You call it "bias" while I would call it "values." Perhaps this is an example of the phenomenon you are trying to describe. — T Clark

You're right, it is.

I don't think I understand the question. For me, the thought comes first, then the words. At least some cognitive scientists and psychologists agree with that. — T Clark

I agree with you on that. I'm trying to create an image of perspective as a tower that's built brick by brick. Your words definitely are a result of your thinking, but then you'll use the words you've chosen in your future thinking, and that's where you'll be biased.

Those perspectives and conclusions are created within the environment established by our word choices which is the bias. By the time you're old enough for critical thinking, you've already established that environment. I think what you're talking about is covered in how I've described our word choices as being based on our feelings and intent, but your amendment completely changes the meaning of the sentence. If you would stick by it, how did you reach your current positions without needing to select your words first?

Some responses to this thread seem to have used corruption as the misuse of power in a governance sense. I agree with how you've outlined corruption when it comes to this thread.

So - Power corrupts when those who wield it are corrupted by power? — Vera Mont

Well, yes, that's right. I don't disagree that power can liberate those to do what they always wished to, or those that only acted morally when it suited them, and power has changed what benefits them and so they no longer act morally. Power did not corrupt these individuals, though, it may appear that way outwardly and it's very difficult to say when there was or wasn't a degradation of character.

I suppose I only feel I know it corrupts because my view is that what we think is moral is very flexible and generally self-serving. It seems obvious to me that with power, one would come to justify acts only while knowing they would perpetrate them, and had no risk of being the victim. Why justify theft if you know you won't steal and could only be a victim? But if you could steal from others at no cost to yourself, I imagine many people would think of a way. From what you've written, I guess you will stamp your foot and morally condemn such things, which is fine,

I don't think power can corrupt everyone, and some will definitely act nobly despite having power. You say those with strong moral fibre will resist temptation, but what about corrupting someone who is weak? Is that not still corruption? Or someone from a little bit immoral to extremely evil, is that not corruption? Perhaps we could agree on the possibility of power being a corrupting influence in these cases.

People who are moral act morally. What would corruption then be? Despite the person previously knowing, agreeing, and following moral precepts, the person begins to purposefully not follow them.

For example, a person knows that lying for personal gain is wrong. One day, they decide its not worth the headache anymore and start lying for personal gain. They know its wrong, but consistently do it anyway. A slip up here and there is a corrupt action, but a consistent and willingly violation of known morality would be considered the corruption of a moral person. — Philosophim

I thought you were denying the possibility of someone being corrupted by power by saying that moral people always act morally, and you've defined moral people as people who act morally. Is that not the case?

Its essential to the prompt of the conversation. If we can't agree on what corruption is, we can't discuss it. — Philosophim

Corruption could be the misuse of power, but in this OP I'd say we're talking about the "corruption" of character, to make it go from "good" to "bad", or "moral" to "immoral".

Power influences the moral views of those who wield it, and when power is a bad influence, then they've been corrupted by power. A slip up is not a "corrupt action" Where is the corruption? What is doing the corrupting? If a person simply chooses to disregard what's right or wrong, because they felt like it, then I think as you said, they just never really cared to begin with.

Corruption is a moral shift, as for which moral shifts go under "corruption", I guess that's semantics or subjective, not sure we need to agree on it.

My earlier statement was wrong actually, even if morality was objective, your logic would still be circular. You're defining moral people as people who act morally, and people who act morally as moral people.

I think everyone has their opinions, and their reasons for thinking they're correct. Whether people are corrupted into an objectively wrong or subjectively wrong path... not sure it matters to this discussion.

Morality itself is corrupted by power, and so it's common for the powerful elite of society to operate by moral principles vastly different from what we see amongst the common person. Of course, if you look at this only from the perspective of your morality, and call all you agree with moral and all you don't immoral, then your circular logic can hold. But if you look back at history, to compare the moral views of the powerful and the many, patterns emerge that are difficult to ignore. Would it surprise you that the likely perpetrator of cruelty has a different perspective on it than the likely victim?

