You've hit me with white blindness, white privilege, white=normal and so on. These are all condescending, ideological assertions which make me really wonder about where your head is. — Judaka

I love how you're the pot calling the kettle black here, Mr. Can'tHaveAConversationWithoutCondescendingRemarks.

More specifically, I'm charging society at large of these things. I have yet to see you show how these aren't true. In fact, I'm pretty sure you can't prove them false.

Are you asking me to be ashamed that we're not perfect? — Judaka

I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm talking about awareness, or rather lack thereof. Shaming is a figment of your (guilty?) imagination.

That isn't entirely racist, there are legitimate reasons to fear white ethnocentricism above other forms but I wanted to discuss whether or not it is the case that the alt-right is worse because they're white. — Judaka

There are perhaps some who'd like white people never to celebrate whiteness. But I'll repeat what I said in my first response: the Alt-Right is not frowned upon for liking whiteness or white culture, it's that they hate all others. Same reason, I might add, people don't like some of what the black power movement under Malcolm X became: anti-white.

What you're saying has actually nothing to do with the topic NKBJ, this isn't a thread about white privilege or whether whiteness is celebrated. — Judaka

It's ridiculous that you don't seem to be able to understand the connection.

It's not a myth, but like all such diagrams/maps/symbolic representations, it's a crass over-simplification. It helps you orient yourself and others, but it shouldn't be taken as an exact science or representation.

Einstein wasn't even white, he was a Jew. That you don't know that shows how little we care about the whiteness of the people you listed. Thi — Judaka

I think seeing Jews as non-white is as weird as seeing Italians and Polish people as non-white.

I think you just don't want to face the fact that we think white=normal. That's white privilege, btw.

My problem with the Alt-Right is not that they celebrate and appreciate their own whiteness/Europeanness/Americanness/whatever, but that this is often a cover for hating, fearing, oppressing, and wanting to get rid of others.

It is white blindness to say that society villianizes all moments of white celebration, though. We're constantly lauding white accomplishments in the news, schools, culturally... We celebrate Abe Lincoln, Beethoven, Einstein, Kant, Brad Pitt, etc etc. We just generally don't recognize those things as being white-celebratory, because we just see white as normal.

By and large (and there ARE notable exceptions) minority pride is not to cast hate upon whiteness, it's just to take pride in something that often goes unappreciated in a majority white culture.

No need to point that out since A) I didnt claim it was all teachers and B) even if I had specifically mentioned teachers I wouldnt be talking about ALL teachers unless I actually said ALL. — DingoJones

That whole segment is decidedly not chill.

but id be remiss if I didnt point out that the majority give their silent consent by not standing up to it. — DingoJones

And, actually, they do.

You need to chill. For real.

#NotAllTeachers/Professors

:wink:

It's impossible to judge if it was racist, because the contents of the tweet are unavailable.

And the whole "minorities can't be racist" stuff is just baloney.

I'd just like to point out that the phrase "lived experience" is redundant at best. What other kind of experience would there be? Unlived? Undead? Livingdead?

https://www.utilitarianism.com/socrates.html

There is no singular value to philosophy, but among some of it's values I would list:
1. Your point about helping us find questions/problems to research or think about.
2. Help us figure out HOW to find solutions.
3. Help us figure out how to interpret results.
4. Help us figure out what to do with interpretations of results.

5. Help us lead a life worth living. The whole rather being a Socrates versus pig thing.

Strictly atheist theologically, but I find the teachigs/texts of most religions to be insightful literature about philosophy and human psychology.

Things to consider and inform, but not necessarily follow as dogma.

This has been investigated and found to be true. — Crazy Diamond

Can you provide a link or citation for this? Cause I was curious to read more, but I can't find anything. Thanks!

Look at you getting rude again :roll:
Nevermind, guess you're never going to be able to have a civilized conversation.

I don't think that one is a victim just because their feelings are hurt — Terrapin Station

Let me just make sure I understand your position:

1) hurting someone's feelings is never wrong.

