Moral Normcore

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Gingersnap
    Resident stylistic consultant
    • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
    • 24058

    #1

    Moral Normcore

    Moral Normcore

    Excerpt:
    In all of these cases, Moral Normcore—that is, polite non-judgmental silence, moral conformity, an unwillingness to speak up against something we find morally objectionable and disturbing, bland moral “acceptance”—allowed tyrannical minorities to impose their points of view on a majority that initially found their actions, beliefs or statements immoral and wrong.

    Because it is tyrannical minorities looking to justify horrendous immoralities who are the biggest fans of Moral Normcore. The individual and collective silence required by Moral Normcore is what allows tyrannical minorities to fester like cancers on the body politic, turning their radical immoralities into the acceptable mainstream. By way of Moral Normcore and Capture, the majority acquiesces in the face of the tyranny of the minority—to the entire society’s detriment.

    Moral Normcore, it must be noted, is not moral apathy. It looks like it, but it’s not. Rather, Moral Normcore is a lack of moral self-confidence. A belief that, since everything is relative, and no one’s point of view is superior to anybody else’s, then no one’s moral judgment is superior to anybody else’s. In other words, no one has the moral high ground, because no one has the epistemic high ground.

    This is obviously untrue—there are those who have the epistemic high ground on any particular issue, and thus can undisputably claim the moral high ground and make valid, sound moral judgments. Non-controversially, a certified chemist with modern training will be able to tell that the “magic snake-oil elixir” I’ve been sold for $1 million to cure my cancer and my impotence and my baldness is nothing more than castor oil—and thus will be able to make the valid, sound moral judgment that the snake-oil salesman who grifted me is nothing but a bad man.

    But since the 1960’s, when the notion of a stable epistemology began to be undermined to the point of collapse, there are few people with the nerve to claim to know what is true and what is not. Thus fewer still who can claim to know what is right and what is wrong.

    If nobody but fools and the marginalized can claim to know what is right and what is wrong, then nobody can make a sound moral judgment. They are reduced to non-judgmentally walking around on moral egg shells, constantly excusing themselves for their moral opinions, and recusing themselves from making a moral judgment whenever one is needed—especially when one is needed. Such as in the case of government torture and assassination. Such as in the case of banking industry wrongdoing. Such as in the case of [insert your favorite contemporary American outrage here].

    Thus Moral Normcore. Thus Moral Capture. And it’s nothing new, by the way: The German people back in 1933 knew all about Moral Normcore. We at least are lucky enough to now have a name for it.
    This a terrific little essay by Gonzalo Lira - read the whole thing, it's worth it.

    Gonzalo Lira
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."
  • Celeste Chalfonte
    apostate
    • Saturday, October 5, 2013
    • 27897

    #2
    Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
    Moral Normcore

    Excerpt:


    This a terrific little essay by Gonzalo Lira - read the whole thing, it's worth it.

    Gonzalo Lira
    That link doesn't go to the essay for me.
    "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

    Comment

    • Gingersnap
      Resident stylistic consultant
      • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
      • 24058

      #3
      Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
      That link doesn't go to the essay for me.
      I don't know what to do - it works perfectly for me.
      "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

      Comment

      • gary m
        Reprobate
        • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
        • 8016

        #4
        I thought this was about, well... never mind.
        We are so fucked.

        Comment

        • Gingersnap
          Resident stylistic consultant
          • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
          • 24058

          #5
          Originally posted by gary m View Post
          I thought this was about, well... never mind.
          There's only one picture and no bondage - read it anyway.
          "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

          Comment

          • gary m
            Reprobate
            • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
            • 8016

            #6
            Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
            There's only one picture and no bondage - read it anyway.
            Not that either although the no bondage thing is a downer.

            I thought maybe Norm had a blog somewhere.
            We are so fucked.

            Comment

            • Gingersnap
              Resident stylistic consultant
              • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
              • 24058

              #7
              Originally posted by gary m View Post
              Not that either although the no bondage thing is a downer.

              I thought maybe Norm had a blog somewhere.
              Not this one anyway.
              "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

              Comment

              • Norm dePlume
                Err foil
                • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
                • 14904

                #8
                How many times have you nodded acceptance when some young woman you know insisted on “No judgment” as she described how she got drunk and blew three guys at a party last night? How many times have you heard some guy you know laugh as he described playing “Knockout” on a homeless man—and yet you refrained from saying anything because you didn’t think you had the moral right, and besides, none of your other friends were saying anything either? How many times have you seen your company maliciously screw over its customers—but kept quiet, while silently saying to yourself, “It’s a caveat emptor world, buddy, and besides it’s none of my business”? How many times have you learned how the government is violating a fundamental civil right—raping a Constitutionally guaranteed right—and yet you only shrugged as you turned away?
                This guy has an interesting circle of friends. I'm having a hard time relating to his perspective here.
                Enjoy.

                Comment

                • Gingersnap
                  Resident stylistic consultant
                  • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
                  • 24058

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                  This guy has an interesting circle of friends. I'm having a hard time relating to his perspective here.
                  Then the essay and think about it. His circle and yours and mine are the problem, not a reason to shut down the thought process.
                  "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

                  Comment

                  • Norm dePlume
                    Err foil
                    • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
                    • 14904

                    #10
                    It's true we're not as judgmental about blowjobs as we used to be. But not being judgmental enough about knocking out homeless people is really not a widespread problem. I would guess that 98% of us would find that criminally not cool.

                    But it's clear the guy is just teeing up the same old argument against gay marriage. Only instead of harping about "moral relativism" he's using his fresh new buzzword that he done cobbled up. People used to be against it, and now not so much. Society changed its mind and that's bad. Because if society changes its mind, then all morality is untethered and anything goes. Before you know it we'll all be giving blowjobs to knocked out homeless people. And that's why we should just stick to what the Bible says, whether the prohibited behaviors harm anybody or not. Except for, you know, the shellfish thing. And the poly/cotton blend thing. And the "while she's on her period" thing.
                    Enjoy.

                    Comment

                    • Gingersnap
                      Resident stylistic consultant
                      • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
                      • 24058

                      #11
                      The essay isn't about gay marriage. It's one example.
                      "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

                      Comment

                      Working...