I don't think inner conflict as you describe it exists in a meaningful way. What I was saying was that social media isn't producing mental illness due to "inner conflict" or creating conflicting identities or contradictions. There are much better explanations for the problems, which relate to the types of masks and social interactions and behaviours that are taking place on social media. Social validation is literally displayed as likes and comments, and you're constantly on display and being judged, and you're surrounded by the apparent success of others and develop feelings of inadequacy. And well, there's a lot to talk about, some of which you've already talked about yourself, so, I know you understand it.

You keep bringing up the failed businesswoman example, but I was never trying to present it as though the businesswoman's problem was her conflicting identities. Her problem was that she was working for a multilevel marketing scheme and she needed to quit but she didn't quit because she was afraid of being judged as a failure by her friends and family. Her problem was the poverty and hardship created by her toxic job in an MLM.

What if instead, she was making a crapton of money but didn't want to alienate her friends by showing off, and thus kept it to herself? She's making so much money but presenting herself as though she wasn't so well off to gain a feeling of camaraderie with her friends and family or was just afraid that they'd treat her in a weird way. Well, she'd probably be doing absolutely fine in that case.

I didn't read everything MU said but for his last post, I do agree with it and I think I've already made similar points to it. Humans are instinctively deceptive and live in a constant state of deception, including deceiving themselves. For me, humans are masters at navigating deception and contradiction, and it's unthinkable that anyone isn't consistently deceiving others and/or struggles to cope with being deceptive or contradictory.

I've egregiously misunderstood you a few times, and I need to work on my ability to ensure that I'm understanding others correctly. I did try my best to understand you, more than I usually try because I was pretty sure I wasn't getting it. Clearly without much success regardless.

But his comments about identity... make me wonder how I managed to read your OP three or four times and miss how you defined identity. I've probably wasted a lot of your time and my own by failing to read this part of your OP properly. I'll take this as a learning lesson, showing that I really have a hard think about how to avoid this problem in the future. I think I just read the parts I thought were interesting, and impatiently skimmed over what seemed unimportant, I have ADHD, so maybe that's a factor...

Identity is an identifier that is negotiated between oneself and others, there is only one self, which I'd call the "ego". We may feel that how we're publically identified is very different to how we feel inside, perhaps most extremely depicted by someone experiencing gender dysphoria. Due to that negotiation, there's a need to qualify for identities, and people may be driven by the pursuit to be seen in a specific way.

Identities need to be communicated, and there are many parts of ourselves that either can't easily be communicated or that we don't want to communicate. Identities need to be qualified for, although there's something distinctly modern about giving yourself an identity without qualifying for it. Identities demand treatment of a specific social kind, which is what giving yourself an identity might be aimed at acquiring. Going back to the gender dysphoria example, you'd want to be identified as the gender you feel you are, not because you necessarily care to seek outward validation, but because you want to be entitled to the treatment associated with being identified as belonging to the gender you feel you are.

Identities are themselves shallow, such as someone being conservative or liberal, which is definitely not a sophisticated, nuanced take. A conservative as an identity needs to incorporate so many variables, and include so many different types of thoughts, ideas and opinions, that it's necessarily generic. All identities are generic, they have to be so that large numbers of people can qualify. Identities offer others an easy, simple way to understand you, but are completely insufficient to be used to understand oneself.

I focused on the parts of your writing which were interesting to me, and I figured identities would be defined in a boring way and so I guess I skipped over it. I think this is a pretty good example of a situation where I'd prefer to just lie and put the blame on you somehow and slink out of the thread without admitting to my fuck up. Anyway, I now understand why your examples and conclusions were connected, and what I was missing to think that they couldn't be.

I'm strongly against trying to define oneself with identities, because those identities exist to serve a social purpose, and are not designed in any way to be helpful ways of conceptualizing yourself. But it is fine to feel your identity is very important as they play such a significant social role, and desiring to be identified in a specific way is something anyone should be able to understand.

It's easy to understand why contradictory identities are a problem, as they can't perform their function that way. It's this kind of nuance that's precisely lacking in identities because they can't contain that nuance, but the nuance is necessary to understand a person. We can be both smart and stupid, kind and cruel, selfish and self-sacrificing, and so on. Partly because we're inherently inconsistent, due to our fluctuating emotions, mental states, physical states and so on. Context changes, our thought processes aren't consistent, our biases aren't consistent, and the concepts we work with aren't consistent either.

