A serious problem with liberal societies:
Let me make this clear: I consider myself left-wing liberal and in my forty years of life I don't remember to have voted any conservatives.
Nonetheless inside of me something tells me there are many things I don't like to change, as my taste in aesthetics and women. I do respect all the girls my brother brings home, but I can't say that I would choose the same for myself. In other words, I consider myself very rigid on aesthetics, although on politics I have the same views with my liberal bro.
So, aesthetics are a serious problem I have with my fellow liberals.
If I tell them I love Dostoevsky and skinny & tall women, one god knows what I may hear from them (a fascist, a supremacist and definitely a traitor of liberal ideals).
I had always this problem with my fellow liberals, till I realized last week what's really wrong with liberals.
It might sound weird but seeing Prince William and Kate Middletown on tv last week made me realize something, though I am against all kings and royals. It made me realize that although I have little respect for monarchy and the role Britain played in my country's history, this guy (William) and his wife seem so different from all the Britons I had the chance to meet on tourist destinations.
I never have seen Prince William drunk, I never have heard him having mistresses and wild parties and I see him and his wife having three kids (whereas I am in the same age with them and I do not plan to make any kids).
So, although I dislike monarchy and I don't see UK as my favorite country in Europe (the Republic of Ireland is more acceptable to me), for the first time in my life I tell myself: hey, these Britons are not totally wrong.
It is true that in the US we are doing fine without monarchs, but these Britons have something that many liberal nations lack today, they have role models.
I am sure that for many in UK, Prince William and his wife are not taken like models at all. But it made me think whether we should get rid of role models in general.
It is not getting rid of role models that what Liberalism is standing for today?
Indeed, these are the questions I have for you today: Does not liberalism (as we know it today) stand for the lack of all role models (but volunteerism)? Are we sure that our societies can do well without models?
Thank you for your replies to this discussion.
Nonetheless inside of me something tells me there are many things I don't like to change, as my taste in aesthetics and women. I do respect all the girls my brother brings home, but I can't say that I would choose the same for myself. In other words, I consider myself very rigid on aesthetics, although on politics I have the same views with my liberal bro.
So, aesthetics are a serious problem I have with my fellow liberals.
If I tell them I love Dostoevsky and skinny & tall women, one god knows what I may hear from them (a fascist, a supremacist and definitely a traitor of liberal ideals).
I had always this problem with my fellow liberals, till I realized last week what's really wrong with liberals.
It might sound weird but seeing Prince William and Kate Middletown on tv last week made me realize something, though I am against all kings and royals. It made me realize that although I have little respect for monarchy and the role Britain played in my country's history, this guy (William) and his wife seem so different from all the Britons I had the chance to meet on tourist destinations.
I never have seen Prince William drunk, I never have heard him having mistresses and wild parties and I see him and his wife having three kids (whereas I am in the same age with them and I do not plan to make any kids).
So, although I dislike monarchy and I don't see UK as my favorite country in Europe (the Republic of Ireland is more acceptable to me), for the first time in my life I tell myself: hey, these Britons are not totally wrong.
It is true that in the US we are doing fine without monarchs, but these Britons have something that many liberal nations lack today, they have role models.
I am sure that for many in UK, Prince William and his wife are not taken like models at all. But it made me think whether we should get rid of role models in general.
It is not getting rid of role models that what Liberalism is standing for today?
Indeed, these are the questions I have for you today: Does not liberalism (as we know it today) stand for the lack of all role models (but volunteerism)? Are we sure that our societies can do well without models?
Thank you for your replies to this discussion.
Comments (111)
It's a bit hard to follow what your point is. Liberals come in many varieties, just as conservatives do. Liberals have 'heroes' and role models - James Baldwin, Nelson Mandela, FDR, Gore Vidal, Gloria Steinem, JK Galbraith, Robert Reich, Susan Sontag. I know a number of liberals who quite like the royal family, Charles being a bit of a poster boy for liberal causes such as sustainability and other environmental matters. The point about liberal heroes is that they are generally valued for the contribution they make, not their heritage.
This was funny.
I live in the US and telling from political communication and aesthetics as well (especially movies and literature), the first thing a liberal should do is: to not judge.
So, it is hard to find in a US-like society models like good mother, good father, good family, beautiful woman, sexy woman and so on.
I may be wrong, but I have come to the conclusion that the only way to be politically correct towards liberal morals and aesthetics is to not be rigid at all, to not offend and to be 'open-minded' towards everything that does not violate state laws.
I repeat that I may be wrong, but this is what I take modern liberalism for: lack of models & aesthetics that first of all are politically correct (aesthetics which try to include as more qualities as possible, so none might feel excluded and no model may dominate).
Is this so or have I misunderstood US liberals?
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, which may be my fault. I'm not an American so the idea of 'liberals' is not something that comes up here much.
Quoting Eros1982
I don't know what this means. What does it mean to be politically correct towards liberal morals?
What has aesthetics got to do with any of this?
Quoting Eros1982
I have no idea what this means either. Sorry. Can you try to explain it with examples or cite something?
By the way, the monarchy doesn't function as a role model as such; it functions largely as a bastion of tradition and stability, a symbol of nationhood and continuity. The fact that the Royals need to be seen to behave responsibly largely comes down to a hostile Murdoch media, which seeks to capitalize and magnify any potential indiscretion and the fact that the taxpayer subsidizes them. They can't afford image problems.
You are correct about monarchy, its function is not to provide a model. But it is okay for my neighbor to declare that she conceived her first child through using a sperm donation bank and that she is not sure on who is the father of her second child. I can't imagine this happening in a royal family (without raising all kinds of opposition). In this case, I presume that my neighbor is exposing her free/liberal mores, whereas a queen or a king consort is serving as a model of old school wife (in order for the inheritance and privileges of her children to be protected).
With regard to aesthetics, there has been the practice in the past (and it is still the practice in South Europe and South America) that white, young, skinny, big-eyed and blondie-haired women to be chosen as tv-presenters.
In North Europe and USA it is hard for a tv-boss to stick on that practice without being labeled a racist. So, to be politically correct in a liberal & diverse society, the tv-owner should better chose women of different height, weight, muscles and color without asking all of us what we take for a beautiful presenter and an "ugly" one.
It seems to me that the tv boss is intruding in the way I used to consider a woman beautiful and he is even changing the way that my son will approach "beauty", since my son had not the chance to get his eyes used to those skinny, big-eyed, blondie women I used to see on tv for more than 30 years.
