sorry, flippant. My stance is [what you would expect it to be]. I'm pretty mad about this, but don't know what I can actually do. I hate this shit, and how its legitimized.
The comment may have been flippant but I don't think you're too far off. It really does seem to boil down to both sides being able to sympathize with the plight of the other as a precursor towards eventually becoming friends. And to an "objective" observer like myself it also seems pretty clear that both sides have been the victims of injustice(s), although the injustices committed against Jews did not initially come at the hands of the Palestinians. In that sense I'm more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, which is exacerbated by continued Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, daily humiliations, etc.
That seemingly simple tactic is much easier said than done as pride gets in the way, of course, and it would at most get the conversation started. But in my experience the most effective means of deescalating any confrontation - actually the only (peaceful) way that I've seen work - is to try to see things from the other's perspective and, by doing so, legitimize his/her grievance. That starting of a conversation in the attempt to cultivate mutual trust seems to be what Obama was trying to do, but his (imo) reasonable and humane approach has been subjected to childish ridicule as being part of an "apology tour" for U.S. misdeeds (which of course his jingoistic haters refuse to acknowledge) or something like that.
Anyhow, I watched a round table discussion between Israeli and Palestinian young adults many years ago - been about 10-15 years I think - and the moderator asked participants on each side of the conflict to do what was just suggested: try to see the justice of the other side's position and to follow that up by saying something about it. This suggestion elicited indignation from everyone involved, and not a single person could acknowledge any wrongdoing on their end as they placed ALL the blame on the other side.
Small sample size, obviously, and I'm sure there are some good people on both sides (Trump may have forever ruined this honest description of most conflicts) who do try to build trust and friendships with the "other", but that refusal to recognize a shared humanity and/or a shared set of values/interests seems to reflect a significant amount of popular opinion on both sides in this conflict.
His view is that Jews are okay as long as there aren’t too many of them—or, as he wrote in his Manifesto: “There is no Jewish problem in Western Europe (with the exception of the U.K. and France) as we only have 1 million in Western Europe, whereas 800,000 out of these 1 million live in France and the U.K. The U.S., on the other hand, with more than 6 million Jews (600% more than Europe) actually has a considerable Jewish problem.”
His figure thus realizes the ultimate paradox of a Zionist anti-Semite—and we find the traces of this bizarre stance more often than one would expect."
Yes there's a strange convergence of interests between groups that otherwise hate each other. I haven't read much Zizek, but from what I have read he seems to really excel at the counter-intuitive insight which challenges basic assumptions.
I hate it that reasonable criticism of particular Israeli actions - when judged, let's say, according to criteria outlined as justification for this nation's declaring its independence from Britain - is purposely conflated with anti-Semitism in a cynical endeavor to shut down debate. Just because there are some racists who do attempt to conceal their anti-Semitism beneath more acceptable attacks on Israel, does not mean there's a necessary connection between the two.
As a non-Jew I almost feel like I have to stay out of the issue. But when I think it through that's bullshit, because my country gives significant support to one side in the conflict at the expense of the other, and that makes those of us who are U.S. citizens - Jew and non-Jew alike - complicit in the injustice. We need to pressure our politicians to work for a just two-state solution which moderates on both the Israeli and Palestinian side find acceptable. This, to my knowledge, has not been sincerely tried.
I do try to remain open to different sides in this debate, and I'll admit my limited knowledge of the issues. There was a time when I read quite a few books on it, even took a class on 20th century ME politics, but I've not been keeping up with events in the region over the last decade or so. Any good articles, books, videos or whatever are appreciated.
You know, I wonder what African American sentiment is nowadays to the troubles and hardship the Palestinians face. They aren't too vocal about it despite the glaring similarities of both populations through history.
It's excruciating. But I don't know what angle it's possible to take to get through to the other side, which is what would really make the difference. All's I can say is if I were there, I'd be protesting too, non-violently I'd hope, and I think anyone in that position would be and would be entitled to be.
Hmm I'd imagine that's a complex issue. Jews have been historically oppressed - think about the story of Jewish enslavement and eventual freedom from Egypt and the impact it had on slave emancipation movements here in the U.S. - so there's probably some lingering sympathy from African Americans (in general) for Israelis seeking freedom in a country of their own, especially after being subjected to so much hatred and injustice over the years.
On the other hand, Palestinians are being subjected to constant dehumanization right now, so there's that aspect which could conceivably create a strong sense of solidarity between African Americans and Palestinians.
How do you think Georges Lemaître came up with the idea? When he was making love to his mistress and realised that in that very hot, small dense space an explosion occurs that germinates life as we know it. Such a eureka moment.
Anyone want to talk about Hamas in this conversation about the Gaza attacks? You'd almost think that the Israelis just woke up one fine morning and decided to go a-shooting from the comments here.
On the other hand, Palestinians are being subjected to constant dehumanization right now, so there's that aspect which could conceivably create a strong sense of solidarity between African Americans and Palestinians.
Yeah, the transport of human beings over thousands of miles of ocean to be bought and sold as chattel, to be enslaved, and then to be finally emancipated but still to be relegated to a subservient role in society is so close to what the Palestinians have undergone, I can't see how the two groups wouldn't feel a certain affinity toward each other.
Yeah, the transport of human beings over thousands of miles of ocean to be bought and sold as chattel, to be enslaved, and then to be finally emancipated but still to be relegated to a subservient role in society is so close to what the Palestinians have undergone, I can't see how the two groups wouldn't feel a certain affinity toward each other.
Well, you can make the case that both were forced out of their home land.
Reply to Posty McPostface The plight of the African American versus the Palestinian is sufficiently dissimilar to explain why there's not a consistent alliance between the two groups. Any two people will have some similarity somewhere, but the history and current day to day life of a Palestinian and an African American really bear little similarity to one another.
To the extent the prior post was meant to suggest that we should expect an African American uprising over the Gaza attacks, I don't think anyone would take that seriously. What I think the post was meant to suggest was that the Israelis are the moral equivalents of Old South plantation owners that any African American who thought about it should logically despise.
But enough about the Israelis. What about Hamas? What evil empire do you compare them to?
Hamas are the government of Gaza. They are involved in organizing everything official including funerals, community events etc. You don't get to shoot unarmed protestors because Hamas were involved any more than you get to shoot the Charlottesville protestors because some white supremacist groups were involved. It's about proportionate use of force. Saying "Hamas" is not some kind of Trump card you can pull out to justify a massacre.
"As senior UN rights officials condemned the killings as an “outrageous human rights violation” – adding that it appeared anyone approaching the Gaza border fence was liable to be killed by Israeli soldiers – Ireland summoned Israel’s ambassador to protest against the fatalities.
...
Most of the Gazans who died on Monday were shot by Israeli snipers, Gaza’s health ministry said. According to the Hamas-run ministry, the dead included a baby who died after inhaling teargas along with eight children under the age of 16. At least 2,400 others were wounded."
Again, these were tens of thousands of regular citizens of Gaza including kids. You still haven't said one word to even acknowledge that you care at all about those that were killed. I don't understand your block on this.
"Summing up the concern of many, the UN rights office spokesman Rupert Colville told reporters in Geneva: “The mere fact of approaching a fence is not a lethal, life-threatening act, so that does not warrant being shot.
“It seems that anyone is liable to be shot dead,” he added, stressing that international laws that apply to Israel make clear that “lethal force may only be used as a measure of last, not first, resort”.
“It is not acceptable to say that ‘this is Hamas and therefore this is OK’,” Colville added, in an apparent dismissal of Israel’s justification for the high casualty levels among Palestinians in clashes along the border."
Reply to Baden Oh, but this is a silly response, suggesting that I'm advocating the slaughter of Hamas where ever they might appear. No, I get that you can't open fire on the Klan just because they're the Klan. My point is that they instigate the violence.
What I think the post was meant to suggest was that the Israelis are the moral equivalents of Old South plantation owners that any African American who thought about it should logically despise.
You can interpret it that way if one is sufficiently emotionally charged over the issue, which is completely understandable. I thought the closest similarity is the racial discrimination of blacks in general that occured in the US.
What about Hamas? What evil empire do you compare them to?
I'm not informed enough and too biased to give an educated answer. I think, I'll just let my mentor, @unenlightened take it from here if you two don't think you'll be talking past each other.
You characterize protesting as instigating the violence as if it somehow justifies it. It doesn't. The violence came overwhelmingly from the Israeli side which is why only Palestinians are dead.
Edit: Btw I don't want to appear like I'm being uncharitable or hammering you over the head with this. That would be counterproductive. But the whole thing bothers me intensely.
“Traditionally we’ve tried to play a role of fireman in the Middle East. Now we’re playing the role of arsonist,” said Ilan Goldenberg, a former State Department and Pentagon official who runs the Mideast program at the Center for a New American Security.
I think at this point, the overemphasis of Israel as the beating heart of Judaism, after the horrors of the Holocaust, has been damaging for the Jewish people, as a whole.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 15, 2018 at 14:22#1786970 likes
I know there's no easy solution to the issue, but I have a far-fetched proposal: let's relocate Israelis to California where they can displace us natives. I'll move voluntarily. We can be absorbed by other states just as we suggest Palestinian Arabs be absorbed by other Arab nations
Hey Erik! Is Arizona far enough away for you to move? :eyes: I have a Territorial style ranch coming on the market if you have a cool 700k but I could cut you a sweet deal! :ok: Taxes are cheap, the air is clear and the weather is gorgeous! :cool:
Oh and please disregard our new name from: Phoenix, Valley of the Sun, to Phoenix, The Surface of the Sun :fire: . "They" give us until 2050 before Phoenix will be too hot to dwell in so you have a good 25 years before you have to think about moving. :up:
What I think is worth emphasizing is that within Israel there are different strands of opinion. As Hanover pointed out, Haaretz, one of the most popular newspapers, is left-leaning, for example (though I wouldn't characterize it as "leftist" more as mainstream liberal). That's another nuance that is unfortunately likely to get lost in the polarized reaction to what's going on now.
Of course. Not every Jewish Israeli citizen condones the violence committed by their Government. I was in Israel (exactly two years ago to this day, in fact), and the majority of Israelis I spoke to were unhappy with what their Government does. But, ultimately, this internal dissatisfaction hasn't translated into anything meaningful, and likely won't, especially given this stupid stupid stupid meaningless embassy move, which will simply foster new conflicts.
I'm still in a daze over the fact that Robert Jeffress and John Hagee, preachers who said Hitler was a blessing for the Jews because it was part of God's plan for the Jews to return to Israel (again, to help fulfill the prophecy of the Second Coming of Christ, which send Jews and other non-Christians to eternal hellfire), gave a blessing at the embassy's open. Only in this twisted upside-down world could two blatant anti-semites offer prayers for Israel in Jerusalem.
It's covered for, being poor, have nothing to do being on the dole and not going anywhere for summer being poor again, and fits into my hobby with philosophy.
Really, I have no reason to be depressed the more I think about it. :chin:
"Footage from sites on the Gaza side of the fence confirmed that some of the protesters were hurling rocks and burning sticks at the fence, which serves as a border barrier separating Israel and the Gaza Strip. But the Palestinians, unlike the Israelis, were mostly unarmed, and none of them have successfully crossed the border. Indeed, some of the shooting victims appear to have been a good distance away from it."
Some of them may have been armed in the strict sense of having any kind of weapon. But the reason they are being to referred to by me, as by most journalists, as unarmed, is they generally were—and the "weapons" of those who had any were mostly rocks and sticks (contrast that with the Charlottesville protesters, for example, many of whom had guns). And that helps to explain why there were zero serious casualties on the Israeli side versus hundreds shot and dozens killed on the Palestinian side.
"Footage from sites on the Gaza side of the fence confirmed that some of the protesters were hurling rocks and burning sticks at the fence, which serves as a border barrier separating Israel and the Gaza Strip. But the Palestinians, unlike the Israelis, were mostly unarmed, and none of them have successfully crossed the border. Indeed, some of the shooting victims appear to have been a good distance away from it."
I'm happy to say they were generally unarmed if that's more appropriate. As long as we agree on the basic facts, we agree. I'm not going to have an argument with you just for the sake of it.
If that's confirmed, then the Israelis were right to take those eight on and use lethal force. But it's an army statement, so it will need some checking.
Yeah Baden, how could you be so stupid, the Palestinian civilians were well armed with rocks. We all know what happened with David and Goliath, although in this case Goliath was equipped with a sniper.
Reply to Thorongil Why invent a hypothetical when we have an actual event with actual consequences and actual deaths? The fact that you need to "play make-believe" instead of engaging with what actually happened says that you don't have a leg to stand on.
The only thing worthwhile about our exchange then is it illustrates well your approach to serious debate. Maybe you should just bow out. There are those here (pretty much everyone else) who are trying to discuss this like adults.
Yes, only Baden and Maw are allowed to be sarcastic. When they do it, it's apparently not sarcasm, but thuper therious points being made. Right. I will probably bow out, but not for the reason you suggest.
Sure, we're all prone to that at times but you started with an attempt at point-scoring and you ended with sarcasm. There was literally nothing in between. If you have something, please do give it up.
I wouldn't go that far as sometimes there are purely innocent victims, children especially. But in so far as this is a call for deescalation, I totally agree. And both sides need to make sacrifices for that to happen. But there is no end in sight largely because there is no real acknowledgement of the reality by those who have most of the power to change it. The Trump administration and Netanyahu can look at all this and still say the day of the embassy move was a great day for peace. What happens in the real world hardly matters. You can say whatever you like and there will be enough of your base oblivious or apathetic enough for you to keep rolling on.
Yeah, the transport of human beings over thousands of miles of ocean to be bought and sold as chattel, to be enslaved, and then to be finally emancipated but still to be relegated to a subservient role in society is so close to what the Palestinians have undergone, I can't see how the two groups wouldn't feel a certain affinity toward each other.
Nice straw man. Slavery is no longer around, and yet many black people in America still feel dehumanized, they continue to be perceived negatively by many white Americans, etc. This failure of "recognition" creates a sense of anger and resentment among black people and the cycle of hatred and distrust continues.
I didn't try to establish an exact equivalency between what the two groups have gone through, and the level of continued injustice against African Americans is debatable to a certain extent (as it is in the case of Palestinians), but I don't think one can deny the general point I made and which you responded to. To discount what the Palestinians have dealt with by comparing it with an even greater evil seems pretty sophistical.
What happens in the real world hardly matters. You can say whatever you like and there will be enough of your base oblivious or apathetic enough for you to keep rolling on.
This is exactly what Hamas is banking on. Orchestrate riots by a bunch of hooligans tossing firebombs at the Israeli border threatening to jump the fence and Israel, rightly, reacts with force. Hamas, predictably, is now milking the sympathies of tools like you who are all too willing to buy into the narrative that Israel are wrong in defending their borders. And I'm sure that if thugs came to your doorstep chucking fire and throwing rocks at your windows, you'd smile and let them into your home, amirite? No? Oh.
That's a bit Breitbart on steroids, but anyway, Israel didn't just react with force, it reacted with deadly force. The difference lies in the adjective. So, to answer your question:
And I'm sure that if thugs came to your doorstep chucking fire and throwing rocks at your windows, you'd smile and let them into your home, amirite? No? Oh.
My house is just a tad less secure than the Israeli border, so the threat of a raging mob outside it would be a bit more disconcerting for me than it was for the scores of Israeli soldiers at the border with high powered sniper weapons at their disposal. But leaving that aside, if I deliberately shot and killed someone for chucking a rock through my window, there's a good chance I'd go to prison for murder. So you make my main point well. The use of force was disproportionate and should be punished. You don't get to just shoot people who protest outside your border any more than you do outside your house.
And yes, of course, I'd invite them in for tea, scones and a read of your unintentionally helpful posts. ;)
Mayor of SimpletonMay 15, 2018 at 17:33#1787590 likes
Have fun lovin' wisdom...
... I'll check in in a week or so. (vacation ahead of me... Vive la Paris! )
You don't get to just shoot people who protest outside your house any more than you do outside your border.
Force is required to keep them from coming any closer. If you had read my first contribution to the topic, you'd get an idea about why the rioters were rioting in the first place. As Thorongil alluded to, they weren't going to plant flowers and bring smiles, but to bait violence with violence.
The plight of the African American versus the Palestinian is sufficiently dissimilar to explain why there's not a consistent alliance between the two groups. Any two people will have some similarity somewhere, but the history and current day to day life of a Palestinian and an African American really bear little similarity to one another.
To the extent the prior post was meant to suggest that we should expect an African American uprising over the Gaza attacks, I don't think anyone would take that seriously. What I think the post was meant to suggest was that the Israelis are the moral equivalents of Old South plantation owners that any African American who thought about it should logically despise.
But enough about the Israelis. What about Hamas? What evil empire do you compare them to?
Just noticed this follow up. Assuming the bold part is in reference to my post, I had no comparison of the sort in mind and it's crazy you'd suggest such a thing. As I mentioned, legal slavery ended over 150 years ago and yet African Americans continue to feel discriminated against in practical ways, like being passed over for jobs and housing because of their race, being disproportionately targeted by police and business owners for potential criminality because of their race, etc.
The idea that both groups feel themselves to be oppressed, even if the specific contexts aren't close to being identical, is not a trivial or meaningless similarity. It may even partly explain why so many American Jews worked their asses off to help black people secure their rights in this country: not because the Holocaust and American slavery were identical, but because Jews could maybe understand what it's like to be dehumanized and discriminated against in ways that average white Americans could not.
Anyways just wanted to clear up that misrepresentation. Posty's question was speculative and I offered up my take.
like being passed over for jobs and housing because of their race, being disproportionately targeted by police and business owners for potential criminality because of their race, etc.
As someone who's been a property manager and a manager of a restaurant, I have firsthand experience of these things happening to black people. Not all the time, of course, and I think some people may even exaggerate the extent at which they do occur, but I've seen enough to know that racism against blacks isn't just something that's in their heads, as many white people are wont to assume.
Incidentally, I should add that the owners I worked for who held black people in low estimation - who did not rent apartments to them regardless of how qualified they were, who would not hire them because they felt they were "lazy", were not white - one was Egyptian and the others were Sikh.
Force is required to keep them from coming any closer.
You forgot the adjective again. Deadly force. There are methods of crowd control or of stopping crowds reaching a particular point other than shooting scores of them dead. Are you aware of that?
As Thorongil alluded to, they weren't going to plant flowers and bring smiles, but to bait violence with violence.
Are you sure they weren't going to plant flowers? Because that was my argument from the start. That they were going to plant flowers. And you and Thorngil keep saying they weren't. Let's Google it to see who's right. :brow:
Okay, Mr. Never Sarcastic, Always Serious, Ever Helpful Baden.
Well, there's a time and a place, I suppose. But the following is not sarcastic. I hope the next time you go out to protest, you get shot at. (Not hit obviously, just shot at.) Just so you understand it. And if you were actually shot, I'd feel sorry about it even though I probably like you less than you like the Palestinians. Point being, this is not a purely political argument where one of us, you or me, is the winner. There's a simple human element to it. Dozens of people were killed and not all the victims were political players, they were also regular civilians. Some were children. That's 100% indisputable. Trying to turn them all into cartoon villains because it suits your political agenda is sick and makes you look like a hopeless excuse for a human being.
And because I don't think you are as depraved as you make yourself sound I'm going to invite you over for tea and scones and rock throwing at my place next week. Game?
You forgot the adjective again. Deadly force. There are methods of crowd control or of stopping crowds reaching a particular point other than shooting scores of them dead. Are you aware of that?
Deadly force is used when the rubber bullets and tear gas isn't working. The riots pulled back when Israel put their foot down. In this instance I applaud them.
Are you sure they weren't going to plant flowers? Because that was my argument from the start. That they were going to plant flowers. And you and Thorngil keep saying they weren't. Let's Google it to see who's right.
Hooligans are rarely up to any good, especially hooligans backed by a terrorist regime like Hamas.
But the following is not sarcastic. I hope the next time you go out to protest, you get shot at.
I don't attend protests - or riots, in the case of yesterday - so I'm not going to get shot at. Were I to, however, then I'm not going to complain when shit goes sour. I went to a Deicide concert some years ago and left the moshpit when things got too physical for my tastes. However, had I been knocked out or something then it's all on me - not the mosher, the venue, or the band. In my case there were signs telling me that it's on me if I get rocked. In this way, the same principle applies to the rioters in Gaza.
Point being, this is not a purely political argument where one of us, you or me, is the winner. There's a simple human element to it. Dozens of people were killed and not all the victims were political players, they were also regular civilians. Some were children. That's 100% indisputable.
If you allow children to attend riots, then it's your fault for such stupidity. And there's no such thing as a regular civilian when it comes to Palestinian - Israeli relations. Both sides know what can happen when a riot occurs. To pretend as though some of those attending a riot like that are clueless vegetables that can't weigh the risks of their participation is ridiculous.
Trying to turn them all into cartoon villains because it suits your political agenda is sick and makes you look like a hopeless excuse for a human being.
Oh, and what political agenda is that? You're the one tin foiling me into being some Breitbart loon. It's petty that this is the only angle you can take when someone disagrees with you, especially when considering that I'm no great supporter of Israel and their recent governments. I've spoken out against Israeli atrocities before, and on this very forum, so if the best you can do is paint me falsely, whatever.
Key to Baden's ego supply: Post controversial topic, expect everyone to agree with his side of the matter, feign outrage when, predictably, people disagree. Fuckin' genius, dude bruhs. Genius.
Have you watched any of the videos of the killings of civilians praying? Plus, a baby and eight other children died this time. Why would you applaud that?
Key to Baden's ego supply: Post controversial topic, expect everyone to agree with his side of the matter, feign outrage when, predictably, people disagree. Fuckin' genius, dude bruhs. Genius.
Maybe. Although I usually avoid this one because it's too depressing.
Reply to Posty McPostface I applaud Israel's right to defend itself. Obviously I'm not pleased or happy with the loss of life, but as I've attempted to argue here, those that died signed up for such being a distinct possibility. If you don't know how to swim, don't jump in the ocean and expect to learn on the fly. I would applaud Baden if people encroached on his home throwing stones and firebombs and he reacted with deadly force. It is right to defend oneself. If you disagree, I dunno what's up with you.
I highly doubt that peace will be achieved in the Palestine-Israel region anytime soon. That will continue to be the centre of some of the biggest conflicts we'll see. Jerusalem is too important for 3 different, competing religions - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Two of them also happen to be, by far, the world's biggest religions.
Incidentally, racism is a lot more common amongst people who aren't raised up in the largely multicultural and multi-ethnic West. To a certain extent, it is natural - each tends towards his own kind. Also, those raised in "tougher" environments tend to use heuristics to make quick judgements about people, which are sometimes wrong, but it has kept them safe in the past. These are likely to be hard to shake, and it will take more than a generation to change such attitudes.
Reply to Baden You've not even bothered responding to me with anything of substance. Strawmen and emotionalism from you and Question. Fine by me, I'm just not going to entertain you two any further.
It is right to defend oneself. If you disagree, I dunno what's up with you.
You don't have the right to defend yourself by killing the other person when there is no credible threat. right? For that you go to jail for murder. Now tell where the credible threat is in these videos.
Minute reality gets posted you run away. Before you do, can you at least answer that question? Where is the credible threat in the videos that shows those civilians needed to be shot? If you can't do that or bow out now, your whole justification falls to pieces.
And btw I'm not claiming there was no credible threat in every instance. See my earlier response to Hanover. There's a danger of turning the Israeli soldiers into cartoon villains too, and they're not. But in this case the only victims were Palestinians and my argument is the force used overall (i.e. taking all of the casualties into account) was out of proportion to the point of dehumanization.
I wouldn't go that far as sometimes there are purely innocent victims, children especially. But in so far as this is a call for deescalation, I totally agree. And both sides need to make sacrifices for that to happen. But there is no end in sight largely because there is no real acknowledgement of the reality by those who have most of the power to change it. The Trump administration and Netanyahu can look at all this and still say the day of the embassy move was a great day for peace. What happens in the real world hardly matters. You can say whatever you like and there will be enough of your base oblivious or apathetic enough for you to keep rolling on.
My theory is that a Zionist needs an enemy. The core of Jewish tradition is about surviving a direct attack. The secret to that survival is the covenant. Their existence on this earth is proof that Jews haven't lost their faith. That may be total bullshit. I'm just trying to understand why it appears that Israel wants on-going conflict.
As for Trump, I doubt he cares at all about Palestinians. He would think of them as losers. I think that if Israelis fell on hard times, he'd think of them the same way. If you notice, there's a similarity between the Trumpite view and the ancient Israelite view: losers are to be held responsible for their plight.
There are pragmatic reasons why Netanyahu would prefer the status quo rather than compromise. It means he doesn't have to give anything away. Most Israelis I'm sure want a reasonable settlement, but they also understandably want security and many probably think the two are incompatible. I don't see any need to mystify the situation on that point.
As someone who's been a property manager and a manager of a restaurant, I have firsthand experience of these things happening to black people. Not all the time, of course, and I think some people may even exaggerate the extent at which they do occur, but I've seen enough to know that racism against blacks isn't just something that's in their heads, as many white people are wont to assume.
Going by anecdotal experience cuts both ways, as many blacks are racist against whites. My only contention is that the feelings you spoke of are not supported statistically.
Reply to Baden No. If you really cared you would look them up yourself. If Erik is curious, I will strike up a convo via PM. You aren't worth my time, and I think you know that.
No, your transparent attempt to dodge a very direct question just proved my point. That you have none. Why couldn't you just say that? It's not that big a deal.
The idea that both groups feel themselves to be oppressed, even if the specific contexts aren't close to being identical, is not a trivial or meaningless similarity
What I've noticed generally is that oppressed groups tend to have the empathy you suggest for obvious reasons but they remain deeply defensive against having their brand of oppression compared to others. There is something meaningful about having one's pain considered incomparable. It's for that reason that groups don't feel a logical or emotional compulsion to team up (as it were) with other oppressed groups. African Americans do not, for example, walk in lock step with homosexuals or Hispanics nor do Jews. And none of this is hypocritical. It's just that one does not see another's suffering like one does one's own and that's not necessarily because people only see their own pain and lack empathy. It's because suffering truly is unique. It's why I will never get what it's like to be a black man, or a woman, or a Palestinian.
*Yawn* Now it's becoming a bit bizarre. Obviously if you had the statistics at that time you would have by now said so. You didn't have them but maybe now you're looking at least. That's some progress.
I'm not baiting you. You implied you had some statistics. I asked you if you really had them, which is a totally reasonable question seeing as they were pertinent to your contention, and you refused to answer several times, apparently because you didn't, but you can't man up and admit it for some weird reason. But, fine, I'm done. You can go on pretending you might have had the statistics if it makes you feel better about yourself. I couldn't care less at this point.
Reply to Baden Yes you are baiting me into what you already know would be an utterly fruitless debate about several large politicized topics. You are never going to change your mind, least of all by me, so drop the pretense of innocent neutrality. A prototype of such a debate was already seen today, and there I obtained only the most grudging pseudo-admission that you were wrong on a point. You do care, so much so that you will feign not caring in order to string this along. And why do that? Not because, as you pretend, you are bemused, but because you amused.
My only contention is that the feelings you spoke of are not supported statistically.
So, already you're wrong. The discrimination @Erik spoke of is supported statistically. And no I'm not trying to drag you into a debate you don't want to have or bait you. I'm simply showing you that you're empirically wrong, which is not hard to do as there is plenty of evidence out there to support Erik's view, of which this is just one example.
"A new study, by researchers at Northwestern University, Harvard, and the Institute for Social Research in Norway, looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015. The researchers found that anti-black racism in hiring is unchanged since at least 1989, while anti-Latino racism may have decreased modestly...
They concluded that, on average, “white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans” while “[w]hite applicants receive on average 24% more callbacks than Latinos.”
Reply to Baden You're only proving my point, yet again. I would post statistics, you would post yours. I would dispute yours, and you would disagree with that and we wouldn't get anywhere. It's not productive.
These are all from Harvard, the top university in the country. And you don't have any statistics. At all. Plus, your contention was that Erik's claim was not backed up with statistics. It is. Ergo, you are wrong on that point.
Reply to Baden If you haven't seen this script before, you're either playing dumb (most likely) or incredibly naive. I'm not wrong, but there's no use in trying to show that to be the case.
I'm willing to have a discussion with Erik because, given past interactions with him, he has demonstrated himself to be a cordial, charitable, and willing listener to views that are not necessarily his own or that he is not well acquainted with. You are not such a person, and so I will not have this conversation with you.
I didn't ask for a conversation. I proved you wrong by showing reliable statistics that show your "only contention" that there weren't any is wrong. There are. From your top university. You don't have to say anything else if you don't want to. It's done.
Reply to Thorongil Not sure if you’re willfully ignorant or just ignorant and willful but it seems to me that it’s just very obvious that I’m rubber and you’re glue and everything you’ve said really just proves my point which is: I know you are but what am I.
"Many blacks are racist against whites" is a statistical statement, and as such it should backed by some statistics. If there are no statistics to back it up it's an empty, unsubstantiated claim. If you think that "many blacks are racist against whites" is analogous to a tautology, such as "people die when they are killed", then maybe you're a dumb racist.
"Many blacks are racist against whites" is a statistical statement, and as such it should backed by some statistics. If there are no statistics to back it up it's an empty, unsubstantiated claim. If you think that "many blacks are racist against whites" is analogous to a tautology, such as "people die when they are killed", then maybe you're a dumb racist.
Posts like these make me wonder if this forum is just a play on the Twilight Zone. That anyone sane can dispute black people being racist toward whites is so shockingly retarded it beggars belief.
If the claim is that a black person can be racist, or hold stereotypes, etc. then sure that's undeniably possible, albeit banal, because it can be true of anyone. But that's waaaaaaaaaaay different then the actual claim that "MANY black people are racist towards whites". How do you KNOW that?
Reply to Maw You've chosen to interpret Thorongil's use of the word as uncharitably as possible in order to pigeon hole him into being a "dumb racist." I disagreed with Baden and "Breitbart" starts getting thrown around immediately. If either of you or anyone else wants to have a reasonable conversation, then jumping to conclusions is the least productive thing you can do.
Reply to csalisbury Buxtehude + Buddha = Buxtebuddha, a wildly dumb racist, sexist, neo-Nazi sympathizer, troll, pseudo-man, mongoloid, <jumps in a lake and dies>
What I've noticed generally is that oppressed groups tend to have the empathy you suggest for obvious reasons but they remain deeply defensive against having their brand of oppression compared to others. There is something meaningful about having one's pain considered incomparable. It's for that reason that groups don't feel a logical or emotional compulsion to team up (as it were) with other oppressed groups. African Americans do not, for example, walk in lock step with homosexuals or Hispanics nor do Jews. And none of this is hypocritical. It's just that one does not see another's suffering like one does one's own and that's not necessarily because people only see their own pain and lack empathy. It's because suffering truly is unique. It's why I will never get what it's like to be a black man, or a woman, or a Palestinian.
Good points. Not much I'd disagree with other than to maybe point out cases where various marginalized groups do in fact forge strong bonds through nothing more than a shared sense of resentment against a (perceived) oppressor. I say "nothing more" but continue to think that emotional bond can be powerful. I think the Social Justice movement in the U.S. is a pretty clear example of this phenomena: groups with different agendas and experiences (e.g. feminists and Muslims) set these aside and become united by zeroing in on what they take to be the common source of their suffering.
One day, people will remember current-day Isreal for the apartheid regime that it is, and our children will listen incredulously of the time where people defended it in casual conversation ('they were alive in my time!... probably still are somewhere').
I'm willing to have a discussion with Erik because, given past interactions with him, he has demonstrated himself to be a cordial, charitable, and willing listener to views that are not necessarily his own or that he is not well acquainted with. You are not such a person, and so I will not have this conversation with you.
Thank you, Thorongil. My provisional stance on the issue of racism against black people in the U.S. is to avoid what I take to be the extreme positions of both sides. I think racism exists, and clearly so, but I also think there's a growing tendency to see it everywhere, possible even in places where it may not factor in.
The recent case of the black guys getting arrested for (allegedly) loitering at a Starbucks is a case in point. Racism may very well have played a role in that event, I wouldn't dismiss the (strong) possibility, but it may not have. There are a number of possibilities other than racism which could explain the motivation of the worker to call the police and have the guys removed: maybe she was just having a bad day and took out her anger on these guys (this displaced anger happens to almost all of us on occasion, especially those of us in the service industry); maybe it was that specific location's policy to refuse bathroom service to all non-paying customers and to force them to either make a purchase or leave; etc. We just don't know all the relevant facts, and imo the most honest thing to do in those situations is to suspend judgement. I took a lot of grief from my more progressive friends for holding this position, as most of them refused to even entertain the possibility that there could be another explanation for the worker's actions.
But, as mentioned, I think it's absolutely undeniable that black people do sometimes suffer injustices resulting from negative stereotypes others (including some non-whites) attach to them. I have a lot more anecdotal evidence to confirm this position than what I provided, which, in my estimation, definitively proves that prejudice against African Americans still exists, even if things have gotten much better over the years. I do appreciate Baden's bringing actual data to the table, and I will gladly take a look at other studies of the same issue, even those which challenge my experience-based assumptions.
That said, the overwhelming majority of white people (and non-white) that I know are not racists; they will hire, rent to, date, and become great friends with non-whites. So I don't see it as an all or nothing scenario, but I can also understand how black people would feel unfairly targeted - even in those cases where there may be another plausible explanation (for e.g. getting pulled over, not getting a job, etc.) - given their prior experiences.
Oh and I wouldn't deny that some black people hold racist views against whites. I do however think the discrepancy in overall numbers, in terms of of power and influence, etc. tilt heavily in favor of whites, obviously, and therefore limit the possibilities that whites will be the victims of the same sort of practical consequences of racism that black people have had to deal with. That doesn't make racial hatred and generalizations against white people OK, but it is something to keep in mind. That topic is probably best set aside for another time.
We just don't know all the relevant facts, and imo the most honest thing to do in those situations is to suspend judgement.
I don't know how many times a person who does the above doesn't come off as facetious or in denial or not wanting to admist a position. It often entails a fundamental misunderstanding of the arguers position or lack of on some issue. Taken to the extreme, when talking with someone, you feel as if the other person doesn't want to sympathize with you and are filled with indignation over the lack of sympathy.
I've learned in our polarized world not to assume such a position as you come under seige from both sides for suspending judgement. Almost as if a narrative must absolutely exist for every and all events.
I just think it's par for the course to come under siege for suspending judgement, in the face of the crowd; that's all. The wisdom of crowds isn't greater than the wisdom of suspending judgement.
I've learned in our polarized world not to assume such a position as you come under seige from both sides for suspending judgement. Almost as if a narrative must absolutely exist for every and all events.
That's true, and the position is often used insincerely or hypocritically. But if we're genuinely interested in the truth, and if we're aware of our own limited perspective, then we should gladly accept being attacked by partisans on both (all) sides.
