regulation to limit the worst excesses of "the market" etc.  For me the argument about "free markets" has been lost a long time ago - we know completely unregulated markets just don't work, so the real question is only about how much regulation markets need to work efficiently, fairly and with limited injurious impact.

I wouldn't say that the chart shows the Dalai Lama as almost an anarchist, I would say it shows him as being strongly in favour in personal liberty.  That doesn't sound unreasonable from what little I know of him.  I would guess an out and out anarchist would be similarly keen on personal liberty, but also very keen on economic freedom, so would probably be more in the extreme bottom right corner?

I came out as a slightly more libertarian Mozart.

They've got the Dalai Lama on the verge of anarchist so I'm not that sure of this......I'd pay to see him smashing up cars though.

All jokes aside, how did they get so many dead people to take the test! 

lol.  I come out as a slightly more liberal version of Ghandi.

Windscale said:

My hypothesis is that nothing taken to extremes works really well.  So the sort of ultra-capitalism we seem to be heading to now is just as flawed as the sort of Soviet era ultra-communism, albeit in a different fashion.

Totally rampant unregulated capitalism is counter-productive to both the societies that the companies trade in and ultimately the companies that trade in such a political climate. Capitalism carried out in a responsible manner, can be beneficial to society. Taxes can provide stimulus for social programmes, healthcare, education, and other governmental interests. In turn the people that have worked hard to get the things they earned, get to keep them. I don't imagine many Marxists would be Marxists for very long, if they invented a multi-million pound commodity. I have no problem with private enterprise if it pays the taxes demanded of it, and if the taxes are levied at an appropriate rate.

Capitalism can be practiced differently by each individual that practices within its society's confines. Some will be responsible, some won't. There is an individual choice. I despise the people that are vultures, but there are people that are honest. Also within a democracy people are free to operate within a communal business model if they so choose. There are options, and accountability.

There is no moderate Communism. Control of private interests, and social freedoms are dictated by the state. By definition it is total control by the state. Marxism is the philosophy, Communism is the state vehicle which Marxism is exercised.

There is no moderate Facism. Control of private interests, and social freedoms are dictated by the state. By definition it is total control by the state.

They both consist of two obsessions. Control of the general populaces money, and social freedoms.

In an open society, such as the model we have in the UK, public officials are held responsible for the fiscal, political, and social decisions they make. It's not perfect, but it's neither of the aforementioned models.

The irony is that Facism and Communism both have a far more unaccountable ruling class, and are far more accountable to a shadowy mercantile influence, which they have little to no responsibility to provide transparancy to the general public. Within a true democracy this is nigh on impossible, it can be done, but there are channels such as legislation, some areas of the press, and the internet, which can highlight such things. With state control over information, it can be a crime to persue or highlight these nefarious activities.

Hitler and Stalin were friends. Quite a lot of mutual respect there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact?wprov=sfla1

Windscale said:

I don't know if anybody is interested, but talking about left and right, has anybody seen:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

?

I find their way of looking at things a bit more real and nuanced than the straight left/right that people refer to now.

-------------------------------------

Reading the blurb on the front page, I noticed this......

"We’re indebted to people like Wilhelm Reich, Hans Eysenck and Theodor Adorno for their ground-breaking work in this field."

Reich and Adorno were both Marxist. Reich was a Freudo-Marxist, and Adorno is basically the poster boy for the Frankfurt School. Eysenck was a pretty odd character, he accepted money from Eugenics organisations, although he professed his hatred of Nazism, believed in mysticism, but professed that "science can only be backed by facts". Some odd people to be in debt to. They do give some view on party orientations on the compass, that was pretty interesting. Although with their influences I'm not sure how accurate it would be.

I use Reuters. It has little to no spin. It's good to sit there and decide what to think yourself.

Anyway I did their test thing out of curiosity. I'll show you mine if you show me yours......

My hypothesis is that nothing taken to extremes works really well.  So the sort of ultra-capitalism we seem to be heading to now is just as flawed as the sort of Soviet era ultra-communism, albeit in a different fashion.

I don't know if anybody is interested, but talking about left and right, has anybody seen:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

?

I find their way of looking at things a bit more real and nuanced than the straight left/right that people refer to now.

All the best to you as well.  I do agree that radicals of all party colours are a menace. And on that we have agreement. 

And some naive youngsters are left with a massive debt, gaining degrees in subjects which are part of the system, plus part a false economy, where the only option left is to spread the "information" that they have gained, which increases the saturation of people spreading critical theory.

Hi. Here is my problem with the debate in general. Am I particularly worried about 1 University bringing in “Jazz Hands?”  No.

At no point did I imply that you were. You were concerned with the use of satire though. I see nothing unhealthy in that either.

Nus debates don’t get large audiences and once they leave Uni they will be genuinely shocked at the the visceral nature of the world.

