I don't. Fiction exists in the usual way, but "fictional" is rather a kind of nonexistence. — unenlightened

I disagree with this. If ideas exist, and Harry Potter is an idea, then Harry Potter exists. He certainly does not exist in the way I do -- as a person in the material world -- but he does exist in the same way any idea exists.

Do ideas think, or isnt it that ideas are the result of thinking? — Harry Hindu

No, ideas certainly don't think. Thinking requires autonomy. It involves the ability to process information about the world without someone telling you what information to process and how to process it. This is why robots can't be said to think, even if they are capable of doing complex mathematical problems in a fraction of the time humans can do them. Similar to robots, ideas lack autonomy and cannot be said to think.

I am not sure if the lack of autonomy is the only reason ideas can't be said to think, but I do think it is one of them.

With that said, I am not sure if it can be said that ideas can't do other things. Eating, doing magic, and killing wizards don't require the autonomy that thinking does. For that reason, it may be the case that statements like "Harry Potter did a spell" are true.

"Fictional" is a kind of existence, so Harry Potter exists, but as a fictional character. Harry Potter is real in that it exists, but the nature of its existence is as a fictional character in a book, not as an actual human being. — Harry Hindu

I agree with this. However, as unenlightened pointed out, do you think it's reasonable to say fictional characters can do things? Can it be said that Harry Potter thinks, does magic, goes to school, etc.? And if so, what does it mean when we say "Harry Potter thinks"? It certainly doesn't mean he thinks in the same way an actual person thinks, as he doesn't have the requisite physical brain necessary for thinking. Furthermore, he only "thinks" when someone tells him to think and what someone tells him to "think."

And this is supposed to show that he knows that he exist without absolute certainty. — Purple Pond

You meant "with absolute certainly" right?

However, how can you be absolutely certain your not also a fictional character? — Purple Pond

You can't be. However, absolute certainty is not a requirement for belief. Can you be absolutely certain of your birthday? Of course not. You could have been born the day after or the day before, and your parents, along with those responsible for your birth certificate, could have lied to you. But even without this absolute certainty, you probably do believe you were born on the day your parents told you (and your birth certificate says) you were born.

You are claiming that Moore is a racist while asking if she is.
Pick a lane. — Valentinus

I'm asking others if they would consider her a racist. A person who uses the "prejudice + power" definition may disagree with my claim. Also, whether or not she is a racist is only one of the questions.

Finally, if you feel my post is spam, maybe you should report it to the admin. I assume that spam is not allowed on this site, and if it is spam, my post will be deleted.

After the presumptions you make, the "questions" are merely rhetorical. — Valentinus

I don't think I made any presumptions, considering I am not assuming anything. The questions are also not "merely rhetorical." For instance, the question "should those who use the "prejudice + power" definition of racism seriously reconsider how they define 'racism'" would require an answer even if the definition of "racism" were presumed.

I understand your confusion and I do apologize, what I ment by original form is that we spent most of the time of the universe not being here, we were technically "not being", in the same way that it is impossible for a being to remember the moments before they were born we will not 'remeber' the time as dead, because it is simply not a experience — Filipe

I suppose what I am confused by is in what sense can "we" be "not being." The very word "we" implies being. It implies a group of things that exist.

How so?

Furthermore, banning 'hate speech' will only confirm their ideas about how society is rigged against them. — Tzeentch

Good point, Tzeentch! The other problem that I see with banning hate speech is defining it in the first place. Yes, there are obvious cases -- e.g., the guy waving a swastika flag and calling for the extermination of the Jews -- but not all cases are so cut and dry. Peter Singer, for instance, has been accused of hate speech for his views on the disabled. A couple years ago, one of his events was protested by a group who claimed he was promoting eugenics.

According to Daily Nous:

What began as two conflicting defenses of free speech soon hindered discussion of any kind, as the Effective Altruists and protesters battled with the volume to deafening proportions. Protesters used a megaphone to read prepared text to the audience, and numerous audience members shouted back at them to leave.