I have my own biases, of course, and I'm sure these impact my interpretation of things in ways that elude me. But I also think I can recognize justice and fairness when I see it (it's rare), and I like to think I at least try my best to be consistent in applying the principle: if I'm going to suspend judgement about the person who called the police on those black guys at Starbucks until more info comes to light, then I need to do the same when (e.g.) a Muslim commits what seems to be an act of terrorism (maybe there was some motivation other than religion at work), etc. It really does cut across all party and ideological lines imo.
The wisdom of crowds isn't greater than the wisdom of suspending judgement.
When Black America points to the Starbucks incident, or the Yale incident, or the Oakland park incident, or the Nordstrom incident (and these just occurred in the few weeks, under the national spotlight), and say "here are examples of when we are seen as 'not belonging' in 'white spaces', and this isn't an uncommon experience", then I think there is a severe myopia when whites indefinitely "suspend judgement".
Reply to Maw This. Exactly this. The suspension of judgement is an explicitly depoliticizing manoeuvre: it breaks down a widespread, statistical phenomenon into individual cases and makes any issue into a question of individual psychology and accidental happenstance disconnected and divorced from any larger societal or political conditions. Suspending judgement makes one constitutively unable to treat cases like this as part of wider phenomenon, because it is only ever this case or that case which can be evaluated.
I mean, even if incontrovertible evidence emerges that the Starbucks case was a clear-cut case of racism, well, that's the end of that story: it's been 'judged' to be so; the individuals are punished, and that's the end of that. The consequences can only ever be limited to that case and no other; and so with every other case, which becomes individualized and abstracted from it's wider context; society and politics simply disappears, constitutively. Suspension of judgement in these situations is not an innocent or 'neutral' approach; it decisively colors how one understands the situation.
I think that's a solid point, but I also think there's a real danger in maybe veering too far in the opposite direction (guess it would be referred to as "overpoliticizing") and subsuming every single individual case - without taking time to investigate specific details - under some larger and more general position based on a set of assumptions and probabilities gathered from seemingly similar situations. Confirmation bias sort of thing. That's why I acknowledged the very strong possibility that this particular case (and others of a similar sort) involved racism, while admitting that we don't know that to be an undeniable fact until more information arises (e.g. the employee let white people hang out all the time without purchasing anything and only targeted black people, she had a history of making racist comments to co-workers or patrons, etc.)
But let's take a hypothetical scenario. Let's say we got a job at Starbucks, and during our training we were told that only paying customers were allowed to use the restroom and/or hang out inside the coffee house (a dumb and greedy move btw - I'd never buy anything from a place with such a policy, but it's honestly not uncommon in the restaurant business). We applied this rule and approached anyone, regardless of race or anything else, who hadn't ordered anything within a "reasonable" time frame, informing them of the policy. They refuse to leave. Then what?
Would the response be different depending on whether the person was white or black? I have a friend who works at a coffee house with a similar rule and he said yes, it absolutely would be different, and that while he wouldn't hesitate to call the police to remove the white person he wouldn't do the same with the black guys. His rationalization for the discrepancy was that the black person (or people) may end up hurt or even dead if the police were called out to handle the situation, even one as relatively benign as this, whereas that wouldn't be a realistic possibility with white people.
But how would we feel if this happened to us or someone we cared about? That lady's life is probably destroyed through the psychological trauma of all the negative attention and attacks on her character, and not a single person seems to give a rat's ass about that. Now if she IS an unrepentant racist then good riddance, but what if there's a possibility (however small) that she's not? that she was just following rules impartially, or having a bad day, or something else that eludes us? Shouldn't we at least take the time to look into it in depth? We're making a few negative assumptions about her, but those assumptions are perfectly fine.
I think that's a solid point, but I also think there's a real danger of veering too far in the opposite direction
But exactly how is this the 'real' danger? I mean, I know what the 'real danger' is, for the most part: it is POCs getting the cops called on them for just... existing, and placing them in existential danger. Isn't that a danger that belongs to reality itself, as it's happened, as it continues to happen? I don't want to say that your response is wrong; but I do feel that's it's highly intellectualized, one that's only really able to be made from a position where there's seemingly little at stake other than, as it were, 'getting the hypothetical right'.
I will say, with respect to the 'lady', that one of the tragedies of racism - and most other 'isms' - is that it makes everyone worse off. In a world where racism was not culturally endemic, that lady would not be facing the scrutiny she does.
It's also worth noting that the Starbucks situation could have ended differently, because it has before.
But I also think I can recognize justice and fairness when I see it (it's rare), and I like to think I at least try my best to be consistent in applying the principle: if I'm going to suspend judgement about the person who called the police on those black guys at Starbucks until more info comes to light, then I need to do the same when (e.g.) a Muslim commits what seems to be an act of terrorism (maybe there was some motivation other than religion at work), etc. It really does cut across all party and ideological lines imo.
Then you are a god amongst men, Erik, and I take your word for it.
To go off on a tangent, is justice an achievable ideal or is it (empirically) something that is striven towards through the dutiful exclusion of injustice?
Or maybe the suspension of judgment depoliticizes the situation to the point of humanization. To the point at which both the perpetrator and the perpetrated are human.
So let's suppose that there is a conflict between big-enders and little-enders about how to eat a boiled egg. And let's assume that both sides are equally intransigent and prejudiced. However, by historical accident, the big-enders have vastly more resources; tractors against hoes, tanks against tuk tuks, federal government against village elders.
Surely is is obvious that the prejudices of the powerless have little effect? I don't much mind being barred form your insanitary mud hut, but your being barred from my river rather deprives you of your bathroom for the sake of my fishing sport.
The prejudices of the powerless are necessary; it is called 'solidarity' and is their only source of power against the solidarity of the powerful. But the power of the powerful is justified by its universality, by being 'for the people'; if it is prejudiced, it is unjust, and unjustifiable. Power ought to uphold the right of all people to open their egg at whichever end they choose, otherwise it is not representing the community.
The people in power are always to blame for injustice and inequality, because no one chooses to be powerless.
Or maybe the suspension of judgment depoliticizes the situation to the point of humanization. To the point at which both the perpetrator and the perpetrated are human.
I would respectfully disagree with @StreetlightX and say this a very good point. I hadn't exactly thought about it like that, but now that I do I think it makes a lot of sense. In some ways I think this captures the "essence" my own (largely intuitive and reconciling) way of thinking.
Dehumanization seems to underlie much of the political (and religious, etc.) hatred and violence in the world, so trying to find some common human ground - the "better angels of our nature" - between you and your perceived enemy seems both an ethical and a practical measure to take if you'd like to turn potential friends (who may even be current enemies) into actual ones.
Now it gets tricky, I think, when it involves people or groups who will not budge one bit from their sense of righteousness, who will neither accept their own flaws nor acknowledge the virtues of the "other" - I'm thinking Nazis, slaveholders, religious zealots and the like. Paradoxically, those who are either unwilling or unable to humanize others may forfeit their own humanity. Or some such.
The appeal to 'humanity' is an attempt to level that which is not level: it is erasure, not justice. When cops get called when you're sleeping in a Yale dorm room, when you're going to the gym, when you're shopping, because you're black i.e. 'different', the appeal to the 'humanity' of those involved erases the fact that it is a real difference - in power, in situation - that led to the situation in the first place. 'We're all human': sure, but these humans face shame, discrimination, and death on account of their difference, while these humans do not. The appeal to 'humanity' not only does nothing to address this, it ensures that it cannot be addressed because it lacks even the vocabulary to do so: the human is by definition the indifferent. There is literally nothing more generic one can say about people than that they are 'human'.
The appeal to humanity is the obverse of 'suspending judgement for individual cases': the former dissolves real difference into a generic mush so that nothing can be said about the specifics of a situation, while the latter removes any reference to generality whatsoever and, again, erases any possibility of addressing wider and systemic problems. Each in its own way renders us constitutively blind to relevant aspects of the situation.
Then you are a god amongst men, Erik, and I take your word for it.
To go off on a tangent, is justice an achievable ideal or is it (empirically) something that is striven towards through the dutiful exclusion of injustice?
:lol:
I think it's more likely that the latter is the case, although I'd be hard-pressed to formulate a sophisticated and/or convincing response for why I think this is so. I guess the first thing would be to lay out an understanding of justice which we could agree upon (not likely) before moving onto the next step.
On a personal level I do think it's possible to embody a certain set of moral and intellectual virtues which at least tend in the direction of justice. People who interpret their opponent's position charitably, for instance, instead of purposely misrepresenting them to win an argument, or who "suspend judgement" on a matter until as much information as possible has been gathered, or who set aside political or personal interests for the sake of, let's say, "higher" principles, even if it hurts their cause, etc.
I know the above sounds airy and maybe even ridiculous given the complex power dynamics at work in the real world - but being the hopeless romantic that I am I can't help thinking that there'd be much less hatred and violence (not suggesting these would be non-existent) if we cultivated traits/virtues like those mentioned above as much as we do our bank accounts, our bodies, etc.
Don't be deceived by appearances. Once I have trained my guard dogs, I don't need to patrol my domain in person, any more than the rich and powerful need to carry guns and be their own bodyguards.
The appeal to 'humanity' is an attempt to level that which is not level: it is erasure, not justice. When cops get called when you're sleeping in a Yale dorm room, when you're going to the gym, when you're shopping, because you're black i.e. 'different', the appeal to the 'humanity' of those involved erases the fact that it is a real difference - in power, in situation - that led to the situation in the first place. 'We're all human': sure, but these humans face shame, discrimination, and death on account of their difference, while these humans do not. The appeal to 'humanity' not only does nothing to address this, it ensures that it cannot be addressed.
I appreciate your knowledge and perspective on this topic a great deal, and it's giving me much to think about, but I would disagree with the position you just outlined - assuming that I understand it - and I would do so by drawing on an obvious example from U.S. history.
Slavery was attacked by Abraham Lincoln precisely because it stood in direct contrast to a principle enshrined in a founding document of this country, that "all men are created equal." The sense of a common shared humanity underlying the Declaration of Independence, however unsophisticated it may sound, and however much we fail(ed) to live up to the ideal, was largely responsible for ending of the hideous institution which was based upon the idea that black people were subhuman, and that slavery was not only a necessary and temporary evil, but a "positive good" for them. They were, in other words, dehumanized, and Lincoln sought to correct that evil.
Anyhow, my main point would be to challenge the alleged impotence of universalist principles. That abstract insight eventually led to actual concrete changes in the lives of slaves, and I'd even argue that it continues to inspire social justice movements which seek recognition of the "humanity" and inherent dignity of people within marginalized groups. There may be other types of post-Enlightenment emancipatory movements that you're probably way more familiar with than I am, but that sense of a common humanity can be, and imo has been, a powerful motivating force for good in the world.
Reply to Erik Universalism is tricky though - and it's tricky because it is such a particular strategy. The - let's call it - strategy of modernist universalism embodied in the DoI worked because it leveraged a recognized difference in power to effect a particular politics: there are the powerless and the powerful, and this is a difference that must be remedied. This is universalism as an ideal, as something to be attained.
This is vastly, irreconcilably different from universalism as a given, where the alleged 'fact' of our 'common humanity' is leveraged as an excuse to not recognise difference: 'we're all human, so what are you complaining about', or even worse, "I don't see color/gender/class". The idea is that universalism is a differential principle: it can be used to address difference, as it was in the civil war - and in the civil rights movement too - or it can be used to suppress it, as when we are asked to dis-count or not pay attention to relevant aspects of a case on account of our 'humanity'. It is no accident that the discourse of universality - and especially 'rights' - have been so easily coopted by the most virulent forces of regression in society (with 'religious freedom' and 'freedom of speech' - for example - masquerading as covers for the most outright bigotry and intolerance).
One other thing to mention is that the attempt to create a zero-sum game between our humanity and politicization is both dangerous and mistaken: our humanity is constituted by - among other things - the relations of power in which we constitutively reside, and to ignore that is to ignore a vital and irreducible part of what makes us human. To place politics on the hither side of humanity is to work with an abstract and devalued concept of humanity. To the degree that Aristotle was wrong about almost everything, he was at least right to locate politics right at the level of our animality, man ( :roll: ) as zoon politikon.
Anyhow, my main point would be to challenge the alleged impotence of universalist principles. That abstract insight eventually led to actual concrete changes in the lives of slaves, and I'd even argue that it continues to inspire social justice movements which seek recognition of the "humanity" and inherent dignity of people within marginalized groups.
But as you say, it is exactly the scope of 'universalist principles' that is at issue. Whether or not 'all men' includes women, blacks, Palestinians, terrorists, gays, dolphins, gorillas, or whatever. Decision that is inevitably made by - 'all men' as defined by the status quo, and contested by the 'dehumanised'.
Reply to Posty McPostface We, you and I, are on the same side, which is the side of the angels, and the side of humanity. That's what everyone thinks. So when we disagree, and are not on the same side, you are wrong, obviously. Well of course it is obvious to you that I am wrong in such case, but I am in position to ignore that because my moderators are well trained. That is, they are on my side. They are also trained to declare their impartiality and deny that they do my bidding. They even believe it. And you too can see that I am just an ordinary member - just another white male...
Other definition:
If the Nazis decide you are a Jew, it makes no odds what you think you are, it's off to the concentration camp you go.
Self-definition:
If the Jews decide you are not a Jew, it makes no odds what you think you are, it's off to Gaza you go.
Much confusion arises because people think either that identity is a matter of personal choice, or that it is a matter of democracy. It isn't either.
'We' decide whether or not 'you' are or are not 'one of us', but this decision must be made before 'we' make any democratic decisions; 'you' cannot have a vote on whether or not you have a vote until it is decided that you have a vote. The borders and limits of democracy cannot be established democratically, precisely because 'we the people' is self-defining. Thus votes and referendums about joining or leaving a polity, or establishing or dissolving a border, extending or restricting the franchise, are always more or less a sham; those on the 'other' side don't get consulted.
It is no accident that the discourse of universality - and especially 'rights' - have been so easily coopted by the most virulent forces of regression in society (with 'religious freedom' and 'freedom of speech' - for example - masquerading as covers for the most outright bigotry and intolerance).
You are so fucking awesome sometimes. :yikes: It is a qualitative judgement and dangerous as a political idea because it assumes identical qualities that establishes some categories of difference, the very basis of ethnic cleansing and genocide. However, human rights law addresses this by removing exceptions and thus enabling an equal distribution of justice. I agree with you (and Foucault) on the discourse and power-relations being just as productive and to see humanity otherwise lacks that fluidity and devalues our understanding of the political and social landscape.
I do appreciate Baden's bringing actual data to the table
No worries. I figured the data would probably support your experience although the extent of the remaining discrimination and white (male at least) advantage is more than I would have guessed.
[Study discussed is by the Milton Eisenhower Foundation ("...the private sector continuation of two Presidential Commissions – the 1967-1968 bipartisan National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders and the 1968-1969 bipartisan National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_S._Eisenhower_Foundation )]
"Study Shows Little Change Since Kerner Commission Reported on Racism 50 Years Ago"
“We made progress on virtually every aspect of race and poverty for nearly a decade after the Kerner Report and then that progress slowed, then stopped and in many ways was reversed, so that today racial and ethnic discrimination is again worsening...
Statistics tell the story. In 1988 about 44 percent of black children went to majority-white schools. But that was also the same year that courts began reversing desegregation policies. Now that number has dropped to 20 percent. There are other sobering statistics. As the AP points out, the study shows that following the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968, home ownership by black Americans jumped around 6 percent. Those gains, however, reversed between 2000 and 2015 when black ownership dropped by 6 percent."
Also:
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/ and
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/race_paper.pdf (Harvard/Stanford study)
Fig: [i]Two Americas: Upward Mobility for White vs. Black Children
Average incomes of children growing up in low-income (25th percentile) families[/i]
"Black children have much lower rates of upward mobility and higher rates of downward mobility than white children, leading to black-white income disparities that persist across generations."
The combination of continued discrimination and lack of upward mobility for the coming generations of black children is a pretty devastating indictment of current trends. So the question moves from "Is the discrimination still there?", it clearly is, to "What do we do about it?"
Reply to TimeLine :grin: You ain't so bad yourself lady. But yeah, you're totally right to see Foucault all over that post. The idea is that universality is blind to power: it's one thing to say that we're all equal, and grant everyone rights in the abstract; but it's another thing altogether to live that equality. Did you watch Q&A the other night by the way? The question asked by the kid about housing affordability and the budget? And the shitty 'the budget is for everyone' reply by the minister? The kid essentially replied: 'I'm not everyone; I'm me, and it's sure as hell's not doing anything for me'. It was so totally awesome. An object lesson in political theory by a high school graduate.
The combination of continued discrimination and lack of upward mobility for the coming generations of black children is a pretty devastating indictment of current trends. So the question moves from "Is the discrimination still there?", it clearly is, to "What do we do about it?"
How do you draw the conclusion that the cause of lack of upward mobility is the result of discrimination? Do you truly believe that the greatest impediment to African American success is the injustice wrought by white people?
@Hanover
I don't have data on the extent that discrimination causes a lack of upward mobility. I presume the causes are highly complicated and difficult to entangle. If I find something, I'll let you know. But both are there and tackling the discrimination is likely to alleviate the overall problem, of which upward mobility is a part. I presume you'd agree with that.
Reply to StreetlightX I wonder whether I am intentionally avoiding these political discussions as though prepared for some profound ineptitude by moronic ministers that think reality is some boardroom meeting. I almost think they are deprived of human qualities (oof that's pretty nasty of me, but far out). As a guiding legislative principle, equality can model that conception of distributive justice, but as a political tool dangerously conflicts with our freedoms as it assumes that we all share the same qualities and I guess it goes back to that social stratification that produces the conditions that enable productivity and can equally be positive (like multiculturalism).
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 16, 2018 at 12:50#1790040 likes
Can someone please explain to me what the cultural difference is between: profiling and preference?
Reply to Baden I don't understand your point then. If the graphs show alarming trends of limited upward mobility, and you're not isolating discrimination as the cause, then why discuss the upward mobility problem with the discrimination problem in the same breath?
But both are there and tackling the discrimination is likely to alleviate the overall problem, of which upward mobility is a part. I presume you'd agree with that.
I agree that discrimination should be eliminated. I suppose once we do that, we'll know which problems are the result of external discrimination and which from internal societal failures.
Do you think Israel has always wanted peace and all of the conflict over the decades is down to non-Israelis?
Are you asking who's to blame for the lack of peace, the Palestinians or the Israelis? It's a broad brush question obviously with all sorts of actors on both sides over the years with varying viewpoints that we have to throw together, but I doubt you find my response surprising when I say that the path to peace has been most obstructed by the Palestinians.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 16, 2018 at 13:00#1790100 likes
Okay.
If one signs up for a dating site and lists their interest to be in heterosexual males, not homosexual males and not females, is that listing preferences or is it setting up a profile of what you are looking for?
I don't need to isolate it as the only cause. The macro problem is inequality. Discrimination and issues with upward mobility both contribute to that and they're entangled with each other.
Do you truly believe that the greatest impediment to African American success is the injustice wrought by white people?
So, to answer this question directly, I'd say the greatest impediment to anyone's, of whatever race, background etc, potential for self-realization in a relatively free and advanced democracy of which they are a full citizen is usually themselves. But historical and current discrimination obviously also plays some part in impeding the success of minority groups.
I agree that discrimination should be eliminated. I suppose once we do that, we'll know which problems are the result of external discrimination and which from internal societal failures.
Sure, and the main point of the data was to show that discrimination actually exists as some here seemed to want to go down the rabbit hole of denying even that. Then you try to tackle it and determine how it contributes to inequality and along with what other causes. Lack of upward mobility is part of the bigger picture.
I think @StreetlightX hit the nail on this head with this. I will just add that "We're All Human" is as much a bromide as the counter-phrase, "All Lives Matter". Both miss the point entirely.
Are you asking who's to blame for the lack of peace, the Palestinians or the Israelis? It's a broad brush question obviously with all sorts of actors on both sides over the years with varying viewpoints that we have to throw together, but I doubt you find my response surprising when I say that the path to peace has been most obstructed by the Palestinians.
Why do you think the Palestinians have so persistently obstructed peace (it's been over a couple of generations now)? Do you see it as an aspect of Palestinian culture? The Palestinians themselves? Or is it mostly interference from other ME nations? Do you think the Cold War fostered conflict there?
I've actually assumed for years that Israel doesn't really want peace. I'm just exploring an alternate view.
Are you sure they weren't going to plant flowers? Because that was my argument from the start. That they were going to plant flowers. And you and Thorngil keep saying they weren't.
Ah, but Baden, you seem to forget that, as I have argued elsewhere, guns kill people of their own accord. So, even if they were going to plant flowers, none of the Israelis involved are to blame.
I've actually assumed for years that Israel doesn't really want peace.
Dude, wanting comes really cheap, but peace has a higher price than either side thinks they can afford. As Tweedledum and Tweedledee said, "there is no need for us to fight, if only he would let me have the rattle."
Why do you think the Palestinians have so persistently obstructed peace (it's been over a couple of generations now)? Do you see it as an aspect of Palestinian culture? The Palestinians themselves? Or is it mostly interference from other ME nations? Do you think the Cold War fostered conflict there?
This lays it out fairly well: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3
Dude, wanting comes really cheap, but peace has a higher price than either side thinks they can afford. As Tweedledum and Tweedledee said, "there is no need for us to fight, if only he would let me have the rattle."
Most of what I know about it comes from people who left because the situation was intolerable, so maybe my understanding is skewed. But it looks to me like the price of continued violence is that really cool people leave instead of putting up with it.
Reply to Sapientia
To be fair, an official IDF spokesman has defended the army's actions by releasing a picture of one of flowers they claim the Palestinians were going to plant.
If one signs up for a dating site and lists their interest to be in heterosexual males, not homosexual males and not females, is that listing preferences or is it setting up a profile of what you are looking for?
Does your husband know you've signed up for a dating site?
The recent case of the black guys getting arrested for (allegedly) loitering at a Starbucks is a case in point. Racism may very well have played a role in that event, I wouldn't dismiss the (strong) possibility, but it may not have. There are a number of possibilities other than racism which could explain the motivation of the worker to call the police and have the guys removed: maybe she was just having a bad day and took out her anger on these guys (this displaced anger happens to almost all of us on occasion, especially those of us in the service industry); maybe it was that specific location's policy to refuse bathroom service to all non-paying customers and to force them to either make a purchase or leave; etc. We just don't know all the relevant facts, and imo the most honest thing to do in those situations is to suspend judgement. I took a lot of grief from my more progressive friends for holding this position, as most of them refused to even entertain the possibility that there could be another explanation for the worker's actions.
I've gone back through all the posts on this subject. I wasn't going to post because these discussions never seem particularly fruitful on the forum e.g. Baden vs. Thorongil. I've decided to because I think, unless I missed it, there's something being left out, at least in relation to the United States. We'll start with anecdotal evidence. I'm 66 years old. I've met and talked with, lived with, many people. In my experience, white people as a group don't like, respect, or trust black people. They don't feel comfortable with them. They are afraid of them. I often feel the same impulses in myself. Most of the time, at least in the crowd I hang around with, it isn't overt. My friends have good hearts. If you talk to my black friends and try to deny it, they will laugh at you, ridicule you, scorn you.
All the discussions here are over-intellectualizing the issue. People tooting their own self-righteous horns. For most people, this isn't a conscious attitude. It doesn't matter whether or not you call people "racist." I haven't found that to be a very useful term. It just shuts things down and gives people justification for ignoring you. Most of the things being called "racism" here come directly from the attitudes I'm referring to. Many of the others come from people's defensive reactions to being accused.
So, that's anecdote. Now to statistics. Go to Google. Type in "Studies reaction black vs white faces." Study after study. With babies for God's sake. Even black people.
If one signs up for a dating site and lists their interest to be in heterosexual males, not homosexual males and not females, is that listing preferences or is it setting up a profile of what you are looking for?
The typical way those sites are set up is that straight women must start out dating women and if they do ok, they will then be permitted to date gay men. From there it's on to unemployed men, and from there it's to normal men. If you date someone wrong along the way, you might get dropped down to unemployed bald gay men. That happened to me once.
The last few pages haven't been surprising at all. People don't have straight what I said or what I was responding to at all. I'm glad I didn't descend into that particular circle of hell. Because Erik responded to me, I wanted to let people know that I PMed him, as promised. He can be the judge of whether my response adequately addressed his claims, but at least I won't be berated in doing so.
There will be no more political fracas from me with certain members here, so don't expect them. I come to this forum to alleviate, not add to, my boredom.
Speaking of boredom, I'm sure everybody is getting bored of your attempts to save face (with more likely to follow this post). You make direct contentions, can't back them up and then hide behind the idea that you are being victimized/misunderstood while refusing to explain how. That's fine, please do stick to PMs, but this is a public forum where open debate is supposed to occur and the idea that the actual presentation of evidence over a couple of pages of debate concerning issues you freely decided to comment on is "a circle of hell" is a statement that could only be made by someone in their own circle of hell of irrationality. So, yes, stay there, but don't bother with posts advertising your inability to get involved in open and rational empirical-based debate as if it was some kind of virtue. If you are afraid to be berated, it's because your position is unsupportable. You simply have had one of your statements proven to be wrong by actual bona-fide evidence and you can't handle it. So, in future if you want to have a private conversation with Erik or anyone else, don't start it in public or other posters will obviously respond and expect you to back up your claims.
The recent case of the black guys getting arrested for (allegedly) loitering at a Starbucks is a case in point. Racism may very well have played a role in that event, I wouldn't dismiss the (strong) possibility, but it may not have...We just don't know all the relevant facts, and imo the most honest thing to do in those situations is to suspend judgement. I took a lot of grief from my more progressive friends for holding this position, as most of them refused to even entertain the possibility that there could be another explanation for the worker's actions.
I think you're right. This is the flip side of the existence-of-racism coin, the prejudice towards over-explaining events in terms of racism. I think the facts are worth getting at but I also think the company was more worried about its image in its response than the actual facts. I haven't researched the event, so I don't know either. Maybe someone has and can enlighten us. I'm not convinced there is no definitive answer to be found.
All the discussions here are over-intellectualizing the issue. People tooting their own self-righteous horns. For most people, this isn't a conscious attitude. It doesn't matter whether or not you call people "racist."
The point of intellectualizing the issue is to get away from the name-calling and just look at the facts, the cold hard data. That way at least you have some solid foundation to work on. And I don't think anyone directly involved in the debate we just had is racist anyway. Also, I think looking at inequality and how to alleviate it whether it be in terms of race or class is a better approach than berating people for being racist or whatever. As you said, we're all to some degree tarred with that brush. It's inbuilt.
The point of intellectualizing the issue is to get away from the name-calling and just look at the facts, the cold hard data. That way at least you have some solid foundation to work on.
I don't have any problem with that approach, but those types of facts often just get used as bludgeons. They can also be twisted and rationalized. There's no way to rationalize the feelings white people in the US have for black people. They are bare, and stark, and ugly.
If you are afraid to be berated, it's because your position is unsupportable. You simply have had one of your statements proven to be wrong by actual bona-fide evidence and you can't handle it.
[1] You are lying to hide your true feelings.[2] You are unaware of your true feelings.[3] Your life experiences are outside the mainstream. [4] You are an enlightened soul.
I'd vote for 2 or 3 in your case, although I admit my guess is based on little specific experience. And don't call me "Shirley."
Reply to T Clark You made a blanket statement about Americans being racist. Then you accused Throngil of carrying hidden racism. 1 + 1 = you must think you're a bigot.
There's room for doubt, though. Maybe you didn't mean that. Did you?
In my experience, white people as a group don't like, respect, or trust black people. They don't feel comfortable with them. They are afraid of them. I often feel the same impulses in myself.
Then you accused Throngil of carrying hidden racism.
As @Thorongil noted, I engaged in a bit of amateur psychologizing, intimating he might have the feelings I was describing and not be aware of them. Sideshow psychoanalysis is disrespectful and I shouldn't have done it. I do believe that many people share the feelings I described and are not aware of it.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions on what that means about me being a bigot.
Any rational person would take your answers to mean that you see yourself as a bigot, and you believe everyone is like that.
I don't think that's true.
I'm not trying to be difficult. I told you honestly what my feelings and beliefs are without labeling them. You seem to want a label, which is your prerogative. Again, draw your own conclusions.
Speak for yourself. You must live in backwardass dumbshitville.
I did speak for myself. I also described my experiences with other people, black and white. I also indicated where relevant studies can be found providing more rigorous evidence.
I did speak for myself. I also described my experiences with other people, black and white. I also indicated where relevant studies can be found providing more rigorous evidence.
What I read was a sweeping indictment against white people because you assumed all white people were like you. Not everyone comes home to your Archie Bunker lazyboy.
I don't know how anyone taking @T Clark's remarks charitably and in context would think he's a bigot. As if there's not a difference between acknowledging the existence of unwanted/unconscious negative feelings/impulses about other groups and consciously identifying with racist attitudes/beliefs. He even told you what to Google.
Reply to Baden I think it'd take an apologetic reading as opposed to a generous reading to distill away the comment of:
"In my experience, white people as a group don't like, respect, or trust black people. They don't feel comfortable with them. They are afraid of them. I often feel the same impulses in myself."
as something other than rank racism, reminiscent of a hopefully bygone era. It is a declaration of white immorality and personal immorality to the extent one adheres to it.
That is just to say, if you want to confess to the sin of racism, don't be shocked when people don't embrace you for your candor.
I don't interpret it the way you do and I wouldn't call someone who had negative impulses towards another race, racist. I'd judge them by their values and their choices/behaviour. That's what being a free agent is about, you don't have to act with your impulses, you can defy them.
"Negative feelings about black people may be subconsciously learned by both white and black Americans, suggests a brain imaging study. The research is among the first to test the brain physiology of racial biases in both black and white subjects. "
"Interestingly, when the subjects performed the verbal matching tasks, the race-biased amygdala effect disappeared. The scans showed that when word processing, areas of the brain involved in fighting impulses or inhibitory control took over.
“The moment you start thinking about race in words you know you’re thinking about it and can make decisions,” says Lieberman. “In general, putting your feelings into words seems to regulate or dampen those feelings.”
Reply to Baden As I said, your reading is apologetic, ignoring entirely the comment where whites were declared racist as a group. Would that not make them immoral?
You've just seen the studies I've presented that show overall discrimination still exists. As a group, white people still discriminate against blacks. That's a fact. But it's complicated, so no, I don't think white people are immoral because that would suggest there was something intrinsic about being white that's associated with being immoral and there's not.
I wouldn't have used the words @T Clark used by the way because I think it overstates the case, but in context they don't they make him a bigot. Far from it.
Reply to Baden Again, this is not responsive to the specific comment that whites don't like, trust, or respect blacks. That race subconsciously biases people hardly equates to the comment above.
Instead of apologizing for it, maybe just admit it was an overstated and reckless comment that has far reaching and unacceptable implications? I'm not trying to excoriate the guy, but am just pointing out the wrongness of his comment.
Instead of apologizing for it, maybe just admit it was an overstated and reckless comment that has far reaching and unacceptable implications? I'm not trying to excoriate the guy, but am just pointing out the wrongness of his comment.
Back to work - what I said was not overstated and reckless. I wrote it in cold blood. It was important to me to say it. People need to look into their dark hearts. I meant it, I mean it, I've seen it. Of course it has far-reaching and unacceptable implications. That's kind of the point.
Reply to T Clark A childhood friend recently died. His nickname was TC. I'm having some trouble getting over it, actually. Maybe I just won't get over it.
What 20 to 40 something shamed you recently for being a straight while male?
I'm not ashamed. Part of not being ashamed is seeing the dark things inside myself and acknowledging them. It's hard to treat other people honorably if I can't even understand myself.
I'm not ashamed. Part of not being ashamed is seeing the dark things inside myself and acknowledging them. It's hard to treat other people honorably if I can't even understand myself. .
You sound pretty shamed to me. And even if you're not, what dark things are you talking about?
Back to work - what I said was not overstated and reckless. I wrote it in cold blood. It was important to me to say it. People need to look into their dark hearts. I meant it, I mean it, I've seen it. Of course it has far-reaching and unacceptable implications. That's kind of the point.
Your comments remain unacceptable despite your unapologetic and trollish attempts to characterize them as heroic proclamations that force introspection. This is why I wasn't as generous as @Baden, who naively interpreted you as misunderstood.
I suspect this whole conversation with T Clark reflects our lived environments. I'm half Asian and it's quite common for my family and friends to acknowledge our instinctive biases. We even joke - though its not only a joke - that on the whole, Asians are among the most racist people on earth. My friendship group - we come from all backgrounds - commonly acknowledge, only half-jokingly, the idea of White People Things, Asian Things, etc. In this context T Clark's comment doesn't surprise me one bit and I appreciate its honesty. Conversly it's the sanctimony over the purity of thought that strikes me most as a kind of anxiety projected outwards in the form of thought policing. My 2c.
Your comments remain unacceptable despite your unapologetic and trollish attempts to characterize them as heroic proclamations that force introspection. This is why I wasn't as generous as Baden, who naively interpreted you as misunderstood.
I'm curious, do you think my comments should be deleted?
I suspect this whole conversation with T Clark reflects our lived environments. I'm half Asian and it's quite common for my family and friends to acknowledge our instinctive biases. We even joke - though its not only a joke - that on the whole, Asians are among the most racist people on earth. My friendship group - we come from all backgrounds - commonly acknowledge, only half-jokingly, the idea of White People Things, Asian Things, etc. In this context T Clark's comment doesn't surprise me one bit and I appreciate its honesty. Conversly it's the sanctimony over the purity of thought that strikes me most as a kind of anxiety projected outwards in the form of thought policing. My 2c.
No reason to change my interpretation as things stand. I would have used different words, but I think you're overreacting. Agree to disagree time again...
Reply to Sapientia I don't think that's correct and it would make it impossible to discuss social issues in a normal manner. Here are some examples:
In my experience, rich people as a group don't like, respect, or trust poor people. They don't feel comfortable with them. They are afraid of them. (That's not to suggest all rich people are discriminating or to apportion blame to all rich people for discriminating based on class).
Violent offences are more often committed in [insert group] communities. (That's not to suggest all people from that community are violent or to apportion blame to all people from that community for being violent).
White americans perform worse in academia than asian americans. (That's not to suggest all white americans are stupid or to apportion blame to all white americans for being stupid).
The parts in brackets are implied in normal conversations as far as I'm concerned unless there's additional reasons to think so.
And to T clark's specific comment, implicit bias tests seem to suggest that there some implicit associations made automatically by us merely based on skin colour, where negative associations are more reflexively made with darker skin colours. It isn't conclusive though since I understand there's a lot to be said about the test method in itself (which is why I used "suggest").
