Cultural Taboos

[DarkHunter]

This is something that kicks around in my head from time to time and was provoked in passing by another thread, but I notice that many people seem to have a problem with things because the "bad people" use them. This ranges from symbols, color schemes, philosophical ideas, etc.

For instance, I'm of the mind that people are not really equal. Some people are more intelligent, more understanding. Some people work harder, achieve more because their traits and their willpower are made up that way. I find it fascinating that people with similar backgrounds can grow up to be totally different people.

Of course this is related to the idea of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism, when it was first put forth, was in fact very much accepted. It was so accepted that even places in the United States (like Indiana I do believe) went so far as to sterilize the retarded and the homeless in order to keep their genes from passing on.

The end of this acceptance came with World War II and the actions of the Nazis. Because the Nazis were elitists (though not in the way I am), were influenced by Social Darwinism, and killed people then automatically various harmless things became "bad."

So now Social Darwinism is described by a history textbook I used to have as being "politically incorrect" which in today's society might as well read "evil incarnate." I find it funny that "Nazi" has become a word for "evil doer" to some people, even though there were positive things that came out of them.

There are various other examples of things that are now "evil" because the Nazis used them. Remember when Swastikas were symbols of good luck? Neither do I!

These are all just really handy examples and I'm sure there are more. The point is, is it really intelligent to throw out an idea just because it is publically or culturally associated with somebody who did something bad? Should we not listen to the Beatles because Charles Manson thought their songs were about his race war?

I don't think it's right really. I think it's another instance of the culture police at work. People in the name of being politically correct, which is a fancy way of saying "You can't do things that don't please others."

Thoughts?

[Wolf-Bone]

The point is, is it really intelligent to throw out an idea just because it is publically or culturally associated with somebody who did something bad? Should we not listen to the Beatles because Charles Manson thought their songs were about his race war?

Really, uniquely shitty example to use to defend Social Darwinism. A Beatles song that drove one person to kill who didn't exactly need a lot of help vs. an ideology basically constructed for the purpose of rationalizing/used to defend an already existing desire to kill and otherwise deny rights to countless millions.


I don't think it's right really. I think it's another instance of the culture police at work. People in the name of being politically correct, which is a fancy way of saying "You can't do things that don't please others."

And really, the only thing social darwinists can argue when charged with the same is "our cultural policing is better than your cultural policing" for creating an ideal society. They had a head start on political correctness, which is really the only reason political correctness continues to "dominate" it if you can even call it dominance. Really, both are generally understood to have no basis in reality by anyone who gives enough of a shit to think about what either one entails as a governing policy as opposed to a subjective "good" or "bad" sentiment. Aside from that it's just a matter of one having died and the other in the process of dying.

Thoughts?

To quote an awesome Jew from an awesome movie, "Yes, have some!"

[McKitty]

For instance, I'm of the mind that people are not really equal. Some people are more intelligent, more understanding. Some people work harder, achieve more because their traits and their willpower are made up that way. I find it fascinating that people with similar backgrounds can grow up to be totally different people.

I agree that people are different. I don't agree with killing off those who are different.


The end of this acceptance came with World War II and the actions of the Nazis. Because the Nazis were elitists (though not in the way I am), were influenced by Social Darwinism, and killed people then automatically various harmless things became "bad."

So now Social Darwinism is described by a history textbook I used to have as being "politically incorrect" which in today's society might as well read "evil incarnate." I find it funny that "Nazi" has become a word for "evil doer" to some people, even though there were positive things that came out of them.

Uh.... yeah, I think slaughtering a religious subculture because they're different is enough of an evil taint on what Nazis may or may not have want to have done.

I think the relatives I have on my family tree that never made it alive out of the camps would have to agree. Whatever good came from the Nazi party (which was what, exactly) could ever shadow the massive genocide they condoned.

And getting to it, should I now be viable for genentic cleansing because I'm of Jewish heritage? What if I'm tested at Genius IQ and have healthy genes? Because I'm different, I need to be killed/sterizled?