One protester even temporarily unplugged the adapter connecting Effective Altruism’s computer to the projector before fleeing out the side door of Cinecenta. The club was able to quickly start the video back up with a replacement adapter.

All the while, Singer’s TED Talk and Q&A continued, and the room grew cacophonous. Shouts of support for Singer’s free speech were met with chants of “eugenics is hate”
and “disabled lives matter,” and neither side showed any signs of backing down.
(my emphasis)

There is also the case of Maajid Nawaz -- who, according to the OP, is once again being targeted for Islamophobia, despite being Muslim. Years ago, Nawaz was accused of Islamophobia by the Southern Poverty Law Center. To the SPLC's credit, they eventually dropped their charges (which were absolutely ridiculous), but that does bring up the question of who is going to be in charge or deciding what hate speech is. Should Ayaan Hirsi Ali's views on Islam be considered hate speech? What about Milo Yiannopoulos infamous "feminism is cancer" slogan? Singer? Nawaz?

And what will this do to the left? Will Antifa's calls for violence against "fascists" (a term that seems to include even non-violent Trump supporters) be considered "hate speech"?

I want to know who this ban is going to be targeting.

once that we cease our existing life we simple go back to our original form of "not being" — Filipe

This line doesn't make sense. How could "not being" be our original form? The very fact that there is a form to talk about implies something exists and therefore implies being.

Premises:
The original poster and the followers picked the statements of the most vulnerable people to criticize.
This whole discussion provides for exactly what the so called social justice warriors are saying.
The fact that these arguments are wide-spread damages our society and makes it hard to treat all people fairly.

Conclusions
The fact that Czahar, his cohort, and much of the rest of society fail to see the corruptness of the framing of the question says much of what needs to be said about race. — T Clark

That doesn't look valid at all. It's just a bunch of random atomic statements linked together that do nothing to force the truth of the conclusion.

Let's use O for your first premise, W for your second, F for your third, and C for your conclusion. If that's the case, your argument is essentially:

O
W
F
C

That's argument is clearly invalid. I can show you using a truth table if you don't believe me. Then again, I will concede I'm not exactly a whizz with formal logic, so I may have made a mistake.

The George Pell case shows the issue neatly. A well protected established white male against childhood recollections.

The issue is not that lived experience is beyond criticism, but that it must not be simply dismissed out of hand. — Banno

Thank you, Banno. I will have to look that case up. I agree that lived experience shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but I disagree with your claim that "the issue is not that lived experience is beyond criticism." Based on the quotes I pasted from articles in my OP, it's pretty clear that at least some people think it is.

I called it a fallacy in its normal English language usage. — T Clark

If that's what you did, it makes even less sense. Picking "statements of the most vulnerable people to criticize" is not an idea. It's an action.

I was agreeing with Unenlightened and I backed up my agreement with arguments. — T Clark

Really? Please show me how the following are arguments:

Yes. This and your original post on this thread are exactly right. It's amazing to me that you are the only one who understands how it works. You pointed out the biggest fallacy of the other posts and of racial discussions in general, one that's hard to counter - Why did the original poster and the followers pick the statements of the most vulnerable people to criticize. It is a sign of their, of society's, lack of social and psychological awareness and moral courage.

Self-serving whining by the privileged against the whining of the vulnerable would be funny if it weren't so destructive. I appreciate your responses. — T Clark

As I said in my response to unenlightened's posts, and as he said, this whole discussion is wonderful, compelling evidence for exactly what the so called social justice warriors, whom you deride, are saying. Calling it ironic is inadequate. It's stomach-churning. And stating you are a Social Democrat as some sort of credential is smarmy. Thanks for the opportunity to use that word. — T Clark

Put both of these quotes in standard form -- i.e., premise 1, premise 2, premise N, conclusion -- and we'll test the soundness of these "arguments."

Thanks unenlightened. I was siding with the OP, but I had missed this point — ZhouBoTong

I don't think it's a good point, though, because posing evidence to the contrary is not necessary to dismiss evidence. For example, if someone claims that aliens exist and her evidence for this claim is "My dad told me so, and he's a dentist," I don't need evidence to the contrary to dismiss it. It's clearly just an appeal to authority.