2) since people say/do bad stuff, we should just let it go and learn to be tougher.

Plus it's a false dichotomy. Just because it's possible that people should learn to ignore racist words, doesn't mean that those spewing racist garbage should be let off the hook.

That's just victim-blaming and totally ignoring how humans work.

As social beings, we care about how others view us, speak to us, and treat us.

I do not think people need to grow insensitive because there are jerks in the world--it's the jerks who need to change.

There'e degrees to it.

Just having racist thoughts is one thing--you're probably hurting yourself more than anyone by being caught up in hate that way.

Racist words, epithets, etc. hurt people's feelings. It's wrong to hurt people's feelings. There's something doubly horrible about being told something nasty on account for something you can't change. If someone calls me lazy, that's either true or not, and I can decide to change if I want to. If someone calls me something that implies I'm less-than just because of my skin color, I can't do anything about it.

Racist actions are obvious unethical because you're treating people differently (mostly worse) on the basis of something they have no control over, and which should be irrelevant to how they are treated. There is no basis for treating black people as inherently dumber than others, as skin color simply does not affect brain function.

That's interesting, but really not the same as learning.

you should be trying to help them instead, or you think their judgments are on-target, in which case you shouldn't be upset with someone saying something that you think is true. — Terrapin Station

I'm sorry, but it's not my job to make someone see the light who's treating me poorly. Come back with the right attitude and we can talk.

Apart from not being willing to be his doormat/punching bag, I also think Judaka exhibits an attitude that tells me he's not willing to change his mind. He says he is, but then gets condescending and ill-mannered toward anyone who doesn't adopt HIS positions.

how should a community approach to the source-output link ethically? Likewise, how people should handle any brilliant work that is stemming from an evil source? — astroarmut

Likewise? Those are two totally different questions.

I think anyone who try to justify violence should be banned. There should be a zero tolerance for justification of violence, it's easy to argue morally for such a stance — xyz-zyx

Agreed, but can you point to the exact posts you're referencing?

Also, are you flagging the posts in question?

My personal opinion is that Judaka should be spoken to about being generally rude, but I wouldn't say he needs to be banned for it (yet).

Another fact is that for most people the good outweighs the bad in life and they're not going to join your silly movement. So have fun dying alone!

I like life and I'm glad I am alive and the vast majority of humans agree with me, so your argument stops right there.

I take your silly perfect Chinese Ming vases and I raise you the Japanese art of Kintsugi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kintsugi

I'd really have to know what the argument was and what the sentence was.

It's very important that psychologists use the available evidence and not their imagination. My argument is that this kind of thinking should extend to all things. — Judaka

I think that's a false dichotomy. You can (and should ) use evidence, studies, knowledge, etc. to help guide you in your attempts at empathy/imagination.

I think intuition also gets a bad reputation for being the opposite of intellect. Intuition is useful because you're reacting to cues that your conscious mind isn't picking up on.

For example, a good empath knows someone is feeling x, y, or z even before anything has been said. You often can't pinpoint at first how you know someone is feeling something, but you pick up on all the little bodily cues: eye movements, posture, hand placement, clothing, facial expressions, etc etc.

For most people, it's not possible to suppress all emotions all of the time. You have control over some of the intensity, duration, and what you do with it, and you can train yourself to react differently to situations if you know they are coming.
Some people never feel anything, and they're called psychopaths.
Some people delude themselves into thinking they can control their emotions more than they actually can.

I think it may be useful to suppress emotions that would otherwise make you do stupid things (suicide, self-harm, harming others, addiction, etc.) but by and large, it's much more useful to process your emotions and grow as a result, rather than suppress them and stay stagnant in your personal growth.