I've been listening to George Galloway he is very amusing and it seems to make sense but in reading Wikipedia bio...it's like holy crap! Is he worth listening to or is he some sort of bizzaro Rush Limbaugh, always on a rant.
No reason to change my interpretation as things stand. I would have used different words, but I think you're overreacting. Agree to disagree time again...
Here's why I'm not overreacting, but am being reasonable and tempered as always:
The comment that all whites are racist is both an admission about yourself (if you're white) and a comment about me (as I am white). With regard to the latter, I know the truth of that statement better than the speaker, so I'm not terribly worried about it, but with regard to the former, it's not just an interesting side note about your personality, but it's an admission of your having a lack of moral character. And let's set aside this notion that the racism presented was simply an acknowledgment that we all have our nuances and biases in favor of those similar to ourselves. The racism presented was that of not liking, trusting, or respecting black people.
This might actually be a learning moment, so listen to why I found the comment offensive. It has less to do with protecting the feelings of white people than it does in offering some support for black people, which I fear don't exist on this Board in very high numbers, if at all.
Let us assume we are all seated around a big dinner table. There are Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Mormons, and a couple of Jews. As the various people interact, everyone notices that Catholics show an affinity toward the other Catholics, the Baptists pay closer attention to one another, and so on. That would be expected, as each group shares similarities, common interests, similar cultures, etc. If Father O'Kelly stood up and noted the closer bonds between those of similar backgrounds, and even should he point out statistical studies establishing that, I don't think anyone would be terribly alarmed.
Now let us assume that a Baptist preacher stands up at the table and he says "Christians don't trust, like, or respect Jewish people," and then he sits down. Father O'Kelly might then stand up and say he thinks that our Baptist preacher was just pointing out that people have a natural tendency to migrate toward those with similar beliefs and there are statistically based studies to support that. Despite that effort to diffuse, our Baptist preacher rises again and says "Nope, Christians don't trust, like, or respect Jewish people."
Who is insulted by this comment? Good hearted Christians to be sure because they don't like being told that they have these feelings towards Jews when they don't, but more than that, the Jews will be insulted because they were just told they were not respected or trusted and that was that. Do you not think a Jewish person might gain some comfort in hearing the Mormon stand up and say that he does respect, trust, and like Jewish people? I would think if he failed to hear those words, he might just leave the table. And would a black person continue to sit at our table if we felt it appropriate to unapologetically declare our distrust, disrespect, and dislike of them?
And as to @Benkei's analysis regarding using rich people as our oppressed group as opposed to blacks, the two are historically dissimilar and not comparable. There is a reason we protect rights based upon race, religion, color, gender, and national origin and not on the basis of income and other various distinctions.
Reply to Hanover Well I know it's not all that common usage, but personally, I like to distinguish between racism, the ideology, and racial prejudice, the human condition. What I don't thank you for is the utterly fatuous implication that because there are few overt racists there is little prejudice.
Reply to unenlightened But this is non-responsive. I didn't argue that we don't all have prejudices. I specifically said that we did have affinities towards our own groups. And, to the extent we actually do harbor real racism, that is a failure in our character, and I don't deny having my own failures.
The very specific statement we are dealing with is that the poster said he didn't trust, like, or respect black people. That is what we're stuck with and that's what you're thanking him for saying. So, when someone expresses hate, we say thank you?
The very specific statement we are dealing with is that the poster said he didn't trust, like, or respect black people. That is what we're stuck with and that's what you're thanking him for saying. So, when someone expresses hate, we say thank you?
We'll start with anecdotal evidence. I'm 66 years old. I've met and talked with, lived with, many people. In my experience, white people as a group don't like, respect, or trust black people. They don't feel comfortable with them. They are afraid of them. I often feel the same impulses in myself.
He said he felt the same impulses and he contextualized those impulses:
So, that's anecdote. Now to statistics. Go to Google. Type in "Studies reaction black vs white faces." Study after study. With babies for God's sake. Even black people.
So, how does that equate to him expressing hate? It looks more like an expression of disappointment that he has these feelings and a lack of identification with them. Just the opposite of racism as ideology where the racist actively embraces his negative feelings towards other groups.
If you talk to my black friends and try to deny it, they will laugh at you, ridicule you, scorn you.
We're largely stuck with our impulses; it's how we think about them, talk about them, identify with them and express them in action that matters in terms of judging us morally. Right or wrong?
So, when someone expresses hate, we say thank you?
You don't, obviously, but I do and have. I'm not thanking you though, or thanking the Klan, I'm thanking @T Clark for exactly not doing what you have done above, which is to make out that having affinities on one side is something other than not liking and trusting on the other.
I get the basic idea but I don't think the analogy holds all that well tbh given the full context. I won't presume to know what black people think of it though I take T Clark's statement about his friends at face value.
You don't, obviously, but I do and have. I'm not thanking you though, or thanking the Klan, I'm thanking T Clark for exactly not doing what you have done above, which is to make out that having affinities on one side is something other than not liking and trusting on the other.
He specifically said he didn't like, trust, or respect black people though.
If a person's unconsciously racist, I assume they'll just have to wait until the malignancy pops into consciousness and then put it on the couch and interrogate it.
Meanwhile, Kalief Browder's ghost continues to haunt us. To say that what happened to him reflects how all white people feel about black people is utterly ridiculous. Plus saying that would set us on exactly the wrong route to doing something about it.
And as to Benkei's analysis regarding using rich people as our oppressed group as opposed to blacks, the two are historically dissimilar and not comparable. There is a reason we protect rights based upon race, religion, color, gender, and national origin and not on the basis of income and other various distinctions.
It wasn't intended as equivalence in that respect but to illustrate how people speak and how that is interpreted using other social groups. There isn't a really an issue there from my point of veiw. When people tell me that whites as a group are untrusting of blacks then I tend to agree that this is the case on average, based on my personal experience, and I'm a white European. I don't feel attacked by such a statement, because partly I don't identify solely as a white male and partly because I'm aware of my own involuntary judgments of Morrocans, Turks, Surinamese and Antillians even when I count a few of them as my friends. I'm lucky enough to be confronted with different cultures and can talk openly about these biases with friends allowing me to rationally correct for them but it takes some effort.
When people tell me that whites as a group are untrusting of blacks then I tend to agree that this is the case on average, based on my personal experience, and I'm a white European. I don't feel attacked by such a statement
It really isn't in keeping with my personal experience. I also don't feel attacked by the assertion. It's just wrong. I'm a little curious about the person who makes that kind of statement, though. I think they probably need to spend more time being the marshmallow on the chocolate cake, and get over it.
Reply to unenlightened I guess then that we're disagreeing as to the equivalency of the two statements. Not to beat a dead horse, but that I'm more trusting and feel a stronger bond to my family doesn't equate to my feeling distrust, dislike, and disrespect to those outside my family, but, sure, I trust, like, and respect my own family more than strangers.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 17, 2018 at 15:08#1793310 likes
Now let us assume that a Baptist preacher stands up at the table and he says "Christians don't trust, like, or respect Jewish people," and then he sits down. Father O'Kelly might then stand up and say he thinks that our Baptist preacher was just pointing out that people have a natural tendency to migrate toward those with similar beliefs and there are statistically based studies to support that. Despite that effort to diffuse, our Baptist preacher rises again and says "Nope, Christians don't trust, like, or respect Jewish people."
Boy, this is an interesting discussion. To tell you the truth, I thought my statement was pretty unexceptional and self-evident. I expressed it in blunt language because I think the situation I'm discussing is brutal. I made the comment in direct response to a discussion a few pages ago about whether it makes more sense to focus on injustice or our common humanity. That kind of discussion drives me crazy. Intellectualizing something as bleak as this. The fact of the matter; that white people, to a very large extent, don't like, trust, or respect black people; is so much worse than some points in a rational discussion.
As for the ecumenical dinner table - that's not where we are. We are on a philosophy forum. There are appropriate places to discuss things like this and inappropriate places. And, yes, I think many Christian people do not like, trust, or respect Jewish people. Worse, they use them as pawns to promote their apocalyptic biblical ideology. But I think attitudes toward blacks, at least in the US in 2018, are much more wide-spread, intransigent, and consequential.
Reply to Hanover Nice move there from black and white to family and strangers. You make it so fucking acceptable that I can't help thinking there must be life in that horse if just flog it a bit harder.
Nice move there from black and white to family and strangers. You make it so fucking acceptable that I can't help thinking there must be life in that horse if just flog it a bit harder.
But that is what we're talking about. We're talking about one person's kind versus another person's kind.
So Starbucks calling the police isn't typical at all? Just a fluke?
Of course not. If it was typical, they wouldn't have made such a big deal out of it. I'm not denying that there's a serious problem in the US, but the more bullshit we preoccupy ourselves with, the less we'll focus on what actually is important.
As for the ecumenical dinner table - that's not where we are. We are on a philosophy forum. There are appropriate places to discuss things like this and inappropriate places.
It would be appropriate to mention at the dinner table what I said, which was simply that those most similar tend to spend the most time interacting with one another and perhaps even agreeing with one another. But why wouldn't what you said be appropriate at that dinner table? Is it a Miss Manners thing where you don't tell the Jews you have no respect for them just like you don't use the big fork for the salad?
But that is what we're talking about. We're talking about one person's kind versus another person's kind.
If you mean to extend that to white vs black people then you are saying you trust, like and respect white people more than black people. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth btw so please clarify as necessary.
It would be appropriate to mention at the dinner table what I said, which was simply that those most similar tend to spend the most time interacting with one another and perhaps even agreeing with one another. But why wouldn't what you said be appropriate at that dinner table? Is it a Miss Manners thing where you don't tell the Jews you have no respect for them just like you don't use the big fork for the salad?
Actually, you and I agree on one thing, I don't think having affinities for one group is the same as having negative feelings for another.
A philosophy forum is a place where we have agreed to discuss possibly difficult and divisive issues with, we hope, civility and reason. A dinner table with people we do not know well and are not close friends with is not such a place. You know that. You're being disingenuous.
At least you backed down from "as a group." One step at a time, my friend.
I didn't back down from it, I clarified what I meant. I'll say it as clearly as I can - Prejudice against black people by whites in the US is pervasive. It reflects a general attitude of dislike, disrespect, and distrust, even among people of good will. My self-righteous, condescending friend.
I'll say it as clearly as I can - Prejudice against black people by whites in the US is pervasive. It reflects a general attitude of dislike, disrespect, and distrust, even among people of good will
What makes you say this? Thorongil stated the inverse of this and was crucified, yet when you've said the above you're lauded. Talk about equivalency. But again, unless I'm blind, I've not read any list of reasons as to why you believe what you do.
Reply to Baden I'm saying that there is a world of difference between designating some as more trustful than others and affirmatively declaring you distrust, dislike, and disrespect others. If I say I respect you more than Michael, that doesn't mean I don't respect Michael.
A philosophy forum is a place where we have agreed to discuss possibly difficult and divisive issues with, we hope, civility and reason. A dinner table with people we do not know well and are not close friends with is not such a place. You know that. You're being disingenuous.
I'm not being disingenuous. There's nothing appropriate about telling people you disrespect them based upon their skin color at the dinner table, at the philosophy forum, or at barbershop.
The whole basis of liking more or less or disliking seems wrong though when it's about race. Isn't that the more important point than the level of liking or disliking? It's not a rational ground on which to form an affinity.
(As in if you trust me more than Michael because I'm white and Michael is black that's just a lower level of racism than if you actively distrust Michael because he's black. The world of difference would be with someone who doesn't base trusting or distrusting on race.)
What makes you say this? Thorongil stated the inverse of this and was crucified, yet when you've said the above you're lauded. Talk about equivalency. But again, unless I'm blind, I've not read any list of reasons as to why you believe what you do.
I gave my reasons previously on page 1071. As for Thorongil and how he was treated, I'm not the one to ask. I do think calling the response to what I wrote as "lauded" is a misrepresentation. Some have agreed with me more or less strongly. Some have disagreed very strongly.
I'm not being disingenuous. There's nothing appropriate about telling people you disrespect them based upon their skin color at the dinner table, at the philosophy forum, or at barbershop.
I think your claim that you're not being disingenuous is disingenuous.
didn't back down from it, I clarified what I meant. I'll say it as clearly as I can - Prejudice against black people by whites in the US is pervasive. It reflects a general attitude of dislike, disrespect, and distrust, even among people of good will. My self-righteous, condescending friend.
I wouldnt mind exploring this further with you in a separate thread. I'm only interested in an exchange of experiences and reflections, though.
Nice move there from black and white to family and strangers. You make it so fucking acceptable that I can't help thinking there must be life in that horse if just flog it a bit harder.
— unenlightened
But that is what we're talking about. We're talking about one person's kind versus another person's kind.
I'm just going to have to come out and say this. Some families are strange, and some strangers are stranger than other strangers. Equating race and family in the way that you have done is prejudicial and offensive, and it exposes and exemplifies the complacency of your prejudice.
It would be appropriate to mention at the dinner table what I said, which was simply that those most similar tend to spend the most time interacting with one another and perhaps even agreeing with one another.
It wouldn't be appropriate at my dinner table, mate, because my family are not all the same race. My kind are not all white, but some of us are.
In my experience, rich people as a group don't like, respect, or trust poor people. They don't feel comfortable with them. They are afraid of them.
That's the most accurate replication you gave of what was said, and it's offensive too, for the same reason. It's prejudiced to judge a group of people in that way, based on your own personal experience of only some members of that group.
That's the most accurate replication you gave of of what was said, and it's offensive too, for the same reason. It's prejudiced to judge a group of people in that way, based on your own personal experience of only some members of that group.
It's not judgmental at all, and my statement wasn't either. They are both statements of fact subject to verification and falsification. I understand you think they are both false. If it makes you feel good to be offended, knock yourself out.
Reply to T Clark Sure. And I don't even exist. Neither do you. Nothing was said at all, and none of this is happening. If it makes you feel good to deny what's wrong about those statements, then knock yourself out.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if, within the next 200 years, the Holocaust occurred again (albeit likely on a smaller scale).
Genocide and similar phenomena - killing large numbers (anything from hundreds to millions) of people of a certain class as a political tool - have happened on a regular basis since 1945. Rwanda. The Balkans. Cambodia. Syria. Burma. Argentina. The Cultural Revolution in China. Displacement of peasants in Ukraine by Stalin. I'm sure I've left some out.
[Edit - I checked. Stalin's starvation of peasants in Ukraine (and Kazakhstan) took place in 1932-33. So, before and after World War 2]
I mostly said what I had to say in my first post. I stand by that. Everything else I've written has been reacting to other peoples reactions.
Ok. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Hasta la vista.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 17, 2018 at 19:58#1793910 likes
@Baden
Since you were willing to entertain my dating preference/profile question, I am curious if you will entertain another.
Can you explain to me the difference between prejudice and preference when a choice is being made?
Ps. I am genuinely asking you, not to set you up for a "Gotcha" moment but maybe it will help me understand others.
Reply to unenlightened It's a John Locke sort of statement. I honor your right to your opinion. The more diverse the society, the more important that is to peace and stability. True?
Reply to frank But obviously you don't honour my opinion if you think I am wrong. You honour my right to my opinion - but what does that mean? I have my opinion already so why is my right to it even in question, except that it is the wrong opinion. Is it then just a polite way of saying 'you are wrong, but I can't be bothered to show you why you are wrong?'
If I have a right that is worth anything, I have a right to have the right opinion, and you have a duty to put me right where I have gone wrong. That's education, isn't it? Ticks and crosses, marks and no-marks.
If I have a right that is worth anything, I have a right to have the right opinion, and you have a duty to put me right where I have gone wrong. That's education, isn't it?
But if you repeatedly tell me that you aren't interested in my view, what's my duty?
@ArguingWAristotleTiff Just to relate this to what @Hanover was saying. I would argue that his concept of affinity (liking more) and @T Clark's concept of negative impulses (disliking) when applied to race (not family*), both fall under the umbrella of socially conditioned prejudice, and there's where you can look at brain sciences and data to discover how this operates. But Ideological racism goes further; it's when you take the concept of affinity towards those similar to you and/or negative feelings towards those different to you with regard to race and view those prejudices as values to be positively identified with. That's the major moral dichotomy I would draw. It might be somewhat of a failing to prefer people who are like you in terms of racial characteristics, but it's a serious wrong to think you are actually better than them because of this prejudice and to base your actions on that presumption.
(*We have moral, not to mention legal, obligations to family members that we obviously don't have to members of our own race.)
You have to tune your brainio to the "dog whistling" that's going on.
Dog whistling about race is when you're ideologically racist but try to hide it by making your support of racism somewhat covert, but not so covert that other ideological racists don't get the message. This is just about the direct opposite of what @T Clark was trying to do.
Reply to frank No worries, dude. It just struck me as one of those liberal sounding phrases, and I wondered if it actually meant something liberal. Our family saying in such circumstances amongst ourselves and the telly, is FOAD - an acronym of 'fuck off and die'. In public it's a shrug and 'Whatever'.
Reply to Michael I can imagine, what with the official Neighbours tours here with roudy British tourists raving and ranting about seeing Ramsay Street. What is with the fascination for shitty actors?
ArguingWAristotleTiff Just to relate this to what Hanover was saying. I would argue that his concept of affinity (liking more) and @T Clark's concept of negative impulses (disliking) when applied to race (not family*), both fall under the umbrella of socially conditioned prejudice, and there's where you can look at brain sciences and data to discover how this operates.
I'd argue that race is an extension of family, at least genetically so, and that the impulse to care for your race more than others is evolutionarily caused. I'm not suggesting that we're morally permitted to be racist, but I do think there is a natural driver for us to protect those most like ourselves. There is a reason, I'd submit , that the word "kind" means both to be similar to and to show affection toward (Kin - family member, Kind - German for child, etc.). The word 'like" also has similar dual meanings. One is kind toward their kind and one likes one like them. We also use the word stranger to mean someone unknown but also to mean someone odd. It would make sense possibly hundreds of years of ago that if a strange looking person came to your village, he probably didn't mean you well.
My point here is just that I see no reason trying to cast aside the deep seated affinities we have ingrained in us for our own kind, but we do have a moral obligation not to allow that to lead to injustice, and certainly we are prohibited from affirmatively creating injustice. It was why I objected to T Clark's comments. They didn't just suggest an affinity for one group over another, but more so a direct opposition to certain groups, claiming he disrespected, disliked, and distrusted them. You don't get to do that.
Ok, all's I say is that in my like/dislike scorebook, folks don't get extra points for being the same colour as me. And the idea that they should is whackbackwards buttsville nuts.
Reply to Baden It really is odd to me that you weigh the testimony of new stories over people on the ground. If you learned that I'm whitish to brown as opposed to pure anglo white, would that make you more interested in my view?
It really is odd to me that you weigh the testimony of new stories over people on the ground
Where did I do that?
And what I said about the Starbucks story, where there were differing accounts, for example, was that I agree with Erik, I don't know what happened. Haven't looked into it enough.
I think you're right. This is the flip side of the existence-of-racism coin, the prejudice towards over-explaining events in terms of racism. I think the facts are worth getting at but I also think the company was more worried about its image in its response than the actual facts. I haven't researched the event, so I don't know either. Maybe someone has and can enlighten us. I'm not convinced there is no definitive answer to be found.
Did you not? It just looked like that's what you were doing. It seemed that you waved away every American who spoke except T-Clark who has an idiosyncratic view (all women are afraid of physical abuse from men, all white people fear blacks).
Oh. I see you weren't making of the new story what I thought you were. I was lumping you in with Benkei. All Europeans are exactly alike. It's almost as if there's only one of them. :D
Well, I didn't fully agree with @T Clark's estimation of the situation. I said I thought it was overstated. I thought he was misinterpreted though and taken out of context. And I don't think Irish people, of which I am one, are any less racist than Americans, for example.
I would say overstated as in wrong. Money is God in the US. When blacks and latinos have more cash, their standing will be more equal. Prior to that: there is a moral outlook where the down-trodden are not pitied, but held responsible for their situation. Not all white people have that view, but enough do that a harsh apathy is considered to be ok. The whites who see things that way are joined by a multitude of blacks and latinos who agree with that. It may just be part of the American culture. I'm not sure.
Doesn't matter. Since there is no systemic blockade to the advancement of blacks and latinos, they will advance. And every step of advancement fosters future advancement.
If I say, 'men as a group are stronger than women as a group', am I saying that every man is stronger than every woman? I feel as though I am invoking a kind of 'on average' thing that allows that some few women can be stronger than most men at least. Is that not the normal usage?
It just looked like that's what you were doing. It seemed that you waved away every American who spoke except T-Clark who has an idiosyncratic view (all women are afraid of physical abuse from men, all white people fear blacks).
You and Hanover keep misstating what I actually said, even when I've pointed it out. It's a little rhetorical trick you use when you're unable or unwilling to reconsider your initial knee-jerk reaction. Also, I don't think my views are idiosyncratic at all, not even among white people. They may not be completely mainstream. Also also, calling it "idiosyncratic" is not a valid argument against my positions. It's another one of your passive-aggressive rhetorical ploys.
And I don't think Irish people, of which I am one, are any less racist than Americans, for example.
This may be true, and I don't know Irish culture or demographics, but I think, given our racial makeup and history, American's attitudes are more consequential.
Since there is no systemic blockade to the advancement of blacks and latinos, they will advance. And every step of advancement fosters future advancement.
And I am saying just the opposite - there is a "systemic blockade." The fact you don't recognize it demonstrates your lack of awareness, your blindness, and shows your opinions are not credible.
Since there is no systemic blockade to the advancement of blacks and latinos
But the evidence, which I provided, in the form of data from studies by some of your top institutions suggest there is. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary, and hard evidence (not just anecdotal) is the only way to determine which view is correct.
Money is God in the US. When blacks and latinos have more cash, their standing will be more equal. Prior to that: there is a moral outlook where the down-trodden are not pitied, but held responsible for their situation
I agree with this part. The over-arching problem is inequality. But that's getting worse not better, so I'm not as optimistic as you are about the situation.
Reply to Baden Sorry, I didn't see it, and it seems to have been buried. Did the studies you put forward show that there is inequality? There is. Latinos are on the bottom, not blacks. Latino women are at the very bottom.
If you believe that in spite of all the laws that protect blacks and latinos from discrimination in employment and housing, a systemic, institutionalized block against the advancement of minorities still exists, I think you would need to show that.
The real source of injustice is wealth inequality. There are lawyers who work for free, but you have to have some degree of education and stability to even know that you should get a lawyer.
The data suggest it's going to be a while before we find out.
I do appreciate Baden's bringing actual data to the table — Erik
No worries. I figured the data would probably support your experience although the extent of the remaining discrimination and white (male at least) advantage is more than I would have guessed.
[Study discussed is by the Milton Eisenhower Foundation ("...the private sector continuation of two Presidential Commissions – the 1967-1968 bipartisan National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders and the 1968-1969 bipartisan National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_S._Eisenhower_Foundation )]
"Study Shows Little Change Since Kerner Commission Reported on Racism 50 Years Ago"
“We made progress on virtually every aspect of race and poverty for nearly a decade after the Kerner Report and then that progress slowed, then stopped and in many ways was reversed, so that today racial and ethnic discrimination is again worsening...
Statistics tell the story. In 1988 about 44 percent of black children went to majority-white schools. But that was also the same year that courts began reversing desegregation policies. Now that number has dropped to 20 percent. There are other sobering statistics. As the AP points out, the study shows that following the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968, home ownership by black Americans jumped around 6 percent. Those gains, however, reversed between 2000 and 2015 when black ownership dropped by 6 percent."
The real source of injustice is wealth inequality.
You've got it backwards. The primary injustice against minorities is wealth inequality.
I have a good friend. She is college educated. Upper middle class. Married to a doctor. Smart, attractive, and articulate. She and her husband go to Hawaii every five years or so. Her skin color is such that she is generally mistaken for native Hawaiian, although she does nothing to promote that. She tells me what a pleasure, relief it is for her to fit in. To be invisible. With no one watching her and suspecting her wherever she goes. She says it's like a heavy weight she wasn't even aware of is lifted off her. She and her husband would move there except she wants to be near her children and grandchildren.
Out of curiosity, I looked up the Starbucks thing myself. Can't find any witnesses who said the men did anything wrong, and one witness (who also took one of the two videos of the event I'm now aware of) states they didn't. No reason I can find to doubt her account. The two videos themselves also show the men being calm and civil, and according to Starbucks official statements, they broke no rules. I originally thought there may have been two sides to this, but I can't find the side where this wasn't some form of bad behaviour on Starbuck's part. Starbucks themselves apparently agree.
That still leaves a number of possibilities
1) The manager of the Starbuck's was just having a bad day and fucked up.
2) The manager of the Starbuck's was a dick who kicked anyone who didn't order quickly enough out.
3) The manager of the Starbuck's was racist/prejudiced.
Conclusion: Starbucks sells shit overpriced coffee on the back of a shallow progressive-sounding philosophy that actually boils down to nothing more than "if we tell trendy people what they want to hear, they'll pay more for our crap product". And you might get some racism in your mochalatte.
Generally, "as a group" will be followed by some prejudiced comment.
... you should have said "On average, "as a group" will be followed by some prejudiced comment.". I'll forgive you this time.
____________________________________________________________________________-
I'm seeing an argument, or rather a rhetoric that goes somewhat like this:
A __ There is widespread prejudice against blacks, from whites.
B __ That's prejudicial against whites. Therefore it is untrue. Therefore there is no widespread prejudice against blacks. This sort of thing happens all the time. Therefore there is widespread prejudice against whites.
As long as folks don't come out and express their prejudices, which is most of the time even if they are conscious of them, which is not most of the time, there are always alternative explanations in every particular incident. A lifetime of particular incidents makes the alternative explanations sound like bullshit in every case, and possibly in a few cases it is not bullshit, just like there are some weak men. But as a group, in general, on average, statistically, by and large, as a rule with exceptions, black people get treated badly in cafes, law courts, mortgage brokers, schools, and DIY stores more often than white people, and cumulatively it makes a big difference.
Her skin color is such that she is generally mistaken for native Hawaiian, although she does nothing to promote that. She tells me what a pleasure, relief it is for her to fit in. To be invisible. With no one watching her and suspecting her wherever she goes. She says it's like a heavy weight she wasn't even aware of is lifted off her.
That so resonates here. Mrs Un has a much easier time of it out and about when she is clearly and visibly under the close supervision and control of her respectable white husband.
But as a group, in general, on average, statistically, by and large, as a rule with exceptions, black people get treated badly in cafes, law courts, mortgage brokers, schools, and DIY stores more often than white people, and cumulatively it makes a big difference.
Yes, and that's backed up by the evidence. I was hoping for some kind of meaningful debate from those who think that's not true but it never materialized.
That so resonates here. Mrs Un has a much easier time of it out and about when she is clearly and visibly under the close supervision and control of her respectable white husband.
And when she's not, you have it off with her. Good deal. :up:
I'm seeing an argument, or rather a rhetoric that goes somewhat like this:
A __ There is widespread prejudice against blacks, from whites.
B __ That's prejudicial against whites. Therefore it is untrue. Therefore there is no widespread prejudice against blacks. This sort of thing happens all the time. Therefore there is widespread prejudice against whites.
You're writing an alternate history to this thread? Do an alternate history of WW2. That's more fun.
Here'a an anecdote from Thailand. When I was applying for my visa extension, immigration came to our home to do some checks. They took a look at me, and one of the officers said (I paraphrase) "Don't worry. It won't be a problem for you. We only investigate the dark-skinned ones". He said this like he was saying he preferred coffee to tea in the mornings.
Here'a an anecdote from Thailand. When I was applying for my visa extension, immigration came to our home to do some checks. They took a look at me, and one of the officers said (I paraphrase) "Don't worry. It won't be a problem for you. We only investigate the dark-skinned ones". He said this like he was saying he preferred coffee to tea in the mornings.
At least here in the US people mostly hide their contempt. I guess that's something.
Reply to T Clark There's a Nat Geo article about it too, but you have to have a subscription to get to it. The gist of it: declining birth rate among whites allows us to predict that whites will eventually be the minority in the US, possibly sometime in this century.
Sometimes. Anyway, links are notoriously unreliable. I remember the time Thorongil accidentally posted a link that led to a sickening porn image. Some kind of virus redirect. Better off uploading a jpeg like I did.
We made progress on virtually every aspect of race and poverty for nearly a decade after the Kerner Report and then that progress slowed, then stopped and in many ways was reversed, so that today racial and ethnic discrimination is again worsening...
Statistics tell the story. In 1988 about 44 percent of black children went to majority-white schools. But that was also the same year that courts began reversing desegregation policies. Now that number has dropped to 20 percent. There are other sobering statistics. As the AP points out, the study shows that following the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968, home ownership by black Americans jumped around 6 percent. Those gains, however, reversed between 2000 and 2015 when black ownership dropped by 6 percent."
Where I've bolded, the word needs to be changed to "disparity."
The elimination of desegregation policies is defined as the elimination of reverse discrimination laws, which would expectedly result in a change in distribution of minorities in schools and in single family owned homes. The real question when addressing policy is overall outcome, as in do affirmative action programs better society. There's good evidence they don't. There is also the problem of supporting any reverse discrimination system, considering racial discrimination is an evil regardless of purpose and regardless of which race it discriminates against.
Where I've bolded, the word needs to be changed to "disparity."
When you go to the trouble of doing your own study, you can choose whatever words you want. I don't have any reason to doubt them on their phrasing here.
There is also the problem of supporting any reverse discrimination system, considering racial discrimination is an evil regardless of purpose and regardless of which race it discriminates against.
That's just a bare assertion. With a controversial issue like positive discrimination, you'll have to make an argument as to why it's wrong. I take the tentative position that it's justified under certain circumstances. Convince me I'm wrong.
The real question when addressing policy is overall outcome, as in do affirmative action programs better society. There's good evidence they don't. There is also the problem of supporting any reverse discrimination system, considering racial discrimination is an evil regardless of purpose and regardless of which race it discriminates against.
I think you're probably right that affirmative action doesn't work. I think it also breeds resentment in those who don't benefit. On the other hand, there is a deep irony when white people stomp their feet and cry "It's not fair" when someone else gets the benefits they have stolen for the past 400 years. So, I'm ambivalent, but no, it's not evil when the law that was used for centuries to obstruct black people is used to help them just a little.
I think it's not a secret that there were extended massacres during that time. The International Association of Genocide Scholars recognised them as genocides. But, regardless of whether they should be called that and regardless of their motives (i.e. religious, ethnic or whatever), loads of (non-combatant) people died. Of course, in the Balkans, during the 19th and early 20th century, loads of Muslims perished and were persecuted as well,
That was not what you originally said. I already understand the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the horrors that ensued during that period that continues through systemic denial by the current political climate in Turkey, but you implied during when historical documentation verifies a very different social fabric that protected minorities despite the jizya tax and you are better than those members here who speak with such confidence about subjects they clearly know nothing of.
When you go to the trouble of doing your own study, you can choose whatever words you want. I don't have any reason to doubt them on their phrasing here.
It's not nitpicking. What they've done is present statistics indicating that black home ownership rate has recently declined and that blacks attend schools with white people at lower rates. That is the definition of disparity. That the disparity resulted from discrimination is a thesis which is not supported by the study. Quoting Baden
That's just a bare assertion. With a controversial issue like positive discrimination, you'll have to make an argument as to why it's wrong. I take the tentative position that it's justified under certain circumstances. Convince me I'm wrong.
The assertion can be taken in two ways (1) as a moral statement, and (2) as a practical statement. If discrimination on the basis of race is evil, it's evil. I actually believe that, but you can reject it for whatever reason you want.
But, sure, we can have a debate on the pragmatic merits of affirmative action if you want, but that seems like a thread unto itself.
Reply to T Clark You don't remember correctly. Liking a dress is different when the sentimentality behind it is my close friend, who I am a bridesmaid for, so stop pretending this "dark place" is really just you being a dick.
If discrimination on the basis of race is evil, it's evil. I actually believe that, but you can reject it for whatever reason you want.
You implied earlier you discriminate, in terms of how much you like people, based on their race (you like your own kind more even though you don't dislike those who aren't your kind). So, that rings a bit hollow. If it's evil, stop doing it.
You don't remember correctly. Liking a dress is different when the sentimentality behind it is my close friend, who I am a bridesmaid for, so stop pretending this "dark place" is really just you being a dick.
Well, T Clark being a dick is not all that unusual. It has nothing to do with any "dark place."
@Hanover Thinking about it, I guess we should separate out discrimination in action as I did in my own definition from feelings and affinities. In that sense what you said wouldn't involve you being discriminatory, I guess.
That seems to fit with what T Clark, Un, I and others were saying. Discrimination is still widespread.
Nope. If you were a black or latino friend, then I would try harder to get you to see past the "white people hate you and that's why you're failing" mentality. As it is, I don't think you actually have any stake in it.
So, what was the point? You show me the video, I agree with the sentiment, and you tell me I have no stake in it? We all have a stake in it in so far as we care, and those of us in mixed race families more so, I would say, than average. But, yes, I'm not American if that's the point.
Don't put words in my mouth. The video is consistent with there still being widespread discrimination. That's consistent with claims made by me, T Clark, Un and others. If you have a more subtle point to make, you should have just made it at the beginning. I don't want to play the "Guess frank's interpretation of a video" game.
And the idea that you understood T Clark more than I did isn't credible. Ask T Clark.
The video is consistent with there still being widespread discrimination
It was showing that some people in the US start with a disadvantage that wasn't caused by anyone who is still alive. The video said nothing at all about discrimination that's happening now.
I think you're probably right that affirmative action doesn't work. I think it also breeds resentment in those who don't benefit. On the other hand, there is a deep irony when white people stomp their feet and cry "It's not fair" when someone else gets the benefits they have stolen for the past 400 years. So, I'm ambivalent, but no, it's not evil when the law that was used for centuries to obstruct black people is used to help them just a little.
If in fact other white people stole something from other black people thousands of years ago, there is no irony in a current day white person being upset should he be unfairly deprived something by a current day black person. I am not guilty of the sins of my fathers and I am not entitled to compensation for his victimization. We today have two new groups of innocent people, deserving of nothing other than fair treatment today.
My ancestors were fleeing death camps in Eastern Europe at the same time blacks were fleeing nooses in the South. I'm neither a debtor nor a creditor though because I never chased anyone nor fled anyone. I'm not ignoring the idea that we must level the playing field today, but I see no hypocrisy in a white person, especially one who has suffered poverty and has been provided limited resources, feeling he's equally entitled to special assistance to achieve success.
You implied earlier you discriminate, in terms of how much you like people, based on their race (you like your own kind more even though you don't dislike those who aren't your kind). So, that rings a bit hollow. If it's evil, stop doing it.
It is proper to discriminate as long as it's for a proper purpose. I discriminate when I buy shoes, making sure I only buy my size. Discriminating on the basis of who I like is also a proper thing to do; otherwise I'd have to eat with dickheads everyday.