Thank you!

You pointed out the biggest fallacy of the other posts and of racial discussions in general, one that's hard to counter - Why did the original poster and the followers pick the statements of the most vulnerable people to criticize. — T Clark

And stating you are a Social Democrat as some sort of credential is smarmy. Thanks for the opportunity to use that word — T Clark

I don't think you know what "smarmy", "fallacy", or "deride" even mean. Picking "statements of the most vulnerable people to criticize" is not fallacious. A fallacy is a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. Appealing to ridicule, circular reasoning, and ad hominem attacks are examples of fallacies. Your example isn't. Saying that picking the statements of vulnerable people is not only fallacious, but "the biggest fallacy" (not even sure what it means for a fallacy to "the biggest"), makes about as much sense as saying the sound of toast is not only orange, but the most orange.

Furthermore, your entire post contributes nothing to this debate. It's really nothing more than the equivalent of hitting the Like button on Facebook (for unenlightened), and blowing raspberries at me.

Yeah, I'm not in the business of convincing you, so I'm happy to leave everything here, and let the jury of readers reach their own judgement. — unenlightened

The first thing we've agreed on this entire argument!

There's a level of courtesy and generosity in giving people the benefit of the doubt but the left uses this generosity to levy heavy criticism towards groups, systems and the like which isn't really appropriate. — Judaka

I think this sums it up beautifully, Judoka. While it may be appropriate to believe people's lived experiences when they're making claims about, say, their inner experiences (their thoughts and feelings), such a benefit is inappropriate when those lived experiences are used to make claims about others. When accusing others or society of racism, sexism, etc., demanding more evidence than lived experiences is entirely appropriate.

You could have provided examples of questionable whites and males, but you did not. And that is is evidence that is not a matter of opinion but can be checked by anyone who cares to took at your op. Evidence that contradicts your claims of fair-mindedness. — unenlightened

As "lived experience" was defined in the OP as "the first-hand accounts and impressions of living as a member of a minority or oppressed group" there was good reason why I didn't mention white people. That's not my definition either. Take that up with the author of Geek Feminism.

Furthermore, as I did elaborate that this standard of evidence should be applied to privileged people, that is evidence that I believe it to be true. If not mentioning X is evidence that I don't believe X (as you seem to claim the previous post), then mentioning X is evidence that I do. I mentioned that I believe privileged people should be held to the same standards of evidence as marginalized people; therefore, by the logic you seem to convey, I believe it.

I am doing what you claim is the right thing and questioning your claims in the light of the evidence, — unenlightened

Which is exactly what you should do, as my claims are not above evidence.

and finding them unsupported, — unenlightened

How? I have addressed your questions when asked to do so. When asked to provide evidence that people's lived experiences can and should be questioned, I gave you an analogy to illustrate why. You said "analogies weren't evidence" and I explained why they were. You dropped it there.

It seems like you're the one who's not supporting your claims.

It's not like there's a great shortage of white men full of shit to question. — unenlightened

Agreed. But I'd wager there's also no shortage of people fighting these white men who are equally "full of shit."

Yup. You want to question that? — unenlightened

Absolutely. Questioning the lived experience of marginalized groups doesn't perpetuate a low status; it gives them the status that all beings should be under. People's memories of an experience can be wrong. There is overwhelming evidence in the psychological literature to support that claim. People's memories of experiences therefore don't deserve to be treated as if they are above criticism.

Some may clap back that we are more trusting towards privileged people's reports of their experiences than we are towards marginalized people's. This may be true, but if it is, the answer is not to put marginalized people's testimony on a status above belief; it's to not be so trusting of privileged people's.

↪czahar Analogies are not evidence. — unenlightened

Yes, they are. If by "evidence," you mean "support for a claim" then analogies are certainly evidence. They're frequently used in inductive reasoning.