Students leaving NUS debates sometimes do get into positions where they influence people further on in life, after indoctrination. Some of the students will go on to positions where they themselves indoctrinate the next generation of students through being part of the faculty. This is clearly evidenced by this generations academic climate. Shouldn't University be a place that actually prepares them for "the visceral nature of the world". With all of the time and money they invest, it should. Universities should be a place for open discussion, but anyone who stands outside of the group think that is basically the culture are lambasted, ridiculed, and ultimately bullied. Sad really considering that it should be a place for mutual exchanges of ideas.

Once the students are on the treadmill of work and debt, “jazz hands” will probably end up an amusing anecdote.

So they will probably discard the "well meaning" so called "inclusivity" of the "request", and it will be relegated to an anecdote once they enter the arena of society outside of the climate promoted or enforced, depending on your opinion. So in essence they were doing it for no reason, other than to fulfill the "request". They will be ironically be ridiculing something "well meaning".

A more and less widely publicised worry that I am concerned about is the rise of the far-right.

It's more (or less?) widely publicised as you say, so logically it is more noticable. The far-left has basically now infiltrated academia so deeply that Universities are state backed indoctrination centres, with departments entirely dedicated to indoctrination to radical leftist thinking, which leave the unfortunate students in massive debt for their troubles. There is such a thing as "Horseshoe Theory", which is criticised by a majority of academia (I wonder why!), even though it was expanded on out at respected institutions such as Stanford and Harvard, that espouses the theory (backed up by factual evidence) that the radical left and right bolster each others support, and mirror each other in many ways. It's a symbiotic relationship of sorts.

They use the same grooming techniques as extremists to influence young and vulnerable teenagers.

As do the radical left. Indoctrination of the young is absolutely wrong whoever is carrying it out. I briefly attended SWP meetings in my younger days. My ex was Marxist because of her university indoctrination, she's no longer subscribed to it all, she owns her own business. Trust me I heard a lot of stuff that was as hateful as any right wing rhetoric. The turning point for me was when they wanted only women to hand out leaflets at a demo because "They could take the moral high ground if there was any physical stuff", it ended up in a pretty nasty confrontation when I called them out on it. I also saw a guy get more or less excluded because he had left the Trade Unionists because he'd worked and saved for years to start his own business. He was bullied and called "petit bourgoise" because he had started his own business. He still was loyal to their cause though. Disgusting, and these meetings were full of youngsters. It really opened my eyes. All sour grapes, hate, jealousy, infighting, bullying, planning public disorder and violent confrontation.

The Government is so worried about them, MI5 has taken over monitoring them from the Police.

SWP, ANTIFA, The British Communist Party, ILP, The International Marxist Party, Red Action, I could carry on, have all been monitored by the Police or MI5. So the Govenment are equally concerned about them. It seems a bit weird that the Government are openly admitting to spying actively on a group during an operation. I'm not disputing it, but it usually takes time for them to release details.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2018/oct/15/uk-political-groups-spied-on-undercover-police-list

Looking at that list everyone is being watched!

Indeed debate is about Critical Theory and other theories is great. But the most immediate danger is not from the left, but the far right.

I'm not talking about the left, you are reframing my points, a bit misleading really. The radical left is just as dangerous. It's subscribed to an ideology that has killed many times more people than Facism. I'm not defending Facism, it's deplorable, I'm making a factual statement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes?wprov=sfla1

We aren't going to be in a Communist Regime any time soon but after a few generations of the torch currently being carried in academia being passed on (remember these are the teachers, lawyers, politicians, scientists, doctors, of the future), anything is possible.

I think the radical left and right are equally dangerous. I have a problem with any young mind being radicalised.

This got kind of long, lol. Anyway, all the best!

Cloudy Mountains said:

Hitler had the BDM, and the DJV which was the deplorable enforcement of political ideals upon children, and young adults.

And that is why children are kept in 'school' until 21 these days - 16 years of programming.

Hi. Here is my problem with the debate in general. Am I particularly worried about 1 University bringing in “Jazz Hands?”  No.

Nus debates don’t get large audiences and once they leave Uni they will be genuinely shocked at the the visceral nature of the world.  Once the students are on the treadmill of work and debt, “jazz hands” will probably end up an amusing anecdote.

A more and less widely publicised worry that I am concerned about is the rise of the far-right.  They use the same grooming techniques as extremists to influence young and vulnerable teenagers.  

The Government is so worried about them, MI5 has taken over monitoring them from the Police.

Indeed debate is about Critical Theory and other theories is great. But the most immediate danger is not from the left, but the far right. 

Windscale said:

Don't worry Brother.  They'll be first up against the wall when the revolution comes ;-).

They probably would be if things ever got to that point. I'm not really in the mindset that anyone needs to be against the wall. Sad that people would feel that their own personal ideals would be so paramount.

