Jantelaw

[hgvafonso]

And not a single logic deduction was reached. Also they were giving couroured balloons in the park.

[Sculptor1]

Check your facts.
Hilary won 3 million more votes.
The sad facts of American politics is the between the two of them they miserably failed to appeal to the majority of people. Neither were relevant to the problems of most people. The series of consents already manufactured were employed by both candidates regardless of the minor differences between them.

Trump modelled himself on any 20c tele-evangelist. And the great uneducated morons follow like sheep.

Since you don't appear to know how U.S. Presidential elections work, I can only assume you are one of the "great uneducated morons."

How can you be that stupid?
Hilary had more money, she got more votes. That assists the claim that it is possible to buy as much manufactured consent as you want.
Which is what was under discussion; not the arcane collegiate system of election the US is stupid enough to persist in.

But more fully you are absurdly missing the bigger picture.
The 2 candidates taken together burned more than $2 billion dollars to manufacture the absurd claim that either one of them was a worthy Leader of the US.

Only a complete idiot would ever be satisfied that either of these puppets were worthy.
Think it over. In a country of 330 million people the only candidates were those two. SERIOUSLY?
The land that gave us Roosevelt and Kennedy; this is all the US has to offer?

And NOW what? Biden and Trump. Talk about setting the bar low. How much lower can you get? Half the hobos in New York would make a better president than either of them.

[Ecurb]

Hilary had more money, she got more votes. That assists the claim that it is possible to buy as much manufactured consent as you want.
Which is what was under discussion; not the arcane collegiate system of election the US is stupid enough to persist in.

To get back to Jante, hypocrisy, thy name is Sculptor. Sculptor says:

"Jante is about respect for others, ....
It's somewhat republican too. None are better than you and you are no better than anyone else. Bow to no one and accept no bow from another."

Then he quotes Jiddu Krishnamurti:

“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”

Only slightly later, in the same thread, Sculptor manages to write:

"...And the great uneducated morons follow like sheep."

No comment is necessary, as the hypocrisy is clear. Sculptor would be ostracized in Sweden!

Regarding U.S. politics, receiving the most votes in a Presidential election does not constitute "winning".

Unfortunately, the Democratic party is as dysfunctional as the Republican. The U.S. has become a gerontocracy: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Joe Biden are all well past retirement age. Biden's main challenger, Bernie Sanders, was equally old. suffered a heart attack while campaigning, and reminded me of a scolding grandfather. This is sad. A candidate with the talent of Obama would trounce Trump (I don't think Obama was a good President, but he was a very good candidate: a powerful speaker and charismatic personality).

The Democrats (I think) believe that they can pick the safest possible candidate, vetted by eight years as Vice President, and beat Trump. Let's hope they are right, although I agree with Sculptor (horrors!) that he's a terrible candidate/ I won't mention (except in passing) Boris Johnson.

[Sculptor1]

Hilary had more money, she got more votes. That assists the claim that it is possible to buy as much manufactured consent as you want.
Which is what was under discussion; not the arcane collegiate system of election the US is stupid enough to persist in.

To get back to Jante, hypocrisy, thy name is Sculptor. Sculptor says:

Fine - avoid your howling mistake, by changing goalposts.
It would be better that you embraced your failure.

"Jante is about respect for others, ....
It's somewhat republican too. None are better than you and you are no better than anyone else. Bow to no one and accept no bow from another."

Then he quotes Jiddu Krishnamurti:

“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”

Only slightly later, in the same thread, Sculptor manages to write:

"...And the great uneducated morons follow like sheep."

No comment is necessary, as the hypocrisy is clear. Sculptor would be ostracized in Sweden!

Non sequitur.
People do follow like sheep. They would do well to find out about, and adopt Jante. There is no contradiction here.

Regarding U.S. politics, receiving the most votes in a Presidential election does not constitute "winning".

DUH **** DUH

Unfortunately, the Democratic party is as dysfunctional as the Republican. The U.S. has become a gerontocracy: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Joe Biden are all well past retirement age. Biden's main challenger, Bernie Sanders, was equally old. suffered a heart attack while campaigning, and reminded me of a scolding grandfather. This is sad. A candidate with the talent of Obama would trounce Trump (I don't think Obama was a good President, but he was a very good candidate: a powerful speaker and charismatic personality).