Yeah, why don't we sterizle you so your sanatic thoughts can't be passed down to your children? Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

There are various other examples of things that are now "evil" because the Nazis used them. Remember when Swastikas were symbols of good luck? Neither do I!

The symbol for good luck isn't actually the swastika. Well, it is, but it's reversed. And objects/symbols can have ideologies forever attached to them, the swastika became the symbol for the nazi party.

These are all just really handy examples and I'm sure there are more. The point is, is it really intelligent to throw out an idea just because it is publically or culturally associated with somebody who did something bad? Should we not listen to the Beatles because Charles Manson thought their songs were about his race war?

I don't think it's right really. I think it's another instance of the culture police at work. People in the name of being politically correct, which is a fancy way of saying "You can't do things that don't please others."

Oh so not the same thing. Think before you type next time.

Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

[Wolf-Bone]

What people need to realize is that the logic that applies to say, fruit-flies isn't going to fly (no pun intended) on a human scale. And even if it could, social darwinism would still be a load of crap, because there isn't a "poor gene", a "rich gene", a "criminal gene", or what have you.

Social darwinists see their ideals of limiting/eliminating the ability of certain classes and cultures to breed as "helping" nature along its supposed "natural" course. They conveniently forget/ignore that as far as nature and genetics are concerned, there is no culture or class. However, nature does seem to intend for some of us to be inherently controlling, others inherently controllable, and others still to be inherently rebellious against external control being imposed on themselves or the inherently controllable. And while there may be some correlation with life experiences (largely influenced by those man-made social constructs of class and culture) and the aforementioned tendencies, if anyone has any evidence that this correlation is causation, I'm dying to see it.

Now, I'm willing to accept the idea that at least not all proponents of theories like social darwinism are driven by hate. But what they are all driven by is a belief that populations need to be selectively culled by the population itself. And this, invariably is coupled with a belief in the preservation of other man-made (read: unnatural) constructs, both physical and social, like government, industry, economy, technology and law. These are all things which conspire to create a population that can grow large enough to have separate, distinct classes and cultures living in close proximity to one another in the first place.

So then, social darwinist logic is essentially this: preserve and even strengthen the societal mechanisms that create social problems, and use them to solve those problems. But for the love of God, don't for a second pose the question of whether or not perhaps the societal mechanisms themselves are what need to be dismantled so that we won't have a constant need to address the same social problems over and over again. No, not the almighty social machine, the arbiter of the natural order we live only to serve (and don't at all seek to manipulate and dominate for our own selfish gain, no) :notworthy:

[DarkHunter]

Thank you both. You both have provided quite clearly examples of what I was talking back. Because I mentioned Social Darwinism and it's link to the Nazis, you responded emotionally.

This isn't a debate about Social Darwinism. That was just an example. Even though Social Darwinism is not about "culling" human beings, it is thought of as because of associations like the Nazis. It's fascinating the way you both jumped to conclusions.

McKitty, have I ever expressed any anti-Semitic sentiments or that people should be sterilized/killed for being different? Much less for "sanatic thoughts." No. I was giving an historical example of how Eugenics and Social Darwinism were accepted ideas in society until the Nazis came along. Obviously these were great examples because they've inspired irrational responses.

Wolf-bone do you think I brought up the Beatles in defense of Social Darwinism? The point isn't defense of Social Darwinism. The point is that quite obviously people tend not to react in a rational way when presented with things that are cultural taboos. I just brought up another prominent murderer and something that impacted his ideas. But obviously the Beatles aren't quite as tainted by Charles Manson so much as Hitler affected things (understandable given the horrible scale Hitler murdered on).

Since I'm not politically correct, suddenly I'm a Nazi!

I'm sure I could find more examples. These were just the easiest ones I could think of when I wrote this. As I recall Evolution itself was seen by some as an evil idea because the Nazis had some imagined tie with it. But of course now Evolution is an accepted scientific theory and it's the fault of evil Social Darwinism and Eugenics instead.