Identity is binary, it fits or it doesn't, you belong or you don't, you're identified that way, or you're not. There's no room for contradiction because you're supposed to be responded to based on your identity. If there's an identity that you can simultaneously both be and not be, that'd be terribly confusing. This is why identity as an area can be quite prejudicial. superficial, and resistant to change. For example, someone being mixed race or non-Asian and living in Japan or China all their life, but no stranger actually identifies you as being Japanese or Chinese. It's not automatically identified so there's a need to "prove" that you qualify. And even then it might be resisted. Identities need to simplify, and can't work with complex situations well, it's a necessary part of their functionality.

Someone will be identified by their occupation, say a lawyer, but without any knowledge of what kind of cases this person works, where they work, what their experiences are, how much money they make or anything more than just being a lawyer, or perhaps at least including the area of law they practice. Someone can certainly feel that "being a lawyer" is part of their identity, but why would you consider yourself to be just a "lawyer" as your self-narrative when you have an intimate understanding which is so much more nuanced and detailed than that? You'd only ever call yourself just a lawyer because people don't have time for your life story and it's not necessary to hear for them to get a very basic sense of who you are and how to treat you.

You can define identity differently if you want, but so long as it's being used in this social sense, that's irreconcilable with being a comprehensive tool for understanding oneself. I can understand why someone wouldn't bother to understand another except for a few identifiers they can spot, as that's the bare minimum they're due. But never why someone would understand themselves that way or actually view their identities as a kind of self.

Compared to the past, when society was far more tyrannical, and the ability to self-describe was oppressed, nowadays, there is a freedom of expression that hasn't ever existed before. Social media is actually a terrible example then because it's been largely responsible for tearing down the sanctity of identity as it may have once been. People through anonymity and the internet feel free to express their opinions and refuse the simple confines of their character identity offers.

As let's say, an oppressed woman in a particularly misogynistic place, you're actually being oppressed by those simplifications of identity. The inability to express yourself as more than just a woman is the oppression, that's... probably the best way to sum it up. Society restricts you to that one simple role and confines you there and refuses to see your potential to be anything else. Liberation would be the ability to adopt seemingly contradictory identities, all the things women aren't "supposed" to be, you'd be able to become.

Although I shouldn't have reacted as I did about the PC worker, it's primarily the restrictive and authoritarian way of asserting a reductive identity through the "outside truth" that bothered me. What we define as contradictory is very subjective to begin with, and even then contradictory ideas can exist - probably should exist - within a coherent self-narrative or self-understanding.

Sure, it's pretty much impossible to analyse without hindsight, the present doesn't last long enough.

What do you mean by "whether it fits my analysis"?

You can judge foresight, or really whatever else, in whatever way you like, but at some point, the value of your efforts needs to help predict outcomes or it's useless. Expecting existing trends and patterns to be predictively valuable is fine, and there are many valid ways to assert something has predictive value.

I think it's a huge problem that you don't know how your own thesis is proven right or wrong. Many of us know social media produces addiction and suffering, but that's got really nothing to do with your thesis until you can prove that it does. There are more intuitive and specific reasons why social media causes the problems it does and they're more specific to the unique environment social media produces.

To reiterate, the specific dynamic I'm criticising is where masks become in themselves a focus of our appetites — Baden

Why does it matter whether people have the ability to exchange one mask with another? Why is that better or worse than being stuck with the same masks?

Some masks are good, and some are extremely bad, and social media produces bad masks because users are encouraged to tell lies for immediate gratification and validation. There's no substance to the pleasure, and over time, no long-term satisfaction and never a feeling of "winning". There are people getting way more likes and comments, and everyone else seems to be living happy perfect lives on their social media. The user in spending their time here haven't spent that time, or focus on bettering themselves, building real relationships or engaging in fulfilling activities.

