Do you believe the reasons given for social activism, are the real reasons?

For example, look at the life of John C. Montana, a gangster and political advisor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Montana

He supported, for example, laws against unreasonable search and seizure's.

But not because of personal liberty or anything, he simply supported due process laws because it was good for the Mob.

So I'm wondering if everything has some ulterior motives beyond what the pubic told.

Is abortion about women's right to choose? Or is it really about racists keeping their daughters from having half minority babies?

I mean, I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but I suspect nothing happens that doesn't have hidden benefits for assholes.

https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-cultural-marxism/

Originally posted by cdtm
For example, look at the life of John C. Montana, a gangster and political advisor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Montana

He supported, for example, laws against unreasonable search and seizure's.

But not because of personal liberty or anything, he simply supported due process laws because it was good for the Mob.

So I'm wondering if everything has some ulterior motives beyond what the pubic told.

Is abortion about women's right to choose? Or is it really about racists keeping their daughters from having half minority babies?

I mean, I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but I suspect nothing happens that doesn't have hidden benefits for assholes.

Sometimes there are ulterior motives like you stated. I do think a fair amount of social activism is mainly genuine, and the ulterior motives, if you can call it that, is because people are really disadvantaged and want that to be better, social activism makes them feel good about themselves, or it makes them feel better than others who don't engage in social activism.

Originally posted by Artol
Sometimes there are ulterior motives like you stated. I do think a fair amount of social activism is mainly genuine, and the ulterior motives, if you can call it that, is because people are really disadvantaged and want that to be better, social activism makes them feel good about themselves, or it makes them feel better than others who don't engage in social activism.

Do you think there's certain elements of the recent flavor of left concerns that are artificial ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Do you think there's certain elements of the recent flavor of left concerns that are artificial ?

To answer that I would need to better understand what you define as "artificial".

An example is the thousand talents program, an expression of this is confucius centers.

Maybe asking you what you think of these things would be better.
What is your opinion of them, outside my original question ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_Talents_Plan

https://www.axios.com/confucius-institutes-china-foreign-missions-684bfbf9-81ae-4bc7-a773-8161e20a2324.html

Hmm, I mean I do think think tanks and thought leaders, whether they are state funded or not, play a role in creating opinions and narratives. I'm not sure whether I would call that necessarily artificial. I do wish that there was more access to platforms to anyone, I think the accumulation of power in whose opinions are listened to is a huge problem to democratic society and we should counteract that.

Originally posted by Artol
Hmm, I mean I do think think tanks and thought leaders, whether they are state funded or not, play a role in creating opinions and narratives. I'm not sure whether I would call that necessarily artificial. I do wish that there was more access to platforms to anyone, I think the accumulation of power in whose opinions are listened to is a huge problem to democratic society and we should counteract that.

Would joe rogan (100 million subs) be an example of someone creating a democracy imbalance ? Or is that not what what you mean ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Would joe rogan (100 million subs) be an example of someone creating a democracy imbalance ? Or is that not what what you mean ?

That is part of what I meant, yes.

Originally posted by Artol
That is part of what I meant, yes.

Okay, with that being the case I would divide joe into a group of authentic people/influence, because he believes what he says.

I think of joe as a statist, therefore Im in disagreement with him on most things, but he seems like a good faith actor.
Same with you, you're a statist. You believe in everything I don't, but the way you communicate those ideas seem genuine and you're talented at explaining them, so I really enjoy chatting with you about our disagreements.

If confucius institutes are centers of soft power for the ccp, and they're spreading anti western stratagems via ideas they don't necessarily believe in, this is what I mean by artificial.

For example, let's say the ccp spread the idea of transgenderism just to cause division between progressives and conservatives, as a stratagem for political conquest.

So I think people in joe's position are a problem, even if I agree with them, but that is a separate problem from what I mean by artificial influence.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Okay, with that being the case I would divide joe into a group of authentic people/influence, because he believes what he says.

I think of joe as a statist, therefore Im in disagreement with him on most things, but he seems like a good faith actor.
Same with you, you're a statist. You believe in everything I don't, but the way you communicate those ideas seem genuine and you're talented at explaining them, so I really enjoy chatting with you about our disagreements.

If confucius institutes are centers of soft power for the ccp, and they're spreading anti western stratagems via ideas they don't necessarily believe in, this is what I mean by artificial.

For example, let's say the ccp spread the idea of transgenderism just to cause division between progressives and conservatives, as a stratagem for political conquest.

So I think people in joe's position are a problem, even if I agree with them, but that is a separate problem from what I mean by artificial influence.

I do believe that there are grifters that don't believe what they preach at all, I think particularly the conservative right is full of them. But in general I believe that the mechanism is a little different, like a lot of the people in positions of communicative power do truly believe what they say, a lot of journalists really believe the columns they write, but if they didn't believe what they believe, they wouldn't be in the positions they are.