It is improper to discriminate on the basis of skin tone, unless perhaps I was conducting a study on the effectiveness of suntan lotion. I'd probably need some pasty Irish fuckers for that (that is if they could stay sober long enough to get through the study). Racism is ok when your objective is to be funny too, although I could be wrong about that one.
For real, though, yes, I am not a perfect person, and I do think and say things I shouldn't ought to. I do admit too to an engrained affinity to those I've grown up around, and I do suspect that I have considerable less disdain for blacks as expressed by T Clark perhaps because I grew up around and continue to live in a city that is heavily populated by very educated middle class African Americans and they occupy every rung of my little community, from next door neighbor, to judge, to police officer, to boss, to best friend, etc. And that might be why I was taken aback by the comment that all the whites sort of hated the blacks. I think T Clark lives in Whiteville.
On the other hand, there is a deep irony when white people stomp their feet and cry "It's not fair" when someone else gets the benefits they have stolen for the past 400 years.
There's so much that's wrong with this kind of thinking. I'm not guilty of the sins of my ancestors, and I haven't stolen any benefits.
Reply to frank If you were at the back, then I bet you'd feel doubly shat on if struck with the reality of being both disadvantaged and judged negatively on the basis of being lumped in with a group which happens to share your skin colour. A kind of guilt by association.
That would include me, by the way.
VagabondSpectreMay 18, 2018 at 22:04#1797170 likes
Friends, warriors, comrades, lend me your tears;
I come to bury Justice, not to praise it.
The evil that movements do outlasts them;
Their good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Justice. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Justice was unambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Justice answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
For Brutus is a victimized person;
So are they all, all victimized persons–
Come I to speak in Justice's funeral.
It was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says it was unambitious;
And Brutus is a victimized person.
Justice hath brought many captive beasts to Rome
Whose funerals did the common coffers fill:
Did this in Justice seem unambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Justice hath wept:
Unambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says it was unambitious;
And Brutus is a victimized person.
You all did see that on the temple steps
They thrice presented it a perverted crown,
Which it did thrice refuse: was this unambition?
Yet Brutus says it was unambitious;
And, sure, they are a victimized person.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love it once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for it?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And xey have lost xeir reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Justice,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
If you were at the back, then I bet you'd feel doubly shat on if struck with the reality of being both disadvantaged and judged negatively on the basis of being lumped in with a group which happens to share your skin colour.
That would include me, by the way.
Yes. I was trying to explain earlier that some people will automatically put the two together: you're disadvantaged because you suck. But that's true for poor white people too. What's your take on it?
Yes. I was trying to explain earlier that some people will automatically put the two together: you're disadvantaged because you suck. But that's true for poor white people too. What's your take on it?
I think that putting the two together like that is too simplistic and suggests a lack of due consideration. Not only is it bad analysis, but it can sometimes rear its ugly head in politics too, where it can do some real harm, particularly to those who face the brunt of it. It's these kind of ideologically based policies which can earn a political party the epithet of being the 'nasty party'.
There are likely a number of factors involved, like those indicated in the video, some of which are predetermined or otherwise out of your control, which can and do effect the kind of opportunities available to you, and effect how much you have to work towards attaining certain goals compared with others who share those same goals. In various respects, it's not an equal playing field, and in various respects, it's not fair.
I don't think that judging groups based on skin colour, or attributing blame to people of a particular skin colour, is helpful or right. I think that it should be frowned upon, not defended.
Nor the revolutionary Time's familiar foreboding frown...
Change is risky and complicated business. Even with a well-placed heart and the best of intentions, improvement for the better has generally been incremental, and for good reason: change too quickly and you'll fly unsustainably past the mark.
The most precious substance in the Universe is the Sauce melange. The sauce extends life. The Sauce expands consciousness. The sauce is vital to space travel. He who controls the Sauce controls the universe!
On second watch, you're right, I misinterpreted the vid somewhat. Skipped through too quickly the first time, and the crappy music put me off. It focuses more on the effects of inequality. Which is definitely important as I mentioned earlier.
The more you write about this, the more you keep stuffing grenades in your shorts. And I wish you were reading @T Clark as charitably as I'm trying to read you.
For example, the following with a Hanoverian uncharitable reading:
Suggests you disdain blacks but just to a lesser degree= BIGOT/RACIST!
But you're not and neither is he.
VagabondSpectreMay 19, 2018 at 05:32#1798270 likes
Reply to Baden I have mixed feelings about the video. I agree with it's intent and the gist of what it is saying, but the language he uses makes me invisible.
Though I'm straight and white and male, none of the statements applied to me...
The video isn't that bad at all in this regard, but it does bother me being told about my white privilege and being referred to videos such as these as an explanation.
I'm not going to defend the video as I didn't post it. Anyhow, I'd rather just see straightforward arguments too. And videos used as evidence or demonstrations to back them up at most.
For example, the following with a Hanoverian uncharitable reading:
I have considerable less disdain for blacks...
— Hanover
Suggests you disdain blacks but just to a lesser degree= BIGOT/RACIST!
But you're not and neither is he.
The distinction between my comment and his is that mine is taken out of context and his was pretty explicit. I think you might be being more generous to him than he even wants. He might admit to more distrust and dislike than you think he will, I don't know. We haven't explored those depths. Quoting Baden
In other words, was the establishment of Israel an evil because Jews were...
...not entitled to compensation for [their] victimization.
— Hanover
I objected to compensating non-victims who might bring a claim on behalf of a distant anscestor, not to protecting actual victims who narrowly escaped genocide.
We're back to the question of the legitimacy of land claims. Young Irish people occupy their land because some older Irish guys did and they now regulate immigration which keeps it largely of Celtic origin (or whatever it is). That means that those early settlers established the nature of the population and it continues on.
Why is it more legitimate for kid to live in Ireland today just because his great great ... grandfather stumbled upon that piece of land centuries ago than it is a young Jewish kid to live in Israel just because his grandfather acquired the land in a different way?
I think they should have been given the land as they were. But they didn't stumble on it, they were actively helped as you know. And it was positive discrimination based on centuries of persecution not just the holocaust. Jews are the original minority. Take the holocaust out of the equation and Israel still should have been created, agree or disagree? And the Arabs who lived in the spot of land they were helped occupy lost out not through the actions of their generation but due to the bigger picture of what was just in relation to the Jewish people.
What I'm saying is justice is sometimes complicated and the broader context of history does matter.
If anyone is interested in exploring race a little more, Patricia Williams' Reith lectures are very good, and probably available elsewhere if the BBC won't talk to you.
(And what makes positive discrimination towards Jews with regard to the establishment of a Jewish homeland from the pre-WW2 Balfour declaration on potentially more objectionable on the face of it than positive discrimination in favor of African Americans today is that Europeans who carried out the vast majority of the persecution of Jews never intended anything but that someone else pay for it.)
Breathe... everyone just breathe...we're all human beings here, and we all have our own unique position...breathe...there's enough breath for everyone.
Lol. I know. And don't worry, I still love Hanover despite his arseovertits whackbackassvilIe ideas. I got another good example though. In Northern Ireland at the beginning of the peace process, only about 5% of the police force were Catholic, but about 45% of the population were. There's just no way to even that kind of thing up in the short to medium term without positive discrimination. And it had to be done for there to be a peace process at all.
(Edit: Deleted a bit as I took Hansover out of context seeing as the part about evil regarded race not religion).
I think that putting the two together like that is too simplistic and suggests a lack of due consideration. Not only is it bad analysis, but it can sometimes rear its ugly head in politics too, where it can do some real harm, particularly to those who face the brunt of it.
It's interesting in the US right now. The more socialist side of the Democratic party is trying to edge out the moderates. The part of the American society that's tired of "every man for himself" is trying to rise.
It's interesting in the US right now. The more socialist side of the Democratic party is trying to edge out the moderates. The part of the American society that's tired of "every man for himself" is trying to rise.
The same thing's happening over here with the Labour party.
I was just in my car listening to a Lyle Lovett song, “I Can’t Love You Anymore” on Pandora. One of the things I love about country music is that it allows itself to be playful, even in a serious song such as that one. That set me to thinking about serious playfulness. I thought of some examples:
“I don’t love you any less, but I can’t love you anymore” – Lyle Lovett
“Just when I believe in you, you’ll be leaving me” – Laurie Lewis
“While looking through some photographs I found inside a drawer, I was taken by a photograph of you” – Jackson Browne
“look for me tomorrow and you will find me a grave man” – William Shakespeare.
I was trying to think of some more examples.
So, anyway, “playful” doesn’t necessarily mean funny or lighthearted. Or, looking at it the other way, maybe sometimes the most serious things and the most comic are connected.
Flipping gorgeous! Understated earrings, understated bouquet, fresh, light makeup not overdone, just gorgeous!
I think I took a peek because I felt like I was being nasty to my friends, and I was surprised by the minimalism. My kind of style. Those clowns that try hard always appear ugly to me.
I think we should rejoice in the fact that their marriage presents an openness that was not provoked, a celebration of joy and love. There is certainly a dearth of joy otherwise it in USA.
Reply to Cavacava I am not fond of public displays that are rehearsed, but I do appreciate good taste. People said the same about the Kardashians, but they have done much more harm than any good and it is a strange position to be put in. My friends like it all and I don't and I look like the bad guy as though I need to tolerate something that is intolerable. Nevertheless, overall the barriers that have been broken are pretty interesting from a political angle.
We'll likely encounter a lot of weddings in Palestine :lol:
I actually wrote an in-depth reddit article about how the Szechuan sauce is actually the fuel for Rick's portal gun. I infirmly believe that Harmon stashed this in there intended as a future callback to the final series arc.
It makes an uncomfortable amount of sense when you consider the evidence:
A) The thing that defines Rick is that he is the only one with inter-dimensional space travel, making him into the quasi-demi-god that he is portrayed as, which is a suitable topic for a series concluding plot. Nobody but Rick knows the secret and everyone is after it.
B) The only hard limitation rick has is the fuel for his portal gun, which has been demonstrated in the show.
C) When Rick is in the series 9000 Brainalyzer, which is inexorably forcing Rick to reveal the moment that changed everything, Rick immediately brings his interrogator to the MacDonald's drive through, the moment he first found the sauce. (Rick doesn't actually eat any for some reason, indicating that his obsession with it isn't in regards to taste)
D) Rick actually states that the Szechuan sauce is Rick's "one-armed man/ series arc". In a show which tries so hard to give meaning and demonstrate interconnectivity amidst absurdism, I have a hard time believing that there is no greater purpose in doing what seems to most like either a sponsored meme or a silly absurd episode-wide reference with no connection to anything else.
E) This bit might be wishful and circumstantial, but having an obscure and limited source of fuel brings some consistency to the multiverse of Ricks in that it actually allows for relative wealth and power along with a form of currency between Ricks. With the portal gun you can acquire or take anything you want, making you insanely powerful, so why does rick bother doing things like smuggling mega-seeds up Morty's anus or selling anti-matter guns to Krombopulos Michael for a bag of Flurbos? The answer is that using portals costs fuel, and the fuel is limited even across the multiverse.
The only major dilemma with this theory is that Szechuan sauce isn't special in any way, so something would need to be contrived to explain its origin and usage, but since there are infinite ricks, the fuel is still limited because the infinite ricks have already scoured the infinite universes that contain finite amounts of the sauce.
I've always been very good at discerning intentionally ambiguous or misleading foreshadowing. There's no way Dan would make the first episode of season three (which was notably delayed due to the labors and perfectionism of it's writing) culminate and color Rick's character with something so stupid as a pointless obsession with a rare condiment.
I wouldn't be displeased with a Dune parody
"The time travelling Council of Ricks and its navigators, who the Szechuan sauce has mutated over four-thousand years, use the orange sauce liquid, which gives them the ability to fold space and time. That is, travel to any part of the Multiverse without moving. Oh yes, I forget to tell you. The sauce exists on only one planet in the entire Universe. A violent, shit-hole planet with billions of morons. Hidden away within the ranks of these morons are a people known as the "Mortys", who have long held a prophecy, that a boy would come, a messiah, who would lead them to true freedom. The planet is retarded. Also known as Earth".
VagabondSpectreMay 19, 2018 at 23:06#1801160 likes
I'm not going to defend the video as I didn't post it. Anyhow, I'd rather just see straightforward arguments too. And videos used as evidence or demonstrations to back them up at most.
Aye. I didn't mean for you to defend it, just wanted to share a reflection. As far as how these kinds videos tend to go, I'm really not displeased with it. It makes salient points about what kinds of things disadvantage people and it's undeniably true that black children are more likely to be afflicted by them.
But somewhere, somehow, whether by slow drip or radical demand, the cultural progressive focus has shifted from people and settled on race and identity. The video has only a light dash of it: "We" appear to be the advantaged whites, "they" are the black kids in the back who would smoke us in a fair race. Granted, they would for biological reasons likely smoke us in fair races, but where does that leave me?
You're little Kierkegaardian mod face next to the chicken bowl is like some kind of surreal, nightmarish price tag. My ancestors are defiled. Thank you for listening.
Speaking of smoke: KFC's Smoky Mountain BBQ brings the sweet, smoky flavors of Southern BBQ to Kentucky! Available in tenders, Chicken Littles™, and Extra Crispy™ chicken, it’s crispy on the outside, tender on the inside, and delicious on every side.
Eating meat is gross, but I still do it. Veganism/vegetarianism is a luxury of the first world. My roommate, who runs the apt. is vegetarian, and so I've learned to eat less meat (I can't cook meat in the apt.); I enjoy eating less meat. I'm just not enough of a humanist to say that veganism is the future; it's not. Technology might crash in the future, and we're back to hunting. I'll eat less meat for now, and see where the future takes us..
Reply to Noble Dust
*Press 1 to go to the next menu
*Press 2 to restart this menu
*Press 3 to return to the previous option
*Press 4 to indicate your problem has been solved
Reply to Noble Dust
*Press 1 to return to the previous menu
*Press 2 to go to the next option
*Press 3 to return to the previous option
*Press 4 to indicate your problem has been solved
Reply to Baden Actually, the first question is english for 1, spanish for 2. when you select english (as I have done, because it's my first language), I am then informed that the KFC offices are closed. Their office hours are then listed, and the phone was then rudely hung up. This is not a joke.
And our impending renaming to "The Kentucky Fried Philosophy Forum" in no way indicates that non-delicious-chicken related topics will be sidelined here.
And our impending renaming to "The Kentucky Fried Philosophy Forum" in no way indicates that non-delicious-chicken related topics will be sidelined here.
I am excited to announce the rollout of our corporate relationship with KFC. I've reached out to our KFC partners and set up our first meeting in the large conference room on the east wing for tomorrow at noon. All must attend. All mods are to wear proper attire, including name tags and hair nets, with khaki pants for the men and chicken skirts (see below) for the ladies. Admins are to wear tailed tuxedos with appropriate cane, tophat and monocle, and owners are to wear the regal garb of a third world dictator.
Quoth the Rooster (aka Foghorn Leghorn) “It’s sure, I say it’s sure quiet around here, you could hear a caterpillar sneakin’ across a moss bed in tennis shoes” :yum:
The answer will be revealed at the conference tomorrow. Please ensure your required attendance is adhered to. Penalties for absence will be administered.
Reply to Baden
Gracias, Colonel! Was looking forward the the esteemed international conference, as it has always been on my, er, bucket list. But given the difficulties and hazards of travel, weasels, and such, I am too [s]chicken sh...[/s] too [s]pusillanimous [/s] ... too ascared to leave the nest. Will stay home and watch chick flicks. Nevertheless, enjoy! Stay crispy and juicy. Sincerely, Beaky Buzzard.
The answer will be revealed at the conference tomorrow. Please ensure your required attendance is adhered to. Penalties for absence will be administered.
Reply to T Clark Nah, I'm over it. I releaseth and it hath gone..eth.
Ever thought about writing down something you have always wanted to say to someone but were unable to either because they refuse to listen or are not around to listen?
Cynthia Tisdale was one of the Santa Fe teachers who was killed in the recent school shooting. She worked two jobs in order to pay for her husband's medical expenses due to chronic lung disease. A month ago, Cynthia's son set up a Go Fund Me page to help pay for his father's treatment. If you'd like to donate, please do so at their page here.
Ever thought about writing down something you have always wanted to say to someone but were unable to either because they refuse to listen or are not around to listen?
As you should know by now, my problem has always been saying things I wish I hadn't rather than not saying things I wish I had.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 21, 2018 at 16:44#1807020 likes
During my time here on the forum, I've shared some of my most personal thoughts and feelings. I've been called a sexist and racist. There is one thing I've kept from you all this time. I feel as though it's time I come clean and tell you all the real truth.
[hide="Reveal"]I love peanut butter and mayonnaise sandwiches.
I have transformed from a helpless chicken to a symbol of universal might and power. I understand that everyone wants me and my lure is irresistible... I'm just that special.
So am I a nihilist if I deny sex, money, and death?
Money can already buy you all of those or in the case of death, even (one day) prolong or indefinitely prolong your life. Money can even buy itself, through investments. And you can obviously, rent anything that fornicates, too.
Money can already buy you all of those or in the case of death, even (one day) prolong or indefinitely prolong your life. Money can even buy itself, through investments. And you can obviously, rent anything that fornicates, too.
What if I don't want to buy anything? What if I don't want power? Am I a nihilist then?
Yes, I am money. I can provide for you, as long as you have me by your side. Easier to use me as a unit of exchange, than something as hideous and old as gold.
Are you not satisfied by what I can provide for you? With me you can walk into a store, and buy anything you want. Compared to bartering a sheep or cow for gold or some other good. I provide utility to you.
I'm currently listening to a playlist I'm making in Spotify (Mr. Moneybags) of pop tunes I love, based on my re-discovery of the Bag Raiders track "Shooting Stars", as posted in the "what are you listening to" thread, which has been a significant moment for me. So I don't have time to click on all your clever youtube links, brah.
Everything I truly want is something of which you can't even understand the first principle.
Yet, you still use me to buy the groceries, pay the bills, buy the girl dinner. How could you be so ungrateful for all these things that you enjoy and derive satisfaction from?
Because you're fake. You're an unreal elephant in the room who everyone insists is real. You're the game.
I am money.
I don't doubt your feelings are real and apparent to you, about me. But, I'm assuming you still want and need me to maintain your way of life?
Fine, you can enjoy me in moderation if that is more acceptable. Seeing as nihilism entails a lack of concern for anyone else that I could also provide for.
What if I don't want to maintain any way of life? What if I've always had a suspicion and a subtle hatred towards life? Does that make me a nihilist?
That would make you irrational. I can help you with that, pick your drug of choice to distract yourself from the unpleasant feelings. TV, food, drugs, sex, alcohol? There's a lot to choose from. All you have to do is ask.
Why are you being so difficult? I am money, I provide ease and comfort in living. Everyone seems to consider that a good in and of itself. Would not denying it be irrational?
I've been unable to pay rent; I've been unable to buy food. You think you hold power over me; you hold no power over me. Again, I ask you: are my views nihilistic, or are they idealistic?
So am I a nihilist if I deny sex, money, and death?
With only one pillar in your psychology/philosophy, you are a solipsist. That is Posty's sad condition - one can never relax on a shooting stick. If there is money and sex and death, then you have the three essential legs of a stool that will support you on the uneven ground of being, though, like a milkmaid's stool, it will not lift very far.. If you merely deny all legs, then you are a nihilist who wallows on the floor in the dust, but there are alternative legs available that you could resort to; man, god, and nature is a traditional wide-spaced and stable arrangement, though some say that one leg has terminal woodworm.
Dog days are over. Can't you hear the horses coming?
Not only can I hear them coming I can feel the thunder underfoot before I see them. If you listen closely you can hear the Ghost horse in the lead, bringing with him the shifting of life's seasons.
Posty seems to be all about money sssssssssssssoooo…. I would advise staying a swine as it is worth more at the market than a gangly cock that thinks it's a chicken.
Can a computer whizkid help me? I'm about to start proceedings against a realtor who sold me a house that was significantly smaller than he said it was. There's an obligatory measurement rulebook every realtor in the Netherlands has to follow. I've done 20 random checks and seems that he doesn't follow the rulebook in any instance, making it possible for me to start arguing wilful misconduct (greatly increasing my chances of winning the case and getting a full reimbursement).
Since he's destroyed evidence in the past (my house is no longer in the below list since I've notified him, luckily I had downloaded the information) I want to get the information download the information if possible. If it's a lot of effort I'm willing to pay a fee (within reason).
Or at least, can someone help me download every page starting from here so that I could drop everybody a letter that they've been screwed over (and thereby pressure him into paying):
Reply to Michael Oh, I found it in google-cache in the past already and therefore have the proof it was there and was removed by him. Also, nowadays his measurements are correct but if I check any time before I notified him of my claim, it was always wrong. I'm currently also using Web2Disk to download the whole damn thing if it works I can slowly increase my checks. The above list you gave me already gives me the means to pressure him; nothing stops me from writing everyone from 2010 to 2017 (when I notified him) to ask them to share details with me to support my case. Obviously by informing them that I suspect they paid too much as well --> e.g. more claims for him if he doesn't pay up.
Grumble grumble bosses return from holidays sitting on something that should take 4 weeks to do in 2 weeks. They clearly had the work drafted out before going on holiday. Would've loved the extra week. 'Oh btw you're doing this research for my invited presentation in 1 month so you need to finish the work in 2 weeks to make the presentation look good after'. Motherfuckers.
Fine, then I will become a pig, as per the advice of Tiff. Though, I'm not for eating, as I know @Lone Wolf has a liking for chickens. So, no bacon or pork chops for dinner or lunch or breakfast or anything pertaining eating.
Or at least, can someone help me download every page starting from here so that I could drop everybody a letter that they've been screwed over (and thereby pressure him into paying):
Careful. You could find yourself in legal trouble, at least in the US, for defamation. Just make sure whatever you tell the others is in factual rather than legal or moral terms.
I think the chicken thing worked for you. Oddly enough it made me think of texting my children. I don't generally send text, I send pictures of interesting things I see. It tells them I am thinking of them. That I'm still alive and paying attention. That's what :cluck: says to me. You're there. Your interested. You're paying attention. You don't have anything substantive to say now, but you'll speak up when you do.
Phillip Roth died, 1933-2018. I read a number of his novels and thought they were pretty good. I might try Portnoy's Complaint again. The first time I read it I was too young and stupid. Of course there was that scene of his masturbating with the liver destined for dinner.
Tom Wolfe died too -- there were two Thomas Wolves, both writers--one a few decades older than the one who just died.
Tom Wolfe, author of Bonfire of the Vanities and the Electric Kool Aid Acid Test ALWAYS dressed like this. I'm currently reading "The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby" which is about custom cars, stock car racing, demolition derbies, etc.
Another big loss. The other Thomas Wolfe was famous in the thirties and died young right? Ray Bradbury wrote a short story about him that I vaguely remember.
Pigs are cool. Pigs are jolly, sensible, friendly, intelligent folk with no 'side'. Chicken are fine in their way, but they tend towards paranoia, and let's face it, they are bird-brained.
Hume is a pig philosopher, where Kant is always running round saying the sky is falling.
Reply to Posty McPostface Nope. Some of us have lives. And are not as weird as Agu who hovers around the forum like some theosophical spirit from a tenth dimension.
Reply to Posty McPostface Some people think that there is a sincere implication flowing from self-pity too, but it is nothing but egotism postulating as self-sacrifice. There are conditions. It is the reason why you have... reason.
Whatever happened to pity being an emotive function to empathize instead of a narcissistic or self reinforcing depressive urge? I think your confusing the two.
Reply to Posty McPostface Self-pity lacks productivity. You remain stuck, like rumination. It is entirely selfish. While there may appear a parallel, feeling pity for people being slaughtered in Congo for a few minutes when watching the news before going back to your dinner is not empathy and does not suddenly make you a moral person. It is what you do.
Self-pity lacks productivity. You remain stuck, like rumination. It is entirely selfish.
Sure, if you want to do a reductio ad absurdom, then yes, self-pity in excess (as if you knew where the golden mean were, though!) can lead to apathy and perfunctory states.
But, there's something inherently good about pity and self-sacrifice. It feels right. Even if I can't do anything in the present moment, then it creates a memory or impulse or urge or even guilt to later remind one's conscious about what ought to be done.
But, there's something inherently good about pity and self-sacrifice. It feels right. Even if I can't do anything in the present moment, then it creates a memory or impulse or urge to later remind one's conscious about what ought to be done.
It returns back, though, to what you do. It is not self-pity or self-sacrifice that is inherently good, but why it is done, for what purpose. It is selfish to attempt to find enlightenment by sitting in a monastery meditating and doing absolutely nothing productive and calling it "self-sacrifice" but it is not selfish when you help someone at the expense of your own desires or your own selfishness since that is what breaks you from the egotism.
Society and religions love to control people by calling the submission and conformism "self-sacrifice" and presenting it as an honourable thing to do in order to promote the right feelings. The more positive the feeling, the more easier it is to submit.
It is not self-pity or self-sacrifice that is inherently good, but why it is done, for what purpose.
You're a Kantian from what I understand; but, you take a very consequential sense of meaning or moral valence derived from an act done from a good will here. Or you're assuming that because something done out of a good will will always produce what is good, which isn't the case at all.
It is selfish to attempt to find enlightenment by sitting in a monastery meditating and doing absolutely nothing productive and calling it "self-sacrifice" but it is not selfish when you help someone at the expense of your own desires or your own selfishness since that is what breaks you from the egotism.
How do you know all this. It isn't very clear to me.
You're a Kantian from what I understand; but, you take a very consequential sense of meaning or moral valence derived from an act done from a good will here. Or you're assuming that because something done out of a good will will always produce what is good, which isn't the case at all.
The validity of our motivations enables an act to be classed as 'moral' and the authenticity behind these motivations are about our capacity to freely choose. The consequences are simply the result of this motivation by recognising the value of these moral laws and that is despite the pleasurable feelings. When we bypass our egotism where we are motivated from within our agency to act according to first principles. In the end, it is about those motivations.
The validity of our motivations enables an act to be classed as 'moral' and the authenticity behind these motivations are about our capacity to freely choose.
This is circular. As a Kantian you would say that the validity is derived from a deontological ethical schema. From a utilitarian perspective its all about consequences (even though the evaluation of those consequences is irreversibly deontological too). Do you see the issue with talking about the 'validity of our motivations'? I'm just trying to deflate the issue here.
Now, talking about 'freely' choosing. What that entails from a moral standpoint is that an action that could have been done otherwise, should have been done if the alternative to the current action produces more good than the available disposition. So, again this goes back to determining the qualitative 'good'ness' of an action...
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 23, 2018 at 14:21#1813110 likes
In Hanover's case the limit of the infinitesimal has been reached, I think.
(Sorry mathematics, like Hanover, you'll just have to take it on the chin).
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 23, 2018 at 14:30#1813140 likes
I am amazed at the philosophical/psychological reads we are able to get of our fellow 'thinkers' simply by examining the behaviors of animals they find commonality with. :up:
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 23, 2018 at 14:31#1813150 likes
Do any of you realize that all these sexual jokes perpetuate a feeling of inferiority and impotence? It's very inconsiderate for the disenfranchised and selfless along with fragile male ego.
Do any of you realize that all these sexual jokes perpetuate a feeling of inferiority and impotence?
Yes, that is why I do it to myself! What makes you think that you are the only one who has a feeling of sexual inferiority and self imposed impotence? :chin: Hmmmm??
I value women above men in most regards and think they should rule the world one day if not already; but, exploiting the pissing contest that are sexual jokes that take place among testosterone driven individuals, only increases the meaninglessness of the whole game.
"this problem is easy" - advisor
(asks advisor how to do it because the way i was told earlier wouldn't work, after 15 mins of discussion I get)
"i don't know, ask [the other phd student i asked to do it last time]" - advisor
(asks other phd student, she tells me how to fix up some code in about 10 mins of discussion)
"can you help me [with this specific part of the problem that i was directed to her to solve]?"
"no idea, not seen anything like that, ask [the postdoc who went home two hours ago]"-other phd student
So much boss bullshit crammed into such a short time.
Edit: from this we can conclude that easy problems are just those problems only the PhD students and post docs know how to solve.
Unfortunately I generally enjoy research, and having a PhD is usually prerequisite to join research institutes less bullshit saturated than universities.
'Research' that your boss dreams up which is tangentially related to what you're doing, which will be the content of their invited talk on their current research at a conference in a month... which you also have to write. At least a month's worth of work they were sitting on before going on holiday, and only told me about it after they got back; leaving me 2* weeks. Which they will receive almost all the credit for anyway.
Equal amounts of effort apparently must be placed in making my advisor's research look impressive and shiny and actually doing it. A crock of shit.
I permanently left working in Universities (as a teacher) after realizing that climbing up the ladder only brought you closer to the hell that is the mind of the bosses. I wish you patience and luck getting through it all.
Of course, like @Noble Dust, my reward will probably be baked beans for supper for the rest of my life. Or noodles, as most of it is likely to be in Thailand. :)
I don't want to climb the ladder. I don't even mind the intellectual property right shenanigans associated with universities. What I do mind is forced un-payed overtime given over with a smile.
I am amazed at the philosophical/psychological reads we are able to get of our fellow 'thinkers' simply by examining the behaviors of animals they find commonality with.
What does my favorite animal (see my image) say about me? Here's what it says to me - noisy, cranky, social, smart.
Haven't read him in a while. Although I have metamorphered into a pig recently. It's not a bad life despite getting in a car crash today morning and dealing it in person instead of maximizing my utility and benefit through the insurance agencies. I should be ashamed at my lack of concern over my own welfare. Oh well,
I don't know. There's something mad about chickens. What do you think? Come be a pig with me or I can go back to being a chicken. Not sure still on the matter.
But, there's something inherently good about pity and self-sacrifice. It feels right. Even if I can't do anything in the present moment, then it creates a memory or impulse or urge or even guilt to later remind one's conscious about what ought to be done.
There are several words that have similar meanings - empathy, sympathy, pity, compassion. If you look in the dictionary they are used as synonyms for each other, although they are different in the way they are often used. Empathy is imaginatively putting yourself in the other persons place. I think it's more a skill than the others. Compassion is seeing the person as they really are without judgment but with good will. Pity is feeling sorry for them. There is a strong element of disrespect, contempt, in pity. In my experience with myself, that's especially true of self-pity.
I don't pity you. You and I have a lot of experiences in common, so I feel that I can be empathetic. Sympathetic. Compassion is always the goal.
Can't! 8 dumplings in Chinatown for $2 is a crazy deal, in my neck of the woods. I'm a pizza addict though. 2 slices of the best NYC pizza at Joes for $6...
Says who? Why the sudden sense of indignation and pretentiousness when presented with such a fundamental feeling as pity towards injustice and/or suffering?
Says who? Why the sudden sense of indignation and pretentiousness when presented with such a fundamental feeling as pity towards injustice and/or suffering?
No indignation on my part. What Baden and I have said doesn't seem pretentious to me. As Baden says, it's a matter of usage. From the web - "Pity is a feeling of discomfort at the distress of one or more sentient beings, and often has paternalistic or condescending overtones."
Meaning is use. Don't blame the messenger. Pretentiousness doesn't come into it. We're only discussing how the word is used. You can't insult a word, can you?
They're not clearly delineated; it's a matter of connotation. You can pity someone in a sympathetic way or in a contemptuous way. But it's harder to argue you could have compassion for someone in a contemptuous way. Words blend into each other at the edges and beyond. A lot comes down to context, so if you want to emphasize the more compassionate meaning, you either provide more context or use a word that has less negative connotation.
Of course, like Noble Dust, my reward will probably be baked beans for supper for the rest of my life.
Who told Noble Dust that he was getting beans? If he is lucky he'll get stale bread and water. As for you, noodles cost money, ya know. We can't be tossing around real money for punishment diets.
Nothing. Some people have seen too many movies where the chief bitch curls her lips in a sneer and says to the leading man who didn't meet her passing needs, "I pity you" she sneered. From these movies, the pitiless crowd have gathered that this is what the word really means.
Oxford says:
Definition of pity in English:
[b]pity... The feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the sufferings and misfortunes of others.
‘her voice was full of pity’[/b]
[i]A cause for regret or disappointment.
‘it's a pity you didn't contact us first’
‘what a pity we can't be friends’
Feel sorrow for the misfortunes of.
‘I could see from their faces that they pitied me’[/i]Origin
Middle English (also in the sense ‘clemency, mildness’): from Old French pite ‘compassion’, from Latin pietas ‘piety’; compare with piety.
The "pity/empathy" thing is a NON-ISSUE except when some people get a kick out of making the banal point.
Nothing in the definition about snark, snide, or snot.
Reply to Noble Dust You'll get one cigarette 4 minutes before execution; it's traditional. You WILL smoke it, even if you never smoked before, and you'd best look like you enjoy it. The execution can always be held up for a time while your attitude is adjusted. Wine for last rites, maybe. Depends on the priest. It might be a Mormon and they're death on alcohol, coffee, tea, Coke, Pepsi, etc.
What's with you people? Thinking you get fine baked beans and exotic noodles in prison, or wine and cigarettes? Or merely old bread and not moldy bread with starch digesters crawling through it; mere tap water and not water from a nearby ditch.
People who go to prison for misuse of the language ought to remember that such prisons are run by English majors who never had a crack at real power, and now having gotten control of the grammar police, are going to make hell look pleasant.
Nothing. Some people have seen too many movies where the chief bitch curls her lips in a sneer and says to the leading man who didn't meet her passing needs, "I pity you" she sneered. From these movies, the pitiless crowd have gathered that this is what the word really means.
Try to remember the kind of September
When life was slow and oh, so mellow.
Try to remember the kind of September
When grass was green and grain was yellow.
Try to remember the kind of September
When you were a tender and callow fellow.
Try to remember, and if you remember,
Reply to Bitter Crank
"English major" Pfft. I pity the fool who thinks I know anything about English. Sorry, I mean, I empathize with the fool who thinks I know anything about English. :nerd:
Yeah, but at least we respect each other's feelings enough that pity can show it's ugly face, nowadays. Although, that's quite debateable.
I can't imagine feeling pity for anyone had I lived in the 50's. Although, those were sure the times to be alive. The future was so bright back then. I mean nuclear bright.
The "pity/empathy" thing is a NON-ISSUE except when some people get a kick out of making the banal point.
Not true. There are synonyms for a reason. Different similar words have different connotations. From various places on the web:
"The downside of pity is that you are potentially seeing the person as being “less than,” and may in some way contribute to their suffering. In an extreme, seeing someone as a victim holds that person in the space of being a victim."
"You pity the fool because you don't want to beat up a fool! You know, pity is between sorry and mercy."
"Pity is a feeling of discomfort at the distress of one or more sentient beings, and often has paternalistic or condescending overtones."
"Compassion" stems from identifying with the target of the emotion. "Pity," in contrast, corresponds to the distancing of the self against the target of the emotion.