The Democrats (I think) believe that they can pick the safest possible candidate, vetted by eight years as Vice President, and beat Trump. Let's hope they are right, although I agree with Sculptor (horrors!) that he's a terrible candidate/ I won't mention (except in passing) Boris Johnson.

You can mention Boris. I hate his lazy fat **** too.

Not relevant.
I thought we were trying to get back to Jante?

[Ecurb]

Sculptor reminds me of a blind man, wildly swinging the ponderous weight of his Logical Fallacies (some in Latin, no less) about his head on the unlikely chance that he will hit someone.

[Sculptor1]

Sculptor reminds me of a blind man, wildly swinging the ponderous weight of his Logical Fallacies (some in Latin, no less) about his head on the unlikely chance that he will hit someone.

So when did you seem this blind man?

[Steve3007]

(Other have already covered this, I know, and these are not the only arguments.)

How would you defend Jantelaw philosophical;y?

It promotes social cohesion and acts against change that may be destructive/too fast.

How would you refute Jantelaw philosophical;y?

It stifles creativity, change and innovation that may be beneficial or necessary.

Evolution versus Revolution. Edmund Burke versus Thomas Paine and such.

"I know my place."

[Ecurb]

So when did you seem this blind man?

Unfortunately, every time I post on this Philosophy discussion forum.

[Sculptor1]

So when did you see this blind man?

Unfortunately, every time I post on this Philosophy discussion forum.

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

When I came home last night at three
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn't see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don't you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door... (slam!)

Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
Oh, how I wish he'd go away...

[Sculptor1]

(Other have already covered this, I know, and these are not the only arguments.)

How would you defend Jantelaw philosophical;y?

It promotes social cohesion and acts against change that may be destructive/too fast.

How would you refute Jantelaw philosophical;y?

It stifles creativity, change and innovation that may be beneficial or necessary.

Evolution versus Revolution. Edmund Burke versus Thomas Paine and such.

"I know my place."

You are dead wrong.
Human progress has always accelerated where hierarchies have been minimised.
All hot societies have fluid social structures.
Monarchies, aristocracies and class systems usually lead to stagnation.
Burke represents stagnation, Paine progress.

**** "your place"

[Sculptor1]

I'd never before heard of "Jante", but was always completely aware of Scandinavian's attitude that to each other all are equal. This attitude is a lot older than you would imagine.
It is not a co-incidence that Europe's first ever democracy in modern times was established in Iceland long before any other country in the world.
The rest of Europe had to await the revival of learning of ancient Greek literature before such a thing occurred to them, whilst the Norse settlers of Iceland establish the Althing before 900 AD without any help from Plato and Aristotle.

[Steve3007]

You are dead wrong.
Human progress has always accelerated where hierarchies have been minimised...

Dead wrong to state brief answers to two questions from the OP? Or dead wrong to post a clip from an old comedy routine and state "I endorse the social structure satirized in this comedy routine"?

[Sculptor1]

You are dead wrong.
Human progress has always accelerated where hierarchies have been minimised...

Dead wrong to state brief answers to two questions from the OP? Or dead wrong to post a clip from an old comedy routine and state "I endorse the social structure satirized in this comedy routine"?

Look at the evidence.
Rome made no social or technological progress from the moment the first emperor ruled till the fall of the empire.
Yet the Greeks did. Greek culture was disparate, multifaceted, democratic and autocratic depending on where you look.
Established hierarchies push conservativism, and stifle change.
The comedy clip you linked represents the legacy of a massive change in British values. The empire did not grow until people like Ronnie Barker started to emerge through technological progress. It was the rise of the middle class that was the driving force for imperial expansion. The growing empire was never going to thrive on proles and slaves but needed an growing administrative class to run the show. Many of the most successful men of the empire benefited from laisse-faire trade, even piracy. In Elizabeth's time most of England's imported wealth was gained through providing letters of marque to privateers. Spain which was buttoned up with titles and offices of state were powerless against legitimated piracy of the English.
Whilst Ronnie Corbett did all the work, he was continually challenging the likes of John Cleese, and throughout the Victorian period the rise of the left provided Corbett's class with more rights and spending power which helped drive the imperial economy. This trend marks the greatest period of progress in human history.
What you miss from the Sketch is the irony.

[Sculptor1]

You might want to see the full sketch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7McafOeUyxc

[Steve3007]

I've seen the full sketch many times. It's as ingrained in the culture as the Four Yorkshiremen.