Of course the Confucius Institute is a Chinese attempt at soft power. So is the Silk Road. But so is US Foreign Aid, so is Hollywood. State actors, and corporate actors use all avenues they have available to benefit themselves. Especially with something like the Confucius Institute I don't think they need to buy anyone's opinions, they just give money to people that are already ideologically in line with what they want.

The same is the case for the Chicago Boys btw, they did truly believe in their devastating ideology, but if they hadn't believed it they would have never been picked by the powerful to advance.

Joe Rogan I see in a similar light, he is partly popular because he is likable, but that's not just it, he's also popular because he could jump off from the platform of UFC, he's popular because he got to be the host of a traditional media show, he's popular because his brand works well for the algorithms of YouTube, Reddit and Facebook, these are all not things that are in a vacuum, they all helped to catapult him to the influence he has right now, and they stopped many other people, who might even be more interesting, more genuine more funny than Joe if they just had a chance, from being in the position he is in.

Originally posted by Artol
I do believe that there are grifters that don't believe what they preach at all, I think particularly the conservative right is full of them. But in general I believe that the mechanism is a little different, like a lot of the people in positions of communicative power do truly believe what they say, a lot of journalists really believe the columns they write, but if they didn't believe what they believe, they wouldn't be in the positions they are.

Of course the Confucius Institute is a Chinese attempt at soft power. So is the Silk Road. But so is US Foreign Aid, so is Hollywood. State actors, and corporate actors use all avenues they have available to benefit themselves. Especially with something like the Confucius Institute I don't think they need to buy anyone's opinions, they just give money to people that are already ideologically in line with what they want.

The same is the case for the Chicago Boys btw, they did truly believe in their devastating ideology, but if they hadn't believed it they would have never been picked by the powerful to advance.

Joe Rogan I see in a similar light, he is partly popular because he is likable, but that's not just it, he's also popular because he could jump off from the platform of UFC, he's popular because he got to be the host of a traditional media show, he's popular because his brand works well for the algorithms of YouTube, Reddit and Facebook, these are all not things that are in a vacuum, they all helped to catapult him to the influence he has right now, and they stopped many other people, who might even be more interesting, more genuine more funny than Joe if they just had a chance, from being in the position he is in.

Have zero criticism or counterpoint to this 👆

How Birth Control And Abortion Became Politicized

Originally posted by cdtm
For example, look at the life of John C. Montana, a gangster and political advisor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Montana

He supported, for example, laws against unreasonable search and seizure's.

But not because of personal liberty or anything, he simply supported due process laws because it was good for the Mob.

So I'm wondering if everything has some ulterior motives beyond what the pubic told.

Is abortion about women's right to choose? Or is it really about racists keeping their daughters from having half minority babies?

I mean, I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but I suspect nothing happens that doesn't have hidden benefits for assholes.

To seriously answer the question though we need to admit that social activism is self centered by nature. Most people aren't doing these things simply out of the kindness of their hearts. They're doing it because they have a need that to them should be addressed.

Now that doesn't make it bad or not but it does mean most people don't really need an ulterior motive if the main motive is strong to them. For instance LGBTQ rights are more than enough a strong motivation for LGTBQ people to commit to social activism.

Another question this poses:

Does a good deed have to be completely altruistic in order to be a good deed?

Originally posted by Quincy
Another question this poses:

Does a good deed have to be completely altruistic in order to be a good deed?

I think the deed itself can still be considered good even if it wasn't completely altruistic because it could still be considered good on the part of the beneficiary. That doesn't mean the non-altruistic parts of it are any better because of it though.

Of course then can be so much grey area on what accounts as benefiting people that you could come up with so many different scenarios for some many different view points on this topic.

It's like if the means justify the ends or something.

Like if a dude gives a homeless person some lunch but he does it to impress the hot guy he's on a walk with, that's still a good deed in my eyes

Originally posted by Quincy
It's like if the means justify the ends or something.

Like if a dude gives a homeless person some lunch but he does it to impress the hot guy he's on a walk with, that's still a good deed in my eyes

Although I think when speaking to the content of the person themselves the reasoning does matter.

Originally posted by Newjak
I think it would overall be considered a good deed with very little harm.

Although I think when speaking to the content of the person themselves the reasoning does matter.

Definitely. I think there are folks who will often use the idea that someone is doing something good for non-altruistic reasons, and thus doing the good thing at all is bad.

Originally posted by Quincy
It's like if the means justify the ends or something.

Like if a dude gives a homeless person some lunch but he does it to impress the hot guy he's on a walk with, that's still a good deed in my eyes

This is consequentialistic thinking, which i find dangerous because not two people have the exact same value structure.

For example, If a murderer kills a man, then it turns out that guy was abusing his wife and stealing from his job, and he had a fat life insurance policy that his wife will get.

The results are 1 less *******, and a previously battered wife becoming a rich widow.

Is this murder justified by the results ?

I would say no, but I value principles, not convenience.