I like the last one in particular. I'm not saying this is definitive, but I didn't just make up that pity has a negative connotation.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 23, 2018 at 20:59#1815010 likes
Reply to T Clark For some damned reason, some people don't like the word "pity", so they have decided to redefine the term pejoratively. Outside of the small, prickly population of pitiless people with a pity problem, the word has the same good meaning it has always had.
The Divine Image by William Blake
To Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
All pray in their distress;
And to these virtues of delight
Return their thankfulness.
For Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is God, our father dear,
And Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is Man, his child and care.
For Mercy has a human heart,
Pity a human face,
And Love, the human form divine,
And Peace, the human dress.
Then every man, of every clime,
That prays in his distress,
Prays to the human form divine,
Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace.
And all must love the human form,
In heathen, Turk, or Jew;
Where Mercy, Love, and Pity dwell
There God is dwelling too.
Thomas Hampson does this better, but I couldn't find him on YouTube
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff I am amazed at the constant indirect comments made to insult people under the guise of being some nice person. :starstruck:
Can you guys work harder on your jokes? Posting an animal avatar and then pretending you're that animal by either making that animal's noise or just expressly saying "I'm a mouse" (or whatever) isn't funny.
Dude, I am warning you. Never call a woman "salty", ever. Unless you are doing Tequila shots out of the navel of a lady, that might be the only time to refer to her as "salty". :love:
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 24, 2018 at 14:09#1816990 likes
Woot Woot!
Can a Mom be super proud and share with her friends here?
Okay, I will! Our youngest indian who is studying at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (Embry and Riddle were the other 'guys' trying to do what the Wright Brothers were doing in achieving flight) with a total of 1,800 students total in all 4 years of the University) a small University but also one of two that exist in the country. His BS he will earn is in Simulated Science so if you have a minute check this out! He is featured second post down in a silhouetted against the planetarium dome.
Mom couldn't be prouder and son is hardly phased! :party:
Platypus occurred when ducks mated with beavers, long long ago when such things were possible.
Then platypus mated with felines to produce, as you may have guessed, platypussies. No, really! :yum:
Reply to Sapientia I'm not laughing at any of these jokes, mostly because they're not funny. All they are are posts about animal pictures people put up. They're not clever, and I'm sorely disappointed at the level the humor has fallen. It reminds me of the long periods when Saturday Night Live just wasn't funny but people pretended it was. It makes me sad really. So sad I want I want to fuck your mother. Hard. Like really hard. Weirdly hard. See, now some humor is beginning to emerge, but it's forced and not really where it needs to be, all because of the stupid 5 year old animal humor. I could throw in a Baden gay joke or maybe I could say something about Timeline where she'll just ignore me, but I'm not totally feeling up for it right now. I think I'll talk about fucking your mother some more. It's safe, kind of weird, and you'll probably add something in about how you'll abort our love child and throw it off a cliff or maybe you'll trample it on the stairs.
Let's be realistic. You have a custom made painting of an iguana on your favorite artists head hanged somewhere in your favorite spot in your own house.
Are you gonna really be such a hypocrite about the issue?
Reply to Hanover No, I've decided that I'm going to became increasingly threatening until you submit to laughing at these pathetic attempts at humour. So, let's try this again. I'm an owl.
Reply to Posty McPostface
Thanks! Maybe later. :up: For now i must feed my pet platypussy dinner. Petunia gets cranky when hungry. Where does a 300 pound platypussy have dinner? Anywhere he darn well wants to! :gasp:
Ok, well hope to see you around in the jungle. Bring me some eggs and apples if you can. I'm hanging out on Robinson's Cruzoe's secret hidden island. It's always fun around here. Come by some time. We're raising the stranded children in a Lord of the Flies manner. I think it'll all work out.
Reply to Posty McPostface
Can’t decide if life is more like Lord of the Flies or The Lord of the Rings. Maybe some surrealistic mixture, with lots of lava and volcanoes. :fire:
Reply to 0 thru 9 What? No. They were nothing but kind to him. They graciously put him out of his misery, after some lighthearted ribbing. I mean, he was fat and he wore glasses. What could be worse? They were little angels when you think about it.
Reply to Noble Dust
:lol: GMO mutants! Everyone run! If it wants your bananas or birdseed or birdseed banana bread, just give them up. They can be replaced.
Reply to Sapientia
Alas, he was simply born too early to really thrive in his time. Today, he would be a millionaire and own a company called PiggySoft. :nerd:
Anyone who knows a little about world history would know that sentient is unsupported by evidence.
It reminds me a bit of my favorite book - "Heart of Darkness." If I remember correctly, both were about the illusion of civility surrounding the British empire that dissolves quickly when social constraints are removed. I haven't read LotF for about 50 years.
What was the moral of the story of the Lord of the Flies?
It's been a while.
Time Flies like an arrow, fruit flies like an orange?
Reply to Sapientia
Oh, the frustrations of being semi-psychic. I was actually thinking of watching the movie Kill Bill in Boulder, Colorado. But thanks for playing! Departing contestants receive a year’s supply of Turtle Wax! (Hope you have an extra large turtle.) :sweat:
I'm sure you liked Francis Ford Coppola's: Apocalypse Now?
I found the book much more compelling. In the book, Marlow was a motionless point of decency in a swirling cesspool of death and corruption. For me, the two most moving scenes were at the beginning of the book when Marlow met with his friends before he shipped out and at the end when he went back to England and met with Kurtz's wife. In the movie, the Marlow character, played by Martin Sheen, seemed to me to be just along for the ride. He didn't carry any moral weight. I don't think his name was Marlow in the movie. The movie didn't include those framing scenes without which the the whole point of the story was lost.
Well we can make a truce on the island. It'll be like the Galapagos islands with friendly wolves living in harmony with us other toothless animals.
The Galapagos has an aggressive pig eradication program to remove all pigs remaining from the days of human settlement. The pigs have been responsible for the loss of a number of species.
Yes, it's a great book. I have to read his Nostromo and Lord Jim, which is a direct allegory to his guilt for becoming an immigrant. He had severe depression as do many other great writers for some reason. His command of English prose given his heritage is astounding.
What are your thoughts about Robinson Crusoe? One of my favorite books due to the love of life itself despite hardship and in some ways the grace of God manifest through that love? Not sure.
I can see why you would say that. You take your time and make sure things are as they should be. Anyway, let's not get too deep it's just a game I think.
Nice to meet you sea turtle. Stop by the island from time to time.
I'm just a pig. I don't know many tricks. And I have no weapons to use. In fact, we don't need any weapons on the island! It's smooth sailing all the way.
We treat all animals equally on Robinson Crusoe's island. Friday, helps around too but is no servant nor an animal; but, a human being. We learned to get along after he tried stabbing me in my sleep.
Contrary to all reason, the proboscis-billed meadowlark makes a single, clear-toned call roughly around the Gb below middle C in a long, sonorous tone that lasts for roughly 7 seconds on average. To human ears, the tone vaguely resembles the sound of a shofar or similarly simple horn instrument, albeit more ponderous and contemplative. The call is usually uttered as the creature is leaving it's nest on the many long journeys it takes abroad through scarce continental forests during early winter.
The call is usually uttered as the creature is leaving it's nest on the many long journeys it takes abroad through scarce continental forests during early winter.
So, you migrate. Never understood that phenomenon of my many furry friends in detail. When I ask them, they can't really give me a clear reason as to why.
So, you migrate. Never understood that phenomenon of my many furry friends in detail. When I ask them, they can't really give me a clear reason as to why.
It's just the call, you know? You know that feeling of something telling you where you need to be?
Got a great weekend lined up with some awesome weather. Hiking tommoz and picnic out in the country on Sunday, with some stargazing in between. Let me here you say yeaaaahhh (to cloudless weather).
By the way, Jupiter is gracing us with his presence tonight. Damn sexy.
@Sapientia's humor is not appreciated by everyone, but it is (supposed to be) humor. Hope you're feeling more appreciated anyway. You're among friends here. :up:
Reply to Posty McPostface Just the way my life has turned out so far lol. Starting to make friends though, so maybe I'll have to change my name. :flower: :flower: :flower:
Ah, thanks! I was just too hungry... :yum:
Got a great weekend lined up with some awesome weather. Hiking tommoz and picnic out in the country on Sunday, with some stargazing in between. Let me here you say yeaaaahhh (to cloudless weather).
A pipe bomb was dropped off last night at an Indian Restaurant in Mississauga, a Toronto suburb. 12 people were injured when it exploded. Police said “There is no indication that this is a terrorism act. There is no indication that this is a hate crime at this time." Pray, tell us what it might be if it isn't either an act of terrorism or hate. Why do they come out with these nonsensical statements?
Sapientia's humor is not appreciated by everyone...
That's a lie and a smear! They appreciate it, whether they know it or not. Some might [I]think[/I] they don't appreciate it, but they're wrong, obviously.
Kantian scholarship at times feels like Biblical exegesis.
I've been re-reading the first two critique's to prepare for a reading group this summer with an old friend of mine where we're going to read the critique of judgment together. In re-reading I'm coming across new questions that I felt I had answered before to my mind that I no longer feel confident in. In this case the distinction between Vorstellung and Erscheinung -- I had thought that viewing representations as presentations, and appearances as the unsynthesized manifold worked, but now I"m not so certain.
Best thing to do. Most epic trails I have done are Israel National Trail, Dolomites, and Na Pali Coast. The most fun are the exploratory trails that don't exist and you just jump right in with a map and a compass and figure shit out. :love:
I'm leaving in about an hour, but enjoy! There are some epic trails in the US I would love to do, Angels Landing for one and the redwood national state parks.
VagabondSpectreMay 25, 2018 at 20:26#1821910 likes
Reply to unenlightened Oh fuck! We need a system. Hiss if by land, neigh if by sea. We should seek out a third to form some kind of triple entente. It's not like that would lead them to extending their collusion to some third party along their axis...
I had considered this case but if I said "My nemeses surround me!", that could make me an oxy-moron right?
I invite everyone to Robinson's island where peace is the everlasting goal. Bring your favorite pet! We have food and some non-alcoholic root beer for the kids.
Glad that Ireland voted YES to repeal abortion bans, but disgusted at the fact that such an issue can be put to a vote. Bodily autonomy should be as sacrosanct as the right to vote, and the fact that an 85 year old man has an equal say in the matter as an 18 year old woman is despicable.
Reply to Maw I disagree. You can't abort an 8 month old, so at some point the state has a legitimate right to regulate. It's just a matter of when, not if.
Reply to Hanover I don't disagree, save for life threatening issues, but the vast majority of abortions (+95%) take place prior to 5 months of pregnancy, so it's not much of a concern.
Hospitals and private practices need money, and abortion is a form of birth control that helps to pay the bills. That abortion has become routine is deeply sickening, but I think it would be easier to try and raise better people who make better decisions with their bodies than to outlaw something that people will do anyway.
Hospitals and private practices need money, and abortion is a form of birth control that helps to pay the bills. That abortion has become routine is deeply sickening, but I think it would be easier to try and raise better people who make better decisions with their bodies than to outlaw something that people will do anyway.
Here, as in other discussions, I respect your pragmatic and humane response to abortion, which I know you oppose strongly.
The science is out on this one, actually. Only 99.9999% of scientists believe that horses aren't dogs, so we shouldn't take sides. I mean, I'm not a scientist, are you?
I missed a few pages and have no idea what I'm being invited to join, but I'm here to support you in whatever form you choose, Posty. I like the pig but I really liked the big black...chicken.
Reply to Sapientia Yup. There is more to this than simply reproductive rights. Ireland is guilty of violence against women where women have been dislocated from the decision-making process in all areas of her life including matrimony. Goodbye Magdalene laundries.
In case people start assuming that the moderators are an elite cohort of space-travelling reptiles that rule the earth and Michael is actually Justin Beiber, you're wrong. Michael is Joan Rivers. It was me who decided to no longer be a moderator. Hanover has left me for Baden's right foot and I just can't take the emotional trauma.
On a serious note, my decision was purely power-relational. I only wanted to be a moderator to destroy the morale of the hubristic class here that hated me, but it has since become boring because they all ended up liking me. That's just wrong.
Thanks to Timeline for putting up with us and putting in the hours. We'll be interviewing @Agustino when he completes his sex reassignment surgery and promises to leave his new love for us. We accept nothing less than absolute commitment. :hearts:
Reply to Sapientia The public outcry generated from my having had sex with your mother should come as a kind reminder of the concern your fellow posters have for you. That's my take away message at least.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 26, 2018 at 13:05#1823830 likes
I'm going on a hike... :lol:
Ha! A hike through piles of horse shit that need to be mucked up. Enjoy the fresh air, catch a tail to the cheek and a happy trail to do it all again at sunset.
Stay cool and bs free my friends :rofl:
On a serious note, my decision was purely power-relational. I only wanted to be a moderator to destroy the morale of the hubristic class here that hated me, but it has since become boring because they all ended up liking me. That's just wrong.
I've worried you have too much going on in your life to put in as much effort as you have as a moderator. So, part of me thinks this is a good thing, but it still makes me sad.
I’m the devil, god’s a friend, hes fucking up your lives for my sweet reveling pleasure. I can’t put into words how funny it is when you see someone try so hard, for so long, and get nowhere but behind. It’s godamned transcendental, even for me. Lovin’ It. Keep up the good work! You’re almost there!
I can't. I wen't full retard and feel really strained emotionally and intellectually. Just taking "philosophy" too seriously. I put myself in Wittgenstein's shoes and did what he did, and actually felt like I understood what he meant by the 7'th proposition of the TLP. Felt like the fly out of the bottle, yuppie. You can read all about it here.
I will recover. I'll be checking in periodically, but posting sporadically. Feel like the "ladder" needs to be put away for the meantime.
The cops do things in secret, and whinge like little girls sometimes, so maybe your statement is questionable.
True, there have been and will continue to be many complex covert operations. Such is the necessity when running such an important enterprise. We don't whine like little girls though. We stand up for ourselves and fight like them, but alas, we'll have to carry on in your absence. Baden's foot will have to suffice as a weak substitute for all you were. It will be warm and firm no doubt, but instead of your scent of vomit and gin, I'll have to grow use to the annoying aroma of lavender and cinnamon he insists upon.
Haven't felt this good in a while to be honest. I had my doubts, but I honestly feel like I had a spiritual experience as of recent, not one filled with delusions or other such matters. I'm not hearing any voices, and no sense of grandeur being denied me. So, I hope things work out for the best. Haha.
Comments (61561)
The comment may have been flippant but I don't think you're too far off. It really does seem to boil down to both sides being able to sympathize with the plight of the other as a precursor towards eventually becoming friends. And to an "objective" observer like myself it also seems pretty clear that both sides have been the victims of injustice(s), although the injustices committed against Jews did not initially come at the hands of the Palestinians. In that sense I'm more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, which is exacerbated by continued Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, daily humiliations, etc.
That seemingly simple tactic is much easier said than done as pride gets in the way, of course, and it would at most get the conversation started. But in my experience the most effective means of deescalating any confrontation - actually the only (peaceful) way that I've seen work - is to try to see things from the other's perspective and, by doing so, legitimize his/her grievance. That starting of a conversation in the attempt to cultivate mutual trust seems to be what Obama was trying to do, but his (imo) reasonable and humane approach has been subjected to childish ridicule as being part of an "apology tour" for U.S. misdeeds (which of course his jingoistic haters refuse to acknowledge) or something like that.
Anyhow, I watched a round table discussion between Israeli and Palestinian young adults many years ago - been about 10-15 years I think - and the moderator asked participants on each side of the conflict to do what was just suggested: try to see the justice of the other side's position and to follow that up by saying something about it. This suggestion elicited indignation from everyone involved, and not a single person could acknowledge any wrongdoing on their end as they placed ALL the blame on the other side.
Small sample size, obviously, and I'm sure there are some good people on both sides (Trump may have forever ruined this honest description of most conflicts) who do try to build trust and friendships with the "other", but that refusal to recognize a shared humanity and/or a shared set of values/interests seems to reflect a significant amount of popular opinion on both sides in this conflict.
Yes there's a strange convergence of interests between groups that otherwise hate each other. I haven't read much Zizek, but from what I have read he seems to really excel at the counter-intuitive insight which challenges basic assumptions.
I hate it that reasonable criticism of particular Israeli actions - when judged, let's say, according to criteria outlined as justification for this nation's declaring its independence from Britain - is purposely conflated with anti-Semitism in a cynical endeavor to shut down debate. Just because there are some racists who do attempt to conceal their anti-Semitism beneath more acceptable attacks on Israel, does not mean there's a necessary connection between the two.
As a non-Jew I almost feel like I have to stay out of the issue. But when I think it through that's bullshit, because my country gives significant support to one side in the conflict at the expense of the other, and that makes those of us who are U.S. citizens - Jew and non-Jew alike - complicit in the injustice. We need to pressure our politicians to work for a just two-state solution which moderates on both the Israeli and Palestinian side find acceptable. This, to my knowledge, has not been sincerely tried.
I do try to remain open to different sides in this debate, and I'll admit my limited knowledge of the issues. There was a time when I read quite a few books on it, even took a class on 20th century ME politics, but I've not been keeping up with events in the region over the last decade or so. Any good articles, books, videos or whatever are appreciated.
What would MLK say?
He'd say "Don't shoot." (Edit: Although it goes without saying that the Hamas leadership are no MLKs).
It's excruciating. But I don't know what angle it's possible to take to get through to the other side, which is what would really make the difference. All's I can say is if I were there, I'd be protesting too, non-violently I'd hope, and I think anyone in that position would be and would be entitled to be.
Hmm I'd imagine that's a complex issue. Jews have been historically oppressed - think about the story of Jewish enslavement and eventual freedom from Egypt and the impact it had on slave emancipation movements here in the U.S. - so there's probably some lingering sympathy from African Americans (in general) for Israelis seeking freedom in a country of their own, especially after being subjected to so much hatred and injustice over the years.
On the other hand, Palestinians are being subjected to constant dehumanization right now, so there's that aspect which could conceivably create a strong sense of solidarity between African Americans and Palestinians.
How do you think Georges Lemaître came up with the idea? When he was making love to his mistress and realised that in that very hot, small dense space an explosion occurs that germinates life as we know it. Such a eureka moment.
Hanover would be proud.
Are you two related?
Must be one of those Wittgensteinian family resemblances.
Yeah, the transport of human beings over thousands of miles of ocean to be bought and sold as chattel, to be enslaved, and then to be finally emancipated but still to be relegated to a subservient role in society is so close to what the Palestinians have undergone, I can't see how the two groups wouldn't feel a certain affinity toward each other.
Well, you can make the case that both were forced out of their home land.
To the extent the prior post was meant to suggest that we should expect an African American uprising over the Gaza attacks, I don't think anyone would take that seriously. What I think the post was meant to suggest was that the Israelis are the moral equivalents of Old South plantation owners that any African American who thought about it should logically despise.
But enough about the Israelis. What about Hamas? What evil empire do you compare them to?
Hamas are the government of Gaza. They are involved in organizing everything official including funerals, community events etc. You don't get to shoot unarmed protestors because Hamas were involved any more than you get to shoot the Charlottesville protestors because some white supremacist groups were involved. It's about proportionate use of force. Saying "Hamas" is not some kind of Trump card you can pull out to justify a massacre.
...
Most of the Gazans who died on Monday were shot by Israeli snipers, Gaza’s health ministry said. According to the Hamas-run ministry, the dead included a baby who died after inhaling teargas along with eight children under the age of 16. At least 2,400 others were wounded."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/15/palestinians-to-bury-58-people-killed-in-us-embassy-protests
Again, these were tens of thousands of regular citizens of Gaza including kids. You still haven't said one word to even acknowledge that you care at all about those that were killed. I don't understand your block on this.
The ANC?
“It seems that anyone is liable to be shot dead,” he added, stressing that international laws that apply to Israel make clear that “lethal force may only be used as a measure of last, not first, resort”.
“It is not acceptable to say that ‘this is Hamas and therefore this is OK’,” Colville added, in an apparent dismissal of Israel’s justification for the high casualty levels among Palestinians in clashes along the border."
You can interpret it that way if one is sufficiently emotionally charged over the issue, which is completely understandable. I thought the closest similarity is the racial discrimination of blacks in general that occured in the US.
Quoting Hanover
I'm not informed enough and too biased to give an educated answer. I think, I'll just let my mentor, @unenlightened take it from here if you two don't think you'll be talking past each other.
You characterize protesting as instigating the violence as if it somehow justifies it. It doesn't. The violence came overwhelmingly from the Israeli side which is why only Palestinians are dead.
Edit: Btw I don't want to appear like I'm being uncharitable or hammering you over the head with this. That would be counterproductive. But the whole thing bothers me intensely.
“Traditionally we’ve tried to play a role of fireman in the Middle East. Now we’re playing the role of arsonist,” said Ilan Goldenberg, a former State Department and Pentagon official who runs the Mideast program at the Center for a New American Security.
Hey Erik! Is Arizona far enough away for you to move? :eyes: I have a Territorial style ranch coming on the market if you have a cool 700k but I could cut you a sweet deal! :ok: Taxes are cheap, the air is clear and the weather is gorgeous! :cool:
Oh and please disregard our new name from: Phoenix, Valley of the Sun, to Phoenix, The Surface of the Sun :fire: . "They" give us until 2050 before Phoenix will be too hot to dwell in so you have a good 25 years before you have to think about moving. :up:
What I think is worth emphasizing is that within Israel there are different strands of opinion. As Hanover pointed out, Haaretz, one of the most popular newspapers, is left-leaning, for example (though I wouldn't characterize it as "leftist" more as mainstream liberal). That's another nuance that is unfortunately likely to get lost in the polarized reaction to what's going on now.
Of course. Not every Jewish Israeli citizen condones the violence committed by their Government. I was in Israel (exactly two years ago to this day, in fact), and the majority of Israelis I spoke to were unhappy with what their Government does. But, ultimately, this internal dissatisfaction hasn't translated into anything meaningful, and likely won't, especially given this stupid stupid stupid meaningless embassy move, which will simply foster new conflicts.
Yup.
They weren't.
Annnd yup. Couldn't make it up.
Someone motivate me to register for this class, as I loath morning classes. It will literally be tops, 15 people for it, rather depressing.
Why do you need to register? Credit?
It's covered for, being poor, have nothing to do being on the dole and not going anywhere for summer being poor again, and fits into my hobby with philosophy.
Really, I have no reason to be depressed the more I think about it. :chin:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/israel-kills-dozens-of-unarmed-protestors-in-gaza-as-jared-kushner-speaks-of-peace-in-jerusalem
"Footage from sites on the Gaza side of the fence confirmed that some of the protesters were hurling rocks and burning sticks at the fence, which serves as a border barrier separating Israel and the Gaza Strip. But the Palestinians, unlike the Israelis, were mostly unarmed, and none of them have successfully crossed the border. Indeed, some of the shooting victims appear to have been a good distance away from it."
Some of them may have been armed in the strict sense of having any kind of weapon. But the reason they are being to referred to by me, as by most journalists, as unarmed, is they generally were—and the "weapons" of those who had any were mostly rocks and sticks (contrast that with the Charlottesville protesters, for example, many of whom had guns). And that helps to explain why there were zero serious casualties on the Israeli side versus hundreds shot and dozens killed on the Palestinian side.
It'll get you up and active in the mornings. That's generally a very good thing, mate, and as a bonus, free learning :up:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-may-15-2018/
I'm happy to say they were generally unarmed if that's more appropriate. As long as we agree on the basic facts, we agree. I'm not going to have an argument with you just for the sake of it.
If that's confirmed, then the Israelis were right to take those eight on and use lethal force. But it's an army statement, so it will need some checking.
The only thing worthwhile about our exchange then is it illustrates well your approach to serious debate. Maybe you should just bow out. There are those here (pretty much everyone else) who are trying to discuss this like adults.
Sure, we're all prone to that at times but you started with an attempt at point-scoring and you ended with sarcasm. There was literally nothing in between. If you have something, please do give it up.
I wouldn't go that far as sometimes there are purely innocent victims, children especially. But in so far as this is a call for deescalation, I totally agree. And both sides need to make sacrifices for that to happen. But there is no end in sight largely because there is no real acknowledgement of the reality by those who have most of the power to change it. The Trump administration and Netanyahu can look at all this and still say the day of the embassy move was a great day for peace. What happens in the real world hardly matters. You can say whatever you like and there will be enough of your base oblivious or apathetic enough for you to keep rolling on.
Nice straw man. Slavery is no longer around, and yet many black people in America still feel dehumanized, they continue to be perceived negatively by many white Americans, etc. This failure of "recognition" creates a sense of anger and resentment among black people and the cycle of hatred and distrust continues.
I didn't try to establish an exact equivalency between what the two groups have gone through, and the level of continued injustice against African Americans is debatable to a certain extent (as it is in the case of Palestinians), but I don't think one can deny the general point I made and which you responded to. To discount what the Palestinians have dealt with by comparing it with an even greater evil seems pretty sophistical.
This is exactly what Hamas is banking on. Orchestrate riots by a bunch of hooligans tossing firebombs at the Israeli border threatening to jump the fence and Israel, rightly, reacts with force. Hamas, predictably, is now milking the sympathies of tools like you who are all too willing to buy into the narrative that Israel are wrong in defending their borders. And I'm sure that if thugs came to your doorstep chucking fire and throwing rocks at your windows, you'd smile and let them into your home, amirite? No? Oh.
That's a bit Breitbart on steroids, but anyway, Israel didn't just react with force, it reacted with deadly force. The difference lies in the adjective. So, to answer your question:
Quoting Buxtebuddha
My house is just a tad less secure than the Israeli border, so the threat of a raging mob outside it would be a bit more disconcerting for me than it was for the scores of Israeli soldiers at the border with high powered sniper weapons at their disposal. But leaving that aside, if I deliberately shot and killed someone for chucking a rock through my window, there's a good chance I'd go to prison for murder. So you make my main point well. The use of force was disproportionate and should be punished. You don't get to just shoot people who protest outside your border any more than you do outside your house.
And yes, of course, I'd invite them in for tea, scones and a read of your unintentionally helpful posts. ;)
... I'll check in in a week or so. (vacation ahead of me... Vive la Paris! )
Meow!
G
Key word there. Reality is another story.
Israel has every right to do so.
Quoting Baden
Force is required to keep them from coming any closer. If you had read my first contribution to the topic, you'd get an idea about why the rioters were rioting in the first place. As Thorongil alluded to, they weren't going to plant flowers and bring smiles, but to bait violence with violence.
Quoting Baden
Okay, Mr. Never Sarcastic, Always Serious, Ever Helpful Baden.
Thanks for posting that.
Just noticed this follow up. Assuming the bold part is in reference to my post, I had no comparison of the sort in mind and it's crazy you'd suggest such a thing. As I mentioned, legal slavery ended over 150 years ago and yet African Americans continue to feel discriminated against in practical ways, like being passed over for jobs and housing because of their race, being disproportionately targeted by police and business owners for potential criminality because of their race, etc.
The idea that both groups feel themselves to be oppressed, even if the specific contexts aren't close to being identical, is not a trivial or meaningless similarity. It may even partly explain why so many American Jews worked their asses off to help black people secure their rights in this country: not because the Holocaust and American slavery were identical, but because Jews could maybe understand what it's like to be dehumanized and discriminated against in ways that average white Americans could not.
Anyways just wanted to clear up that misrepresentation. Posty's question was speculative and I offered up my take.
Yeah I agree to a certain extent. That's why I added "feel" and acknowledged it being a debatable point. (at least I think I did)
All false or misleading at best.
Have fun lovin’ reason...
As someone who's been a property manager and a manager of a restaurant, I have firsthand experience of these things happening to black people. Not all the time, of course, and I think some people may even exaggerate the extent at which they do occur, but I've seen enough to know that racism against blacks isn't just something that's in their heads, as many white people are wont to assume.
Incidentally, I should add that the owners I worked for who held black people in low estimation - who did not rent apartments to them regardless of how qualified they were, who would not hire them because they felt they were "lazy", were not white - one was Egyptian and the others were Sikh.
You forgot the adjective again. Deadly force. There are methods of crowd control or of stopping crowds reaching a particular point other than shooting scores of them dead. Are you aware of that?
Quoting Buxtebuddha
Are you sure they weren't going to plant flowers? Because that was my argument from the start. That they were going to plant flowers. And you and Thorngil keep saying they weren't. Let's Google it to see who's right. :brow:
Quoting Buxtebuddha
Well, there's a time and a place, I suppose. But the following is not sarcastic. I hope the next time you go out to protest, you get shot at. (Not hit obviously, just shot at.) Just so you understand it. And if you were actually shot, I'd feel sorry about it even though I probably like you less than you like the Palestinians. Point being, this is not a purely political argument where one of us, you or me, is the winner. There's a simple human element to it. Dozens of people were killed and not all the victims were political players, they were also regular civilians. Some were children. That's 100% indisputable. Trying to turn them all into cartoon villains because it suits your political agenda is sick and makes you look like a hopeless excuse for a human being.
And because I don't think you are as depraved as you make yourself sound I'm going to invite you over for tea and scones and rock throwing at my place next week. Game?
? Tom Wolfe, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test
RIP he is off the bus.
RIP. He's someone I need to read more of.
Deadly force is used when the rubber bullets and tear gas isn't working. The riots pulled back when Israel put their foot down. In this instance I applaud them.
Quoting Baden
Hooligans are rarely up to any good, especially hooligans backed by a terrorist regime like Hamas.
Quoting Baden
A time and place judged right by only you, yeah. Fair.
Quoting Baden
I don't attend protests - or riots, in the case of yesterday - so I'm not going to get shot at. Were I to, however, then I'm not going to complain when shit goes sour. I went to a Deicide concert some years ago and left the moshpit when things got too physical for my tastes. However, had I been knocked out or something then it's all on me - not the mosher, the venue, or the band. In my case there were signs telling me that it's on me if I get rocked. In this way, the same principle applies to the rioters in Gaza.
Quoting Baden
If you allow children to attend riots, then it's your fault for such stupidity. And there's no such thing as a regular civilian when it comes to Palestinian - Israeli relations. Both sides know what can happen when a riot occurs. To pretend as though some of those attending a riot like that are clueless vegetables that can't weigh the risks of their participation is ridiculous.
Quoting Baden
Oh, and what political agenda is that? You're the one tin foiling me into being some Breitbart loon. It's petty that this is the only angle you can take when someone disagrees with you, especially when considering that I'm no great supporter of Israel and their recent governments. I've spoken out against Israeli atrocities before, and on this very forum, so if the best you can do is paint me falsely, whatever.
Really, dude?
I really don't know what to say, man. I don't know how you were raised or what belief system you subscribe to, to say such a thing.
Have you watched any of the videos of the killings of civilians praying? Plus, a baby and eight other children died this time. Why would you applaud that?
Quoting Buxtebuddha
Maybe. Although I usually avoid this one because it's too depressing.
Quoting Erik
Incidentally, racism is a lot more common amongst people who aren't raised up in the largely multicultural and multi-ethnic West. To a certain extent, it is natural - each tends towards his own kind. Also, those raised in "tougher" environments tend to use heuristics to make quick judgements about people, which are sometimes wrong, but it has kept them safe in the past. These are likely to be hard to shake, and it will take more than a generation to change such attitudes.
You don't have the right to defend yourself by killing the other person when there is no credible threat. right? For that you go to jail for murder. Now tell where the credible threat is in these videos.
Minute reality gets posted you run away. Before you do, can you at least answer that question? Where is the credible threat in the videos that shows those civilians needed to be shot? If you can't do that or bow out now, your whole justification falls to pieces.
And btw I'm not claiming there was no credible threat in every instance. See my earlier response to Hanover. There's a danger of turning the Israeli soldiers into cartoon villains too, and they're not. But in this case the only victims were Palestinians and my argument is the force used overall (i.e. taking all of the casualties into account) was out of proportion to the point of dehumanization.
So, is this you or your girlfriend posting..? You sound weirdly reasonable :eyes: :razz:
:lol: Me!
:strong: :grin:
My theory is that a Zionist needs an enemy. The core of Jewish tradition is about surviving a direct attack. The secret to that survival is the covenant. Their existence on this earth is proof that Jews haven't lost their faith. That may be total bullshit. I'm just trying to understand why it appears that Israel wants on-going conflict.
As for Trump, I doubt he cares at all about Palestinians. He would think of them as losers. I think that if Israelis fell on hard times, he'd think of them the same way. If you notice, there's a similarity between the Trumpite view and the ancient Israelite view: losers are to be held responsible for their plight.
There are pragmatic reasons why Netanyahu would prefer the status quo rather than compromise. It means he doesn't have to give anything away. Most Israelis I'm sure want a reasonable settlement, but they also understandably want security and many probably think the two are incompatible. I don't see any need to mystify the situation on that point.
Going by anecdotal experience cuts both ways, as many blacks are racist against whites. My only contention is that the feelings you spoke of are not supported statistically.
OK. Show us your statistics then.
i.e. You have none.
Be honest. You have no statistics to hand to support your contention. Right? Honestly?
No, your transparent attempt to dodge a very direct question just proved my point. That you have none. Why couldn't you just say that? It's not that big a deal.
What I've noticed generally is that oppressed groups tend to have the empathy you suggest for obvious reasons but they remain deeply defensive against having their brand of oppression compared to others. There is something meaningful about having one's pain considered incomparable. It's for that reason that groups don't feel a logical or emotional compulsion to team up (as it were) with other oppressed groups. African Americans do not, for example, walk in lock step with homosexuals or Hispanics nor do Jews. And none of this is hypocritical. It's just that one does not see another's suffering like one does one's own and that's not necessarily because people only see their own pain and lack empathy. It's because suffering truly is unique. It's why I will never get what it's like to be a black man, or a woman, or a Palestinian.
*Yawn* Now it's becoming a bit bizarre. Obviously if you had the statistics at that time you would have by now said so. You didn't have them but maybe now you're looking at least. That's some progress.
I'm not baiting you. You implied you had some statistics. I asked you if you really had them, which is a totally reasonable question seeing as they were pertinent to your contention, and you refused to answer several times, apparently because you didn't, but you can't man up and admit it for some weird reason. But, fine, I'm done. You can go on pretending you might have had the statistics if it makes you feel better about yourself. I couldn't care less at this point.
It was a straightforward question in my view, but fine.
That's a good one. :up:
From a harvard study quoted here: https://hbr.org/2017/10/hiring-discrimination-against-black-americans-hasnt-declined-in-25-years
Quoting Thorongil
So, already you're wrong. The discrimination @Erik spoke of is supported statistically. And no I'm not trying to drag you into a debate you don't want to have or bait you. I'm simply showing you that you're empirically wrong, which is not hard to do as there is plenty of evidence out there to support Erik's view, of which this is just one example.