I can see that one does not need to be strict in defining beauty, especially in a country like the US. But I do see also that "correct politics" can have an impact on aesthetics and the way we teach our children to see "beauty".
That's an interesting assessment of American liberalism. But you haven't stated what comes next under that rubric: condemn those who do not follow this prescription.
I fear something worse than that: a new culture or religion that brings new models and declares crap and ignorance everything that existed before its arrival.
Though I love my freedom and the freedom of everyone around me, I fail to see how long societies can go on without role models.
I guess that was the reason why Plato turned against democracy in his Republic... though his own solution was really terrible. But he must have been right (history vindicated him within 50 years) that democracies are not made to last.
Not sure you have yet made a case that there are no role models in Liberal culture. Where are you finding this notion?
Then I must be wrong.
What I had mostly in my mind are family roles and responsibilities. Even the numbers show it that western societies are aging and will not be sustained for long without immigration (from other cultures where family roles are better discerned and individuality is not turned into a cult).
Anyway, the notion you are looking for can be found (probably) on the many rights of the individual. A liberal culture makes the individual, you and me, the last court of appeal, the subject of all rights and constitutions... so it is hard to see how such a culture may divide roles and models.
When all this mentality is mixed with everyday politics, things may get worse... because liberal politics tend to call emancipation everything that makes everyone to feel free and it even calls discrimination the dominance of one model over another.
So, it would sound a little strange to support the model of a couple with four kids in my town, when other 200 individuals say that they are being offended by the fact that I propose like a model a worked to the bone woman, who gave birth four or more times.
These other 200 individuals propose some other models as well: a single mother, a lifelong student, foster parents, a person who refuses to give birth, a gay couple, and so on.
If I refuse to promote their models, I'll probably loose 200 votes or see people protesting in front of my office.
What is the solution then? No models at all or mixing everything together.
I hope this helps you to understand how liberalism tends to erase models.
By the way, I am not saying that liberal societies cannot produce models. What I am saying is that liberal societies as I see those today in North America and Europe seem to tend to erase models.
So, though I guess that there may be an intrinsic problem with liberalism, I am not arguing for that. I am arguing that I see a trend here.
It is another question whether or not that trend can be avoided by liberalism.
I wish we could discuss on social media too... because they are really debasing human beings --not only politics and society, but people's mental health.
I proposed on my blog that there's only one sound solution to social media and internet: taxation and making stupidity expensive.
Government interventions in order to reduce hatred and bigotry will either fail or make people and far right more angry (so when their turn to govern comes, they may attack liberal media... as China, Russia, Iran and Turkey are doing already).
Tax parents and they will not see any benefits when their kids spend five hours a day on Instagram and TickTock. Right now all the stupidity the internet has to provide is distributed freely... and a mentally disturbed generation is what you get.
Anyway, let's start another discussion on that matter. It really interests me :)
Why? Its hard to make out much of anything from your posts in this topic, though you are clearly critical of American liberalism and express no critiques of American conservatism.
I believe in universal healthcare, better elementary education, global warming, big government, infrastructure spending, taxing the rich, social services, some kind of egalitarianism, and so on.
I guess these things make me liberal. Being an
immigrant is one more reason to not like conservatives and far right.
But the way Democrats do things is another story. They seem to declare themselves the robin-hoods who will save all minorities and if you happen to belong to a minority but at the same time to despise Democrats then something must be wrong to your brain (according to a democrat).
Not judging people and not trying to better educate them (so that they will not be offended) is another strange element of US liberalism (as I understand it) that I have come to dislike.
I may be biased against US democrats and US liberal columnists, but that may be the case because I am partially ignorant on what conservatives write and think in this country.
Truth be told, though I live in the US I read UK newspapers mostly (especially the Guardian). US liberals are more interested in not offending their voters, than resolving real issues.
If you think I am biased let me tell you that no western country spends more money for electoral campaigns than US.
If I remember well, in 2016 the political parties in UK spent 50 millions for their campaigns, whereas in the USA each major party spent around 3 billions. So, a country five times bigger than UK, spends 20 times more money for electoral campaigns. So, US politics and US media are firstly interested in money making and voting, then in emancipating people.
I don't know how exactly it works, but if Democrats gather 3 billions for their campaigns, some money must go to columnists and media outlets as well... though they pretend to be free thinkers.
Anyway, I do consider myself a liberal. You will not find a single post in this forum where I may oppose spending in healthcare, education, infrastructure, police reform and climate crisis. I liked Bernie Sanders a lot. Though I did not bother to vote Hillary Clinton, I did vote Biden and I am very happy with that.
But all that liberal propaganda (in communication, movies, literature, and so on) to not judge anyone sounds like Christian preaching to me... and I doubt that these people who preach us are really sincere.
I can't help judging my brother. How may avoid judging all other human beings?
Democrats pretend to be robin-hoods or saints, but truth be told I prefer them from Republicans and all those crazy evangelists.
1. Nobody's perfect
2. Truth is ugly
Maybe the absence of good role models is the point! We're all flawed beings and we have to come to terms with this rather disconcerting fact. To expect what is impossible is itself a great folly in my humble opinion. Why not just accept the fact that your mayor is a womanizer but has brought down crime rates to a record low. Remember Finnish PM Sanna Marin.
[quote=Voltaire]Le meglio è l'inimico del bene (the perfect is the enemy of the good).[/quote]
The bottom line - be realistic! Don't expect oranges from a lemon tree. Sweeter lemons every now and then, now that's what we can hope for. :snicker:
There are all sorts of movements in a culture over time and in different locations, Nothing exceptional here. There are, of course, role models ranging from very good to very bad.
One goal in "liberal" societies is to manage conflict. Better that than stoking conflict. A lot of what people call "political correctness" are just blandishments aimed at conflict reduction, and the illusion--if not the fact--that since we are all equal, there is no need for conflict.
That said, it can be very difficult to figure out the latest wrinkles in political usage. Why for example, has the phrase "pregnant women" been replaced by 'pregnant people"? The last time I looked it up, men do not get pregnant.
This is what I call a text-based Rorschach Test mon ami. It's about what you see in the text and not about what the text's contents are. :smile:
It's only a matter of time.
Nice. That's how I view Heidegger...
