[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Lie

I mean that I think a tendency to be destructive toward other people or the world in general (even if it's in a passive way) can't really exist without the element of self-destruction. It's impossible to really hate someone without hating yourself. That sounds really cliche but it's true. I'm not talking about annoyance or "I hate peas" or "that guy has bad breath" kind of stuff, obviously, but actual, honest-to-god hate that reaches above and beyond simple anger. Obviously you're going to be pissed off if someone robs you, or kills your family, etc., in a more immediate sense, but the kind of historical, theoretical hate that is actually justified in a person's mind is, above all, an element of self-destruction because that can't exist without you first in some sense leaving your own self behind.

I think people often use politics or groups or labels (on themselves or on other people, and I'll in turn ignore your comment about libertarian subtext, haha) in order to escape dealing with their own personal problems. You see elements of what is obviously personal anger work its way into more theoretical arguments. I think most people are guilty of that at one time or another, myself *******d, but hopefully you get over it. Some people never get over it, or get so sucked into a world where they honestly believe, for instance, that all of their problems are tied up with a particular race or group of people, and if those people have a significant amount of power or influence, we're all potentially in trouble.

In response to other things, I think that a willingness to explore and be curious about and make fun of things like race and culture and reasoning like that is really a good thing, because in a way thinking about it and talking about it in a removed sense stops you from internalizing it. And I think people become more willing to explore those elements and not be offended by questions of race and culture if they've dealt with or are dealing with their own personal shit. So really exploring, for example, Korea in my case is not really about identity, but it is about something, you're right. I mean, I didn't really become interested in learning more about it until I was somewhat more comfortable with my identity in the first place. In a way I wouldn't have felt safe absorbing all that culture until I had more of a sense of being an adult. I think I sort of instinctively knew that to get too involved in learning about my "roots" as a teenager would have been too much, because I was still impressionable and may have taken it too seriously, but now I feel okay about it. You're right that there is a connection in the way that people will get offended if you talk about their nation's history, but I think people get offended for different reasons. If someone says something directly to me about American history, I'm willing to talk about it, because it feels like something more to do with me, but at the same time I'm not going to talk to someone who obviously equates me with my nationality and is just sneering at me, so it has a lot to do with who's asking. On the other hand, if someone made mention of something in Korean history, I would honestly feel like it had very little to do with me. Or at least, that I wouldn't be in a position to talk about it, even though I might be interested in what they had to say.

ok, i thought you were maybe referring to that and i fully agree. that principle stands up to any test i think


i dont know what you mean about escaping personal problems exactly. thats a fairly broad way to put it and, insofar as its broad enough to capture what i think on that, i agree. theres a more specific answer to that question though, i think. i can say that, overall, almost by definition, it takes a pretty deficient mind to identify fully with near anything. its really not right. you could talk all day about what root it stems from, but i usually think of it as coming from this fundamental phobia of accepting uncertainty. its not even really a demand for certainty or absolutes, but more a refusal to accept uncertainty in those realms i think. such absolutes dont really exist, so its easy to just find or create them i think. its why the most pacific, stable times or places produce (for lack of a better word) humanism, and why, you know, "there are no atheists in fox holes" or whatever. this is a pretty tired, prosaic conclusion, i know, but its certainly not less true because of that

in fact, ive been thinking more and more of (another tired conclusion) politics as religion. this couldnt be more true. for instance, in terms of the psychology behind it, communism was very, very much a religion back in the early 20th century, way more than it was even a political ideology for a lot of people. i cant stress this enough. i dont really even take seriously it as an political theory anymore, its a religion through and through. and i hate to be crude and take a shot at your buddy now, but jczeroman is truly the embodiment of this pathology. the whole christian thing was just embarrassingly fitting

this is a bit off topic but i just found it really interesting and its kind of within the theme that is developing now. i read this op-ed that discussed this idea that atheists, being people who dont believe in a god, are more prone to violence or just any amoral act. the piece was basically arguing the opposite, that its atheists who dont have the luxury of excuses and have to answer to themselves, while religion allows oeople to break that thin but incredibly, incredibly important barrier, alleviating people of responsibility for their acts. this is so true, i think, and its a great topic that gets soiled too much with stupid bickering ("crusades and inquisitions!" says one. "oh yeah?! stalin and mao!" says the other). its on that psychological level that this is most interesting. i heard this story recently that some photojournalist who made his way into the insurgency in iraq after months of building trust recounted: he said at one point the americans were baring down on them and one of the insurgents knew he would have to fight (and invariably die) and he started talking to the journalist about his wife and kid and started crying, only to them say "no, no, these tears are the devils way of controlling me." then he went out and got killed.
ok identifying with some political ideology maybe isnt that sick but, hey, its pretty close

ive always attributed that extra layer of emotion to the simple act of identification to begin with. it turns something abstract or alien into something domestic and personal, and a threat to it becomes, in a way, a threat to you and thats why all this emotion swells up there. its possible to be emotional or angry without having it spring from that, but just speaking generally




i agree, any exploration like that, if its innocent, is right and fine. even the worst taboo can be trampled on if its done in good faith and with taste and honesty. i hate this idea that anything is out of bounds. but at the same time i do see what mayfucks saying (actually i dont even think hes totally saying this but its the only ground one could possibly be standing on when making accusations like his for something like this), which is that there are consequences to acts outside of your intent or awareness. this is kind of silly because, past a certain point, its like then telling all butterflies (the ones that starts a hurricane!) to stop flapping their wings, if you get what im saying, but there is still some ground to it. all i know is that people use this "what? its just innocent discussion!" argument to disguise a lot of patently non innocent intent
on the topic of asian/american identity, i read this article recently on adopted girls from china. china has that one child policy as you know, guys are much more desirable than girls, and its illegal (if i recall correctly) for a doctor to tell a woman the sex of her baby before birth (to stop back alley abortions). anyways, theyre asian girls who have, like, jewish parents. the article looked at like 10 girls, a lot of whom all were friends, and a few of them had parents who sent them to chinese dance lessons or stuff like that, which is a disgusting thing to do i think. just saying
people get offended for different reasons, sure, but they also get offended in different ways. i mean im starting to become pretty proud of canada and i think i would take some offense if someone talked badly about some failure in canadas recent history, but not in the same way that i would take some offense to somone talking badly about armenians or something. neither would provoke huge responses, but they would provoke responses on different levels i thinkk


sorry this post was totally subpar. i just have no time this week and weighed between posting something weak now in this window of time, or something better in like a week, but at which point it would just be passe