"A new study, by researchers at Northwestern University, Harvard, and the Institute for Social Research in Norway, looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015. The researchers found that anti-black racism in hiring is unchanged since at least 1989, while anti-Latino racism may have decreased modestly...
They concluded that, on average, “white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans” while “[w]hite applicants receive on average 24% more callbacks than Latinos.”
From another Harvard study:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html
These are all from Harvard, the top university in the country. And you don't have any statistics. At all. Plus, your contention was that Erik's claim was not backed up with statistics. It is. Ergo, you are wrong on that point.
Quoting Thorongil
Except they are.
Plus I did post mine. It's not hypothetical.
I'm willing to have a discussion with Erik because, given past interactions with him, he has demonstrated himself to be a cordial, charitable, and willing listener to views that are not necessarily his own or that he is not well acquainted with. You are not such a person, and so I will not have this conversation with you.
I didn't ask for a conversation. I proved you wrong by showing reliable statistics that show your "only contention" that there weren't any is wrong. There are. From your top university. You don't have to say anything else if you don't want to. It's done.
Quoting Baden
Me, "People die when they are killed."
Baden, "Show us statistics."
That's a misquote. As I told you before, don't troll.
You dispute the fact that blacks can be racist toward whites. The only troll I see here is you, especially today.
Quoting Maw
Posts like these make me wonder if this forum is just a play on the Twilight Zone. That anyone sane can dispute black people being racist toward whites is so shockingly retarded it beggars belief.
No, I didn' t dispute that as you know. The point was about discrimination against blacks. But OK, knock yourself out then. I'm off duty for a while.
Quoting Baden Why get knocked out when I can turn my brain off, get shot in a riot, and then scream bloody murder for my own idiocy?
Interesting read. What's your username mean by the way?
Good points. Not much I'd disagree with other than to maybe point out cases where various marginalized groups do in fact forge strong bonds through nothing more than a shared sense of resentment against a (perceived) oppressor. I say "nothing more" but continue to think that emotional bond can be powerful. I think the Social Justice movement in the U.S. is a pretty clear example of this phenomena: groups with different agendas and experiences (e.g. feminists and Muslims) set these aside and become united by zeroing in on what they take to be the common source of their suffering.
Thank you, Thorongil. My provisional stance on the issue of racism against black people in the U.S. is to avoid what I take to be the extreme positions of both sides. I think racism exists, and clearly so, but I also think there's a growing tendency to see it everywhere, possible even in places where it may not factor in.
The recent case of the black guys getting arrested for (allegedly) loitering at a Starbucks is a case in point. Racism may very well have played a role in that event, I wouldn't dismiss the (strong) possibility, but it may not have. There are a number of possibilities other than racism which could explain the motivation of the worker to call the police and have the guys removed: maybe she was just having a bad day and took out her anger on these guys (this displaced anger happens to almost all of us on occasion, especially those of us in the service industry); maybe it was that specific location's policy to refuse bathroom service to all non-paying customers and to force them to either make a purchase or leave; etc. We just don't know all the relevant facts, and imo the most honest thing to do in those situations is to suspend judgement. I took a lot of grief from my more progressive friends for holding this position, as most of them refused to even entertain the possibility that there could be another explanation for the worker's actions.
But, as mentioned, I think it's absolutely undeniable that black people do sometimes suffer injustices resulting from negative stereotypes others (including some non-whites) attach to them. I have a lot more anecdotal evidence to confirm this position than what I provided, which, in my estimation, definitively proves that prejudice against African Americans still exists, even if things have gotten much better over the years. I do appreciate Baden's bringing actual data to the table, and I will gladly take a look at other studies of the same issue, even those which challenge my experience-based assumptions.
That said, the overwhelming majority of white people (and non-white) that I know are not racists; they will hire, rent to, date, and become great friends with non-whites. So I don't see it as an all or nothing scenario, but I can also understand how black people would feel unfairly targeted - even in those cases where there may be another plausible explanation (for e.g. getting pulled over, not getting a job, etc.) - given their prior experiences.
Oh and I wouldn't deny that some black people hold racist views against whites. I do however think the discrepancy in overall numbers, in terms of of power and influence, etc. tilt heavily in favor of whites, obviously, and therefore limit the possibilities that whites will be the victims of the same sort of practical consequences of racism that black people have had to deal with. That doesn't make racial hatred and generalizations against white people OK, but it is something to keep in mind. That topic is probably best set aside for another time.
I don't know how many times a person who does the above doesn't come off as facetious or in denial or not wanting to admist a position. It often entails a fundamental misunderstanding of the arguers position or lack of on some issue. Taken to the extreme, when talking with someone, you feel as if the other person doesn't want to sympathize with you and are filled with indignation over the lack of sympathy.
I've learned in our polarized world not to assume such a position as you come under seige from both sides for suspending judgement. Almost as if a narrative must absolutely exist for every and all events.
But think about that..."you come under siege for suspending judgement"...
I'm not sure what to think about it without throwing out some trite truism.
I just think it's par for the course to come under siege for suspending judgement, in the face of the crowd; that's all. The wisdom of crowds isn't greater than the wisdom of suspending judgement.
That's true, and the position is often used insincerely or hypocritically. But if we're genuinely interested in the truth, and if we're aware of our own limited perspective, then we should gladly accept being attacked by partisans on both (all) sides.
I have my own biases, of course, and I'm sure these impact my interpretation of things in ways that elude me. But I also think I can recognize justice and fairness when I see it (it's rare), and I like to think I at least try my best to be consistent in applying the principle: if I'm going to suspend judgement about the person who called the police on those black guys at Starbucks until more info comes to light, then I need to do the same when (e.g.) a Muslim commits what seems to be an act of terrorism (maybe there was some motivation other than religion at work), etc. It really does cut across all party and ideological lines imo.
When Black America points to the Starbucks incident, or the Yale incident, or the Oakland park incident, or the Nordstrom incident (and these just occurred in the few weeks, under the national spotlight), and say "here are examples of when we are seen as 'not belonging' in 'white spaces', and this isn't an uncommon experience", then I think there is a severe myopia when whites indefinitely "suspend judgement".
I mean, even if incontrovertible evidence emerges that the Starbucks case was a clear-cut case of racism, well, that's the end of that story: it's been 'judged' to be so; the individuals are punished, and that's the end of that. The consequences can only ever be limited to that case and no other; and so with every other case, which becomes individualized and abstracted from it's wider context; society and politics simply disappears, constitutively. Suspension of judgement in these situations is not an innocent or 'neutral' approach; it decisively colors how one understands the situation.
I think that's a solid point, but I also think there's a real danger in maybe veering too far in the opposite direction (guess it would be referred to as "overpoliticizing") and subsuming every single individual case - without taking time to investigate specific details - under some larger and more general position based on a set of assumptions and probabilities gathered from seemingly similar situations. Confirmation bias sort of thing. That's why I acknowledged the very strong possibility that this particular case (and others of a similar sort) involved racism, while admitting that we don't know that to be an undeniable fact until more information arises (e.g. the employee let white people hang out all the time without purchasing anything and only targeted black people, she had a history of making racist comments to co-workers or patrons, etc.)
But let's take a hypothetical scenario. Let's say we got a job at Starbucks, and during our training we were told that only paying customers were allowed to use the restroom and/or hang out inside the coffee house (a dumb and greedy move btw - I'd never buy anything from a place with such a policy, but it's honestly not uncommon in the restaurant business). We applied this rule and approached anyone, regardless of race or anything else, who hadn't ordered anything within a "reasonable" time frame, informing them of the policy. They refuse to leave. Then what?
Would the response be different depending on whether the person was white or black? I have a friend who works at a coffee house with a similar rule and he said yes, it absolutely would be different, and that while he wouldn't hesitate to call the police to remove the white person he wouldn't do the same with the black guys. His rationalization for the discrepancy was that the black person (or people) may end up hurt or even dead if the police were called out to handle the situation, even one as relatively benign as this, whereas that wouldn't be a realistic possibility with white people.
But how would we feel if this happened to us or someone we cared about? That lady's life is probably destroyed through the psychological trauma of all the negative attention and attacks on her character, and not a single person seems to give a rat's ass about that. Now if she IS an unrepentant racist then good riddance, but what if there's a possibility (however small) that she's not? that she was just following rules impartially, or having a bad day, or something else that eludes us? Shouldn't we at least take the time to look into it in depth? We're making a few negative assumptions about her, but those assumptions are perfectly fine.
But exactly how is this the 'real' danger? I mean, I know what the 'real danger' is, for the most part: it is POCs getting the cops called on them for just... existing, and placing them in existential danger. Isn't that a danger that belongs to reality itself, as it's happened, as it continues to happen? I don't want to say that your response is wrong; but I do feel that's it's highly intellectualized, one that's only really able to be made from a position where there's seemingly little at stake other than, as it were, 'getting the hypothetical right'.
I will say, with respect to the 'lady', that one of the tragedies of racism - and most other 'isms' - is that it makes everyone worse off. In a world where racism was not culturally endemic, that lady would not be facing the scrutiny she does.
It's also worth noting that the Starbucks situation could have ended differently, because it has before.
Then you are a god amongst men, Erik, and I take your word for it.
To go off on a tangent, is justice an achievable ideal or is it (empirically) something that is striven towards through the dutiful exclusion of injustice?
If you follow the chain of comments back, you'll see what I was specifically referring to.
Or maybe the suspension of judgment depoliticizes the situation to the point of humanization. To the point at which both the perpetrator and the perpetrated are human.
Fucking false. Man up.
So the fact that both sides are human is a platitude, right? I'm responding because I fucking care.
So let's suppose that there is a conflict between big-enders and little-enders about how to eat a boiled egg. And let's assume that both sides are equally intransigent and prejudiced. However, by historical accident, the big-enders have vastly more resources; tractors against hoes, tanks against tuk tuks, federal government against village elders.
Surely is is obvious that the prejudices of the powerless have little effect? I don't much mind being barred form your insanitary mud hut, but your being barred from my river rather deprives you of your bathroom for the sake of my fishing sport.
The prejudices of the powerless are necessary; it is called 'solidarity' and is their only source of power against the solidarity of the powerful. But the power of the powerful is justified by its universality, by being 'for the people'; if it is prejudiced, it is unjust, and unjustifiable. Power ought to uphold the right of all people to open their egg at whichever end they choose, otherwise it is not representing the community.
The people in power are always to blame for injustice and inequality, because no one chooses to be powerless.
But, only the unenlightened are powerless.
I would respectfully disagree with @StreetlightX and say this a very good point. I hadn't exactly thought about it like that, but now that I do I think it makes a lot of sense. In some ways I think this captures the "essence" my own (largely intuitive and reconciling) way of thinking.
Dehumanization seems to underlie much of the political (and religious, etc.) hatred and violence in the world, so trying to find some common human ground - the "better angels of our nature" - between you and your perceived enemy seems both an ethical and a practical measure to take if you'd like to turn potential friends (who may even be current enemies) into actual ones.
Now it gets tricky, I think, when it involves people or groups who will not budge one bit from their sense of righteousness, who will neither accept their own flaws nor acknowledge the virtues of the "other" - I'm thinking Nazis, slaveholders, religious zealots and the like. Paradoxically, those who are either unwilling or unable to humanize others may forfeit their own humanity. Or some such.
Good stuff, though, Noble Dust.
I'm flattered, even shocked to see any agreement with my position here. I'll respond more tomorrow. Cheers, @Erik!
The appeal to humanity is the obverse of 'suspending judgement for individual cases': the former dissolves real difference into a generic mush so that nothing can be said about the specifics of a situation, while the latter removes any reference to generality whatsoever and, again, erases any possibility of addressing wider and systemic problems. Each in its own way renders us constitutively blind to relevant aspects of the situation.
:lol:
I think it's more likely that the latter is the case, although I'd be hard-pressed to formulate a sophisticated and/or convincing response for why I think this is so. I guess the first thing would be to lay out an understanding of justice which we could agree upon (not likely) before moving onto the next step.
On a personal level I do think it's possible to embody a certain set of moral and intellectual virtues which at least tend in the direction of justice. People who interpret their opponent's position charitably, for instance, instead of purposely misrepresenting them to win an argument, or who "suspend judgement" on a matter until as much information as possible has been gathered, or who set aside political or personal interests for the sake of, let's say, "higher" principles, even if it hurts their cause, etc.
I know the above sounds airy and maybe even ridiculous given the complex power dynamics at work in the real world - but being the hopeless romantic that I am I can't help thinking that there'd be much less hatred and violence (not suggesting these would be non-existent) if we cultivated traits/virtues like those mentioned above as much as we do our bank accounts, our bodies, etc.
Don't be deceived by appearances. Once I have trained my guard dogs, I don't need to patrol my domain in person, any more than the rich and powerful need to carry guns and be their own bodyguards.
I appreciate your knowledge and perspective on this topic a great deal, and it's giving me much to think about, but I would disagree with the position you just outlined - assuming that I understand it - and I would do so by drawing on an obvious example from U.S. history.
Slavery was attacked by Abraham Lincoln precisely because it stood in direct contrast to a principle enshrined in a founding document of this country, that "all men are created equal." The sense of a common shared humanity underlying the Declaration of Independence, however unsophisticated it may sound, and however much we fail(ed) to live up to the ideal, was largely responsible for ending of the hideous institution which was based upon the idea that black people were subhuman, and that slavery was not only a necessary and temporary evil, but a "positive good" for them. They were, in other words, dehumanized, and Lincoln sought to correct that evil.
Anyhow, my main point would be to challenge the alleged impotence of universalist principles. That abstract insight eventually led to actual concrete changes in the lives of slaves, and I'd even argue that it continues to inspire social justice movements which seek recognition of the "humanity" and inherent dignity of people within marginalized groups. There may be other types of post-Enlightenment emancipatory movements that you're probably way more familiar with than I am, but that sense of a common humanity can be, and imo has been, a powerful motivating force for good in the world.
This is vastly, irreconcilably different from universalism as a given, where the alleged 'fact' of our 'common humanity' is leveraged as an excuse to not recognise difference: 'we're all human, so what are you complaining about', or even worse, "I don't see color/gender/class". The idea is that universalism is a differential principle: it can be used to address difference, as it was in the civil war - and in the civil rights movement too - or it can be used to suppress it, as when we are asked to dis-count or not pay attention to relevant aspects of a case on account of our 'humanity'. It is no accident that the discourse of universality - and especially 'rights' - have been so easily coopted by the most virulent forces of regression in society (with 'religious freedom' and 'freedom of speech' - for example - masquerading as covers for the most outright bigotry and intolerance).
One other thing to mention is that the attempt to create a zero-sum game between our humanity and politicization is both dangerous and mistaken: our humanity is constituted by - among other things - the relations of power in which we constitutively reside, and to ignore that is to ignore a vital and irreducible part of what makes us human. To place politics on the hither side of humanity is to work with an abstract and devalued concept of humanity. To the degree that Aristotle was wrong about almost everything, he was at least right to locate politics right at the level of our animality, man ( :roll: ) as zoon politikon.
But as you say, it is exactly the scope of 'universalist principles' that is at issue. Whether or not 'all men' includes women, blacks, Palestinians, terrorists, gays, dolphins, gorillas, or whatever. Decision that is inevitably made by - 'all men' as defined by the status quo, and contested by the 'dehumanised'.
I'm not quite sure I'm following you here. Are you saying that the very powerlessness of the unenlightened becomes systemic, enforced by the powerful?
:up:
Totally agree with everything you wrote there - @unenlightened too. Those are important qualifications and distinctions to keep in mind.
You are on the side of the angels, aren't you?
Not quite. If we both agree to disagree, then we're fine.
Quoting unenlightened
You mean, the narrative setters? It's a conspiracy, what do I know?
Quoting unenlightened
It's good to know we're on the same side.
Quoting unenlightened
Well, I'm quite unenlightened so I wouldn't know.
Other definition:
If the Nazis decide you are a Jew, it makes no odds what you think you are, it's off to the concentration camp you go.
Self-definition:
If the Jews decide you are not a Jew, it makes no odds what you think you are, it's off to Gaza you go.
Much confusion arises because people think either that identity is a matter of personal choice, or that it is a matter of democracy. It isn't either.
'We' decide whether or not 'you' are or are not 'one of us', but this decision must be made before 'we' make any democratic decisions; 'you' cannot have a vote on whether or not you have a vote until it is decided that you have a vote. The borders and limits of democracy cannot be established democratically, precisely because 'we the people' is self-defining. Thus votes and referendums about joining or leaving a polity, or establishing or dissolving a border, extending or restricting the franchise, are always more or less a sham; those on the 'other' side don't get consulted.
You are so fucking awesome sometimes. :yikes: It is a qualitative judgement and dangerous as a political idea because it assumes identical qualities that establishes some categories of difference, the very basis of ethnic cleansing and genocide. However, human rights law addresses this by removing exceptions and thus enabling an equal distribution of justice. I agree with you (and Foucault) on the discourse and power-relations being just as productive and to see humanity otherwise lacks that fluidity and devalues our understanding of the political and social landscape.
The data suggest it's going to be a while before we find out.
Quoting Erik
No worries. I figured the data would probably support your experience although the extent of the remaining discrimination and white (male at least) advantage is more than I would have guessed.
Here's more. This one is particularly disturbing:
Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/study-shows-little-change-segregation-and-poverty-over-last-fifty-years-180968317/
[Study discussed is by the Milton Eisenhower Foundation ("...the private sector continuation of two Presidential Commissions – the 1967-1968 bipartisan National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders and the 1968-1969 bipartisan National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_S._Eisenhower_Foundation )]
"Study Shows Little Change Since Kerner Commission Reported on Racism 50 Years Ago"
“We made progress on virtually every aspect of race and poverty for nearly a decade after the Kerner Report and then that progress slowed, then stopped and in many ways was reversed, so that today racial and ethnic discrimination is again worsening...
Statistics tell the story. In 1988 about 44 percent of black children went to majority-white schools. But that was also the same year that courts began reversing desegregation policies. Now that number has dropped to 20 percent. There are other sobering statistics. As the AP points out, the study shows that following the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968, home ownership by black Americans jumped around 6 percent. Those gains, however, reversed between 2000 and 2015 when black ownership dropped by 6 percent."
Also:
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/ and
http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/race_paper.pdf (Harvard/Stanford study)
Fig: [i]Two Americas: Upward Mobility for White vs. Black Children
Average incomes of children growing up in low-income (25th percentile) families[/i]
"Black children have much lower rates of upward mobility and higher rates of downward mobility than white children, leading to black-white income disparities that persist across generations."
The combination of continued discrimination and lack of upward mobility for the coming generations of black children is a pretty devastating indictment of current trends. So the question moves from "Is the discrimination still there?", it clearly is, to "What do we do about it?"
How do you draw the conclusion that the cause of lack of upward mobility is the result of discrimination? Do you truly believe that the greatest impediment to African American success is the injustice wrought by white people?
I said "combination of" not "cause of".
I don't have data on the extent that discrimination causes a lack of upward mobility. I presume the causes are highly complicated and difficult to entangle. If I find something, I'll let you know. But both are there and tackling the discrimination is likely to alleviate the overall problem, of which upward mobility is a part. I presume you'd agree with that.
Can you expand on the question?
I agree that discrimination should be eliminated. I suppose once we do that, we'll know which problems are the result of external discrimination and which from internal societal failures.
Are you asking who's to blame for the lack of peace, the Palestinians or the Israelis? It's a broad brush question obviously with all sorts of actors on both sides over the years with varying viewpoints that we have to throw together, but I doubt you find my response surprising when I say that the path to peace has been most obstructed by the Palestinians.
If one signs up for a dating site and lists their interest to be in heterosexual males, not homosexual males and not females, is that listing preferences or is it setting up a profile of what you are looking for?
I don't need to isolate it as the only cause. The macro problem is inequality. Discrimination and issues with upward mobility both contribute to that and they're entangled with each other.
Quoting Hanover
So, to answer this question directly, I'd say the greatest impediment to anyone's, of whatever race, background etc, potential for self-realization in a relatively free and advanced democracy of which they are a full citizen is usually themselves. But historical and current discrimination obviously also plays some part in impeding the success of minority groups.
Quoting Hanover
Sure, and the main point of the data was to show that discrimination actually exists as some here seemed to want to go down the rabbit hole of denying even that. Then you try to tackle it and determine how it contributes to inequality and along with what other causes. Lack of upward mobility is part of the bigger picture.
Haha. I won't ask. It's both anyhow. Your specific preferences (choices in each category) are part of your overall profile (everything about you).
Why do you think the Palestinians have so persistently obstructed peace (it's been over a couple of generations now)? Do you see it as an aspect of Palestinian culture? The Palestinians themselves? Or is it mostly interference from other ME nations? Do you think the Cold War fostered conflict there?
I've actually assumed for years that Israel doesn't really want peace. I'm just exploring an alternate view.
Ah, but Baden, you seem to forget that, as I have argued elsewhere, guns kill people of their own accord. So, even if they were going to plant flowers, none of the Israelis involved are to blame.
Dude, wanting comes really cheap, but peace has a higher price than either side thinks they can afford. As Tweedledum and Tweedledee said, "there is no need for us to fight, if only he would let me have the rattle."
Damn, that's low.
This lays it out fairly well: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3
Most of what I know about it comes from people who left because the situation was intolerable, so maybe my understanding is skewed. But it looks to me like the price of continued violence is that really cool people leave instead of putting up with it.
To be fair, an official IDF spokesman has defended the army's actions by releasing a picture of one of flowers they claim the Palestinians were going to plant.
Weird.
Does your husband know you've signed up for a dating site?
I've gone back through all the posts on this subject. I wasn't going to post because these discussions never seem particularly fruitful on the forum e.g. Baden vs. Thorongil. I've decided to because I think, unless I missed it, there's something being left out, at least in relation to the United States. We'll start with anecdotal evidence. I'm 66 years old. I've met and talked with, lived with, many people. In my experience, white people as a group don't like, respect, or trust black people. They don't feel comfortable with them. They are afraid of them. I often feel the same impulses in myself. Most of the time, at least in the crowd I hang around with, it isn't overt. My friends have good hearts. If you talk to my black friends and try to deny it, they will laugh at you, ridicule you, scorn you.
All the discussions here are over-intellectualizing the issue. People tooting their own self-righteous horns. For most people, this isn't a conscious attitude. It doesn't matter whether or not you call people "racist." I haven't found that to be a very useful term. It just shuts things down and gives people justification for ignoring you. Most of the things being called "racism" here come directly from the attitudes I'm referring to. Many of the others come from people's defensive reactions to being accused.
So, that's anecdote. Now to statistics. Go to Google. Type in "Studies reaction black vs white faces." Study after study. With babies for God's sake. Even black people.
The typical way those sites are set up is that straight women must start out dating women and if they do ok, they will then be permitted to date gay men. From there it's on to unemployed men, and from there it's to normal men. If you date someone wrong along the way, you might get dropped down to unemployed bald gay men. That happened to me once.
There will be no more political fracas from me with certain members here, so don't expect them. I come to this forum to alleviate, not add to, my boredom.
Speaking of boredom, I'm sure everybody is getting bored of your attempts to save face (with more likely to follow this post). You make direct contentions, can't back them up and then hide behind the idea that you are being victimized/misunderstood while refusing to explain how. That's fine, please do stick to PMs, but this is a public forum where open debate is supposed to occur and the idea that the actual presentation of evidence over a couple of pages of debate concerning issues you freely decided to comment on is "a circle of hell" is a statement that could only be made by someone in their own circle of hell of irrationality. So, yes, stay there, but don't bother with posts advertising your inability to get involved in open and rational empirical-based debate as if it was some kind of virtue. If you are afraid to be berated, it's because your position is unsupportable. You simply have had one of your statements proven to be wrong by actual bona-fide evidence and you can't handle it. So, in future if you want to have a private conversation with Erik or anyone else, don't start it in public or other posters will obviously respond and expect you to back up your claims.
I think you're right. This is the flip side of the existence-of-racism coin, the prejudice towards over-explaining events in terms of racism. I think the facts are worth getting at but I also think the company was more worried about its image in its response than the actual facts. I haven't researched the event, so I don't know either. Maybe someone has and can enlighten us. I'm not convinced there is no definitive answer to be found.
The point of intellectualizing the issue is to get away from the name-calling and just look at the facts, the cold hard data. That way at least you have some solid foundation to work on. And I don't think anyone directly involved in the debate we just had is racist anyway. Also, I think looking at inequality and how to alleviate it whether it be in terms of race or class is a better approach than berating people for being racist or whatever. As you said, we're all to some degree tarred with that brush. It's inbuilt.
I don't have any problem with that approach, but those types of facts often just get used as bludgeons. They can also be twisted and rationalized. There's no way to rationalize the feelings white people in the US have for black people. They are bare, and stark, and ugly.
Fair point. I still think you need reliable data as a basis for any reasonable conversation but then keeping that reasonable can also be a challenge.
Speak for yourself, bigot.
Nothing of the kind occurs with you and your buddies. It's a waste of time.
Quoting Baden
And now I'm telling you that I'm going to stop doing that.
Quoting Baden
So you would like to think. :rofl:
Quoting Thorongil
This says all anyone needs to know about your level of "debate".
Right, fine. Let's call it a day. My main objection was always your approach anyway not your views as such or you personally.
Four possibilities:
I'd vote for 2 or 3 in your case, although I admit my guess is based on little specific experience. And don't call me "Shirley."
I may not be better than you, but I'm better than @Baden, so I'm ready to stop if you are. :snicker:
:lol:
I don't understand the question.
I'm still confused. What have I said that makes you ask that question?
There's room for doubt, though. Maybe you didn't mean that. Did you?
Here's what I said:
Quoting T Clark
I stand behind that statement.
Quoting frank
As @Thorongil noted, I engaged in a bit of amateur psychologizing, intimating he might have the feelings I was describing and not be aware of them. Sideshow psychoanalysis is disrespectful and I shouldn't have done it. I do believe that many people share the feelings I described and are not aware of it.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions on what that means about me being a bigot.
I said what I meant to say as clearly as I could. I'm not hiding anything. You can draw your own conclusions.
I don't think that's true.
I'm not trying to be difficult. I told you honestly what my feelings and beliefs are without labeling them. You seem to want a label, which is your prerogative. Again, draw your own conclusions.
I did speak for myself. I also described my experiences with other people, black and white. I also indicated where relevant studies can be found providing more rigorous evidence.
What did it say?
Quoting T Clark
Bruh. What America do you live in?
Presided over by backwardass dumbshit President Trump. Sounds tragic.
"In my experience, white people as a group don't like, respect, or trust black people. They don't feel comfortable with them. They are afraid of them. I often feel the same impulses in myself."
as something other than rank racism, reminiscent of a hopefully bygone era. It is a declaration of white immorality and personal immorality to the extent one adheres to it.
That is just to say, if you want to confess to the sin of racism, don't be shocked when people don't embrace you for your candor.
I don't interpret it the way you do and I wouldn't call someone who had negative impulses towards another race, racist. I'd judge them by their values and their choices/behaviour. That's what being a free agent is about, you don't have to act with your impulses, you can defy them.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7355-brain-scans-reveal-racial-biases/
"Negative feelings about black people may be subconsciously learned by both white and black Americans, suggests a brain imaging study. The research is among the first to test the brain physiology of racial biases in both black and white subjects. "
"Interestingly, when the subjects performed the verbal matching tasks, the race-biased amygdala effect disappeared. The scans showed that when word processing, areas of the brain involved in fighting impulses or inhibitory control took over.
“The moment you start thinking about race in words you know you’re thinking about it and can make decisions,” says Lieberman. “In general, putting your feelings into words seems to regulate or dampen those feelings.”
You've just seen the studies I've presented that show overall discrimination still exists. As a group, white people still discriminate against blacks. That's a fact. But it's complicated, so no, I don't think white people are immoral because that would suggest there was something intrinsic about being white that's associated with being immoral and there's not.
Instead of apologizing for it, maybe just admit it was an overstated and reckless comment that has far reaching and unacceptable implications? I'm not trying to excoriate the guy, but am just pointing out the wrongness of his comment.
:up:
If he's not a bigot, then his assertion that white Americans as a group are racist would have to be wrong, wouldn't it?
First of all, @Baden, thank you. It means a lot.
Back to work - what I said was not overstated and reckless. I wrote it in cold blood. It was important to me to say it. People need to look into their dark hearts. I meant it, I mean it, I've seen it. Of course it has far-reaching and unacceptable implications. That's kind of the point.
Have I expressed shock at your response?
I'm not ashamed. Part of not being ashamed is seeing the dark things inside myself and acknowledging them. It's hard to treat other people honorably if I can't even understand myself.
You sound pretty shamed to me. And even if you're not, what dark things are you talking about?
Your comments remain unacceptable despite your unapologetic and trollish attempts to characterize them as heroic proclamations that force introspection. This is why I wasn't as generous as @Baden, who naively interpreted you as misunderstood.
Anyway, you're set to iggy. Carry on.
I'm curious, do you think my comments should be deleted?
I appreciate your understanding.
No reason to change my interpretation as things stand. I would have used different words, but I think you're overreacting. Agree to disagree time again...
Wow, all these years and I had no idea!
Interesting article. No great surprise though.
Doesn't give the specifics. But you could use the data to aim racially charged ad campaigns at those most likely to respond to them etc.
Something along those lines, yes.
@SophistiCat did create a Chrome and Firefox extension here, although it looks like they've since been removed.
In my experience, rich people as a group don't like, respect, or trust poor people. They don't feel comfortable with them. They are afraid of them. (That's not to suggest all rich people are discriminating or to apportion blame to all rich people for discriminating based on class).
Violent offences are more often committed in [insert group] communities. (That's not to suggest all people from that community are violent or to apportion blame to all people from that community for being violent).
White americans perform worse in academia than asian americans. (That's not to suggest all white americans are stupid or to apportion blame to all white americans for being stupid).
The parts in brackets are implied in normal conversations as far as I'm concerned unless there's additional reasons to think so.
And to T clark's specific comment, implicit bias tests seem to suggest that there some implicit associations made automatically by us merely based on skin colour, where negative associations are more reflexively made with darker skin colours. It isn't conclusive though since I understand there's a lot to be said about the test method in itself (which is why I used "suggest").
He's a mixed bag. Sometimes as Rottweiler, sometimes a pussycat.
Here's why I'm not overreacting, but am being reasonable and tempered as always:
The comment that all whites are racist is both an admission about yourself (if you're white) and a comment about me (as I am white). With regard to the latter, I know the truth of that statement better than the speaker, so I'm not terribly worried about it, but with regard to the former, it's not just an interesting side note about your personality, but it's an admission of your having a lack of moral character. And let's set aside this notion that the racism presented was simply an acknowledgment that we all have our nuances and biases in favor of those similar to ourselves. The racism presented was that of not liking, trusting, or respecting black people.
This might actually be a learning moment, so listen to why I found the comment offensive. It has less to do with protecting the feelings of white people than it does in offering some support for black people, which I fear don't exist on this Board in very high numbers, if at all.
Let us assume we are all seated around a big dinner table. There are Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Mormons, and a couple of Jews. As the various people interact, everyone notices that Catholics show an affinity toward the other Catholics, the Baptists pay closer attention to one another, and so on. That would be expected, as each group shares similarities, common interests, similar cultures, etc. If Father O'Kelly stood up and noted the closer bonds between those of similar backgrounds, and even should he point out statistical studies establishing that, I don't think anyone would be terribly alarmed.
Now let us assume that a Baptist preacher stands up at the table and he says "Christians don't trust, like, or respect Jewish people," and then he sits down. Father O'Kelly might then stand up and say he thinks that our Baptist preacher was just pointing out that people have a natural tendency to migrate toward those with similar beliefs and there are statistically based studies to support that. Despite that effort to diffuse, our Baptist preacher rises again and says "Nope, Christians don't trust, like, or respect Jewish people."
Who is insulted by this comment? Good hearted Christians to be sure because they don't like being told that they have these feelings towards Jews when they don't, but more than that, the Jews will be insulted because they were just told they were not respected or trusted and that was that. Do you not think a Jewish person might gain some comfort in hearing the Mormon stand up and say that he does respect, trust, and like Jewish people? I would think if he failed to hear those words, he might just leave the table. And would a black person continue to sit at our table if we felt it appropriate to unapologetically declare our distrust, disrespect, and dislike of them?
And as to @Benkei's analysis regarding using rich people as our oppressed group as opposed to blacks, the two are historically dissimilar and not comparable. There is a reason we protect rights based upon race, religion, color, gender, and national origin and not on the basis of income and other various distinctions.
The very specific statement we are dealing with is that the poster said he didn't trust, like, or respect black people. That is what we're stuck with and that's what you're thanking him for saying. So, when someone expresses hate, we say thank you?
Again, this is not a fair reading in my view.
He said this:
Quoting T Clark
He said he felt the same impulses and he contextualized those impulses:
Quoting T Clark
So, how does that equate to him expressing hate? It looks more like an expression of disappointment that he has these feelings and a lack of identification with them. Just the opposite of racism as ideology where the racist actively embraces his negative feelings towards other groups.
More context:
Quoting T Clark
We're largely stuck with our impulses; it's how we think about them, talk about them, identify with them and express them in action that matters in terms of judging us morally. Right or wrong?
You don't, obviously, but I do and have. I'm not thanking you though, or thanking the Klan, I'm thanking @T Clark for exactly not doing what you have done above, which is to make out that having affinities on one side is something other than not liking and trusting on the other.
I get the basic idea but I don't think the analogy holds all that well tbh given the full context. I won't presume to know what black people think of it though I take T Clark's statement about his friends at face value.
He specifically said he didn't like, trust, or respect black people though.
Meanwhile, Kalief Browder's ghost continues to haunt us. To say that what happened to him reflects how all white people feel about black people is utterly ridiculous. Plus saying that would set us on exactly the wrong route to doing something about it.
It wasn't intended as equivalence in that respect but to illustrate how people speak and how that is interpreted using other social groups. There isn't a really an issue there from my point of veiw. When people tell me that whites as a group are untrusting of blacks then I tend to agree that this is the case on average, based on my personal experience, and I'm a white European. I don't feel attacked by such a statement, because partly I don't identify solely as a white male and partly because I'm aware of my own involuntary judgments of Morrocans, Turks, Surinamese and Antillians even when I count a few of them as my friends. I'm lucky enough to be confronted with different cultures and can talk openly about these biases with friends allowing me to rationally correct for them but it takes some effort.
No. I don't just delete stuff I disagree with or that I think is wrong. If you write in text talk, that's a different matter.
It really isn't in keeping with my personal experience. I also don't feel attacked by the assertion. It's just wrong. I'm a little curious about the person who makes that kind of statement, though. I think they probably need to spend more time being the marshmallow on the chocolate cake, and get over it.
And you...Quoting Hanover
And I am specifically saying that they are specifically equivalent, except that one is responsible and the other is irresponsible.
Hmmm seems to be plenty of food for this food fight going on but hey I am only on page one of 4.