Does anyone really want big government? Honestly, it doesnt seem like you have a good grasp of liberalism/conservatism, or youre at least not showing how your reasoning, values, or moral framework align with these things that you believe in.
Ok. To make a larger point, word salads are, in my humble opinion, Rorschach tests too. What pattern do you see in a text of random/loosely-associated words/sentences, that's you, not the text's author. I'm way in over my head.
But, I believe you cannot claim that you are going to save the world from global warming with small governments.
One other thing I have come to believe is that apart from taxing people, the biggest role a state
should have is educating them. I fail to see how can states justify their existence if they do not educate people or set themselves to a state of mind where role models are seen as a risk of losing voters.
This is what we are talking about nowadays: removing statues and erasing texts so that people (voters) will not get offended.
And what are going to be our models after we erase those we used to have the last 300 years? Can the advocates of vandalism & history rewriting be sure in that they will offer better and long-lasting models to the rest of us?
How can we be educated if there are no models or we are given constantly mixed models, models that contradict each other?
The royal family doesn't make for the best role models.
Is this primarily a liberal view. I would say it is likely more extreme leftism and that is simply due to a stronger dissatisfaction with tradition at large. That said, I do not see this as the primary force of any mainstream leftist agenda.
The whole left versus right thing is overall a pull between the status quo versus change. In the US my impression is that the governing bodies are all to the right side of the spectrum (compared to anything in Europe) so maybe this has produced more hard leaning leftist views coming to the fore in the US?
(Note: just speculating as I have never visited the US and only have secondhand sources and commentators who have voiced something along these lines).
I would not call the royals (or other equivalents) as being role models. They are more or less icons of an idea. The idea that there can be someone to look up to and that this is true for everyone at all levels of society. Stephen Fry has commented that there is something intrinsically humbling about the tradition of the Prime Minister having to mean the head of the monarchy every week to state their intentions for the country. The monarch does have power but they never ever use it politically and act as a kind of living icon that the true leader of the country must bow before and humble themselves (something good for any leader imo).
One thing I think has been a large item in my generation is the decline of marriage. I myself from a young age found the whole thing silly and pointless. I viewed it as a sign of insecurity when people wished to find a bride/groom. I still think such a single-minded attitude to life is weird BUT I have no real issue with marriage as it is just a celebration of a loving relationship and for various legal reasons can be practical too. Another major change in my generation is people choosing not to have children. This is apparently a common feature of any civilisation that has wealth. The birthrate goes down as living standards go up. For me personally I find the repugnance some people express at the idea of having children as repugnant as they do at having children this puzzles me a lot. Even when I didnt want to have children I never shunned the idea or winced in disgust at the idea. I think there is something inherently wrong with people who find the idea of having children to be repugnant but have I have ill views of those that simply choose not to.
Has anyone else experienced this view on the increase? The visible facial expression of disgust at the thought of being a parent? I wonder how much of this is due to extreme feminism actively seeking to besmirch would-be-mothers and calling them anti-feminist because they wish to raise children rather than pursue a career.
I guess this current social complication is not a massive surprise given that women in the workplace is a relatively recent thing and differing societies around the world are muddling through this change as bets they can.
That is a true extreme liberal idea planted in there ;P We are most certainly NOT all equal :D
All societies handle conflict. That is probably a damn good definition of what a society is a group of peoples with various opinions and views that actively handle conflicts within their body and at their borders.
Undoubtedly the term liberal has gone through various revamping movements and will likely keep shifting around. A libertine is liberal, yet it is a different sort of liberal that many would shun. Just like any label it can be spun one way or another to suit those wishing to twist their point home without having to navigate through a rational argument.
Agree.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes, when I studied politics that was essentially called pluralism, a central tenant of liberalism - the peaceful coexistence of a plurality of interest groups and persuasions.
Liberalism does not own the idea of handling conflict at all. It is just a loose set of ideas that can be applied to address human conflict (which is as inevitable as death itself) and conservatism is another loose set of ideas that can be applied to address human conflict, as is fascism or anarchism.
I personally believe that any system looking to eradicate human conflict will essential cause untold destruction to the point where if it continued human society would effectively disappear (be this via evolutionary adaptation or complete annihilation).
Maybe but my point was that pluralism used to be the liberal ideal. And one it might be argued we have lost. But really all I was interested in is trying to work out what the OP is trying to say.
He proposed the idea that today liberalism is about getting rid of role models.
Ironically pluralism means many different things and has bee used in almost stark opposition to itself by various different philosophers :D I think the version I liked was espoused by I. Berlin? Who are you referring to when you say pluralism? Who was the main man when you were schooled?
Please dro- a few names if you can and maybe I will spot the one I found most intriguing. Thanks :)
With regard to 'word salads' it is partly about the subjective meaning of the author and also what another may read into it, especially the ambiguities. This applies to life in liberal society in general because people exchange ideas and express themselves, often with a lot of fantasised ideas about what is communicated through the haze of words and what they represent. It probably leads to a lot of distortions, misunderstandings and even belief in shared understanding where none exists.
:up:
Thoughts can be presented in a coherent, easy-to-grok fashion; in fact communication is all about that. However, there are times when this isn't achieved (word salad) and it is then that one projects oneself onto the text/picture/sound/touch/taste/smell - you see things ... in a manner of speaking ... glimpses of your own beautiful mind.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I'd say the image in a mirror can be used to detect the shape of the mirror. A quick way to tell you whether a stellar image is Hubble or James Webb is to look at how many rays of light the star appears to have. If you wanna know it's 4 for the former and 6 for the latter.
Yep, I understood the words he used but as an argument against liberalism I don't think this hits the right target for reasons I presented earlier. Maybe there are other ways of putting this argument that will resonate with me.
Berlin, for sure and Robert Dahl. And Charles Taylor for criticisms of pluralism. I know very little about political theory and it has been 30 years since I studied it.
I can remember going to see an occupational health doctor once and he wrote a report, which read like a 'word salad'. The funny thing was a copy of it got sent to a senior manager on her mobile phone. I got called in for a meeting about it because she was so puzzled by it. I didn't know her that well and she was querying aspects of it and I didn't know what they meant exactly. It was like trying to work out a secret code.
What if your best self is an exceptionally talented serial killer?
I think people generally choose role models closer to home - the royals, with the possible exception of Her Maj, have generally been a banal and motley crew. Whether it's Phil-foot-in-mouth-the-Greek, toe sucking Fergie, swastika donning dumb-arse Harry, flighty Di, tampon sucking Charles, or even Randy-Pederast-Andy - they make decidedly inadequate subjects of veneration.