We could even talk about anecdotal examples... Really I haven't heard anything remotely interesting as a counter-argument, I have given an absolute argument and usually I hate absolute arguments. I'm sure there's some exception to my rule and I'm hoping people can add nuance to my understanding even if they can't completely reverse it. — Judaka

What about for psychologists? Seems to me they need to approach their patients with a mixture of intellectual detachment and empathy. Especially when a person is having irrational feelings and behaviors, empathy can help the psychologist connect with the patient. They can assess what a patient is feeling, and then later unravel why. Most patients probably wouldn't open up to someone they thought was too judgmental or analytic.

You're very needlessly aggressive.

Also, I do not think that there is any evidence that suggests any man feels like a woman. I think it's impossible to feel like a man or a woman.

If gender is a social construct and a stereotype, then abolishing those stereotypes effectively abolishes gender. Gender would then be a non-existent thing. — Harry Hindu

In theory, yes we could get rid of gender.

But until we stop performing it, gender exists.

Liking something is a preference and a feeling. Your preferences are part of what define you. — Harry Hindu

Your preferences can change over time. You can learn and unlearn preferences. What I liked ten years ago is not the same as what I like now.

Transgenders are claiming that there is something out of their control about them that defines them as the opposite gender, and that they can't change it.

And I don't think anyone is merely defined by their preferences.

Okay, so you can claim anything that you want but that doesn't mean you are right. Isn't that why we have things like evidence? Doesn't David provide that? Where's yours? — Harry Hindu

No he doesn't, actually. He just claims that his depression is caused by the experiment. He can't prove it, though, because it's impossible to know what his life would have been like without the experiment.

For which of my claims would you like me to provide evidence? That gender is a construct? I already provided ample examples of constructed elements of gender performance that are malleable.

Drag you? That's hilarious.

And yet you kept arguing :roll:

Yes, yes. We've already moved past that part. This is the assumption that the OP challenges. It is now up to you to move the ball forward with a new argument that addresses the logical inconsistencies that such a definition entails. — Harry Hindu

You're not reading carefully. My point is that there is no logical inconsistency, but that people need to carefully differentiate between biological sex and constructed gender. When you do that, there is no logical inconsistency.

Wow. Just, wow. If I had posted anything like this about transgenders, my posts would be deleted and I'd be called a "bigot". You can take David Reimer's word for it if you'd like. He specifically blames Dr. Money for his problems and his gender dysphoria. Here's the link to the documentary that the BBC article summarizes: — Harry Hindu

I've seen the documentary, thanks though.
And save your indignation. You can flag me if you want, but somehow I don't think any moderator is going to delete my post for questioning whether we can take a single person's word as THE TRUTH without serious inquiry.
David Reimer can blame anyone he wants for his mental issues, that doesn't mean he's right about the source of them.

So where is the consistent benchmark that we use for determining the validity of someone's feelings and claims as evidence for the gender or their confusion as to what their gender is? Is a transgender's brain malfunctioning? — Harry Hindu

I don't think you CAN feel a certain gender. You can like certain ways of talking, acting, and looking more. But that's not a "feeling" in the sense of identity. Like, if I dye my hair, it's not cause I "feel" like a brunette, it's cause I like to look that way.

I don't think all trans people have mental issues, but I do think the whole concept is metaphysically confused. Saying that gender is a social construct actually frees me to say that they can perform whatever gender or mix of genders they want to and it doesn't matter.

Also, I think some do have mental issues that they then attribute to their sex/gender.

I'm not going to go into a debate about the details of the study. Suffice to say that you should be open to changing your mind when presented with facts or at least indications that you may be wrong or at least misguided. Maybe you are, but you're coming off as simply stubborn.

In any case, even if your criticisms of the study are valid, it doesn't change my actual point: biology is not destiny. Just because most males have the potential to be stronger than most women, doesn't mean lifestyle (influenced by societal pressures) can't override that. Example: If a guy just spends all his days all day playing on his computer and never exercises or moves much, he's just not going to be as strong as an athletic girl who works out regularly.

Are you referring to this passage:
"Millennial women between 30 to 34 actually squeezed much harder than their forebears did, coming in at 98 pounds of force compared to 79 pounds in 1985."
?
If so, read carefully.