The Consequences of Reckless Rhetoric
1 hour ago
Smiley’s life is best told by the bookIncidentally, his brother agreed with him regarding the Peter Weir adaptation.
The BBC version of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was so good it made me get a TV, after years of not having one in my home. Yet when I watched it again a few years ago I found it oddly slow and quiet, not as thrilling as the first time round. I had changed completely in the 25 years between, as we all have.
This is because I am used to more and more of my thinking and feeling being done for me by the TV or the cinema, thanks to music, special effects and fast, clever editing.
I’ll be interested to see how the new film version compares, but in the end they can’t beat the book, drawn from life by a wonderful observer. Unlike the TV series, which starred Alec Guinness as Smiley, it gets better every time.
Opening Night Party at Dalva, Movie, Panel Discussion (Friday, Sept 23, prior to 7pm show)
A Taste of the Season, Movie, Panel Discussion (Saturday before the 7:00pm and 9:15pm shows)
Food Freedom for our Families Gala Event (Monday, Sept. 26, prior to 7:00pm show)
Bone Broth and a Movie Benefit for ShowYourHearts.org (Tuesday, Sept 27, prior to 7:00pm show)
NOTE: Tickets for all shows in S.F. are ONLY available online until the day of the show, seating is limited, and we recommend you buy your tickets in advance. Link to buy tix:
The only thing I have really opposed you on about them is when you claim that the MRM doesn’t even exist. It certainly does, albeit ineffectively. And my reference to your claims were in regard to a comment thread at the Spearhead a while back where people were claiming that men’s issues were increasing in regularity on MSM websites and such… and then you piped in and tried to claim that this was in part because of your Urinal Campaign. I am merely pointing out that on this thread, you are claiming that the MRM is a complete and utter disaster, and on other threads, you point out that increased awareness of Men’s Issues is due, in part, to your urinal campaign. I think that is called having your cake and eating it too. You are doing it again in this last comment as well. At first there were no victories, but no you are claiming your campaign is successful. (One wonders then, what sets it apart from all the other URL at Urinal Campaigns that have happened over the past decades?)
As for Paul Elam, who cares? I quite disagree with Paul Elam – and according to your stated politics, so should you, and so should everyone who believes in the original MGTOW philosophy, which was to instill masculinity in men, restore femininity in women and work for limited government. Elam attacked Jack Donovan, openly in blog post, because Donovan questioned the validity of Male Studies headed up by Warren Farrell. Elam also openly threatened to undermine anyone who was opposed to Male Studies. Well, I am very opposed to a Male Studies headed up by Warren Farrell. For five or six years now, I have been writing about the dangers of getting what we say we want – and “Male Studies” is the culmination of this. First off, they want government and NGO styled funding, or in other words, they will start up a “studies” department that will become big-government’s little bitch boy – just like Feminism. Second of all, while Warren Farrell gets quite a few things right in his evaluations, his ultimate solution is for more androgyny – in other words, more feminism, but from a male point of view. Paul Elam, as well as Farrell, states he wants to end gender roles. You, TFH, as well as any original MGTOW’rs, ought to be opposed to this. If you believe in game, as well as instilling masculinity in men and restoring femininity in women as per MGTOW, then one ought to be restoring gender roles rather than further tearing them down.
Warren Farrell has worried me for a long time now because of these views, and his willing affiliation with government. And, if the MRM gets its wish and becomes a greater force in society, I can foresee great danger in people like him, because Farrell, along with his colleagues like Strauss, always seem to think the answer is more equality and more government intrusion into personal life. And, of course, as the most famous of MRA’s, they are “naturals” for becoming spokespersons for “the cause” after everyone else has done the groundwork for raising awareness about the issues. There is great danger in that. Strauss, for example, at the end of his studies showing female violence that is equal to male violence, recommends more funding and more intrusions into our lives.
If MRM “victories” are more androgyny and bigger government and further intrusion into our personal lives, then I hope the MRM stays ineffective for a long time to come, and I won’t touch it with a barge pole.