By best Im also including moral goodness.
Veneration. Honestly such an appalling idea. Hero worship, God worship, all of it just seems terrible to me.
I'm sure many would agree. But aspiring to have the virtuous qualities of certain others is a well known path too. Hence gurus and religious leaders like Gandhi. I think the problem is determining what moral goodness is and what 'venerating it' involves. But this belongs elsewhere.
Can you try to make a cogent case for this? From what you've presented, you don't seem to have a solid rational basis for it.
You have a point here too, i.e. there are things advertised as expressions of true freedom when in reality they are just expressions of extreme leftist mentality.
As a 20th century liberal myself (if there is such a thing), my biggest qualm with with role models in the 2022 liberal zeitgeist is the push for the role model to be matched by identity to you. So a young black woman should have a young black woman as a role model. A disabled east Asian man should have a disabled east Asian man as a role model, etc. That not me denying that identity is important - it is. But I fear that in the over stretch towards identity, we sometimes forget the common humanity that we share. Depending on what you read today, you would be forgiven to think the young black woman and old white man have no shared experience at all, no common thread of shared humanity.
@I like sushi seems to suggest that I confuse liberalism with extreme leftism.
That may be an answer. You have all these Soros-minded people who have enough power to sponsor Hillary Clinton and 100 film-makers who will remind you 24 a day that democracy and politics should preoccupy firstly with ALL KINDS of minorities and individuals and then with working families and traditional majorities.
So, it may be due to the power of the extreme left that many people (including Orban, Trump and Putin) have drawn a lot of support in their war on liberal institutions, though as I like sushi implies not everything that is called liberal it solely means that word (excluding other political definitions).
I his work, Plato seems to suggest that democracy debases human beings, since its main function is not to promote the division of roles/labor or to promote sound thinking, but to promote desires and caprices.
Though Plato was referring to another "kind of democracy" it is really striking that today's electoral democracies do somehow rely on desires more than on sound reasoning. It is hard to govern people today, if you are not informed on daily basis about their demands. So, if you happen to govern a diverse district, the first thing you ask yourself is not how you will get your tasks done perfectly, but how you will represent all your voters' wishes in the way you perform your tasks. If you don't do this, you may loose votes in the next election.
Hence, again (like 25 centuries ago) emotions seem to play one of the major functions in democracy.
It is hard to see how a liberal society can promote models nowadays when the first thing every politician should worry about is the representation of his voters wishes, his fear that none should be excluded so that no vote is lost in the next ballot.
In the broadest definition, sure. But there are large differences in the means employed and the desired end.
External conflict may be used to achieve internal cohesion; a good war can unify the population. Conflict may be used to reduce unwanted diversity by stoking internal conflict between groups (like the Nazis did). Internal conflict may be used to weaken opposition to colonization. Etc.
An ostensibly liberal society like the United States (which is hardly the only example) may employ quite illiberal methods of. As you noted, "We are most certainly NOT all equal". It takes a lot of manipulation and misinformation to keep a lid on our potential social conflict.
Are manipulation and misinformation tools of liberal management???
It's always a big mistake to suppose that emotions won't play a major role. We are not altogether rational animals.
Quoting Eros1982
To some extent (% varies from estimate to estimate) electoral politics are and always have been a sham. Liberal societies (like all other societies) strive to stay in business, so whatever supports continuity from election to election will be employed. Still, no system is perfect so every now and then 'the people' manage to actually improve things through voting.
This second element has become very practical in my political choices. Though I dislike Democrats and their obsession with "open society" and "identity politics" (viz. Sorosianism), there are so many other things where Democrats and liberals in general are more acceptable to me.
What?
Did you follow Hillary's Clinton electoral campaign?
All her arguments where about accepting everything (immigrants, Muslims, LGBT, Hispanics, and so on).
I am an immigrant, I have Muslim (and Orthodox) ancestors, I have LGBT friends, I think Hispanics are the coolest people in America, but I don't know what a hell of electoral campaign was that?
Like taken out from some George Soros' article where the impression readers get is that in democracy what matters the most is that every minority is represented enough, so as none to be excluded, none to be offended.
I wonder if these kind of politics can ever produce models like: good father, good wife, beautiful woman, well dressed/haired people, and so on.
Because now in the government jobs we are even told to accept all kinds of of hair-styles and dresses from our colleagues (but male short pants). We are in the constant pressure to accept anything and to not judge things as ugly or as beautiful.... just because some person who belongs to a sect or tribe may complain that he/she is not accepted.
This is what am I talking about. Does this kind of mentality lead to models? Can cultures and societies last without models?
Well, equal rights is a pretty important aspect of democracy.
Still don't know what this has to do with Soros.
Why wouldn't it?
Quoting Eros1982
See here and here.
Having a "demos" (a like-minded community) is very important also. But when you hear all the time about differences and identities that need to be respected, you stop believing that you are living in a demos.
You start believing that you are living in a regime where everyone is distant and different from you and the only way to make yourself heard is to exercise some kind of power on others (through voting, lobbying, protesting, vandalizing, and so on).
So a like-minded community is one where certain groups of people should be disrespected? This really is quite telling of your (lack of) ethics.
What specific liberal policy related to social equality do you disagree with?
You better look at the past of the UK and USA. How did they become so strong?
People had some values and ethics that differed (and made them exceptional) them from many others.
You don't have that nowadays. Now you have just politics led by money and power. Ethics is the last thing that matters in American democracy today (you can't even speak about ethics without someone feeling "offended").
What do you have now? Poor people who protest/vandalize and the rich who keep lobbying.
Since the majority do not see any interest in both options, they are the last to be heard in this country.
But does it need to be that way? What would happen if liberal societies were able to infuse their mores and education to everyone?
Democrats say that this is what exactly they are doing (they are teaching everyone to become a saint), but we have some doubts here. If they are teaching us what are models we are shown?
I don't see any models in this political culture. Nevertheless, other members are making a few things more clear to me.
Replying to your three questions:
1) If marriage was assumed to aim at procreation I would be against the marriage of LGBT. But I don't see marriage in the US to symbolize procreation, so I cannot take a stand at all to your question.
2) Because I despised Hillary Clinton that has nothing to do with the way I view women. I'd gladly vote for Elizabeth Warren.