However, that's not new, and we could apply many criticisms of the "American dream" to social media and have it applied extraordinarily well. When one set unrealistic standards, and then fails to meet them, but is surrounded by friends and family who seem to be doing very well, feelings of shame motivate the lying, which leads to nothing positive.

It's kind of unacceptable to put things like peer pressure and building great relationships into "social capital" and make no effort to distinguish between motivations. The examples where social capital is toxic, useless and harmful are the ones that create negative outcomes.

I'm still left unsure as to where "inner conflict" or really anything related to your OP about would come in. You don't know how to prove it exists, and you don't know under what environments it would be worse. Do you want me to dislike the capitalist power structure? Done. Do you want me to be with you on social media producing mental illnesses? Easy. I was there before I got here, but why should my problem with these things be that they cause "inner conflict" or "fractured identities"? It's totally normal to have conflicting identities, and it's not unique to these environments, so I don't associate any of the problems in social media with what's described by your OP.

That's just a value judgement lol. If you can tell a good speculator from a bad speculator using analysis, that should be predictively valuable, in helping to guess, at the bare minimum which speculators will see future success due to being "good" or "bad". If you can't do that using your analysis methods, then you're proving that you actually can't tell a good speculator from a bad one and that you're just entirely results based. Which is the exact thing that I'm criticising in this thread as being pointless.

How do you separate good analysis from useless analysis without assessing for predictive value?


I'm not necessarily just interested in whether a commentator gives correct analysis, but in what analysis the public embraces. Of course, it's not like it's rare to see this problem on a philosophy forum either, but from what you've said, it seems unlikely to be an issue for you. I don't purposefully expose myself to scenarios where this problem is prevalent anymore than most I'd say, Maybe it just annoys me more than it does others and so I tend to notice it.

Yeah, I have no idea why I misread your scenario so badly but I re-read it and I can't remember why I read it so differently the first time but you didn't do anything like what I just accused you of, my bad...

I'm not against looking backwards at all, and I interpret you to be misinterpreting me. Hindsight analysis is perfectly legitimate. Trial and error and fixing your mistakes are wonderful practices. Your examples are of taking hindsight analysis and exporting it into a predictive format, which is fine. The mistake you made will always produce the error it did, that's an example of predictive value. Establishing a trend or pattern has predictive value. In those cases, you could conduct an analysis and get an incorrect or useless answer, and you'd just try again until you got the result you wanted. It's very intuitive, you are consistently checking your analysis for value, so the problem in OP won't impact you.

You can make a very thoughtful, logical and reasonable prediction while analysing using hindsight, and it can be horrifically incorrect. Anyone who regularly conducts trial and error should understand that.

In social media, news, forums, and many other formats, things don't really work that way. The court of public opinion latches onto appealing reasoning which sounds intuitive or reasonable, especially when the recent results support that reasoning (which of course they will). So, that's where it's a problem.


It's definitely possible to have predicted how dangerous Putin was as you suggest, and it's valid for you to say it's not a good example. There are many commentators who provide bogus reasoning for knowing in advance about Putin, but you're right, there are enough legitimate ones and there's a lot we can learn from them.

More or less. It's a starting point, for arguments' sake, rather than a destination. — Baden

Alright... Let's address your starting point then.

I have so many things to address and I'm really not sure that it's helpful to address them all at once. I don't expect you to address all these points, and I'll be satisfied if your response is to simply restate your position in a way that indirectly or directly deals with my concerns. Your call.

1) Agency
I find how you've robbed PC worker of his agency with your characterisations problematic. The absurdities I can argue for if I'm allowed to do this are unlimited. You've set yourself up with no way to fail or know you're wrong. You know PC worker is being intentionally deceptive, you know why he thinks he's doing it, you know he thinks he's not trying to deceive himself, you don't care what PC worker does outside of this situation, you don't care if PC worker lies in other cases. You've emphasised the power dynamic and robbed PC worker of any ability to define his own actions.

What limitations for narrative are there under these conditions? What would you do if I took your agency away like this? "You wrote this thread because you're bitter and angry at society, and I don't care what you say, what you think, what you do, or anything else. You wrote this thread, therefore you're just angry at society, and that's final". What could you do but laugh? That's how I feel right now.