You guys reacted in exactly the manner that I was criticizing and that this thread was meant to shed light on.

[McKitty]

Never called you a Nazi. Find in my post that I did.

And, uh, yeah, emotions are going to be tied to something as monuemental as WWII.

You can be as politically-incorrect as you want and I'll not not call you a Nazi unless you start goose-stepping.

[LV426]

Actually Hitler use eugenics as the basis for his justification in killing "inferior" races. Social Darwinism is not Eugenics and was never linked to culling of the human race. It was merely an observation that letting the weak/poor continue to breed would dilute the human race. Social Darwinism is often linked to Hitler and the Nazi atrocities by those seeing to discount the theory of evolution. By linking Darwin's name with the genocide of the Nazi party they tend to present a terrible view of evolution and one which then then like to counter with Intelligent Design.

Social Darwinism is a nice theory and in some ways can be proven such as the single mother whose child then in turn becomes a single parent. Teenage mothers who end up having children who have children as teenagers. Another example is that of the poor vs rich. Poor people tend to have more children that they can't really afford while those who are more affluent tend to have fewer children even though they can afford more.

[Wolf-Bone]

you responded emotionally.

You say that like it's a bad thing. You can't really not respond emotionally if you have emotions. But it's not at all impossible to have emotions and still have common sense.


This isn't a debate about Social Darwinism. That was just an example.

The thread is about cultural taboos. Inevitably in such a discussion, there's going to be some who take the stance of keeping certain things taboo. That's all I'm doing. It just so happens you picked an example that makes that pretty easy.



Even though Social Darwinism is not about "culling" human beings

Social Darwinism entails eugenics, which is precisely what eugenics entails; culling the human population, selectively, based on whatever traits you deem necessary to rid humanity of.

it is thought of as because of associations like the Nazis. It's fascinating the way you both jumped to conclusions.

I actually did not, and for the record, I have a problem with Nazism because of its association with things like eugenics, not the other way around. Also, you mentioned something about wishing to see the swastika returned to its original meaning. I actually happen to agree. I just happen to think everything else you think here is extremely flawed. For example, I don't expect to be able to wear a swastika any time in my lifetime and have its original meaning be the first thing come to mind. It's just common sense for it's more recent meaning to be assumed.


The point is that quite obviously people tend not to react in a rational way when presented with things that are cultural taboos.

It's a two-way street. People could stand to be more rational. But you, the supposedly more rational one among them, shouldn't just expect them to spontaneously develop an innate rationality.

[DarkHunter]

McKitty I do apologize if I've misread your post. But asking me whether or not I thought you should be exterminated for having Jewish descent felt like an implication if nothing else. If that was not your meaning, then I stand corrected.

You say that like it's a bad thing. You can't really not respond emotionally if you have emotions. But it's not at all impossible to have emotions and still have common sense.



The thread is about cultural taboos. Inevitably in such a discussion, there's going to be some who take the stance of keeping certain things taboo. That's all I'm doing. It just so happens you picked an example that makes that pretty easy.




Social Darwinism entails eugenics, which is precisely what eugenics entails; culling the human population, selectively, based on whatever traits you deem necessary to rid humanity of.



I actually did not, and for the record, I have a problem with Nazism because of its association with things like eugenics, not the other way around. Also, you mentioned something about wishing to see the swastika returned to its original meaning. I actually happen to agree. I just happen to think everything else you think here is extremely flawed. For example, I don't expect to be able to wear a swastika any time in my lifetime and have its original meaning be the first thing come to mind. It's just common sense for it's more recent meaning to be assumed.




It's a two-way street. People could stand to be more rational. But you, the supposedly more rational one among them, shouldn't just expect them to spontaneously develop an innate rationality.

First lets have a reading assignment (http://www.answers.com/topic/eugenics), Wolf Bone. I'm far more concerned with ideas as they're presented by the people who think of them, rather than what they're turned into. Galton proposed that human evolution could be directed and that is the basis for eugenics. The Nazis already had the concept of a "Master Race" and just fit Eugenics in as a justification. Of course there's always the debate who who is "fit" and what traits should be encouraged in human breeding, but that's the social side of Eugenics rather than the scientific part of it.