3) Black people should be treated like all other Americans, and be helped to get equal education, equal rights and equal jobs with everyone else.
What I don't see like a good thing are attacks on the history, the mores and the aesthetics of people (majorities), just because we have to stick to "correct/representative politics".
This is why from the beginning I was talking about models, nothing else.
Again, I don't know what this means. Can you be specific? What is an actual example of a "more/aesthetics of the majority" that is being attacked by liberal social policies?
As it stands all I can read from this is that you want to be excused for being a bigot.
Eg. To be married and have children, to be an independent woman, to be transgender and of some ethnic minority? Who are the guardians that should be admired when there is more and more attempts to literally rewrite history out of pure ignorance driven by nothing more than a political agenda to appear to be doing the right thing.
Maybe that is kind of the point being made? That is the impression I have anyway. I think it is an interesting perspective to view the extremities of liberal views today to be engrossed in the removal of role models be they currently living or long dead.
Thank you for the clarification.
You helped a lot with mentioning left extremism... that gave me some kind of perspective lol
What history is being rewritten?
I've already made my views on role models clear.
But on this point, that's the question I'm trying to get answered. @Eros1982 appears to have a problem with liberal role models. So I want to know what he thinks are the "right" values, and which liberal values he thinks are wrong.
Let say that the British are very proud of having conquered once upon a time the 1/7th of the world and Russians are proud for having conquered 1/11th of the world and so on.
They praise their generals, but now you have someone who claims that General X167, killed his cattle and burned his village. So, the latter claims that the statue of General X167 in Manchester should be removed for the atrocities he committed to his village and instead of the statue of General X167, we put in that place the statue of Preacher Y259, who lived in the destroyed village and raised 2000 cattle and gave food to 30 people.
Here we have a dilemma now: take like your model the courage, intelligence and skills of General X167 or take like your model the good heart of Preacher Y259?
This what we are talking about today and this kind of dilemmas are more visible in liberal societies, rather than in other societies where religions and tyrannies do not bother to ask you what model you prefer (they give it to you).
To answer your last question: I cannot be sure what is right and wrong, I just wonder how a liberal/electoral minded society can tell what is good and bad (ugly and acceptable), when everything it wonders about is representing and non offending ALL voters (in ALL possible ways).
Why would you need a statue of someone to have them as your role model? This is just about not wanting to publicly glorify someone who committed an atrocity, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you want a public display of someone with courage and intelligence and skill then find someone else who exemplifies those qualities and who isnt a mass-murderer.
Or just stop needing role models.
Okay, I see.
My previous answer had to do with your question on what I meant with rewriting history.
Now let me give you one more example:
My (fictional) country is located in an island where 50% of the territory belongs to us, and the 50% to the other nation. We have been in 400 years war with our neighboring nation (for religions, ignorance and all kinds of stupidity) and we are sure that the neighboring country does not give up attacking us. We are sure also that in the middle of the ocean none will come to our help.
Due to our religious differences and beliefs, in my country we tend to be more liberal in mores than in the neighboring nation. But that has a cost for us. We are being reduced in numbers. The neighbors have become 700k, we have become 600k. If we keep up with these numbers we are sure that 40 years from now our neighbors will be 900k, and we 400k.
We are afraid that these numbers mean capitulation for us and most probably another way of life. Are we not justified in wanting to promote models like having a few kids, being more courageous, handling guns, and so on?
So, in this extreme example I don't think it very good to erase all models whereas at the same time we might be praising our way of life. If we stop having models, we better renounce our way of life and accept whatever our neighbors will decide for us.
I hope this puts some perspective in the need for role models.
You dont need role models for this. Just promote the virtues of having children, fighting for your country, etc.
If you have rational basis for your position, it seems that you are either unable or unwilling to articulate what it is.
From what I can tell having sifted through many of your posts, you are concerned about the left with regard to "traditional values". Isn't that what you're concerned about rather than the left "standing for a lack of role models"?
The problem with "traditional values" in the US is that there has been and continues to be a tradition of bigotry. Bigotry against racial minorities, women, the LGBT community, etc. Having long-standing bigotry has had a deleterious effect on society. The left seems to be trying to eradicate that bigotry and remediate those long-term effects. You seem to perceive this as an attack on all "traditional values". The aphorism "A house divided cannot stand" has much wisdom in it. Bigotry divides. It should be eradicated and its long-term effects remediated.
I will be frank with you. When I first came to this country 15 years ago, I landed in NYC and I was impressed with all that diversity... it felt like being home from the first day in the USA, since you have all the communities of the world in NYC and you can choose to belong wherever you want. That was a beautiful feeling, very exceptional.
But when I see USA now, I see a society that is investing in its divisions (or maybe my vistas are biased). It is hard to see how all these peoples and cultures can agree on other things but money and power. It seems to me that money and power keep things going on in this country today (it has not been like this always, the Puritans brought here their culture that did not survive or it survived only partially... this country once open a time had a demos with its own ethics, then it turned into something else, something much bigger).
Now, imagine a whole world becoming like the USA.... all communities, cultures and religions infused in one place and everyone fighting for himself and showing his power and wealth in order to make himself heard or even dominate others. (Is there any other way to succeed in a country with so many diversities in mores, beliefs, values and aesthetics? It is not this the way politics work in the USA... show your power in order to succeed?)
Would that kind of world look diverse to you anymore or would it look everywhere like Brazil or some poorly managed US city where communities isolate and protect themselves from "invaders"?
It is okay in diverse countries like USA or Brazil all diversities to be accepted, but I wouldn't call it a bad thing if UK, Ireland, Denmark, Kenya, Iceland, Egypt, Namibia, Israel or whichever country believes to inherit a nation, a history and a culture, to decide one day that diversity be kept under control through democratic means (without punishing anyone, but through having immigration quota and making sure that everyone who enters and lives in that country accept some standards and models or at least be educated towards those standards and models).
I don't see anything bad with this last option.
If extreme leftists try to make many countries in the world look like USA and Brazil then they will be killing diversity, will not protect it at all.
Ethics and culture can do a better job with societies than power and money. It is true that in the USA everyone, on the left or on the right, does speak about ethics and culture, but in reality we are not seeing that.... we are just seeing poor people protesting in the streets and vandalizing cities and rich people lobbying for their causes. With so many differences and disparities it has become a little difficult to speak about culture, models, ethics and similar things.
