Buddhism, Socialism/Communism and Capitalism

[Mr Man]

Posts are removed because of the "how" not the "what". So the question remains. Really confused what your issue is...

I did not say I had an issue. Do you think what I said is not true?

Of course posts are removed but not because of the issue being discussed but because of how it is discussed. What, you want no rules so people can be even meaner than they already are? Now you really sound like a libertarian.

You take every opportunity to make comments but yet you have no issues? Ok.

I don't know what is up with you (and admin). All you seem to want to do is take little digs. It is getting very boring. I didn't say I want no rules and that is not what I want. I pointed out, in reply to a comment by clw_uk, that Posts are still deleted and that not all views can be heard and discussed, which I believe to be correct. What is wrong with doing that?

[SDC]

I don't know what is up with you (and admin). All you seem to want to do is take little digs. It is getting very boring.

Umm, the feeling is mutual. Take a look at all the things you've said to the staf over the past year: how you've said them and where and when you've said them. And you're the innocent one? Please.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mr Man,

You said certain views cannot be expressed. You've been asked to clarify what they are, but you either cannot or will not say what they are.

Either way, whatever the case, the incessant quibbling and hot air that you're blowing is growing stale. Maybe an alternative pastime may bring you a greater sense of joy and ease? Painting, photography, meditation, yoga, cycling, walking... the possibilities are endless.

Metta,
Paul.

[mikenz66]

Hi Retro,

The Satipatthana Sutta teaches in general terms and principles, and those general terms and principles are non-restrictive, such that they cover all potential lenses that were prevalent at the time and may exist in the future. Ergo, it doesn't need to say the specific words "leftist identitarian lenses" in order to be applicable.
...
If you still honestly don't see the point being made, then I no longer expect any acknowledgement from you in relation to your deluded accusations. Apologies if my words have flummoxed you.

I'm also a little flummoxed, trying to catch up with this thread.

As far as I can see any potential lens is covered by the Satipatthana sutta, so I'm not sure why you specifically mentioned "leftist identitarian lenses". There appear to be plenty of lenses in play in this thread, of various political flavours. I'm not personally impressed by any of them, specifically the lens that uses the "leftist identitarian lenses" classification as a way to negate concerns felt be individuals and groups...


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

I'm also a little flummoxed, trying to catch up with this thread. As far as I can see any potential lens is covered by the Satipatthana sutta, so I'm not sure why you specifically mentioned "leftist identitarian lenses".

If you return to the original usage of the term, you'll see that it was in response to when Phena says that "given the conservative political bias of the owner and most of the (male) moderation team, I think this is not too far-fetched of a conclusion to come to, and looks like an endorsement of one political position over another. In fact, I actually think this is the case, and is not coincidence."

To see and assess the current situation (regarding the composition of the moderation team and its impact) as Phena has done, is a natural by-product of framing things in a certain way - i.e. by race, gender, power structures, control etc. - i.e. by the lens of identity classifications and critical theory.

In short - the leftist lens was mentioned, because that was the one being used. It would be pointless to mention a lens not being used by Phena, when dealing with Phena's observations, wouldn't it?

Nonetheless, when questioned further, I clarified, saying "How we volitionally frame reality determines 'existence' and what is true to each of us in terms of our subjective experience. When one frames experience through the lens of patriarchy, identity politics, critical race theory and other such frames of reference adopted by those on the left, then experience and understandings will be shaped accordingly."

There appear to be plenty of lenses in play in this thread, of various political flavours.

Indeed, and I described potential lenses of the right as well here, "which pertain to law and order, rights, the free market, and principles like liberty, and blind justice."

I'm not personally impressed by any of them, specifically the lens that uses the "leftist identitarian lenses" classification as a way to negate concerns felt be individuals and groups

The concern is negated, not by virtue of the lens used, but in the reality that the conclusion arrived at through the use of that lens does not reflect the actual situation. As has been pointed out by SDC, no views or perspectives (either of the left or the right) are regarded as off-limits at Dhamma Wheel. There is no official Dhamma Wheel position on any political matters - there are only individuals, whether staff or otherwise, who are entitled to express their views, within the parameters of the Terms of Service. It's a "marketplace of ideas", with no authority used to manipulate the outcome or select a winner. There is no "oppression", and only those who are routinely drilled in the act of seeing and categorising people into the classes of "the oppressor" and "the oppressed", would try to search for and construct such a thing, where none otherwise exists.