There's nothing inherently negative about Eugenics. As history has recorded over and over, its another case of people taking ideas and warping them to fit their own prejudices.

The Nazis are the most famous case that took the ideas of Eugenics in that fashion and used it to advocate the Final Solution. That doesn't make Eugenics bad.

Social Darwinism is simply applying Darwinistic ideas to human interaction. It's related distantly, perhaps, but Eugenics deals with a separate thing.

Wolf Bone, interestingly, I think you're beginning to see my point about taboos even if you're against everything else I'm saying. You say you'd like to see the swastika with it's original meaning again. You correctly assert that such a thing will not happen (at least in our society, certain Asian cultures still don't care). Again, why not? What iself is wrong with the swastika or it's original meaning? Nothing. But most people see it and assume it as a Nazi symbol by default.

This is exactly the point of all of what I've been saying. The swastika is stuck with the stigma brought on by the Nazis. It's a taboo to display or use because of things like political correctness and cultural sensitivity. So even if someone understands it to be something else, because of everybody elses inability to ask a question about meaning (their assumptions based on societal stigma), then the person using the swastika is stigmatized, unnecessarily. I've actually seen that happen with a friend who used the swastika in a religioius way, but who would get yelled at by people who just assumed the Nazi connection.

I don't expect people to suddenly develop rationality. This is just the philosophy forum and this is a thought I wanted to explore (and was able to do so in a much more interesting way than I imagined). Incidentally I learned more than I expected. I just mean to suggest the idea that such stigma isn't right.

[Wolf-Bone]

I'm far more concerned with ideas as they're presented by the people who think of them, rather than what they're turned into.

That's a noble cause, except it almost always means being opposed by both sides. On the one hand, people who aren't you will hear you defend something like social darwinism and assume you're one of those people turning it into the thing you don't like. While on the other hand, those people turning it into the thing you don't like will say it's you who's got it wrong, and they're bringing the original idea to its logical conclusion.

Social Darwinism is simply applying Darwinistic ideas to human interaction.

Which makes no God damned sense in the first place. It has about as much basis in the reality of human nature as comparing the human brain to a computer. It's just another example of seeing human beings as animals or things, and the people who do it tend to have little understanding of either human beings or the creatures/things they're comparing them to.

Last but not least, on the whole symbols and stigmas thing. The swastika is just a symbol, one which I have no personal attachment to or use for, so you'll never hear me go to any length to defend it. And my views on symbols is not actually the same as yours. You're defending a theory/ideology on the basis that what it evolves into isn't necessary what it's intended to be. You defend the open use of symbols people find offensive on similar grounds. My approach is totally different. My view is that a symbol can be taken to mean almost anything if its design is simple enough, and likewise, an ideology which claims to be for one thing will invariably be used for another, so people shouldn't surrender themselves to an ideology or identify themselves by a symbol. Doing so gives far too much power to people whose driving force is apparently to have such power over you for its own sake (or rather, for their sake, not yours).

Now, I would like to see more people become aware of the historical meaning(s) of symbols like the swastika, but not necessarily so they can wear them with pride. I'd much rather they have the kind of epiphany upon making such an earth-shattering (for them) discovery necessary for one to makes those crucial first-steps towards growing beyond the weakness of being enticed into compliance by flowery language and pretty graphics.

[Vendetta]

It's just another example of seeing human beings as animals or things
Uh, I'm fairly certain people ARE both of those things.

And Darwinism, social or otherwise, doesn't treat or view people OR animals as things.

Also, when I speak of Social Darwinism, I'm not talking about anything remotely LIKE eugenics or other Nazi-esque ideas. I'm simply referring to the works of Herbert Spencer, mostly his Progress: Its Law and Cause. People should probably read that and Galton's non-eugenics works.

[Wolf-Bone]

Uh, I'm fairly certain people ARE both of those things.