Thing is, the complaints you guys are complaining about, the testimonies that you are allegedly legitimately criticising are those of folks such as women and black people whose testimony is historically regarded as questionable, and there is a huge and long history that a part of low status is nearly always that the testimony is also given a low status. And that this is the testimony that you both bring into question yourselves is the corroboration that you demand that this is a continuing problem and the complaints are true. You yourselves are the proof of the validity of the experience. — unenlightened

So, you're saying that by continuing to question the lived experiences of marginalized people, I'm perpetuating the low status of their testimony and thereby confirming their claims about their testimony having a low status?

And provide evidence of this too. — unenlightened

Okay. How about an analogy. If I told you that a relative of yours robbed me last night, would you question my claim? If yes, then you can accept that lived experiences can and, at least under certain circumstances, should be questioned.

For the most part (I'll avoid detailing this for robots at the moment) my view is that persons' "lived experience" should be above criticism. — Terrapin Station

It depends on the information that person is reporting. If someone simply reports on their inner experiences -- e.g., their thoughts and feelings -- it would be odd to question it. For example, if my friend, Bill, said he was hungry and I responded with, "Support or retract that statement," that would be an odd and, at least in most people's view, inappropriate statement. Although, in certain circumstances, it would be appropriate to question people's inner experiences -- e.g., when a kid says he's sick on a school day and you have the feeling he's just trying to skip school.

Statements that go beyond inner experiences -- e.g., statements about discrimination a person has faced or abuse they have received -- do need to be questioned, though. Don't get me wrong, these should not be dismissed outright, but they do need more evidence, especially considering there is overwhelming evidence in psychology that people's memories aren't always accurate.

In a court of law, first hand accounts are evidence. Now I doubt that many would say that such evidence is proof, because folks can lie or be mistaken. But the complaint is precisely that the evidence is dismissed without evidence to the contrary, and the evidence of testimony is discounted on one side and counted on the other. — unenlightened

Oh, absolutely. I would never suggest that we simply dismiss someone's lived experience outright. I'm just saying that it's not above criticism. That it can and -- under certain circumstances, should -- be questioned.

Also, keep in mind that when I made the OP, I was referring to non-legal settings, even though I quoted a lawyer in one part. Legal evidence cannot always be analogized to non-legal evidence because courts of law have different rules for what constitutes evidence. For instance, successfully appealing to precedent would be a sufficient way to win a case in a common law court, but wouldn't be sufficient outside of a legal setting.

I agree completely. The spirit of inciting violence, to the best of my knowledge, does stand.

Just to be clear, I never intended to deny there were laws in the US against inciting violence with speech. I was simply pointing out that the quote about fire in the movie theater came well after the First Amendment, and that Schenck is no longer good law. The OP would have been better off alluding to another case.

It’s meaningless. It makes an assumption that there is a difference between “natural” and “manmade” as if humans and human actions are outside of “nature.”

I made a post, but for some reason it is not showing up. Your line about “fire in a movie theater” does not come from the First Amendment, was never binding, and the case it was quoted in was overturned in 1969.

One of the legal limitations of free speech (according to the 1st amendment) is speech that incite actions that would harm others (such as yelling fire in a crowded theater. — Anaxagoras

I wouldn't recommend using that example, as it was 1) from 1919, well after the First Amendment was written; 2) never binding law; and 3) overturned. The line comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the Court Case US v. Schenck, which

"....had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I.

Furthermore, Schenck was overturned in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio.

There may be other cases which limit free speech in the United States, but Schenck and it's oft-quoted "fire in a movie theater" statement isn't one of them.

You can read more about it here.

The two are interrelated, but the idea is that in the afterlife you will be different from what you are now. Just from this point, we can already suppose that in our fallen state (again, traditional Christianity places significant emphasis on human sinfulness) we have neither moral nor epistemic grounds to properly understand the kind of wants we will have in the afterlife. In other words, on the Christian worldview, our present nature limits our capacity to even conceive of the "heavenly" ourselves. Hence, our reasons for desiring afterlife cannot be grounded in our analyses of human nature and the world the way we know them. — Gortar

Let's talk about this part for now. We can move on to the succeeding paragraphs if necessary.

