Translate

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

The Monica Lewinsky comeback tour


This really is the headline from the Washington Post:

Monica Lewinsky gave a really, really important TED talk on bullying.

Contra Niche considers it here.

Monica Lewinsky has popped up in my feeds because she gave a talk about how public shaming should be stopped. I have no doubt there were an insult or many hurled at her in a public place, but shame comes from inside.

Shame wells up when you know you've done something wrong. The great big evil surrounding shame is when cultural Marxists try to instill a sense of shame about wanting normal things.

But Lewinsky has experienced authentic shame, and, apparently, her recourse is to pretend it doesn't come from herself, but that it is some form of oppression visited upon her from other people.

It is a pity nobody understands the concept of repentance these days.

I think the terminology needs some tweaking. Monica Lewinsky comes from a Semitic/Judaic shaming culture, not an Anglo-European/Christian guilt culture. (There's a decent comparison here.)

Shame is exogenous; guilt is endogenous. Shame means you answer to other people; guilt means you answer to principles. Both certainly have their place, but the weakness of the shaming culture is that shame can be expunged by a sufficiently clever argument (or not getting caught). Guilt, on the other hand, requires repentance. Guilt is how you get people to police themselves. August naturally looks at things from his own hereditary and cultural perspective.

I wrote about Miss Ms. Lewinsky in October 2012, counseling women to avoid feminism. (Have I mentioned how I repeat myself, because nothing ever changes?) Monica Lewinsky is having none of that, as she rages against her spinsterhood.

We are far from blameless in this matter. Westerners are fully capable of deconstructing their culture all on their own. After all, at root we are where we are because of classical liberalism. The universalist principles which we voluntarily adopted to govern ourselves simultaneously will not allow us to see, until after the fact, all the ways our Anglo-European and Christian culture is being displaced.

Immigrants do not assimilate; they transform.

10 comments:

August said...

I can't disagree, except to point out you've turned some commentary about a person into commentary about society. Different scales.
Repentance could work for her personally. So would avoiding other women- since they probably hen-peck the crap out of her. She's probably getting some positive responses from this nonsense, but it only lasts as long as other women imagine themselves in her shoes. As soon as reality kicks in again, the hens will peck, even if they are feminists.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Very good point. Agree completely.

Kakistocrazy said...

Why anyone would give ink to Lewinsky is beyond me...unless it is meant to call out dos damn Joos!

Anti-Gnostic, you devil you, are you too dense to realize that shaming culture is not reserved to one group of people? Christians shame non-Christians, manospherists shame manginas, whites shame non-whites. Furthermore, it is ironic that your inquiry into the subject matter is wreaking with shaming language.


“(There's a decent comparison here.)”

First, the two citations (Dodds and Benedict) are rife with confirmation bias—both authors concluded that “shame culture” is naturally inferior to “guilt culture”.

Second, the link does NOT state that Jewish culture is specifically a “shaming culture”.

Third, Anglo-Saxon England has been noted as a shame culture despite its conversion to Christianity. Hmmm, now where did Western Civilization seemingly derive its greatness from?


“Monica Lewinsky is Jewish. She comes from a Semitic/Judaic shaming culture, not an Anglo-European/Christian guilt culture.”



Association Fallacy alert. Jewish culture is a GUILT culture similar to Christian culture. Both teach people how they ought to behave through an inner voice of conscience predicated on a moral foundation, i.e. a religious text. In both cultures, should a person violate the norms of a society, he/she is mandated to repent for their transgression.


“Shame is exogenous; guilt is endogenous.”



Replace “is” with “may be”. The approach behavior for shame and guilt depends upon the situation and whether the desired emotion is endogenous or exogenous in nature. When a person is in a shame-inducing situation, and the emotion is thus endogenous, the shame is acted upon.


“Guilt is how you get people to police themselves.
The former means you answer to other people; the latter means you answer to principles. Both have their place, but the weakness of the shaming culture is that shame can be expunged just by having a good argument (or not getting caught).”

Replace “guilt is” with “guilt and shame”. Imagine if you as a Jooish youngster (now that would be hilarious) ran out to the living room naked as a jay-bird. Jewish culture values modesty and condemns public nudity exactly like Christian culture. Your parents would immediately react by discouraging the behavior through a consequence. This disapproval would be painful enough so that you would feel humiliated for your conduct. In the future, you would avoid that behavior. As a result, you adopt that value of modesty and make it your own standard. You hold yourself accountable to keep your behavior in check to prevent yourself from violated that adopted set of rules lest you shame yourself.


“Because immigrants do not assimilate; they transform.”

I suggest you read the seminal work by William I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki on Polish assimilation to educate yourself on the matter.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Jewish culture is quite mercenary. So is Arab culture.

In fact, outside the Hajnal lines, that's how most of the world operates: the bounds for acceptable behavior are, what can you get away with.

There is a bit of both in all cultures. When you read the NY Times or listen to NPR, you are going to get American Ashkenazim culture, which is more concerned with shame than guilt.

Kakistocrazy said...

“Jewish culture is quite mercenary. So is Arab culture.”


Christian culture has also been equally covetous, materialistic, greedy…take your pick. Your point?


“There is a bit of both in all cultures. When you read the NY Times or listen to NPR, you are going to get American Ashkenazim culture, which is more concerned with shame than guilt.”

Doubling down on stupid ain’t no way to live. In general, one is getting a secularist’s take from those sources; in other occasions, there are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim overtones. And it’s not American Ashkenazim culture, it’s simply American culture.

Indeed, it is a pity that our host fails to comprehend the concept of repentance these days.

[Laughs] Ooops, am I shaming you? I must be Jooish.

Bert said...

This blog has it's own resident troll. I never thought I'd see the day.

Kakistocrazy said...

"This blog has it's own resident troll. I never thought I'd see the day."

Do you have something of substance to say, or you are simply chimping out?

IA said...

I don't want to belabor this, to me, hair-splitting usage. But, here's the etymologies from my dictionary:

Shame etymology: O.E. sceamu, sceomu "feeling of guilt or disgrace," from P.Gmc. *skamo (cf. O.S. skama, O.N. sk├Âmm, Swed. skam, O.Fris. scome, Du. schaamte, O.H.G. scama, Ger. Scham), probably from PIE *skem-, from *kem- "to cover" (covering oneself being a common expression of shame).

Guilt etymology: O.E. gylt "crime, sin, fault, fine," of unknown origin, though some suspect a connection to O.E. gieldan "to pay for, debt," but O.E.D. editors find this "inadmissible phonologically." The mistaken use for "sense of guilt" is first recorded 1690. Guilt by association first recorded 1941. Guilty is from O.E. gyltig, from gylt.

So, both words come from Old English. Shame seems to have evolved as a feeling of remorse. Guilt originally signified the commission of a crime and became corrupted in the 17th century.

This further corruption seems ill-advised.

Owen Lutz said...

It should be noted that she was shamed by the liberal media, because they had to defend Bill Clinton.
Normally the left is all about protecting the victim of this kind of abuse by a superior.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

I wonder if her newfound status has to do with more 30-something and 40-something women in the media. I don't know.

In any event, women these days are like lost children, which is probably more pertinent than the point I actually made.