Disengagement from the system of universities, or as I should say, “universities,” is also advisable. This is true, first, because if you seek cultivation, to gain a grasp of such matters as history, literature, the arts and the sciences, you can do it better on your own. Professors serve little purpose other than to ensure that the student does his homework. If the student wants to study, he can do it by himself, and if he doesn't want to study, he has no business in a university.
4) My understanding is that the attitude of the Chinese mandarin class toward Xunzi, the early Confucian who most emphasized ritual as opposed to heart, was ambivalent because of the fact that it was his students who became the base for Legalism. On the other hand, some scholars contend that State Confucianism as it emerged under the Han dynasty owed a great deal to Xunzi and Legalism even though rhetorically it reviled them. What is your attitude toward Xunzi? Do ritual, heart and piety stand shoulder to shoulder, or do you emphasize one in your personal constellation of values?
I's true that some of Xunzi's students became the founders of Legalism. But I suspect he would have frowned on the path they took. The Legalists were hard-headed pragmatists who tended to scoff at ethics. (They're eerily modern-sounding....) Xunzi was no soft idealist, but he was deeply committed to Confucianism. He was much like Aristotle in appreciating that living an ethical life required being habituated to good practices first. People needed to learn how to be good, through ritual and custom and law, rather than just relying on an innate goodness to come out, as Mencius tended to stress. While the later Confucian high culture elevated Mencius over Xunzi, perhaps because he seemed more idealistic, all the stress on custom and study smacked of Xunzi. Premodern China spoke Mencius but lived Xunzi, and benefited from doing both.
Speaking for myself, I tend to think heart is more important than ritual, as you put it. That's probably because I see rituals varying across cultures, while the bettering of the heart at which they aim is more universal. I’m interested in common ground, and that often seems the easiest place to look. That said, I'm very aware of how important habits, instilled by a culture, are in forming people and sustaining their better natures. It's very easy to talk about one's heart as the most important thing, and then slide into a kind of shapeless complacency, especially if a society on the whole is not very hospitable to virtue. Rituals can fortify. I imagine Xunzi would agree: rituals are important, but they're important because of where they lead, which is to the heart.
I don't write to our whole community often, but this week is
special because it's the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and many
people don't know that Meetup is a 9/11 baby.
Let me tell you the Meetup story. I was living a couple miles
from the Twin Towers, and I was the kind of person who thought
local community doesn't matter much if we've got the internet
and tv. The only time I thought about my neighbors was when I
hoped they wouldn't bother me.
When the towers fell, I found myself talking to more neighbors
in the days after 9/11 than ever before. People said hello to
neighbors (next-door and across the city) who they'd normally
ignore. People were looking after each other, helping each
other, and meeting up with each other. You know, being
A lot of people were thinking that maybe 9/11 could bring
people together in a lasting way. So the idea for Meetup was
born: Could we use the internet to get off the internet -- and
grow local communities?
We didn't know if it would work. Most people thought it was a
crazy idea -- especially because terrorism is designed to make
people distrust one another.
A small team came together, and we launched Meetup 9 months
Today, almost 10 years and 10 million Meetuppers later, it's
working. Every day, thousands of Meetups happen. Moms Meetups,
Small Business Meetups, Fitness Meetups... a wild variety of
100,000 Meetup Groups with not much in common -- except one
Every Meetup starts with people simply saying hello to
neighbors. And what often happens next is still amazing to me.
They grow businesses and bands together, they teach and
motivate each other, they babysit each other's kids and find
other ways to work together. They have fun and find solace
together. They make friends and form powerful community. It's
It's a wonderful revolution in local community, and it's thanks
to everyone who shows up.
Meetups aren't about 9/11, but they may not be happening if it
weren't for 9/11.
9/11 didn't make us too scared to go outside or talk to
strangers. 9/11 didn't rip us apart. No, we're building new
The towers fell, but we rise up. And we're just getting started
with these Meetups.
Scott Heiferman (on behalf of 80 people at Meetup HQ)
Co-Founder & CEO, Meetup
New York City