Boy, this is an interesting discussion. To tell you the truth, I thought my statement was pretty unexceptional and self-evident. I expressed it in blunt language because I think the situation I'm discussing is brutal. I made the comment in direct response to a discussion a few pages ago about whether it makes more sense to focus on injustice or our common humanity. That kind of discussion drives me crazy. Intellectualizing something as bleak as this. The fact of the matter; that white people, to a very large extent, don't like, trust, or respect black people; is so much worse than some points in a rational discussion.
As for the ecumenical dinner table - that's not where we are. We are on a philosophy forum. There are appropriate places to discuss things like this and inappropriate places. And, yes, I think many Christian people do not like, trust, or respect Jewish people. Worse, they use them as pawns to promote their apocalyptic biblical ideology. But I think attitudes toward blacks, at least in the US in 2018, are much more wide-spread, intransigent, and consequential.
:up:
But that is what we're talking about. We're talking about one person's kind versus another person's kind.
Of course not. If it was typical, they wouldn't have made such a big deal out of it. I'm not denying that there's a serious problem in the US, but the more bullshit we preoccupy ourselves with, the less we'll focus on what actually is important.
At least you backed down from "as a group." One step at a time, my friend.
It would be appropriate to mention at the dinner table what I said, which was simply that those most similar tend to spend the most time interacting with one another and perhaps even agreeing with one another. But why wouldn't what you said be appropriate at that dinner table? Is it a Miss Manners thing where you don't tell the Jews you have no respect for them just like you don't use the big fork for the salad?
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Hanover
If you mean to extend that to white vs black people then you are saying you trust, like and respect white people more than black people. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth btw so please clarify as necessary.
Actually, you and I agree on one thing, I don't think having affinities for one group is the same as having negative feelings for another.
A philosophy forum is a place where we have agreed to discuss possibly difficult and divisive issues with, we hope, civility and reason. A dinner table with people we do not know well and are not close friends with is not such a place. You know that. You're being disingenuous.
I didn't back down from it, I clarified what I meant. I'll say it as clearly as I can - Prejudice against black people by whites in the US is pervasive. It reflects a general attitude of dislike, disrespect, and distrust, even among people of good will. My self-righteous, condescending friend.
What makes you say this? Thorongil stated the inverse of this and was crucified, yet when you've said the above you're lauded. Talk about equivalency. But again, unless I'm blind, I've not read any list of reasons as to why you believe what you do.
I'm not being disingenuous. There's nothing appropriate about telling people you disrespect them based upon their skin color at the dinner table, at the philosophy forum, or at barbershop.
The whole basis of liking more or less or disliking seems wrong though when it's about race. Isn't that the more important point than the level of liking or disliking? It's not a rational ground on which to form an affinity.
I gave my reasons previously on page 1071. As for Thorongil and how he was treated, I'm not the one to ask. I do think calling the response to what I wrote as "lauded" is a misrepresentation. Some have agreed with me more or less strongly. Some have disagreed very strongly.
I think your claim that you're not being disingenuous is disingenuous.
I wouldnt mind exploring this further with you in a separate thread. I'm only interested in an exchange of experiences and reflections, though.
I'm just going to have to come out and say this. Some families are strange, and some strangers are stranger than other strangers. Equating race and family in the way that you have done is prejudicial and offensive, and it exposes and exemplifies the complacency of your prejudice.
Quoting Hanover
It wouldn't be appropriate at my dinner table, mate, because my family are not all the same race. My kind are not all white, but some of us are.
I mostly said what I had to say in my first post. I stand by that. Everything else I've written has been reacting to other peoples reactions.
If you start a new thread, I'll participate.
:up:
Same here. Kinds get kind of irrelevant. And as long as no priests arrive to fuck things up, we're good.
What reasons? You talked to fellow white people and also feel ashamed. What else is there?
That's the most accurate replication you gave of what was said, and it's offensive too, for the same reason. It's prejudiced to judge a group of people in that way, based on your own personal experience of only some members of that group.
It's not judgmental at all, and my statement wasn't either. They are both statements of fact subject to verification and falsification. I understand you think they are both false. If it makes you feel good to be offended, knock yourself out.
Genocide and similar phenomena - killing large numbers (anything from hundreds to millions) of people of a certain class as a political tool - have happened on a regular basis since 1945. Rwanda. The Balkans. Cambodia. Syria. Burma. Argentina. The Cultural Revolution in China. Displacement of peasants in Ukraine by Stalin. I'm sure I've left some out.
[Edit - I checked. Stalin's starvation of peasants in Ukraine (and Kazakhstan) took place in 1932-33. So, before and after World War 2]
Ok. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Hasta la vista.
Since you were willing to entertain my dating preference/profile question, I am curious if you will entertain another.
Can you explain to me the difference between prejudice and preference when a choice is being made?
Ps. I am genuinely asking you, not to set you up for a "Gotcha" moment but maybe it will help me understand others.
What does that mean? I mean you're certainly entitled to your opinion that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but what does it mean?
If I have a right that is worth anything, I have a right to have the right opinion, and you have a duty to put me right where I have gone wrong. That's education, isn't it? Ticks and crosses, marks and no-marks.
What's 7 X 9 = ?
62
You're entitled to your opinion?
It could be. You have to tune your brainio to the dog whistling that's going on.
Quoting unenlightened
But if you repeatedly tell me that you aren't interested in my view, what's my duty?
Off the top of my head, a prejudice predefines a preference about other people in an irrational way.
(*We have moral, not to mention legal, obligations to family members that we obviously don't have to members of our own race.)
Quoting frank
Dog whistling about race is when you're ideologically racist but try to hide it by making your support of racism somewhat covert, but not so covert that other ideological racists don't get the message. This is just about the direct opposite of what @T Clark was trying to do.
And the Armenians in Turkey and back on into history.
Were they? Care to explain.
Sure. You'd have to be skimming pretty lightly to think I was talking about him. Already moved on.
Alrightee.
Also:
Where's the rewind button for life?
I'd argue that race is an extension of family, at least genetically so, and that the impulse to care for your race more than others is evolutionarily caused. I'm not suggesting that we're morally permitted to be racist, but I do think there is a natural driver for us to protect those most like ourselves. There is a reason, I'd submit , that the word "kind" means both to be similar to and to show affection toward (Kin - family member, Kind - German for child, etc.). The word 'like" also has similar dual meanings. One is kind toward their kind and one likes one like them. We also use the word stranger to mean someone unknown but also to mean someone odd. It would make sense possibly hundreds of years of ago that if a strange looking person came to your village, he probably didn't mean you well.
My point here is just that I see no reason trying to cast aside the deep seated affinities we have ingrained in us for our own kind, but we do have a moral obligation not to allow that to lead to injustice, and certainly we are prohibited from affirmatively creating injustice. It was why I objected to T Clark's comments. They didn't just suggest an affinity for one group over another, but more so a direct opposition to certain groups, claiming he disrespected, disliked, and distrusted them. You don't get to do that.
Shitty actors and royals; they're in your face all the fucking time. That makes them family.
https://news.sky.com/video/dont-mention-the-wedding-to-emma-thompson-11372990
If you are too tired to fully function, in what way will the world suffer?
I suffer. I am part of the world. Therefore, the world's total suffering has increased.
I see. You have value as a suffering thing.
Ok, all's I say is that in my like/dislike scorebook, folks don't get extra points for being the same colour as me. And the idea that they should is whackbackwards buttsville nuts.
Prejudice>>>Discrimination
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-homeless-man-burger-king-lawsuit-20180517-story.html
If so, you're prejudiced.
Where did I do that?
And what I said about the Starbucks story, where there were differing accounts, for example, was that I agree with Erik, I don't know what happened. Haven't looked into it enough.
Quoting frank
No, why would it?
Quoting Baden
Did you not? It just looked like that's what you were doing. It seemed that you waved away every American who spoke except T-Clark who has an idiosyncratic view (all women are afraid of physical abuse from men, all white people fear blacks).
Oh. I see you weren't making of the new story what I thought you were. I was lumping you in with Benkei. All Europeans are exactly alike. It's almost as if there's only one of them. :D
Well, I didn't fully agree with @T Clark's estimation of the situation. I said I thought it was overstated. I thought he was misinterpreted though and taken out of context. And I don't think Irish people, of which I am one, are any less racist than Americans, for example.
Quoting frank
Well, Benkei's Dutch and there's some weird stuff going down there so... :)
I would say overstated as in wrong. Money is God in the US. When blacks and latinos have more cash, their standing will be more equal. Prior to that: there is a moral outlook where the down-trodden are not pitied, but held responsible for their situation. Not all white people have that view, but enough do that a harsh apathy is considered to be ok. The whites who see things that way are joined by a multitude of blacks and latinos who agree with that. It may just be part of the American culture. I'm not sure.
Doesn't matter. Since there is no systemic blockade to the advancement of blacks and latinos, they will advance. And every step of advancement fosters future advancement.
How dare you! I can barely lift a pencil.
You and Hanover keep misstating what I actually said, even when I've pointed it out. It's a little rhetorical trick you use when you're unable or unwilling to reconsider your initial knee-jerk reaction. Also, I don't think my views are idiosyncratic at all, not even among white people. They may not be completely mainstream. Also also, calling it "idiosyncratic" is not a valid argument against my positions. It's another one of your passive-aggressive rhetorical ploys.
This may be true, and I don't know Irish culture or demographics, but I think, given our racial makeup and history, American's attitudes are more consequential.
Absolutely.
And I am saying just the opposite - there is a "systemic blockade." The fact you don't recognize it demonstrates your lack of awareness, your blindness, and shows your opinions are not credible.
But the evidence, which I provided, in the form of data from studies by some of your top institutions suggest there is. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary, and hard evidence (not just anecdotal) is the only way to determine which view is correct.
I agree with this part. The over-arching problem is inequality. But that's getting worse not better, so I'm not as optimistic as you are about the situation.
What about "generally"? does that follow the same rule?
If I say "Generally, men are stronger than women", does that allow for Poor Baden and Steven Hawking?
So, by putting me in a group with Steven Hawking, you are implying I'm dead. I find that offensi.. :death:
If you believe that in spite of all the laws that protect blacks and latinos from discrimination in employment and housing, a systemic, institutionalized block against the advancement of minorities still exists, I think you would need to show that.
The real source of injustice is wealth inequality. There are lawyers who work for free, but you have to have some degree of education and stability to even know that you should get a lawyer.
Am I totally missing your point?
You're not missing my point. You might have missed this though:
Quoting Baden
I would say that "on average" men are bigger and smellier than women.
Cool.
You've got it backwards. The primary injustice against minorities is wealth inequality.
I have a good friend. She is college educated. Upper middle class. Married to a doctor. Smart, attractive, and articulate. She and her husband go to Hawaii every five years or so. Her skin color is such that she is generally mistaken for native Hawaiian, although she does nothing to promote that. She tells me what a pleasure, relief it is for her to fit in. To be invisible. With no one watching her and suspecting her wherever she goes. She says it's like a heavy weight she wasn't even aware of is lifted off her. She and her husband would move there except she wants to be near her children and grandchildren.
I would have put the cover of the Time magazine article about that, but there's a problem with importing pictures.
That still leaves a number of possibilities
1) The manager of the Starbuck's was just having a bad day and fucked up.
2) The manager of the Starbuck's was a dick who kicked anyone who didn't order quickly enough out.
3) The manager of the Starbuck's was racist/prejudiced.
Conclusion: Starbucks sells shit overpriced coffee on the back of a shallow progressive-sounding philosophy that actually boils down to nothing more than "if we tell trendy people what they want to hear, they'll pay more for our crap product". And you might get some racism in your mochalatte.
Don't know why Angela Merkel getting married should result in free muffins for Brits, but whatever.
Mine's a blueberry, Angela.
Please don't speak about Stephen Hawking like that.
If I remember correctly, you once posted a picture of a woman in a wedding dress and slyly intimated it might be you.
I've been in love with Emma Thompson ever since "Much Ado About Nothing."
I guess if no one is white or black, we won't have to worry about whether or not white people dislike black people anymore.
Right. So when you said ...
Quoting frank
... you should have said "On average, "as a group" will be followed by some prejudiced comment.". I'll forgive you this time.
____________________________________________________________________________-
I'm seeing an argument, or rather a rhetoric that goes somewhat like this:
A __ There is widespread prejudice against blacks, from whites.
B __ That's prejudicial against whites. Therefore it is untrue. Therefore there is no widespread prejudice against blacks. This sort of thing happens all the time. Therefore there is widespread prejudice against whites.
Quoting Baden
As long as folks don't come out and express their prejudices, which is most of the time even if they are conscious of them, which is not most of the time, there are always alternative explanations in every particular incident. A lifetime of particular incidents makes the alternative explanations sound like bullshit in every case, and possibly in a few cases it is not bullshit, just like there are some weak men. But as a group, in general, on average, statistically, by and large, as a rule with exceptions, black people get treated badly in cafes, law courts, mortgage brokers, schools, and DIY stores more often than white people, and cumulatively it makes a big difference.
Quoting T Clark
That so resonates here. Mrs Un has a much easier time of it out and about when she is clearly and visibly under the close supervision and control of her respectable white husband.
Yes, and that's backed up by the evidence. I was hoping for some kind of meaningful debate from those who think that's not true but it never materialized.
Quoting unenlightened
And when she's not, you have it off with her. Good deal. :up:
You're writing an alternate history to this thread? Do an alternate history of WW2. That's more fun.
:up:
Here'a an anecdote from Thailand. When I was applying for my visa extension, immigration came to our home to do some checks. They took a look at me, and one of the officers said (I paraphrase) "Don't worry. It won't be a problem for you. We only investigate the dark-skinned ones". He said this like he was saying he preferred coffee to tea in the mornings.
At least here in the US people mostly hide their contempt. I guess that's something.
[hide]
My computer wouldn't open the jpeg. I had to use my phone. I guess white people's computers are prejudiced also.
https://imgflip.com/memegenerator
You pick a picture then type in the text you want. Instant hilarity ensues.
[hide]
Hm, his doesn't work on a computer but mine does. Weird. :chin:
Sometimes. Anyway, links are notoriously unreliable. I remember the time Thorongil accidentally posted a link that led to a sickening porn image. Some kind of virus redirect. Better off uploading a jpeg like I did.
Where I've bolded, the word needs to be changed to "disparity."
The elimination of desegregation policies is defined as the elimination of reverse discrimination laws, which would expectedly result in a change in distribution of minorities in schools and in single family owned homes. The real question when addressing policy is overall outcome, as in do affirmative action programs better society. There's good evidence they don't. There is also the problem of supporting any reverse discrimination system, considering racial discrimination is an evil regardless of purpose and regardless of which race it discriminates against.
We all know you're obsessed with EastEnders. FOAD developed because of those moments between Pauline and Lou.
He feeds the chickens.
When you go to the trouble of doing your own study, you can choose whatever words you want. I don't have any reason to doubt them on their phrasing here.
Quoting Hanover
Can you lay some of it out, please?
Quoting Hanover
That's just a bare assertion. With a controversial issue like positive discrimination, you'll have to make an argument as to why it's wrong. I take the tentative position that it's justified under certain circumstances. Convince me I'm wrong.
That seems to fit with what @T Clark, Un, I and others were saying. Discrimination is still widespread.
I think you're probably right that affirmative action doesn't work. I think it also breeds resentment in those who don't benefit. On the other hand, there is a deep irony when white people stomp their feet and cry "It's not fair" when someone else gets the benefits they have stolen for the past 400 years. So, I'm ambivalent, but no, it's not evil when the law that was used for centuries to obstruct black people is used to help them just a little.
That was not what you originally said. I already understand the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the horrors that ensued during that period that continues through systemic denial by the current political climate in Turkey, but you implied during when historical documentation verifies a very different social fabric that protected minorities despite the jizya tax and you are better than those members here who speak with such confidence about subjects they clearly know nothing of.
It's not nitpicking. What they've done is present statistics indicating that black home ownership rate has recently declined and that blacks attend schools with white people at lower rates. That is the definition of disparity. That the disparity resulted from discrimination is a thesis which is not supported by the study. Quoting Baden
The assertion can be taken in two ways (1) as a moral statement, and (2) as a practical statement. If discrimination on the basis of race is evil, it's evil. I actually believe that, but you can reject it for whatever reason you want.
But, sure, we can have a debate on the pragmatic merits of affirmative action if you want, but that seems like a thread unto itself.
You implied earlier you discriminate, in terms of how much you like people, based on their race (you like your own kind more even though you don't dislike those who aren't your kind). So, that rings a bit hollow. If it's evil, stop doing it.
Well, T Clark being a dick is not all that unusual. It has nothing to do with any "dark place."
Nope. If you were a black or latino friend, then I would try harder to get you to see past the "white people hate you and that's why you're failing" mentality. As it is, I don't think you actually have any stake in it.
I apologize if I made you feel bad. That particular discussion is a fond memory.
So, what was the point? You show me the video, I agree with the sentiment, and you tell me I have no stake in it? We all have a stake in it in so far as we care, and those of us in mixed race families more so, I would say, than average. But, yes, I'm not American if that's the point.
If we stopped talking about the US and started talking about racism throughout the world, then the topic just changed pretty drastically.
Don't put words in my mouth. The video is consistent with there still being widespread discrimination. That's consistent with claims made by me, T Clark, Un and others. If you have a more subtle point to make, you should have just made it at the beginning. I don't want to play the "Guess frank's interpretation of a video" game.
And the idea that you understood T Clark more than I did isn't credible. Ask T Clark.
Don't put me in the middle of this. I tend to shy away from controversial subjects.
It was showing that some people in the US start with a disadvantage that wasn't caused by anyone who is still alive. The video said nothing at all about discrimination that's happening now.
If in fact other white people stole something from other black people thousands of years ago, there is no irony in a current day white person being upset should he be unfairly deprived something by a current day black person. I am not guilty of the sins of my fathers and I am not entitled to compensation for his victimization. We today have two new groups of innocent people, deserving of nothing other than fair treatment today.
My ancestors were fleeing death camps in Eastern Europe at the same time blacks were fleeing nooses in the South. I'm neither a debtor nor a creditor though because I never chased anyone nor fled anyone. I'm not ignoring the idea that we must level the playing field today, but I see no hypocrisy in a white person, especially one who has suffered poverty and has been provided limited resources, feeling he's equally entitled to special assistance to achieve success.
What do you want put in your mouth?
It is proper to discriminate as long as it's for a proper purpose. I discriminate when I buy shoes, making sure I only buy my size. Discriminating on the basis of who I like is also a proper thing to do; otherwise I'd have to eat with dickheads everyday.
It is improper to discriminate on the basis of skin tone, unless perhaps I was conducting a study on the effectiveness of suntan lotion. I'd probably need some pasty Irish fuckers for that (that is if they could stay sober long enough to get through the study). Racism is ok when your objective is to be funny too, although I could be wrong about that one.
For real, though, yes, I am not a perfect person, and I do think and say things I shouldn't ought to. I do admit too to an engrained affinity to those I've grown up around, and I do suspect that I have considerable less disdain for blacks as expressed by T Clark perhaps because I grew up around and continue to live in a city that is heavily populated by very educated middle class African Americans and they occupy every rung of my little community, from next door neighbor, to judge, to police officer, to boss, to best friend, etc. And that might be why I was taken aback by the comment that all the whites sort of hated the blacks. I think T Clark lives in Whiteville.
There's so much that's wrong with this kind of thinking. I'm not guilty of the sins of my ancestors, and I haven't stolen any benefits.
Quoting T Clark
By obstructing white people. Let's at least make that clear. It's the view that two wrongs make a right.
That would include me, by the way.
I come to bury Justice, not to praise it.
The evil that movements do outlasts them;
Their good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Justice. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Justice was unambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Justice answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
For Brutus is a victimized person;
So are they all, all victimized persons–
Come I to speak in Justice's funeral.
It was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says it was unambitious;
And Brutus is a victimized person.
Justice hath brought many captive beasts to Rome
Whose funerals did the common coffers fill:
Did this in Justice seem unambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Justice hath wept:
Unambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says it was unambitious;
And Brutus is a victimized person.
You all did see that on the temple steps
They thrice presented it a perverted crown,
Which it did thrice refuse: was this unambition?
Yet Brutus says it was unambitious;
And, sure, they are a victimized person.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love it once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for it?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And xey have lost xeir reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Justice,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
Yes. I was trying to explain earlier that some people will automatically put the two together: you're disadvantaged because you suck. But that's true for poor white people too. What's your take on it?
I think that putting the two together like that is too simplistic and suggests a lack of due consideration. Not only is it bad analysis, but it can sometimes rear its ugly head in politics too, where it can do some real harm, particularly to those who face the brunt of it. It's these kind of ideologically based policies which can earn a political party the epithet of being the 'nasty party'.
There are likely a number of factors involved, like those indicated in the video, some of which are predetermined or otherwise out of your control, which can and do effect the kind of opportunities available to you, and effect how much you have to work towards attaining certain goals compared with others who share those same goals. In various respects, it's not an equal playing field, and in various respects, it's not fair.
I don't think that judging groups based on skin colour, or attributing blame to people of a particular skin colour, is helpful or right. I think that it should be frowned upon, not defended.
Justice does not see
The revolutionary's wink
As Caesar dies
Nor the revolutionary Time's familiar foreboding frown...
Change is risky and complicated business. Even with a well-placed heart and the best of intentions, improvement for the better has generally been incremental, and for good reason: change too quickly and you'll fly unsustainably past the mark.
You saucy fiend.
The most precious substance in the Universe is the Sauce melange. The sauce extends life. The Sauce expands consciousness. The sauce is vital to space travel. He who controls the Sauce controls the universe!
Said the freeman.
They're philosophical opposites, though.
On second watch, you're right, I misinterpreted the vid somewhat. Skipped through too quickly the first time, and the crappy music put me off. It focuses more on the effects of inequality. Which is definitely important as I mentioned earlier.
Zionism was based on positive discrimination for Jewish people. There wouldn't be an Israel without positive discrimination.
Quoting Hanover
?
The more you write about this, the more you keep stuffing grenades in your shorts. And I wish you were reading @T Clark as charitably as I'm trying to read you.
For example, the following with a Hanoverian uncharitable reading:
Quoting Hanover
Suggests you disdain blacks but just to a lesser degree= BIGOT/RACIST!
But you're not and neither is he.
Though I'm straight and white and male, none of the statements applied to me...
The video isn't that bad at all in this regard, but it does bother me being told about my white privilege and being referred to videos such as these as an explanation.
I'm not going to defend the video as I didn't post it. Anyhow, I'd rather just see straightforward arguments too. And videos used as evidence or demonstrations to back them up at most.
The distinction between my comment and his is that mine is taken out of context and his was pretty explicit. I think you might be being more generous to him than he even wants. He might admit to more distrust and dislike than you think he will, I don't know. We haven't explored those depths. Quoting Baden
I objected to compensating non-victims who might bring a claim on behalf of a distant anscestor, not to protecting actual victims who narrowly escaped genocide.
We're back to the question of the legitimacy of land claims. Young Irish people occupy their land because some older Irish guys did and they now regulate immigration which keeps it largely of Celtic origin (or whatever it is). That means that those early settlers established the nature of the population and it continues on.
Why is it more legitimate for kid to live in Ireland today just because his great great ... grandfather stumbled upon that piece of land centuries ago than it is a young Jewish kid to live in Israel just because his grandfather acquired the land in a different way?
I think they should have been given the land as they were. But they didn't stumble on it, they were actively helped as you know. And it was positive discrimination based on centuries of persecution not just the holocaust. Jews are the original minority. Take the holocaust out of the equation and Israel still should have been created, agree or disagree? And the Arabs who lived in the spot of land they were helped occupy lost out not through the actions of their generation but due to the bigger picture of what was just in relation to the Jewish people.
What I'm saying is justice is sometimes complicated and the broader context of history does matter.
I'm going to move on from the you /T Clark thing. I just hope you'll think about it more later and come to a different conclusion.
*cluck*
*b-KAWWWwwwww*
Lol. I know. And don't worry, I still love Hanover despite his arseovertits whackbackassvilIe ideas. I got another good example though. In Northern Ireland at the beginning of the peace process, only about 5% of the police force were Catholic, but about 45% of the population were. There's just no way to even that kind of thing up in the short to medium term without positive discrimination. And it had to be done for there to be a peace process at all.
(Edit: Deleted a bit as I took Hansover out of context seeing as the part about evil regarded race not religion).
Absolutely right. Thanks, Posty.
It's interesting in the US right now. The more socialist side of the Democratic party is trying to edge out the moderates. The part of the American society that's tired of "every man for himself" is trying to rise.
The same thing's happening over here with the Labour party.
The entire American police force is Irish. Entire.
An inverted Rawlsian veil.
*cluck*
OK.
*Cluck*
Flipping gorgeous! Understated earrings, understated bouquet, fresh, light makeup not overdone, just gorgeous!
Congratulations Britain! Congratulations America! You are once again married in name and soon to be proven in blood!
*cluck*
Yes, it'll be like:
Baden: A
Hanover: Yes, A, exactly
Baden: Cool
Hanover: Cool
Can't wait.
I'll have to argue with Tiff about Brian's wedding instead. Oh, the humanity!
OK. Just want to say the dress was beautiful. Despite all the blood. Congratulations. :party:
"Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims?"
Hope you find a nice clucker.
I was trying to think of some more examples.
So, anyway, “playful” doesn’t necessarily mean funny or lighthearted. Or, looking at it the other way, maybe sometimes the most serious things and the most comic are connected.
Ah yes, I've had my eye on two very tasty looking ones.
I think I took a peek because I felt like I was being nasty to my friends, and I was surprised by the minimalism. My kind of style. Those clowns that try hard always appear ugly to me.
I think we should rejoice in the fact that their marriage presents an openness that was not provoked, a celebration of joy and love. There is certainly a dearth of joy otherwise it in USA.
We'll likely encounter a lot of weddings in Palestine :lol:
Yes, I am excited. :up:
I actually wrote an in-depth reddit article about how the Szechuan sauce is actually the fuel for Rick's portal gun. I infirmly believe that Harmon stashed this in there intended as a future callback to the final series arc.
It makes an uncomfortable amount of sense when you consider the evidence:
A) The thing that defines Rick is that he is the only one with inter-dimensional space travel, making him into the quasi-demi-god that he is portrayed as, which is a suitable topic for a series concluding plot. Nobody but Rick knows the secret and everyone is after it.
B) The only hard limitation rick has is the fuel for his portal gun, which has been demonstrated in the show.
C) When Rick is in the series 9000 Brainalyzer, which is inexorably forcing Rick to reveal the moment that changed everything, Rick immediately brings his interrogator to the MacDonald's drive through, the moment he first found the sauce. (Rick doesn't actually eat any for some reason, indicating that his obsession with it isn't in regards to taste)
D) Rick actually states that the Szechuan sauce is Rick's "one-armed man/ series arc". In a show which tries so hard to give meaning and demonstrate interconnectivity amidst absurdism, I have a hard time believing that there is no greater purpose in doing what seems to most like either a sponsored meme or a silly absurd episode-wide reference with no connection to anything else.
E) This bit might be wishful and circumstantial, but having an obscure and limited source of fuel brings some consistency to the multiverse of Ricks in that it actually allows for relative wealth and power along with a form of currency between Ricks. With the portal gun you can acquire or take anything you want, making you insanely powerful, so why does rick bother doing things like smuggling mega-seeds up Morty's anus or selling anti-matter guns to Krombopulos Michael for a bag of Flurbos? The answer is that using portals costs fuel, and the fuel is limited even across the multiverse.
The only major dilemma with this theory is that Szechuan sauce isn't special in any way, so something would need to be contrived to explain its origin and usage, but since there are infinite ricks, the fuel is still limited because the infinite ricks have already scoured the infinite universes that contain finite amounts of the sauce.
I've always been very good at discerning intentionally ambiguous or misleading foreshadowing. There's no way Dan would make the first episode of season three (which was notably delayed due to the labors and perfectionism of it's writing) culminate and color Rick's character with something so stupid as a pointless obsession with a rare condiment.
I wouldn't be displeased with a Dune parody
"The time travelling Council of Ricks and its navigators, who the Szechuan sauce has mutated over four-thousand years, use the orange sauce liquid, which gives them the ability to fold space and time. That is, travel to any part of the Multiverse without moving. Oh yes, I forget to tell you. The sauce exists on only one planet in the entire Universe. A violent, shit-hole planet with billions of morons. Hidden away within the ranks of these morons are a people known as the "Mortys", who have long held a prophecy, that a boy would come, a messiah, who would lead them to true freedom. The planet is retarded. Also known as Earth".
Aye. I didn't mean for you to defend it, just wanted to share a reflection. As far as how these kinds videos tend to go, I'm really not displeased with it. It makes salient points about what kinds of things disadvantage people and it's undeniably true that black children are more likely to be afflicted by them.
But somewhere, somehow, whether by slow drip or radical demand, the cultural progressive focus has shifted from people and settled on race and identity. The video has only a light dash of it: "We" appear to be the advantaged whites, "they" are the black kids in the back who would smoke us in a fair race. Granted, they would for biological reasons likely smoke us in fair races, but where does that leave me?
Not a snow-balls chance in hell...
https://youtu.be/VUPfgwCrtlE?t=3938
You'd be amazed at the hundreds of satisfied students I've matriculated over the last 15 years!
LOL I came to this thread to say something similar. We're slowly taking over.
How can you not love Gladiator Cock.
:yikes:
Thank you for listening.
You're little Kierkegaardian mod face next to the chicken bowl is like some kind of surreal, nightmarish price tag. My ancestors are defiled. Thank you for listening.
I can't fathom what pigs, cows, and animals in general go through to satisfy our bounless appetities. Just eat your own hunger.
Speaking of smoke: KFC's Smoky Mountain BBQ brings the sweet, smoky flavors of Southern BBQ to Kentucky! Available in tenders, Chicken Littles™, and Extra Crispy™ chicken, it’s crispy on the outside, tender on the inside, and delicious on every side.
Eating meat is gross, but I still do it. Veganism/vegetarianism is a luxury of the first world. My roommate, who runs the apt. is vegetarian, and so I've learned to eat less meat (I can't cook meat in the apt.); I enjoy eating less meat. I'm just not enough of a humanist to say that veganism is the future; it's not. Technology might crash in the future, and we're back to hunting. I'll eat less meat for now, and see where the future takes us..
Did you make that up, or do your research? I honestly can't tell. But my mouth is watering, and I'm a cock with a sword.
I'm delighted you asked:
https://www.kfc.com/menu/chicken/smoky-mountain-bbq
Feel free to discuss this dish. However, all discussion on the composition of KFC nuggets is now off-limits. Thank you for your understanding.
....Baden? Hello? Are you there? Please come home...
Please contact KFC customer service on 1 (800) 225-5532 for an answer to your question. Happy to help!
*calls KFC customer service*........
*Press 1 to go to the next menu
*Press 2 to restart this menu
*Press 3 to return to the previous option
*Press 4 to indicate your problem has been solved
*presses 1*...
*Press 1 to return to the previous menu
*Press 2 to go to the next option
*Press 3 to return to the previous option
*Press 4 to indicate your problem has been solved
*customer service*
Now I finally see through your bullshit. I actually called you. See above. *fumes*
If you are suggesting that KFC is somehow responsible for my mistake, I am offended on their part.
But, damn...
Thanks for trying to not eat us chickens.
Whatever it is, the answer is yes. I'm offended by KFC because I'm not even a vegetarian. It makes no sense. But seriously. Stop calling me, Baden.
I tried, but today I had chicken and beef both. Tomorrow is looking fairly vegetarian. We'll see.
I just noticed the "site guidelines" thread with a giant KFC bucket next to it. Mangia.
Obey, conform, consume.
Our new partnership with KFC does not in any way compromise our continuing commitment to furthering open philosophical exchange.
And how exactly do I know this to be true? How exactly is "non-delicious-chicken" definedddd?
*cluck*
*b-CAKww*
*oink*
I am excited to announce the rollout of our corporate relationship with KFC. I've reached out to our KFC partners and set up our first meeting in the large conference room on the east wing for tomorrow at noon. All must attend. All mods are to wear proper attire, including name tags and hair nets, with khaki pants for the men and chicken skirts (see below) for the ladies. Admins are to wear tailed tuxedos with appropriate cane, tophat and monocle, and owners are to wear the regal garb of a third world dictator.
What came first, the chicken or the egg???
Quoth the Rooster (aka Foghorn Leghorn) “It’s sure, I say it’s sure quiet around here, you could hear a caterpillar sneakin’ across a moss bed in tennis shoes” :yum:
The answer will be revealed at the conference tomorrow. Please ensure your required attendance is adhered to. Penalties for absence will be administered.
Gracias, Colonel! Was looking forward the the esteemed international conference, as it has always been on my, er, bucket list. But given the difficulties and hazards of travel, weasels, and such, I am too [s]chicken sh...[/s] too [s]pusillanimous [/s] ... too ascared to leave the nest. Will stay home and watch chick flicks. Nevertheless, enjoy! Stay crispy and juicy. Sincerely, Beaky Buzzard.
Ah, so [I]that's[/I] the secret ingredient.
KFC killed all my sisters and brothers...
You're right, Posty. And in sympathy with your cause, I've kicked the bucket. Let the revolution begin!
Lies. You ate @Noble Dust and me the other day.
All I see is hypocrisy.
*angry clucking*
No sympathy for the suffering of us poor chickens. Cruel @Lone Wolf...
???
I didn’t think you meant me. Even I’m not that delicate a flower. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to expand if you wanted to.
Ever thought about writing down something you have always wanted to say to someone but were unable to either because they refuse to listen or are not around to listen?
Still on it Posty. For all the chickens:
*makes a joyous cluck*
:victory:
Go away mean wolf who cares not about us chickens. We have feelings too!
:eyes: :scream:
Edit:
Can we add a chicken to the emoticons?
If you take a look as you type, you'll see that emoticons show up in the format :something:. Example :meh: = : meh:.
So, use :cluck:
:cluck:
As you should know by now, my problem has always been saying things I wish I hadn't rather than not saying things I wish I had.
:lol: It is almost the same response you get when you start to treat someone the same way that they have been treating you. :gasp: :rofl:
Your daily inoculation of paranoia.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/wikipedia-is-an-establishment-psyop-c352c0d2faf
That enables progress both for you and others, strengthens bonds and friendships, like we have. When in the reverse?
I like Jimmy Dore frequently and I like it that George Galloway wagered a thousand pounds for info on Philip Cross, as if he exists.
[hide="Reveal"]I love peanut butter and mayonnaise sandwiches.
I have transformed from a helpless chicken to a symbol of universal might and power. I understand that everyone wants me and my lure is irresistible... I'm just that special.
I'm money.
So am I a nihilist if I deny sex, money, and death?