Plastic said:

And that's how you enforce the social engineering - anyone acting outside the 'request' (clapping) are turned upon by the very vocal minority and probably slaughtered across social media as being 'insensitive to minorities'.

Classic "Art Of War" tactics - kill one to frighten a thousand.

You seem to have read and understand what the tactics being used are.

I'm totally against children, and young people being forced to adhere to any forms of enforced ideology. Hitler had the BDM, and the DJV which was the deplorable enforcement of political ideals upon children, and young adults. The Frankfurt ideals are the same thing, but people seem OK with it. Whether Marxist or Facist, it's wrong.

The shame in all of this is that through all of the fringe far-left stuff being put into the media, real issues people are having are being diminished by areas of the press that now have terms such as "snowflake", and "SJW" to throw at genuine issues. I'm pretty liberal myself, but I don't think that the political climate at the moment is beneficial to the majority who are seemingly being caught inbetween two increasingly disparate arenas of discourse. It's lazy in my opinion, the middle ground is where ideas should be shared and hashed out. Partisanship usually means that there is a subscription to the complete agenda and ideals of the sides chosen. The civility has been taken out of a lot of areas of areas where it would be beneficial.

Windscale said:

There's probably someone somewhere who will dislike pretty much everything.  So if you take this sort of thing to its logical conclusion...

The "proletariat" would have to act, and think the same if critical theory fullfilled it's ideals. Except the people dictating the standards. That is the literal goal of it. It doesn't sound good to me.

Makes me laugh these left-wing conspiracies.

Conspiracy makes something sound like something that isn't based in truth. I'm actually moderately left-wing myself. I don't subscribe to totalitarian ideologies though. It's fine to dismiss it with blanket terms, and satire, but you can't provide anything other than this to dismiss or dispute anything anyone's said. You could have just addressed people directly.

Unfortunately we live on a planet that ridicules anything well meaning.

I mean well! Stop ridiculing me! Or is it satire when used in a way that falls into the narrative you agree with?

Apparently Postman Pat was a Soviet Spy.  I know this is a fact because he drives a RED van.

I heard he was a sexual deviant who fathered all of the children in the village.

https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/tv-radio/2017/01/top-children-s-tv-show-conspiracy-theories

There's something to occupy you. It would be probably better to read a bit of critical therory to inform you on what's being discussed.

There's probably someone somewhere who will dislike pretty much everything.  So if you take this sort of thing to its logical conclusion...

Makes me laugh these left-wing conspiracies.

I have one too.

Apparently Postman Pat was a Soviet Spy.  I know this is a fact because he drives a RED van.

Jazz hands thing was a nice attempt of inclusivity that has split opinion.

Cloudy Mountains said:

It wasn't a ban, but "a request". If there was anyone clapping I'd imagine that they would have been lambasted though. The hysterical nature and ideological "sensibilities" that linger around academia today would have certainly played a part in making "a request", an enforcement.

And that's how you enforce the social engineering - anyone acting outside the 'request' (clapping) are turned upon by the very vocal minority and probably slaughtered across social media as being 'insensitive to minorities'.

Classic "Art Of War" tactics - kill one to frighten a thousand.

Don't worry Brother.  They'll be first up against the wall when the revolution comes ;-).

Plastic said:

Just more Frankfurt School.

Plastic, you summed it all up there. Adorno would be proud of this one.

Apparently it wasn’t a ban, just a request.

In certain social climates, "a request" is more dangerous to not adhere to than a ban. I'd say a University can be one such place nowadays.

It is indeed well meaning. Unfortunately we live on a planet that ridicules anything well meaning. 

It is meant to look well meaning, such is the illusion of Marcuse, Fromm, and Alinsky's goals.

There is ridicule and satire. I wouldn't use either. This is just depressing.

It wasn't a ban, but "a request". If there was anyone clapping I'd imagine that they would have been lambasted though. The hysterical nature and ideological "sensibilities" that linger around academia today would have certainly played a part in making "a request", an enforcement.

I totally understand people not liking clapping, I have pretty bad sensory difficulties. I wouldn't expect "a request" for it to be stopped though.

Using the "critical theory" that this stems from, and the solipsistic, post-modernistic ideals that constitute the direction this came from, it's easy to deconstruct it. What if there was someone there who had a pathological need for applause? What about people who were hypo-sensitive to sound and found it a soothing stim? What about the feelings of someone who came from a culture where applause is a common custom? Do they not have rights? Seriously, it's a viable, and possible thing. I know a girl who's stim is jumping up and down, and clapping.

Trust me I have serious sensory issues, but I don't agree with this. This is inclusivity being used as a guise for exclusivity, and basically using people with issues as currency, as pawns to take the high ground for the sake of "critical theory". I would rather endure the discomfort, than be used by a psuedointellectual, faux proletariat for their means.