There is the Terms of Service, and there is the execution of the Terms of Service in accordance with the Moderator Guidelines. That is all. If you or anyone else disagree and feel that people are moderated differently by virtue of their political persuasion, then you have multiple channels available to you upon which to raise such concerns. In fact, by all means do... as you know, the last thing I want for this forum is for its governance to become biased and corrupted once more.



Speaking from a personal perspective, what I find so disheartening about overuse of the leftist lens, is that by continually searching for an oppressor and an oppressed, people who aren't oppressing others get falsely accused of doing so nonetheless. Not only is it unpleasant for the individual on the receiving end of such faithless, uncharitable projections, it also seems to give rise to negativity, paranoid rumination and a seemingly permanent state of discontent in its user. The cumulative impacts of this dynamic on social cohesion are substantial.

As someone concerned with the problem of dukkha, for myself and others, I see little benefit to be had from such a sustained posture of suspicion and mistrust. Given that the goal of the Buddhist path is cessation and dispassion, and the goal of vipassana is to generate insight into the nature of the mind and the impact view has on thoughts, it surprises me greatly that more Buddhists cannot recognize and see for themselves how debilitating such a negative view is to their mental state and thought processes.

"When there is the intellect, when there are ideas, when there is intellect-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is a delineation of contact, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of perception, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.

Metta,
Paul.

[mikenz66]

Hi Retro,
Thank you for your clarification.

I'm not personally impressed by any of them, specifically the lens that uses the "leftist identitarian lenses" classification as a way to negate concerns felt be individuals and groups

The concern is negated, not by virtue of the the lens used, but in the reality that the conclusion arrived at through the use of that lens does not reflect the actual situation.

Yes, I agree. That's how I feel about the conclusions that come from the lens I mentioned (the one that proceeds by defining "leftist identitarian lenses" in order to discredit various concerns). But of course, that's just my opinion.


Mike

[Mr Man]

Greetings Mr Man,

You said certain views cannot be expressed. You've been asked to clarify what they are, but you either cannot or will not say what they are.

I pointed to the terms of service which for example says that "Expressing intentions of self-harm or suicide" is prohibited. Members cannot express the view "cutting my arm would be a good idea" or members cannot make "Goodbye Cruel Forum" posts. Do I disagree with those rules? The first one, no. The second one, I'm not bothered about. But the point is not ALL views can be heard and discussed. That is all!

Either way, whatever the case, the incessant quibbling and hot air that you're blowing is growing stale. Maybe an alternative pastime may bring you a greater sense of joy and ease? Painting, photography, meditation, yoga, cycling, walking... the possibilities are endless.

And again you take a dig at me. You really can't help yourself!

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mr Man,

Further to SDC's explanations, it's about the "how", not the "what".

Suicide can be discussed. It has been on many occasions. All you cannot do is express ideation pertaining to self-harm or suicide. Such people need to seek professional help, rather than create drama on a Buddhist forum.

Similarly, it's the drama and senseless carry on which is not permitted when people choose to leave the forum.

In both cases, the rules exist to stop those people who cannot regulate their emotions from becoming freakshows. This is not a halfway house or daycare centre, and if people cannot regulate their own emotions, it's not for others to pick up their pieces. People are responsible for their own thoughts and reactions, as per the Terms Of Service. Therefore, whether it satisfies you or not, we've consciously implemented policies to shut down the Oppression Olympics and defuse the hugbox dynamics which once besieged this forum.

All in all, there still remains, to the best of my awareness, no topic which cannot be discussed here. In fact, one of the founding principles of the forum is "a time and a place for all discussion of interest to Theravada Buddhists".

Metta,
Paul.

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings Mike,

I'm also a little flummoxed, trying to catch up with this thread. As far as I can see any potential lens is covered by the Satipatthana sutta, so I'm not sure why you specifically mentioned "leftist identitarian lenses".