First, how exactly are you defining "traditional Christianity"? Do you mean Christianity as it was originally practiced, say, when it was a young religion in the later days of the Roman Empire, or do you mean the type of Christianity practiced by most Christians?

Second, if this is the traditional Christian argument for the desirability of Heaven, then it would bring up questions of identity. Would this being who exists in the afterlife still be me? After all, he would be something that, as you put, I have a limited ability to conceive of it. This would imply that he is very different from me, because if he were like me or almost like me, it would be fairly easy to conceive of him. So how would I know he'd be me? And if I don't know he's me, I can't justifiably say I would find Heaven desirable. I could only say that the afterlife being who exists after me finds Heaven desirable.

It's wrong to reward people for any achievement, luck or effort. The only reason cited for the lack of justification for rewarding luck is that it would be 'unfair'. This implies that those who have worked hard to achieve some personal goal are rewarded 'fairly'. In what way would bestowing an award on someone who has achieved high grades through their own hard work be 'fair'. They may be motivated entirely by their own self-interest, studying only to become as wealthy as possible for their own self-indulgence. So what could possibly be the function of such a reward that would qualify for our normal use of the term 'fair'? — Pseudonym

These are some strong points. I didn't see the citation you're referring to, though. Was it further in the article?

A possible response to your argument would be that when we talk about fairness, we simply mean playing by the rules. If the rules state that people should be rewarded for hard work, then it would certainly be unfair if people were rewarded for not working hard.

Among other things, there are not racial roles, but there definitely are gender roles. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Do you think stereotypes or expectations about the way people of different races should act would fall under the category of "roles"?

I think that we can only make moral judgements on violence in hindsight. Violence is only moral if it is preventing something even worse, but we cannot know for certain how things will work out until the future comes. — JustSomeGuy

Where you ever on Online Debate Network?

As far as your argument goes, I would take a step further and say that even hindsight can never tell if the benefits of an action outweigh its consequences because it is always possible that an action could have unexpected consequences in the future. The only time we can be sure an act won't have any unexpected consequences on the future is when there is no more future for the violent act to have consequences on. But of course, if there's no more future, there's no more us, so we can never be sure.

With that said, I think probability comes into play here. The probability that some violent acts will prevent something worse is so high in some instances that we can make a moral judgment before the act and feel confident the benefits will outweigh the consequences. If a psycho is about to set off a bomb in a maternity ward --- killing everyone, including the newborns --- and the only way to stop him is by shooting him in the head, then the probability that shooting him will prevent a much worse result is so high that I don't need to wait for the effects of shooting him to feel relatively sure that shooting him is (by utilitarian standards, at least) the morally correct thing to do. Sure, one of those babies could grow up to be the next Hitler and kill far more people than the psycho did, but considering the number of genocidal maniacs the world has produced versus the number of people it has produced, that would be unlikely.

Then again, there are certainly violent acts with consequences that aren't so likely.

So the question is what is the use of free will when we, rational agents, can always choose the best option? — bahman

On a social scale, free will allows us to blame others for their actions. When a person chooses "the worst option," the belief in free will allows us to say, "You messed up!"

I think the need to blame people for faults is a psychological need that all or most humans have. In fact, I believe there is a school of thought (the name is escaping me) that says even if free will doesn't exist, it is still a useful fiction. I tend to agree. I would hate to live in a world where, say, someone could cheat on their spouse and the only thing their spouse could say is, "Well, he had no choice."

I should point out that I haven't read all of the responses in this thread, so if my response has already been addressed, feel free to ignore this post or copy and paste the relevant response.

Is she pregnant or not? What test was used? What was its accuracy? Will she carry to term? What was the purpose of the question about pregnancy and who was asking it, and who were they addressing? All these contextual things and many more go into any supposedly simple black and white yes or no question. — Joshs

I'm afraid I don't see how this would affect the statements "I am pregnant" or "I am not pregnant." What does it matter if woman said she was pregnant after using A test versus B test? What does it matter if she will carry it to term? These questions are all irrelevant. They have no affect on whether or not the answer to the question is violent or not. If you think otherwise, please define "violent" and explain your reasoning.