If other countries can invent other ways in order to remain democratic but at the same time to reduce diversities and disparities, I don't see anything wrong with that.... especially if these things are achieved through a common culture, social services and good elementary education.
So what exactly would this reeducation look like? If youre saying that it would be established through democratic means, how would that work? If its just a brochure thats handed out at immigration centers and maternity wards, what sort of things would be written on it?
Just a quota, like we can't afford more than 20% of population to belong to other languages, nationalities and religions... and we have a policy that these people learn lets say Danish within five years and become fully integrated Danes within twenty years. If that does not happen no more green cards here :)
We do that because we know that there are only lets say five millions Danes in the world and we were told that we are a brave hard working nation that lived in this land the last 4000 years and we love to keep it going on like that.
I can't tell you if this is practical in a post-modern world hit by a climate crisis, but I don't see anything wrong if 5 million Danes want to protect their tradition and culture in a world where you have 1.4 billion Chinese, 330 millions Americans, 200 millions Indonesians, etc.
Should we call Danes supremacists just because some of them think it very special to be a Dane?
They will need their own models I guess in order to survive in a world where big nations and religions are dominating the small ones.
[i]There is nothing like a Dane
Nothing in the world
There is nothing you can name
That is anything like a Dane.[/i]
I do believe that a beautiful world is a world filled with many small nations.
A world where 8 billions have only five languages and two or three religions would be the ugliest of all. I wish I never see such a world in my lifetime.
Note: Every country has quotas and standards for immigrants.
I just put them together since they look diverse and both are losing to different degrees their social cohesion. Brazil is governed by a white minority. US is more inclusive and fair, but with the racial make up turning whites into a minority (30 years from now, according to US Census Bureau) I won't be surprised if we look like Brazil also... with the wealth and power accumulated at the hands of a white minority.
Nothing bad with quotas. But more work is needed with inclusion, egalitarianism and primary education (role models). US is probably failing in these directions and it makes me wonder sometimes if the reason of these failures are multiculturalism and turbo-capitalism.
I can't claim, however, that I know the answers. I just see some problems here.
You talk a lot about models but wont say what good models are. If you dont know what good models are then how can you know what bad are, or whether or not it might be better to lose models entirely.
So what makes a good model?
I don't know.... but imagine how difficult must be for children growing up in a world where their cereals boxes have the image of a woman looking like a boy and dressing like a man (I am not inventing it, check Cheerio Ellen Boxes).
Then you have all these history books where cultures and kingdoms that used different models, gods, values, etc., clash with each other and one side dominates or exterminates the other side.... as Arabs did with Persians/Sasanindes and Byzantines, Sparta with Athens, and so on.
It is hard to say that only population, geography and military skills had the final word on all these conflicts. It is hard to argue also that history will not repeat itself and the "weak" will not be exterminated or subjugated to the "stronger".
People may say that we need to be free, no responsibilities, no duties, no education, and so on... but that's just a game with words or simple carelessness. For as long as there will be human beings and civilizations there will be some kind of dominance, labor division, responsibilities, values, models and so on. If we forget those in this or that country that does not mean all the countries will get rid of the models which make them stronger in one or another way.
Personally I am expecting the very idea of nation and patriotism to slowly erode into the next century. I think were entering something similar to what Nietzsche talked about with God is dead but were now facing The Nation is dead problem it is just that many cannot see it yet and those that can have no idea what will happen once it takes a firm hold.
No problem with colors. But I don't see the reason why all liberal countries should follow the examples of US, UK, Germany, or France.
If these four countries turn one day brown or Muslim, that's the last thing I care about. They thought it wise to set their foot everywhere and conquer other nations and cultures, so it is their turn to accept all those peoples they wanted to conquer.
My only problem are liberal politics (that you named "extreme left" politics). They seem to confuse people and to not have answers on what is ethically and aesthetically good.
But you might be right in assuming that a new and very different world will be born and whatever we took for granted (pertaining to tradition, values, ethics, aesthetics, intelligence, and so on) we better forget it and just look forward.
Maybe that's an answer. But I do believe that even in a new world we will be forced to accept some models. It is a big question what kind of models those will be.
By the way, have you heard people and intellectuals complain about Japan? Japan is one of the "most democratic" countries in the world, but at the same time women there "do not aspire" to do same things with men, immigrants do not feel welcome at all, and marrying people from other races is not encouraged by anyone. All these things seem to happen in Japan because of their "culture" and this is why no think-tanks complain about Japan.
Professors of the Freedom House are more disturbed with West Virginian poor folk who voted for Trump than with Japan. This is why Freedom House gives Japan 15 more points than US in democratic politics (Freedom House never complains about 6 billions USD spent in electoral campaigns every 4 years, they complain just for poor folk who do not want to change their way of life).
So you are clearly prejudiced against gay people. Who else are you prejudiced against?
So you were going through all these questions and conversation just to come up with this conclusion?
If you have good eyes you can discern the feminine and masculine features in both men and women.
In all ancient cultures these features (like strength in men or fertility in women) were exposed in all their artworks (with a very few exceptions in Ancient Greece, Rome, China and maybe India). I am talking here about artworks starting from 40.000 years ago till 30 years ago.
The last 30 years some leftists seem to be arguing that humans have been very wrong in the last 40.000 years for exposing fertility in women and strength in men. Okay, history will show who is wrong and who is right.
I don't know what prejudices you were talking about. I believe in my own eyes. I can see feminine features in men and masculine features in women. The way I grew up enabled me to discern these features. If my kids will not be able to see that 30 years from now, that means they will grow up with other models.
Ellen is famously gay and you think shes a bad model, therefore I conclude that you must be prejudiced against gay people.
Incidentally
Quoting Eros1982
Again you appeal to tradition for legitimacy and this expresses a conservative slant. I dont think that you are being honest in this topic.
Since we are in the Philosophy Forum, I'm sharing this link with you:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
By the way, nice ceramic (but not a good model at all, the boy seems much younger than his molester).
You are suggesting that theres a flaw in my reasoning but dont say what it is. This is another instance of dishonesty by you.
Haha.... You could say that I made a weak argument with Ellen or that I was totally wrong in believing that Ellen is not a good model.
But your conclusion that I am prejudicial to gays does not follow from my argument that kids may be in need of models which lets say show feminine features in girls.
This argument might have made me prejudicial to girls, not to Ellen and gays. Capisci?