If you return to the original usage of the term, you'll see that it was in response to when Phena says that "given the conservative political bias of the owner and most of the (male) moderation team, I think this is not too far-fetched of a conclusion to come to, and looks like an endorsement of one political position over another. In fact, I actually think this is the case, and is not coincidence."

To see and assess the current situation (regarding the composition of the moderation team and its impact) as Phena has done, is a natural by-product of framing things in a certain way - i.e. by race, gender, power structures, control etc. - i.e. by the lens of identity classifications and critical theory.

In short - the leftist lens was mentioned, because that was the one being used. It would be pointless to mention a lens not being used by Phena, when dealing with Phena's observations, wouldn't it?

Nonetheless, when questioned further, I clarified, saying "How we volitionally frame reality determines 'existence' and what is true to each of us in terms of our subjective experience. When one frames experience through the lens of patriarchy, identity politics, critical race theory and other such frames of reference adopted by those on the left, then experience and understandings will be shaped accordingly."

There appear to be plenty of lenses in play in this thread, of various political flavours.

Indeed, and I described potential lenses of the right as well here, "which pertain to law and order, rights, the free market, and principles like liberty, and blind justice."

I'm not personally impressed by any of them, specifically the lens that uses the "leftist identitarian lenses" classification as a way to negate concerns felt be individuals and groups

The concern is negated, not by virtue of the lens used, but in the reality that the conclusion arrived at through the use of that lens does not reflect the actual situation. As has been pointed out by SDC, no views or perspectives (either of the left or the right) are regarded as off-limits at Dhamma Wheel. There is no official Dhamma Wheel position on any political matters - there are only individuals, whether staff or otherwise, who are entitled to express their views, within the parameters of the Terms of Service. It's a "marketplace of ideas", with no authority used to manipulate the outcome or select a winner. There is no "oppression", and only those who are routinely drilled in the act of seeing and categorising people into the classes of "the oppressor" and "the oppressed", would try to search for and construct such a thing, where none otherwise exists.

There is the Terms of Service, and there is the execution of the Terms of Service in accordance with the Moderator Guidelines. That is all. If you or anyone else disagree and feel that people are moderated differently by virtue of their political persuasion, then you have multiple channels available to you upon which to raise such concerns. In fact, by all means do... as you know, the last thing I want for this forum is for its governance to become biased and corrupted once more.



Speaking from a personal perspective, what I find so disheartening about overuse of the leftist lens, is that by continually searching for an oppressor and an oppressed, people who aren't oppressing others get falsely accused of doing so nonetheless. Not only is it unpleasant for the individual on the receiving end of such faithless, uncharitable projections, it also seems to give rise to negativity, paranoid rumination and a seemingly permanent state of discontent in its user. The cumulative impacts of this dynamic on social cohesion are substantial.

As someone concerned with the problem of dukkha, for myself and others, I see little benefit to be had from such a sustained posture of suspicion and mistrust. Given that the goal of the Buddhist path is cessation and dispassion, and the goal of vipassana is to generate insight into the nature of the mind and the impact view has on thoughts, it surprises me greatly that more Buddhists cannot recognize and see for themselves how debilitating such a negative view is to their mental state and thought processes.

"When there is the intellect, when there are ideas, when there is intellect-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is a delineation of contact, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of perception, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.

Metta,
Paul.

A brilliant and insightful post

[Mr Man]

Hi Paul

Further to SDC's explanations, it's about the "how", not the "what".

So you can say what you like as long as you say it in a specific way. Sounds a bit 1984.

Suicide can be discussed. It has been on many occasions. All you cannot do is express ideation pertaining to self-harm or suicide. Such people need to seek professional help, rather than create drama on a Buddhist forum.

I didn't say discussion around suicide was not allowed.

Similarly, it's the drama and senseless carry on which is not permitted when people choose to leave the forum.

So a member can not start a topic or state why they are leaving or why they are thinking of leaving?

In both cases, the rules exist to stop those people who cannot regulate their emotions from becoming freakshows. This is not a halfway house or daycare centre, and if people cannot regulate their own emotions, it's not for others to pick up their pieces. People are responsible for their own thoughts and reactions, as per the Terms Of Service.Therefore, whether it satisfies you or not, we've consciously implemented policies to shut down the Oppression Olympics and defuse the hugbox dynamics which once besieged this forum.