They are a part of what the answer means.

I don't understand how. Can you please explain to me how the meaning of the phrase "I am pregnant" differs when a woman uses an accurate versus inaccurate test or whether or not she will carry it to term.

Much more important than a yes or no to a question, is the significance of the distinction. What will happen as a consequence of the answer is a function of all the superordinate meanings and commitments, personal, social, cultural, that are tied up with it. Gay vs straight vs trams matters in a way that penis vs vagina do not, because they refer to deeper issues of meaning distinctions involving whole ways of behaving and societal reaction to them.

So, it's not the "irreducible distinctions" that make language violent, at least not by itself, but the contexts with which it is spoken? Is that what you're saying.

language that posits irreducible distinctions ( man vs woman, etc) is a kind of violent language. To verbalize, and believe in, sharp distinctions is to see alternate views as violating those irreducible distinctions, and justifying a response that counteracts that presumed violation. — Joshs

I'm not quite understanding how this makes the statement violent. Even if everything you said about believing in distinctions and justifying responses is true, how does that make it violent? What definition are you using of violence?

Furthermore, your statement about sharp distinctions would seem to lead to a host of absurd conclusions. For example, there is a sharp distinction between pregnant and not pregnant. You have to be either one or the other. There is no in between. But would that make statements about pregnancy --- e.g., "My wife found out she was pregnant yesterday" --- violent?

Translation : Violence is the use of force or power, physical or psychological, to impose constraints, dominate, kill, destroy or damage. — Akanthinos

Going by this definition, putting up a stop sign could be considered an act of violence. After all, stop signs involve the use of power (i.e., from the government) to impose constraints on our actions.

Definitions like the one you cited weaken the term violence. They make it so even the most mundane acts can be considered violence.

People like to be called by the thing they like to self identify by. Anything else is violence. — charleton

Why do you feel that way? Would it be violence to tell a white woman who thinks she's black that she's not black?

You have to understand the degree of danger. In the U.S, a trans person is 14 times more likely to be murdered than a non-trans person. There have been wars which were less dangerous to soldiers. So, given the situation, I feel it's okay if we use a very dramatic language, because it is a very dramatic situation. — Akanthinos

I am not sure what you mean by "dramatic language" here. Do you mean "exaggerated language"?

I am also not sure if the high rate of transphobic murders would matter here. Men are killed at far higher rates than women, but does that make it violence to say something untrue about men?

No, but it'd be rude. — Buxtebuddha

It depends on the situation, I think.

But as I noted earlier, the Nazis were the legitimate government of Germany and had broad popular support for their deeply immoral activities. Legality does not necessarily impart legitimacy. — fishfry

You seem to contradict yourself here. You state the "Nazis were the legitimate government of Germany" (which I agree with if we define "legitimate" as "lawful") but then you seem to contradict your statement by saying that legality (I'm assuming you're talking about the legality of the Nazi party) doesn't impart legitimacy [of the Nazi party]. You seem to be saying they were legitimate and illegitimate in the same paragraph.

Furthermore, if "legitimate" does not mean "legal" (as you state in the second sentence) then you need to define it for me.

If your only argument for the legitimacy of government violence is that they're the government, that's refuted by the many examples of the immoral acts of governments throughout history

That wasn't my argument. The consent of the majority of voters as my argument for the legitimacy (e.g., legality) of government violence.

If one steps back and takes a moral view, violence from a street gang and from the State is indistinguishable. One need only read about the many police abuses of citizens in the US and elsewhere to understand that point. — fishfry

I disagree. In a democratic society, government violence is done with the majority support of the public. We vote for presidents to execute the laws (i.e., violence) and for Congresspeople to choose which rules the government is allowed to use violence to enforce.

Street gang violence is usually not committed with the consent of a public majority. I will concede that there may be some cases where street gangs use violence with majority support, but I think they are few and far between. I can't think of any gang that operates today with majority support.