2) The Outside "Truth"
Narratives exist for the outside truth just as they do for any narratives we tell ourselves. You will emphasise your points, interpret them how you will, characterise them, sequence them, and create a narrative and I'll do the same. I'll choose my version and you'll choose yours. It doesn't need to be the case that either of us said anything untrue, unreasonable or invalid. You've set up a false dichotomy between what's inside and outside. I won't assume your intent, but you've clearly used this dichotomy to impose your subjectivity over someone else. You're discounting the subjective experience of PC worker and ignoring whatever thoughts he has, and you don't know how to be wrong here.

The ability for me to weave any narrative I want for you using this technique is nearly limitless.

3) Identity, Self & Narrative

If you'd resign yourself to allowing PC worker to define his own circumstances, then this problem of contradiction is easily resolved. Especially in this case, because of the intentional deception, to simply understand himself and his actions through the lens of his intent. It's actually impossible not to do this as simply justifying his intent would accomplish it. There is no contradiction between deceiving others and putting on a mask, and his own personal beliefs or views.

Robbing PC worker of his agency seems necessary for your argument as from his perspective, his actions are in total harmony. He has his political opinions, but he doesn't feel compelled to start an argument with everyone he meets who thinks differently, and he's fine with lying to get what he wants. His self-image here is entirely coherent, and we need to resort to some bullshit tactics to undermine that.

4) I don't understand the specifics of your thesis
In your OP you said that one impact of the phenomenon you were describing was political inactivity. I mentioned that we're in an age of unprecedented political mobility and political tribalism. Why was this not a bigger problem for you? You simply say it was a good point. Then you say that this phenomenon will cause "long-term suffering", what is that? Who would be most susceptible to this suffering and how do we know it's there? I could ask the same about self-conflict. Which countries are less susceptible to this problem than others? How do you tell apart the success or failure of your idea?

I explained that social media entrenches our identities, which are not disposable and are just as real or important, if not often more so, than what exists in real life. And hiding your true feelings to avoid punishment is as old as humans, and the kind of freedom PC worker lacks is trivial compared to what has what freedoms he has relative to what has existed for most of human history. Is the phenomenon you describe new? Is it a unique characteristic of the West? What are these disposable, interchangeable identities in the first place?

I've made points that I thought would be addressed due to how they'd be problematic for your assertions, but you didn't treat them that way. You've made so many claims, which is fine by itself, but I'm unsure which claims are crucial for you and which you don't care about, and like I said earlier, how those claims are verified or disproven is also a mystery to me.

5) The Nuances of Masks
People wear masks, and people employ deception to get what they want. The kinds of masks and deception employed are dependent upon the context, and there are differences between what builds social capital on say, social media or in the workplace. Hopefully, you also agree that masks are not just tools to build social capital, but are important psychologically for a variety of reasons, and can be used socially for many reasons, even if they won't build social capital. They may also exist for a variety of negative reasons, such as social anxiety, fear of repercussions, repression, etc.

I agree that masks & deception can have intrapersonal significance, in fact, I think masks & deception can exist purely for one's psychological needs, even if it hurts their ability to attain social capital. Such as putting on a tough guy persona as a self-defence mechanism, or hiding your true feelings to avoid criticism.

There are so many different reasons to use masks, one could easily write books on the subject, it's such a complicated and nuanced area. In some cases, people aren't aware, in some they are, and it's complicated.

6) Which option is Pragmatic
Your scenario is one very highly specific case, which I still disagree with but I think it's possible to construct a scenario where I could agree with you. That PC worker did create a mask to hide what's really going on, and that's a very human thing that we definitely employ. The stereotypical example of a loner who convinces themselves that they never wanted companionship or perhaps of someone painting themselves as a victim despite being responsible for their outcome.

Just as these kinds of masks are varied, whether their use is good or bad is varied too. I think it's desirable in many cases. I'm a pragmatist who only really cares about results, if PC worker can't do anything about his situation, and was forced to lie and had no choice but to lie, this lie you've chosen for him seems perfectly fine to me. Why is it better to be a jaded cynic who laments their position as an expendable and powerless cog in the machine? There's no solution to the problem you've set up that's within PC worker's ability to enact, is there?