Anyway, I think some members here were totally wright in saying that democracies have more serious problems than those I mention here.
I better stop writing on this topic (because I am really busy). I did clarify a few things here and I am thankful to everyone for helping me understand those things better.
The whole gender narrative atm is simply about a minority of people being heard. It will undoubtedly tip over the edge but that is just the how complex society calibrates.
You are right about Japan. In more extreme liberal eyes there is little to admire compared to western cultures when it comes to individual freedom. Perhaps it is their different attitudes to sex that makes them appear more liberal to some?
If a major concern of yours is the roles of men and women in modern society then I would say that is more than justified I just do not see this having that much to do with gay or trans activists though. The main problem is societies adjusting to the liberation of women and with how women are perceived or how they believe they should be perceived among themselves and in relation to men too.
It does not take a great deal of delving into history to see how women have often been sidelined by men. A lot of it is mostly about being respected and valued. A problem I have observed from afar (referring to the US) is the problem of equating monetary success with personal value.
A number of feminists are against other types of feminists because they believe that their namesakes are actually anti-feminism because instead of being strong women they replicate what is masculine and dismiss their feminine qualities (the whole shoulder pad fashions of the 80s are an example of women masculising themselves and competing with men on male terms). I do not think women should not be more masculine though, but there is something to be said for the assumption that ALL women should or can be like this it is still in the early stages though.
You wrote about how difficult it must be for children to grow up in a world with gay people, essentially. Gay people have always existed. Its a fact of life and not some kind of modern liberal invention.
It is beyond idiotic to claim that there is a lack of feminine models in Western culture, so youre either a moron or youre being dishonest.
Stop offending me for god's sake, cause no kid knows if Ellen is a gay or not..... but they can really get confused with a picture of Ellen looking like a boy and dressing like a man.
The more such pics they see every morning (when they eat their cereals), the more acceptable to them.
If you take that to be a good thing, you can argue for that or even open your own discussion on "transformative aesthetics".
Claiming that I said things against gays is just a bad lying habit you have to get rid of... if philosophy really interests you.
The relationship referenced in the ceramic doesn't have a contemporary equivalent. The younger male in the relationship was post-pubescent, when puberty generally occurred around age 14. The relationship was public, common, and normalized, with social benefits for the younger male. It was time-limited to when the younger man reached adulthood.
Eroticism and family life in Greece and Rome do not closely resemble contemporary (last few hundred years) western patterns, and it's safe to say that very few modern people would be happy actually living in the ancient world. It was socially a much harsher world.
A lot of people have a pretty neurotic reaction to any sexual relationship where there is an age differential. That said, taking ceramic pot decorations as a model for contemporary behavior is obviously not sensible. The specific scene might be appealing, but the illustrations are a piece of a much larger whole, and even the most committed homophile would not want to transplant the social structure of Ancient Greece to the modern world.
Quoting Eros1982
Yeah, well... as some sort of leftist gay guy, I find that "some leftists" seem to be in a competition for the most extreme possible position on all sorts of topics. The lunatic left bends to meet the lunatic right.
Of course I agree that gay people have always existed, but it's also the case that gay people have existed in the form that their society allows and makes possible. Just for example, whether one lived in a subsistence rural or wealthy urban environment would matter a great deal. Some societies are oppressive (for everyone) and some are less so. Some are more rigid than others.
I'm not arguing that homosexual is constructed. Rather, gay people (like everybody else) have to work with the cultural materials at hand.
Maybe Eros1982 holds the leftist view that sexuality IS constructed (rather than an essential feature), so that models produce whatever result that comes about -- male/female/gay/straight...
Objection accepted, though I was replying in another context.
What I don't accept is that I am offending people here (you are not claiming that, but someone else). Maybe, I'm just being politically biased.
Apart from the ancient world there are some interesting examples from the medieval world and religions.
In Christianity and Islam for example two forms of violating norms were recognized: 1) I violate a norm, though I accept it as a norm and 2) I violate a norm because I don't accept it to be a norm.
Both religions, in the Medieval years, were more harsh with the people who did the second. They could allow you "sin", but they couldn't allow you to claim that what you use to do is not a "sin".
This is what we are talking about here, are liberal societies in favor of role models or not? If yes, how they are showing it?
I said it from my first post that I am a leftist, but @I like sushi offered new vistas about the different turns leftism and liberalism may take, so I distanced myself from extreme left only and from the politics of identity (which seem to be taken very seriously in the USA, but not in some other liberal countries).
I don't think any of this matters. People will choose the role model they want or none at all - and I am inclined to think that many people don't really have role models - it's quite an old fashioned, conservative notion this one. And as for confusion... confusion is often the first step towards learning and growing.
I think seeing trans people and gay people and people who look different for whatever reason just enriches all of our views of human diversity. And there will never be a shortage of women in dresses and 'girly girls' along with 'macho males'. These are visual clichés we are unlikely to lose. There's a smorgasbord of types and styles out there for us to celebrate. Much better than having a limited range of self-expression masquerading as 'natural'.
I'm not at all sure how many Americans are interested in or follow identity politics. My guess is that the number is much smaller than its fans.
I am part of identity politics, having been involved in the gay community since the late 1960s. What was once a simple enough claim to some core civil rights spread out to include much more. The inclusion of transexuals in the 1970s was a signifiant redirection.
It has always seemed to me that the "T" part of the GLBT formulation was a separate issue. Gay men and lesbians generally are clear about their identity. (As for the B... don't know.)
Google just informed me that a 2022 Gallup poll concluded that 7.1% of adult Americans identified as LGBT. It is a fact that there are gay people in the West, Eros. It would actually confuse children to deny these kinds of facts.
The question is, why do you want to deny these kinds of facts?
Quoting Eros1982
If you're not bigoted against gay people then why would you have a problem with a gay model?
Eros keeps prattling on about norms and tradition, and that reveals a conservative nature, so either he/she is woefully ignorant or is trying to deceive and failing miserably.
Lets say that I consider it irresponsibility towards one's community to refuse procreation and to refuse the cultivation of every citizen with the good qualities of both men and women (as children supposedly do when they are fed and educated by a mother and a father).
A thing many people do not get nowadays (thanks to the liberal cult of the individual) is: if you want to be accepted, you have to accept also.
If I take this like a maxim, it turns out that the community has some duties towards those who do not wish to contribute in all possible ways.