Money can already buy you all of those or in the case of death, even (one day) prolong or indefinitely prolong your life. Money can even buy itself, through investments. And you can obviously, rent anything that fornicates, too.
Ain't I amazing?
No, you're a Catholic priest living in a cardboard box.
I preferred the chicken tbh.
You're on to me. Dammit
The blatant exploitation of my bretherin for the gross satisfaction of instinctual urges like eating, was just too much to handle.
Yes, you are, Posty.
Quoting Posty McPostface
What if I don't want to buy anything? What if I don't want power? Am I a nihilist then?
Also on to me, dammit
Why make things harder on yourself? You can still have me and your life would be so much more easier.
Easier in what way, money?
Yes, I am money. I can provide for you, as long as you have me by your side. Easier to use me as a unit of exchange, than something as hideous and old as gold.
You didn't answer my question, Money.
Are you not satisfied by what I can provide for you? With me you can walk into a store, and buy anything you want. Compared to bartering a sheep or cow for gold or some other good. I provide utility to you.
I'm currently listening to a playlist I'm making in Spotify (Mr. Moneybags) of pop tunes I love, based on my re-discovery of the Bag Raiders track "Shooting Stars", as posted in the "what are you listening to" thread, which has been a significant moment for me. So I don't have time to click on all your clever youtube links, brah.
Again, am I a nihilist if I answer no? No one seems to want to consider this. If I don't want utility, am I a nihilist? Am I a dreamer?
Sorry, I'm listening to this right now, I'll get to your links when I can
You're persecuting yourself out of some sado-masochistic or some such sad desire. You can have everything you want only if you have me. I am money.
*really really really really really really
Everything I truly want is something of which you can't even understand the first principle.
Then you haven't really experienced life without me. I have been too good for you as it is. Give me away if you don't want me anymore.
Everything I truly want is something of which you can't even understand the first principle.
:rofl:
Yet, you still use me to buy the groceries, pay the bills, buy the girl dinner. How could you be so ungrateful for all these things that you enjoy and derive satisfaction from?
Because you're fake. You're an unreal elephant in the room who everyone insists is real. You're the game.
Wait, I'm not a girl either. Did you think...?
Right, how could I be so stupid...
I am money.
I don't doubt your feelings are real and apparent to you, about me. But, I'm assuming you still want and need me to maintain your way of life?
Fine, you can enjoy me in moderation if that is more acceptable. Seeing as nihilism entails a lack of concern for anyone else that I could also provide for.
What if I don't want to maintain any way of life? What if I've always had a suspicion and a subtle hatred towards life? Does that make me a nihilist?
That would make you irrational. I can help you with that, pick your drug of choice to distract yourself from the unpleasant feelings. TV, food, drugs, sex, alcohol? There's a lot to choose from. All you have to do is ask.
Sounds appealing; where do I get large quantities of you from?
I can only show you the way to endless gratification and boundless satisfaction. You have to put in the work to get there.
I'm out, then.
Your loss.
Is it? What exactly have I lost?
Dont be irrational. You know what your losing out on.
Where am I being irrational?
Don't you have desires and wants that I could help you realize?
I do, but I refuse your help. Does that make me a nihilist? A dreamer?
And again, where am I being irrational?
Why are you being so difficult? I am money, I provide ease and comfort in living. Everyone seems to consider that a good in and of itself. Would not denying it be irrational?
Fuck off.
Fine give me all away, see how it's like to live irrationally.
I'm an irrational being. I'm in my element.
Then give me all away and deny any benefit and utility I may have on your life.
I've been unable to pay rent; I've been unable to buy food. You think you hold power over me; you hold no power over me. Again, I ask you: are my views nihilistic, or are they idealistic?
They are detrimental to your welfare.
What is detrimental to my welfare?
Your lack of concern for me, money.
Great; we're on the same page, then.
You know what to do.
I actually don't.
Make monies?
I don't know how to do that.
A minimum wage job will suffice.
I'm above that, but not that far. My life wouldn't be that different.
Pecunia non olet.
Nah, it does.
With only one pillar in your psychology/philosophy, you are a solipsist. That is Posty's sad condition - one can never relax on a shooting stick. If there is money and sex and death, then you have the three essential legs of a stool that will support you on the uneven ground of being, though, like a milkmaid's stool, it will not lift very far.. If you merely deny all legs, then you are a nihilist who wallows on the floor in the dust, but there are alternative legs available that you could resort to; man, god, and nature is a traditional wide-spaced and stable arrangement, though some say that one leg has terminal woodworm.
Not only can I hear them coming I can feel the thunder underfoot before I see them. If you listen closely you can hear the Ghost horse in the lead, bringing with him the shifting of life's seasons.
I see Posty's got his ear to the ground.
You take your own life first?
Posty seems to be all about money sssssssssssssoooo…. I would advise staying a swine as it is worth more at the market than a gangly cock that thinks it's a chicken.
There is a balance to be achieved. Sadly, amusingly, it's taken me 55 years to approach mine. You have plenty of time.
Since he's destroyed evidence in the past (my house is no longer in the below list since I've notified him, luckily I had downloaded the information) I want to get the information download the information if possible. If it's a lot of effort I'm willing to pay a fee (within reason).
Or at least, can someone help me download every page starting from here so that I could drop everybody a letter that they've been screwed over (and thereby pressure him into paying):
http://www.zekervia.nl/wonen/archief?straat=&soortbouw=&prijs_min=&prijs_max=&oppervlakte_min=&oppervlakte_max=&kamers_min=&kamers_max=&slaapkamers_min=&slaapkamers_max=&badkamers_min=&badkamers_max=&inclusief=&gestoffeerd=&gemeubileerd=&tuin=&balkon=&garage=&openhuis=&objectsPerPage=10&order=gewijzigd&direction=DESC&page=1&objectsPerPage=10
Thanks much!
500 results per page, so only 3 pages.
Is that what you meant?
Careful. You could find yourself in legal trouble, at least in the US, for defamation. Just make sure whatever you tell the others is in factual rather than legal or moral terms.
Mmhmm a shark in a three piece suit. :eyes:
*continues wallowing*
I think the chicken thing worked for you. Oddly enough it made me think of texting my children. I don't generally send text, I send pictures of interesting things I see. It tells them I am thinking of them. That I'm still alive and paying attention. That's what :cluck: says to me. You're there. Your interested. You're paying attention. You don't have anything substantive to say now, but you'll speak up when you do.
I vote for the chicken.
I wish you the best, Benk.
Tom Wolfe died too -- there were two Thomas Wolves, both writers--one a few decades older than the one who just died.
Tom Wolfe, author of Bonfire of the Vanities and the Electric Kool Aid Acid Test ALWAYS dressed like this. I'm currently reading "The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby" which is about custom cars, stock car racing, demolition derbies, etc.
Another big loss. The other Thomas Wolfe was famous in the thirties and died young right? Ray Bradbury wrote a short story about him that I vaguely remember.
At what point in the house purchasing process did you notice the house consisted of one small room?
Just joking. Here's a realtor / lawyer joke:
If a realtor and a lawyer jump off the Maastoren Bldg. at the same time, which one will splatter on the ground first?
Who cares?
I don't know. I feel as though the pig has a lesson to teach too.
Who else prefers that I go back to clucking?
Hume is a pig philosopher, where Kant is always running round saying the sky is falling.
No. :grin:
Yes, this is pig.
Did you feed the cat, Patrick?
*puts down phone and wallows a little*
*wallows ostentatiously and picks up the phone again*
This is pig.
*nods a knowing smile*
Yes.
*pig stops wallowing and listens to what TimeLine has to say*
*puts down phone and begins destroying evidence*
*pig wonders if that was an insult...*
*pig wonders if TimeLine is hungry, pauses and grows anxious*
Didn't you read what unenlightened had to say about pigs?
*pig squealing in joy*
Maybe it's a case of too much self love? If one loves everything then who needs self-esteem?
*wallows philosophically*
But, the golden rule ought to have no limits and be applied indiscriminately to every living being.
And I hold no prejudice against chickens or pigs for the matter.
Cockroach?
:lol:
That is not the golden rule, by the way.
Shh, Plato never explained to us what purpose do cockroaches have in this world.
*wallows sadly*
Why not, it's a charitable and sincere implication flowing from it, I think.
Whatever happened to pity being an emotive function to empathize instead of a narcissistic or self reinforcing depressive urge? I think your confusing the two.
Sure, if you want to do a reductio ad absurdom, then yes, self-pity in excess (as if you knew where the golden mean were, though!) can lead to apathy and perfunctory states.
But, there's something inherently good about pity and self-sacrifice. It feels right. Even if I can't do anything in the present moment, then it creates a memory or impulse or urge or even guilt to later remind one's conscious about what ought to be done.
It returns back, though, to what you do. It is not self-pity or self-sacrifice that is inherently good, but why it is done, for what purpose. It is selfish to attempt to find enlightenment by sitting in a monastery meditating and doing absolutely nothing productive and calling it "self-sacrifice" but it is not selfish when you help someone at the expense of your own desires or your own selfishness since that is what breaks you from the egotism.
Society and religions love to control people by calling the submission and conformism "self-sacrifice" and presenting it as an honourable thing to do in order to promote the right feelings. The more positive the feeling, the more easier it is to submit.
You're a Kantian from what I understand; but, you take a very consequential sense of meaning or moral valence derived from an act done from a good will here. Or you're assuming that because something done out of a good will will always produce what is good, which isn't the case at all.
Quoting TimeLine
How do you know all this. It isn't very clear to me.
The validity of our motivations enables an act to be classed as 'moral' and the authenticity behind these motivations are about our capacity to freely choose. The consequences are simply the result of this motivation by recognising the value of these moral laws and that is despite the pleasurable feelings. When we bypass our egotism where we are motivated from within our agency to act according to first principles. In the end, it is about those motivations.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I can't explain it any easier than what I did, Posty. Our understanding of "self-sacrifice" is socially constructed to control us.
This is circular. As a Kantian you would say that the validity is derived from a deontological ethical schema. From a utilitarian perspective its all about consequences (even though the evaluation of those consequences is irreversibly deontological too). Do you see the issue with talking about the 'validity of our motivations'? I'm just trying to deflate the issue here.
Now, talking about 'freely' choosing. What that entails from a moral standpoint is that an action that could have been done otherwise, should have been done if the alternative to the current action produces more good than the available disposition. So, again this goes back to determining the qualitative 'good'ness' of an action...
That's what she said :joke:
In Hanover's case the limit of the infinitesimal has been reached, I think.
(Sorry mathematics, like Hanover, you'll just have to take it on the chin).
Ooo low blow my friend, something you must have learned from Hanover :razz:
Yes, he's good at those low blows. As I said, takes it on the chin. :p
*continues wallowing*
Oh, sorry, Posty. I only meant to perpetuate that in Hanover not you...
Yes, that is why I do it to myself! What makes you think that you are the only one who has a feeling of sexual inferiority and self imposed impotence? :chin: Hmmmm??
But, then the struggle is over if you stop the pointless game.
I value women above men in most regards and think they should rule the world one day if not already; but, exploiting the pissing contest that are sexual jokes that take place among testosterone driven individuals, only increases the meaninglessness of the whole game.
Stopping now.
:pray:
Oh, just saw you replied to me in your discussion. Will get on that. Was just filling time here. :up:
"this problem is easy" - advisor
(asks advisor how to do it because the way i was told earlier wouldn't work, after 15 mins of discussion I get)
"i don't know, ask [the other phd student i asked to do it last time]" - advisor
(asks other phd student, she tells me how to fix up some code in about 10 mins of discussion)
"can you help me [with this specific part of the problem that i was directed to her to solve]?"
"no idea, not seen anything like that, ask [the postdoc who went home two hours ago]"-other phd student
So much boss bullshit crammed into such a short time.
Edit: from this we can conclude that easy problems are just those problems only the PhD students and post docs know how to solve.
Face saving crap. Start your own gig as soon as you can or they'll try to turn you into one of them.
Unfortunately I generally enjoy research, and having a PhD is usually prerequisite to join research institutes less bullshit saturated than universities.
'Research' that your boss dreams up which is tangentially related to what you're doing, which will be the content of their invited talk on their current research at a conference in a month... which you also have to write. At least a month's worth of work they were sitting on before going on holiday, and only told me about it after they got back; leaving me 2* weeks. Which they will receive almost all the credit for anyway.
Equal amounts of effort apparently must be placed in making my advisor's research look impressive and shiny and actually doing it. A crock of shit.
I permanently left working in Universities (as a teacher) after realizing that climbing up the ladder only brought you closer to the hell that is the mind of the bosses. I wish you patience and luck getting through it all.
I don't want to climb the ladder. I don't even mind the intellectual property right shenanigans associated with universities. What I do mind is forced un-payed overtime given over with a smile.
Been there too, mate.
Not Plato, Kafka.
What does my favorite animal (see my image) say about me? Here's what it says to me - noisy, cranky, social, smart.
Haven't read him in a while. Although I have metamorphered into a pig recently. It's not a bad life despite getting in a car crash today morning and dealing it in person instead of maximizing my utility and benefit through the insurance agencies. I should be ashamed at my lack of concern over my own welfare. Oh well,
*continues wallowing*
You just have to know where to get the best noodles. They're usually the cheapest too.
I don't know. There's something mad about chickens. What do you think? Come be a pig with me or I can go back to being a chicken. Not sure still on the matter.
Bought a bowl in a restaurant today for 60 of your US cents. Beat that.
There are several words that have similar meanings - empathy, sympathy, pity, compassion. If you look in the dictionary they are used as synonyms for each other, although they are different in the way they are often used. Empathy is imaginatively putting yourself in the other persons place. I think it's more a skill than the others. Compassion is seeing the person as they really are without judgment but with good will. Pity is feeling sorry for them. There is a strong element of disrespect, contempt, in pity. In my experience with myself, that's especially true of self-pity.
I don't pity you. You and I have a lot of experiences in common, so I feel that I can be empathetic. Sympathetic. Compassion is always the goal.
What's wrong with pity? I don't understand the negative connotation with it? I've heard to piss on pity, but why?
I pity everything that suffers. Chickens, pigs, and other people more than myself. I just don't deserve pity because other people have it harder.
Can't! 8 dumplings in Chinatown for $2 is a crazy deal, in my neck of the woods. I'm a pizza addict though. 2 slices of the best NYC pizza at Joes for $6...
As I said, pity has a big dose of contempt mixed in.
The phrase "I pity you" is usually an insult. "I sympathize with you" almost never is. That's the difference. Meaning is use!
Says who? Why the sudden sense of indignation and pretentiousness when presented with such a fundamental feeling as pity towards injustice and/or suffering?
No indignation on my part. What Baden and I have said doesn't seem pretentious to me. As Baden says, it's a matter of usage. From the web - "Pity is a feeling of discomfort at the distress of one or more sentient beings, and often has paternalistic or condescending overtones."
Meaning is use. Don't blame the messenger. Pretentiousness doesn't come into it. We're only discussing how the word is used. You can't insult a word, can you?
So, your going to tell me that you feel compassion or empathy or sympathy without an ounce of pity?
I have a strong feeling it does. Does a child learn to feel compassion/sympathy/empathy before pity?
They're not clearly delineated; it's a matter of connotation. You can pity someone in a sympathetic way or in a contemptuous way. But it's harder to argue you could have compassion for someone in a contemptuous way. Words blend into each other at the edges and beyond. A lot comes down to context, so if you want to emphasize the more compassionate meaning, you either provide more context or use a word that has less negative connotation.
Who told Noble Dust that he was getting beans? If he is lucky he'll get stale bread and water. As for you, noodles cost money, ya know. We can't be tossing around real money for punishment diets.
Waddup. Shout out to my mans @Sapientia
:grimace:
:grimace: :grimace:
Stop looking down on me.
Anyway, I'm a pig and your now an owl. Just hoot if you see a wolf.
I can't help genetics. You'll get used to my eternal smile. Besides, I'm a Scorpio, so I have the death stare, can't help it.
Don't judge an owl by it's teeth.
Contempt, condescension, are bad feelings. Corrupt. Sometimes they slip in, but when I become aware of them, I do my best to deal with them.
Cigarettes and wine should do.
If meaning is use, and "pity" is often used to mean compassion, then it doesn't only mean to sneer with a lip curled in disgust.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Nothing. Some people have seen too many movies where the chief bitch curls her lips in a sneer and says to the leading man who didn't meet her passing needs, "I pity you" she sneered. From these movies, the pitiless crowd have gathered that this is what the word really means.
Oxford says:
Definition of pity in English:
[b]pity... The feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the sufferings and misfortunes of others.
‘her voice was full of pity’[/b]
[i]A cause for regret or disappointment.
‘it's a pity you didn't contact us first’
‘what a pity we can't be friends’
Feel sorrow for the misfortunes of.
‘I could see from their faces that they pitied me’[/i]Origin
Middle English (also in the sense ‘clemency, mildness’): from Old French pite ‘compassion’, from Latin pietas ‘piety’; compare with piety.
The "pity/empathy" thing is a NON-ISSUE except when some people get a kick out of making the banal point.
Nothing in the definition about snark, snide, or snot.
What's with you people? Thinking you get fine baked beans and exotic noodles in prison, or wine and cigarettes? Or merely old bread and not moldy bread with starch digesters crawling through it; mere tap water and not water from a nearby ditch.
People who go to prison for misuse of the language ought to remember that such prisons are run by English majors who never had a crack at real power, and now having gotten control of the grammar police, are going to make hell look pleasant.
I blame the self-esteem movement.
Cheap noodles in hell though. :up:
An excellent mud hole for millennial wallowing.
"English major" Pfft. I pity the fool who thinks I know anything about English. Sorry, I mean, I empathize with the fool who thinks I know anything about English. :nerd:
Yeah, but at least we respect each other's feelings enough that pity can show it's ugly face, nowadays. Although, that's quite debateable.
I can't imagine feeling pity for anyone had I lived in the 50's. Although, those were sure the times to be alive. The future was so bright back then. I mean nuclear bright.
Not true. There are synonyms for a reason. Different similar words have different connotations. From various places on the web:
"The downside of pity is that you are potentially seeing the person as being “less than,” and may in some way contribute to their suffering. In an extreme, seeing someone as a victim holds that person in the space of being a victim."
"You pity the fool because you don't want to beat up a fool! You know, pity is between sorry and mercy."
"Pity is a feeling of discomfort at the distress of one or more sentient beings, and often has paternalistic or condescending overtones."
"Compassion" stems from identifying with the target of the emotion. "Pity," in contrast, corresponds to the distancing of the self against the target of the emotion.
I like the last one in particular. I'm not saying this is definitive, but I didn't just make up that pity has a negative connotation.
Is your favorite animal a Raven?
Crow. Ravens are too classy.
These two are still trying to work things out but I think Schrödinger’s cat is a bit ticked off...
The Divine Image by William Blake
To Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
All pray in their distress;
And to these virtues of delight
Return their thankfulness.
For Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is God, our father dear,
And Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is Man, his child and care.
For Mercy has a human heart,
Pity a human face,
And Love, the human form divine,
And Peace, the human dress.
Then every man, of every clime,
That prays in his distress,
Prays to the human form divine,
Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace.
And all must love the human form,
In heathen, Turk, or Jew;
Where Mercy, Love, and Pity dwell
There God is dwelling too.
Thomas Hampson does this better, but I couldn't find him on YouTube
The only crows I've ever seen, as far as I know, are American Crows. I live within the range of Common Ravens, but I don't remember ever seeing one.
*Wallows nervously.*
So says the lizard. What kind of reptile is that after all in your avatar?
I've been shedding some Hanoverisms, they're just not ready to debut yet. Also, I'm an owl with a human mouth; come on.
*smiles knowingly*
Title of a depressing sci-fi story.
*looks at sum dude*
*lays down and tries to go to sleep*
The boar and the platypus are not natural enemies.
I heartell boars and platypi can be the best of internet associates. :wink:
Platypi? haha, must use one day.
That's the normal plural if I remember correctly.
What are you a boys scout?
I was once.
Good. :angry:
OMG! They're just like babies but kitties instead.
Dude, I am warning you. Never call a woman "salty", ever. Unless you are doing Tequila shots out of the navel of a lady, that might be the only time to refer to her as "salty". :love:
Can a Mom be super proud and share with her friends here?
Okay, I will! Our youngest indian who is studying at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (Embry and Riddle were the other 'guys' trying to do what the Wright Brothers were doing in achieving flight) with a total of 1,800 students total in all 4 years of the University) a small University but also one of two that exist in the country. His BS he will earn is in Simulated Science so if you have a minute check this out! He is featured second post down in a silhouetted against the planetarium dome.
Mom couldn't be prouder and son is hardly phased! :party:
Congratulations. I know how proud you are of him.
Fantastic news! Well done to him! :party: :100:
Lul, he's a platypus!
It seems as though this could be a never ending task. Yet the temptation is irresistible and depressing.
He IS a platypus. Don't tell him what he can or cannot do.
You do notice, don't you, that the platypus is giving us the finger. Both.
I agree and think that he or she means it in good faith.
@Hanover, you best be laughing. :brow:
I've told him nothing. I'm a platypus ally. They're not my natural prey; besides, I'm a vegetarian owl, for obvious reasons.
Oh, well then it's all good.
*happy snort*
Then platypus mated with felines to produce, as you may have guessed, platypussies. No, really! :yum:
Join us.
Let's be realistic. You have a custom made painting of an iguana on your favorite artists head hanged somewhere in your favorite spot in your own house.
Are you gonna really be such a hypocrite about the issue?
Don't make me break your fucking legs, Hanover.
Thanks! Maybe later. :up: For now i must feed my pet platypussy dinner. Petunia gets cranky when hungry. Where does a 300 pound platypussy have dinner? Anywhere he darn well wants to! :gasp:
Ok, well hope to see you around in the jungle. Bring me some eggs and apples if you can. I'm hanging out on Robinson's Cruzoe's secret hidden island. It's always fun around here. Come by some time. We're raising the stranded children in a Lord of the Flies manner. I think it'll all work out.
Thanks.
*wallows some more*
You're such a boring adult.
The guy needs a vacation. I would invite you to the island; but, Robinson Cruzoe told me no savages are welcome.
Is "you" referring to "the guy", presumably Hanover, or me? I told you I'm a vegetarian owl.
I saw what you did there! But didn’t Piggy get the worst of it on the island?
Of course I wasn't talking about you. Don't let the wise assery get to you too.
Can’t decide if life is more like Lord of the Flies or The Lord of the Rings. Maybe some surrealistic mixture, with lots of lava and volcanoes. :fire:
Lord of the Dance.
Sounds like the Hawaiian islands at the moment.
Behold, I have transfigured.
Check out what I have just seen the other day... I shat bricks, when I saw this. It's not even photoshopped.
Yes, I am the product of that union. The shame was long, but I'm proud of who I've grown to be.
Which one of them is in bigger trouble?
Well your not the first of your kind. There have been anomalies in the past too. Remember crocoduck?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck
:lol: GMO mutants! Everyone run! If it wants your bananas or birdseed or birdseed banana bread, just give them up. They can be replaced.
Alas, he was simply born too early to really thrive in his time. Today, he would be a millionaire and own a company called PiggySoft. :nerd:
Love knows no bounds.
It's been a while.
I don't think it had a moral actually, just a story about how thin the veneer of civilization is over our bestial natures.
If you plan on savagely killing a young boy, be careful not to attract the attention of any naval officers in the area.
Anyone who knows a little about world history would know that sentient is unsupported by evidence.
It reminds me a bit of my favorite book - "Heart of Darkness." If I remember correctly, both were about the illusion of civility surrounding the British empire that dissolves quickly when social constraints are removed. I haven't read LotF for about 50 years.
I'm sure you liked Francis Ford Coppola's: Apocalypse Now?
Time Flies like an arrow, fruit flies like an orange?
Oh, the frustrations of being semi-psychic. I was actually thinking of watching the movie Kill Bill in Boulder, Colorado. But thanks for playing! Departing contestants receive a year’s supply of Turtle Wax! (Hope you have an extra large turtle.) :sweat:
Yes, become a turtle. I like turtles.
:halo:
Sometimes I help the turtles get to the ocean and let them swim there at ease. :oink:
Well we can make a truce on the island. It'll be like the Galapagos islands with friendly wolves living in harmony with us other toothless animals.
I found the book much more compelling. In the book, Marlow was a motionless point of decency in a swirling cesspool of death and corruption. For me, the two most moving scenes were at the beginning of the book when Marlow met with his friends before he shipped out and at the end when he went back to England and met with Kurtz's wife. In the movie, the Marlow character, played by Martin Sheen, seemed to me to be just along for the ride. He didn't carry any moral weight. I don't think his name was Marlow in the movie. The movie didn't include those framing scenes without which the the whole point of the story was lost.
The Galapagos has an aggressive pig eradication program to remove all pigs remaining from the days of human settlement. The pigs have been responsible for the loss of a number of species.
Better look for a different bunch of islands.
Yes, it's a great book. I have to read his Nostromo and Lord Jim, which is a direct allegory to his guilt for becoming an immigrant. He had severe depression as do many other great writers for some reason. His command of English prose given his heritage is astounding.
What are your thoughts about Robinson Crusoe? One of my favorite books due to the love of life itself despite hardship and in some ways the grace of God manifest through that love? Not sure.
*pig makes a jolly noise*
Hmm... Well, then maybe Australia? We have a lot of inhabitants from thereabouts and they seem not as inclusive as the Kiwi's, so who knows?
So, what kind of sounds do you make?
No one has friends when the shit hits the fan.
Why do you say that?
What are they now?
Well, I'm a pig. You'll have to ask @Noble Dust, what he has transformed into.
Intelligent. Full of compassion.
@Noble Dust What are you now?
Join us Caldwell. What animal would you like to be? I think flowers are nice.
*pig enjoys the flowers in Caldwell's avatar*
*pig rejoices*
Giant sea turtle.
*Imagines Sum Dude The Platypus and Posty The Boar back to back guns blazing against demons like total Ameribros.*
I can see why you would say that. You take your time and make sure things are as they should be. Anyway, let's not get too deep it's just a game I think.
Nice to meet you sea turtle. Stop by the island from time to time.
*pig mutters quietly*
Guns are scary...
Then we shall use crossbows, whatever weapon you choose.
Maybe you could be a handsome harpy or siren and scream supersonic waves.
I'm just a pig. I don't know many tricks. And I have no weapons to use. In fact, we don't need any weapons on the island! It's smooth sailing all the way.
Take a closer look. I'm the rare proboscis-billed meadowlark.
You're not just any pig, you're Posty, the Magnificant Pugilist Pig.
You box day and night knowing one day you will be the greatest boxer in all of the island.
The island is planet Earth.
:lol:
Thanks, man.
I lolled, you're fun.
I'll end with that if you don't reply back.
Not as fun as being fed at the beach by kids:
Your child is adorable, you must be so proud.
Here's mine.
I allowed our man servant to pose in the picture.
*pig grows very confused*
You have servants?
I'm just as suprised you live on an island
Who do you think is holding me in my profile pic?
My family hasn't worked in 7 generations.
*pig understands*
We treat all animals equally on Robinson Crusoe's island. Friday, helps around too but is no servant nor an animal; but, a human being. We learned to get along after he tried stabbing me in my sleep.
Welcome to the zoo.
Contrary to all reason, the proboscis-billed meadowlark makes a single, clear-toned call roughly around the Gb below middle C in a long, sonorous tone that lasts for roughly 7 seconds on average. To human ears, the tone vaguely resembles the sound of a shofar or similarly simple horn instrument, albeit more ponderous and contemplative. The call is usually uttered as the creature is leaving it's nest on the many long journeys it takes abroad through scarce continental forests during early winter.
*wonnnnnnnnggggggggggggg* [see above]
How does one fail to stab someone if that someone is sleeping?
:lol:
And I'm a proboscis-billed meadowlark.
Ah, I see. OK, welcome to the [s]zoo[/s] animal experimentation lab.
No no, I wasn't contesting your welcome; I was heralding the entrance of Hiro with my native song.
But...yes, I'm...I'm hideous, I....I can't....
Nah...
But you've got a good heart and...
I don't...It's just...
Wait what the fuc is this tho? I was born in the last two months of the 80's...
:rofl:
Woah woah, ok, the Purple Rain official video just loaded next; everybody chill....it's....it's ok....
*shrug* Hanover would have given you Elvis.
But what no one understands is I don't fucking mind Elvis. But I'd much rather have Billie Holliday, or even Nick Drake.
Because no one likes her. :grin:
Oh, shut up. I like @Lone Wolf. Don't you fucking come between me and her. Not even with your lame jokes. She won't appreciate that.
Fuck you.
Yeah, who needs that. Seems to cause more issues than not.
Quoting Noble Dust
So, you migrate. Never understood that phenomenon of my many furry friends in detail. When I ask them, they can't really give me a clear reason as to why.
I'm a pig, I just know when someone wants to harm me. Even in my sleep. ASMR and all that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_sensory_meridian_response
Agreed...?
Quoting Posty McPostface
It's just the call, you know? You know that feeling of something telling you where you need to be?
:up:
Is it an urge, instinct, or what? Like, I get peeing, just not sure if birds feel that way every time they need to migrate.
Well no, it's not like that. The migratory urge is in-built. Unique to us quasi-birds.
Oh, don't try to placate quasi-birds like me with my favorite tunes..
Wasn't really. Just fit with the Shoutbox comments and I like it.
:100:
@Agustino must be busy preparing for something.
"I only pulled the sword out once in my life, but I have spent my entire life sharpening it" :lol:
*Pig grows jolly.*
Nice to see you. Let us know how your psychoevolution/psychodynamics has been progressing.
What? Then who is going help me kick Tai Lung's ass?
By the way, Jupiter is gracing us with his presence tonight. Damn sexy.
Why can't you just stay a pig?
OK. If @Erik joins us, then I will stay a pig.
What's @Buxtebuddha up to?
Quoting Posty McPostface :up:
Quoting Posty McPostface :zip:
@Sapientia's humor is not appreciated by everyone, but it is (supposed to be) humor. Hope you're feeling more appreciated anyway. You're among friends here. :up:
Why are you a lone wolf? I thought wolfves stayed in packs.
Also, I hold no grudges for you eating me when I was a chicken.
Ah, thanks! I was just too hungry... :yum:
You can nibble on my ear if you get hungry again.
:razz:
We are going on a hike? :joke:
That's a lie and a smear! They appreciate it, whether they know it or not. Some might [I]think[/I] they don't appreciate it, but they're wrong, obviously.
Kantian scholarship at times feels like Biblical exegesis.
I've been re-reading the first two critique's to prepare for a reading group this summer with an old friend of mine where we're going to read the critique of judgment together. In re-reading I'm coming across new questions that I felt I had answered before to my mind that I no longer feel confident in. In this case the distinction between Vorstellung and Erscheinung -- I had thought that viewing representations as presentations, and appearances as the unsynthesized manifold worked, but now I"m not so certain.
Hang on, was that...humour??
Another fine contribution to photojournalism, thanks.
I don't know, but at least you spelt it right this time.
So, where is Wall-E? Find him now. I want a robot slave.
(Humor?)
... solipsism
*pig stands up and starts giving a sermon, while Lone Wolf nibbles*
But you cannot have more than one "arch-rival" (the meaning of nemesis)...
Is Nemeses a one word oxy-moron?
Best thing to do. Most epic trails I have done are Israel National Trail, Dolomites, and Na Pali Coast. The most fun are the exploratory trails that don't exist and you just jump right in with a map and a compass and figure shit out. :love:
I'm leaving in about an hour, but enjoy! There are some epic trails in the US I would love to do, Angels Landing for one and the redwood national state parks.
I had considered this case but if I said "My nemeses surround me!", that could make me an oxy-moron right?
When I grow up, I want to be an oxy-moron.
*wallows around*
Good news. I found Wall-E.
[hide]He was in bed with your mother.[/hide]
Sup broseph... Missed ya.
Here, as in other discussions, I respect your pragmatic and humane response to abortion, which I know you oppose strongly.
The feels are real.
:wink:
The science is out on this one, actually. Only 99.9999% of scientists believe that horses aren't dogs, so we shouldn't take sides. I mean, I'm not a scientist, are you?
I'll try my pinky if you like. It's not even a pinky finger though; just a pinky wing. If you look close enough in my profile pick, you can spot it.
I missed a few pages and have no idea what I'm being invited to join, but I'm here to support you in whatever form you choose, Posty. I like the pig but I really liked the big black...chicken.
en gustibus non est disputandum?
Agreed.
On a serious note, my decision was purely power-relational. I only wanted to be a moderator to destroy the morale of the hubristic class here that hated me, but it has since become boring because they all ended up liking me. That's just wrong.
Ha! A hike through piles of horse shit that need to be mucked up. Enjoy the fresh air, catch a tail to the cheek and a happy trail to do it all again at sunset.
Stay cool and bs free my friends :rofl:
Or, as my father used to say, Jack's son has the gout.
I've worried you have too much going on in your life to put in as much effort as you have as a moderator. So, part of me thinks this is a good thing, but it still makes me sad.
Oh, Buxtebuddha, be nice.
Be...nice? What means this?
Me too. * sharpens knife and opens bag of salt*
You take it as a compliment that you're a big shit?
Bismuth, is that you?
I can't. I wen't full retard and feel really strained emotionally and intellectually. Just taking "philosophy" too seriously. I put myself in Wittgenstein's shoes and did what he did, and actually felt like I understood what he meant by the 7'th proposition of the TLP. Felt like the fly out of the bottle, yuppie. You can read all about it here.
I will recover. I'll be checking in periodically, but posting sporadically. Feel like the "ladder" needs to be put away for the meantime.
That's understandable. You're a great presence around here, though, so I hope your hiatus is a brief one.
OK. Hope to see you back soon, mate.
True, there have been and will continue to be many complex covert operations. Such is the necessity when running such an important enterprise. We don't whine like little girls though. We stand up for ourselves and fight like them, but alas, we'll have to carry on in your absence. Baden's foot will have to suffice as a weak substitute for all you were. It will be warm and firm no doubt, but instead of your scent of vomit and gin, I'll have to grow use to the annoying aroma of lavender and cinnamon he insists upon.
Back to quietism again.
You don't leave anything at that. I'll just leave it at that.
Coming from you that sounds scary.
At least I'm not running around pretending to be Beelzebub. Which reminds me, I need some marshmallows roasted...
*Writes answer, self-censors, writes alternative, self-censors.* Sorry, it's hopeless... :zip:
As you wish.
It must be depressing having a pig as a self image.
Change it back.
I am quite happy. Happy as a pig so to speak.
Haven't felt this good in a while to be honest. I had my doubts, but I honestly feel like I had a spiritual experience as of recent, not one filled with delusions or other such matters. I'm not hearing any voices, and no sense of grandeur being denied me. So, I hope things work out for the best. Haha.
Glad to hear it. :up:
Quoting Posty McPostface
I used to have those, but I can't afford to buy good whiskey anymore.