Yeah. But they're not the same kind of animals and things as your pets or your computer. They don't exist simply for the sake of other people's (say, you for example) enjoyment, convenience and ownership.

People to whom this way of thinking is simply common sense generally refer to such a concept as inalienable human rights, which -- oh, hold up --


And Darwinism, social or otherwise, doesn't treat or view people OR animals as things.

No shit? Maybe because, in reality a theory can't. But, as has already been established in this thread if you actually read it, people with the power and inclination to do so tend to do whatever the hell they want to whoever they want anyway, and the theory/ideology is really only there to justify it after the fact.

[Vendetta]

No shit? Maybe because, in reality a theory can't. But, as has already been established in this thread if you actually read it, people with the power and inclination to do so tend to do whatever the hell they want to whoever they want anyway, and the theory/ideology is really only there to justify it after the fact.
People with power can do (and often DO) whatever they want. That doesn't change a thing, idea or theory, objectively.

Also, let's be honest here, the power that things like the swastika and the words Social Darwinism seem to have over people, is because we LET them. Neither of those things are what the Nazi's or others represented them to be. I think it's ludicrous that a lot of people in the Western world allow a simple symbol like the swastika to hold so much sway and fear over us, and it gives it EXACTLY the sort of power Hitler wanted it to have. And I say this as a Jew who had several relatives in places like Madjenek and Treblinka. Also when you folks say that we can NEVER disassociate the swastika (and Social Darwinism) from it's negative connotations, yeah, you're PART of the problem.

[Wolf-Bone]

People with power can do (and often DO) whatever they want. That doesn't change a thing, idea or theory, objectively.

Also, let's be honest here, the power that things like the swastika and the words Social Darwinism seem to have over people, is because we LET them. Neither of those things are what the Nazi's or others represented them to be. I think it's ludicrous that a lot of people in the Western world allow a simple symbol like the swastika to hold so much sway and fear over us, and it gives it EXACTLY the sort of power Hitler wanted it to have. And I say this as a Jew who had several relatives in places like Madjenek and Treblinka. Also when you folks say that we can NEVER disassociate the swastika (and Social Darwinism) from it's negative connotations, yeah, you're PART of the problem.

K Ven, at this point the discussion is bearing an eerie resemblance to that Mad TV skit where the two politicians say the exact same damn thing, each phrasing it in the way they think will make them sound righter than the other. So I'm done here for the time being.

Also appeal to emotion/authority fallacy is fallacious.
huhuhuhuh, I almost said fellatio, huhuhuhuh.

[Vendetta]

K Ven, at this point the discussion is bearing an eerie resemblance to that Mad TV skit where the two politicians say the exact same damn thing, each phrasing it in the way they think will make them sound righter than the other. So I'm done here for the time being.
OK, I think I see your problem now though. You've been watching Mad TV.

Also appeal to emotion/authority fallacy is fallacious.

When I point out that I'm a Jew and have had relatives in camps, there's no fallacy there, because I'm simply saying that if someone with THAT background has no problem with these things, why should a bunch of other people?

And the only reason I'm still debating some of these points is because everyone in this thread so far has been wrong about social Darwinism.

[Wolf-Bone]

OK, I think I see your problem now though. You've been watching Mad TV.

Seriously, is this the best you've got these days? Damn you fell off.


When I point out that I'm a Jew and have had relatives in camps, there's no fallacy there, because I'm simply saying that if someone with THAT background has no problem with these things, why should a bunch of other people?

Maybe because there's other reasons to be for, against or just plain ambiguous about a set of theories/ideologies besides one's personal stake in the possible outcome of putting them into practice.

Besides, didn't you just get done pointing out how social darwinism doesn't necessarily mean eugenics/nazism? Ok, we get that, so why would a descendant of eugenics/nazism's victims use that in their argument to not have any hangups with the thing that is not eugenics/nazism?


And the only reason I'm still debating some of these points is because everyone in this thread so far has been wrong about social Darwinism.

And not at all just to hear yourself talk, I'm sure.