We (the appointed guardians of the democratic community) accept you and your boyfriend, we accept your renouncing of parenthood, we accept your mutilation of your own genitals, we accept your associations and clubs, we accept your flirting with people of your gender, and so on, we even help you satisfy all your spiritual and medical needs, but we wish to let you know that we have another vision for the children and the youth of this community.
Insofar as we believe in democracy and in human rights, we do not impede your activities in any way, but we do not like you lobbying and protesting in order to become an example to many others, when we think that procreation and family are the best things happening to our community and we are entirely sure that we express the wishes of the majority of this community. If you think that we are being unfair to you, you can file a court complain or you can gather support for a referendum.
Till you choose one of the last options, we will keep educating our kids in the way we do and we arrest you for any violent protests or any acts of vandalism.
Any problem with that?
That's a thing many people have never gotten.
Quoting Eros1982
Are you talking about female genital mutilation? Not a gay thing.
Quoting Eros1982
Who? Gay men? Hey, as a gay man I approve of heterosexual marriage and family. You are aware, of course, that the cause of population decline is heterosexuals opting to not have children. Gay couples have never reproduced so we can make no change in the birthrate.
Quoting Eros1982
Yes, "insofar as you believe in democracy and human rights". the reason for lobbying and protesting is that prior to the gay movement, human rights for gay people were severely abridged. It was illegal, if you remember, and it was also considered a mental illness and a sin. Sin it still is in some quarters; mental illness was dropped in 1972; the legal status of gay people has been changed over the last 50 years through persistent lobbying and protesting,
As for
Quoting Eros1982
No one ever became a homosexual by example. It may not be understood precisely how sexual orientation is established, but it is clearly established before birth. No one ever became a heterosexual by example, either.
Gay youth are kicked out of their homes fairly often by parents who do not accept them. As you might expect, they are vulnerable to victimization and abuse.
He didnt think that through so well, as appears to frequently be the case.
Your points are very good... with gay you can replace anything in my statements. There may be religious preachers, as well. Some of them do not preach anything against a community, but you may have others who preach things that can be considered harmful to a democratic community and for this reason some intervention may be needed.
You are right about the abridged human rights of gay people, but this conversation was not about gays... @praxis directed it in that way, because she/he like others here wanted an example and I mentioned Cheerio Ellen Boxes without any reference to sexual orientation, but to looks only.
Since you touched a really good point about gay movement and rights, let me make it clear here that I do not take existing countries to be models of democracy. I don't know what country you were active, but in the USA it is useless to speak about democratic politics (in my view). You can speak about pluralism, activism, freedoms, laws, protests and so on, but it is wrong to take the US as an example of democracy nowadays, it is just an example of pluralism and freedom for the many.
In democratic politics there might place for a demos, a common culture, consensus, referendums, and so on. In USA forget that! The 15 years I lived here I have never seen any referendums taking place and I don't know if people in this country can come to agree on anything.
So, it is my view that the only factors that keep moving things on here (and in a few other countries as well) are: 1) power, 2) money.
If there is no other way to get your rights recognized then protesting and vandalizing are good options here. But because this is how things work in the US, that does not mean that these are the only recognizable democratic ways. I Switzerland they had referendums on minarets and gay marriages. People voted against minarets, but they approved gay marriages. Even if I was against gay marriage, if I lived in Switzerland I would stop saying anything on that matter.
The problem with the US is that everyone thinks that he is expressing the American people. Bernie Sanders speaks about the American people, Donald Trump speaks about the American people, Hillary Clinton speaks about the American people, Mitch Mcconnel the same. But if you read all those things they say you start wondering whether these people are really expressing the majorities.
When it comes to models something similar happens: you don't get those models because Americans love them, you get those models because those who made those for you had the power to do it. Since they had the power to give you and your family a model you don't like at all that does not matter in American politics. This is why you have all these angry people here. It has become very hard to persuade anyone here what is good and bad. That happens because social cohesion is dying, whereas power and money are dominating politics.
I hope in other countries they have more consensus on these things, they respect every citizen, but they also will be able to know what future they want for their children, what models. If they are not able to do that, then they shouldn't be surprised if they see their country change in ways they will not like at all.
Ellen is what some gay people look like. Is that not okay with Eros?
Quoting Eros1982
Funny how that works!
I've always lived in the US -- the upper midwest.
An argument can be (has been) made that democracy (in the US) was never intended to be very democratic. It's ideal presentation represented an advance, but the democratic ideal was never instituted from the beginning. (Athenian democracy wasn't everything it was cracked up to be, either.).
However, there are some democratic-style procedures that work fairly well, at least on some levels of government. True enough, the US is pluralistic and the illusion of, if not the fact of democracy helps us get along together without too much conflict.
Referendum and initiative are used in some states here too. California is a good example of its mixed results.
Quoting Eros1982
My theory about why there are so many angry runs along these lines: 80% of the population is working class, in therms of their work, income, and lifestyle. In the last 50 years (since around 1973) there has been a continuous decline in jobs, income, benefits, and security. Wages stagnated on one side and inflation further eroded purchasing power on the other side. Where one person could once support a family reasonably well, two people working more than 1 job apiece can not maintain a similar lifestyle. Those are the successful families--overworked, stressed out, but still afloat.
A lot of families have come apart, and suicide among once stalwart working class men has risen dramatically. Jobs and a familiar role in life disappeared.
It is quite apparent that a small share of the population has benefitted from the misery of the majority. It makes them angry.
Quoting Eros1982
Right, well clearly they are not all speaking on behalf of the same Americans or the same interests of Americans. Pluralism, remember.
Quoting Eros1982
Given the uncertainty of the future, it might not be possible to get what they reasonably want for their children. In the face of global warming, I think it likely that there will be many disappointed people.
Quoting Eros1982
So... What's new?
Does it need to be that way always? Maybe we can follow the example of those countries which thought it appropriate to limit money in politics (UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc.).
Societies tend to reproduce themselves and they do that through civil, social, religious, educational, and financial institutions. UK, Germany, France, Italy, et al have a core power elite. Wealth tends to be the foundation of power -- not always, but often enough. The reason the US more resembles a democracy than is one in actual fact is because our power elite is in control, and democracy is of little use to elites.
Didn't you say you were a leftist of some sort? You can pretty much assume that those with the most wealth are calling the shots, and generally call the shots in their own favor. Why would they do otherwise? '
I don't like it, but that seems to be the way things work.