I can never remember a time when Oppression Olympics and hugbox dynamics besieged this forum. Did you feel oppressed under the previous admin team?

All in all, there still remains, to the best of my awareness, no topic which cannot be discussed here. In fact, one of the founding principles of the forum is "a time and a place for all discussion of interest to Theravada Buddhists".

This is from the terms "Any subject matter that may be off-topic or is intended to cause disruption or harm may be removed without notice."

I stand by what I said "Posts are still deleted." and "not ALL views can be heard and discussed." and believe I have presented enough to support this. To be honest I wouldn't expect or want it to be otherwise.

P.S As you seem keen to keep this digression going perhaps it should be split at Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:08 pm.

[dharmacorps]

Mr. Man, it seems like you have an axe to grind with the admins. Might I suggest you do this privately with the admins? The arguments aren't very interesting or helpful, and it ends up just being a public spectacle. I am starting, perhaps incorrectly, with the assumption you don't want that. I may be wrong.

[chownah]

I agree that it is better as a private discussion.....but I have had a front row view of what is allowed and what is not in this administration and in the past one and this sort of expresses my views on how it has changed or at least the first couple of lines do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvMQWte5pik
chownah

[Mr Man]

Hi dharmacorps / chownah
Thanks for your input. There really is nothing that I want to or feel the need to discuss with the admin/mods at this time.

[Mr Man]

Retro being left wing, from the perspective of the conventional and arbitrary perceptions, is just a ridiculous assertion, so I disagree.

I'm trying to see how perceptions can be both conventional and arbitrary, but perhaps that's best left alone.

If we focus on the "conventional" aspect, how do we find out what the conventional usage is of the term "alt right"? Lots of people on this site tend to gravitate to Wikipedia to determine conventional meanings of terms, but Wikipedia gives the following for "alt right":

The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism. White supremacist[1] Richard Spencer initially promoted the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism, and did so according to the Associated Press to disguise overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism.[2][3][4] The term drew considerable media attention and controversy during and after the 2016 US presidential election.[5]

Alt-right beliefs have been described as isolationist, protectionist, antisemitic, and white supremacist,[6][7][8] frequently overlapping with Neo-Nazism,[9][10][11][12] nativism and Islamophobia,[13][14][15][16][17] antifeminism, misogyny, and homophobia,[9][18][19][20][12] right-wing populism,[21][22] and the neoreactionary movement.[6][23] The concept has further been associated with several groups from American nationalists, neo-monarchists, men's rights advocates, and the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump

Is Retro using the rhetoric of these beliefs? Or is this one of those cases where Wikipedia can't help us, and you can steer us to a clearer understanding of the conventional meaning of "alt right"?

As the wikipedia says alt-right "is a loosely defined group" and in the last few months it seems to be splintering somewhat. This article explores this -

"Disunite the Right: The Growing Divides in the Pepe Coalition"

http://www.politicalresearch.org/2017/0 ... 3twqf.dpbs

& this -

"Undercover With the Alt-Right"

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/o ... 3Fop?amp=1

From the article

As a result of the growing influence of the far-right social-media ecosystem, once-moribund hate groups in both the United States and Europe — groups that mostly existed long before “alt-right” entered the vernacular — are enjoying a striking uptick in recruitment. This latest wave of potential members is young — teenage and 20-something men (they’re mostly men) appear to be exhibiting interest in far-right ideas in numbers that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. These young men are being radicalized largely through the work of a popular group of new far-right internet personalities whose videos, blog posts and tweets have been consistently nudging the boundaries of acceptable conversation to the right — one of the explicit goals of racist extremists everywhere.

[pulga]

These young men are being radicalized largely through the work of a popular group of new far-right internet personalities whose videos, blog posts and tweets have been consistently nudging the boundaries of acceptable conversation to the right — one of the explicit goals of racist extremists everywhere.

"Boundaries of acceptable conversation"? Isn't the Times being a bit presumptuous here? It's just this sort of PC oppression that is being challenged on social media these days. Can't the left even tolerate a "nudge" to the right without becoming alarmed and reactionary? Or are we all suppose to passively acquiesce to its progressive agenda?