How do you hold up PC worker's realisation of his powerlessness and sad subjugated state as a goal to attain, while arguing that his positive self-description as a sneaky but pragmatic liar is something which will cause him long-term suffering?

Okay, I wrote a lot and I still could write like three times as much as this but it's already so long, time to stop.

I'm not suggesting liberal democracies are worse places to live than theocracies, dictatorships or other tyrannies. — Baden

No... but I thought your OP was targeting liberal democracies and the modern US. No society has ever lacked the need for people to take on unwanted identities, where people could say or do whatever they wanted. Living without freedom should create a greater need for repressing and acting in contradiction to one's thoughts and feelings, surely?

And I think the idea we can think our way out of being controlled through deception where such deception primarily functions to make us more comfortable being controlled is contradictory. — Baden

Well, you've done your best to manufacture a scenario complete with the specific interpretations, characterisations, focus and narrowness necessary to lead you to that conclusion.

What is instinctive is just what is not calculated. — Baden

I disagree, humans are instinctively calculative, Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in the Everyday Life is a book I could recommend on this topic.

To be politically calculative is ingrained into our human nature and operates consciously and subconsciously. The primary benefit of this subconscious element is the importance of appearing non-calculative. You can only trust a calculative person to act in their best interests, and that doesn't inspire trust, and we're instinctively aware of that. The book I recommended does go into it, but even just observationally, there's incongruence between what people say and do that's only explained this way.

There's a learned element as well, of course, we learn quickly as very young children the need for social calculation. To play by the rules, to share, and to do things that help cultivate friendships and make us likeable. We're punished for unacceptable social behaviour by authority and the by social repercussions. I'm autistic, so I'm actually pretty awful at this, and I have to do a lot of this calculation consciously because it doesn't happen as automatically. Autism has potential value as a way to look at for contrast from what's normal. The complexity people normally navigate with such ease is taken for granted and becomes invisible, but when someone can't do it well, it stands out.

But what I've presented relates to the operation of a more generalised context where “lying” is proposed as a defence against the domination inherent in being on the wrong side of an asymmetric power relation that establishes itself as a mode of life — Baden

I've already said this, but deception works in the exact same way without the power dynamic. The power dynamic is incidental. The boss definitely also wears masks and is likely just as deceptive and calculative as PC worker.

I struggle to see any merit in challenging your interpretations, because I don't see how any of these points relate back to any greater argument or your OP. Western capitalism is less tyrannical than what preceded it or what exists elsewhere, and western democracies are less tyrannical than alternatives.

This can be applied to all sorts of contexts, of course. Zizek puts it succinctly:

““The experience that we have of our lives from within, the story we tell ourselves about ourselves in order to account for what we are doing, is fundamentally a lie – the truth lies outside, in what we do. — Baden

Considering how "the truth" can change so much based on who gets to describe it, I'm unsure of what you're trying to say.

But what you can’t deny is how the effort at deception functions socially, its impotence, and its even facilitative role in a power dynamic that maintains the employee as a tool of the boss and the company machinery in which they are embedded. — Baden

I'm struggling to understand how the various arguments you've made recently are connected. Are they?

Yes, I completely agree with that.


it's hard to distinguish in your examples whether you're separating the analysis from the result.

Going back to your engineering example, after seeing cracks in the beams, there's a redo of the calculations as well as some testing aimed at identifying the problem. That setup requires, ostensibly, the appropriate calculations to be done properly, which will then help identify a solution that will fix the problem - and may actually have to try to fix the problem. The same methods have been used countless times before, and if it doesn't work this time then something must have gone wrong.

However, I don't want that for my example. I want:
1) To know the result beforehand
2) To never have to take my analysis outside of this isolated incident
3) For my analysis to speak for itself without having to produce results of any kind

This results in an entirely riskless scenario, where there's no opportunity for my analysis to fail. My analysis will always result in the conclusion I knew would occur. Essentially, I'm making a prediction in reverse, I'm working backwards from the result, which allows me to input any reasoning I want.

There are some famous examples like stock trading or crypto, business ideas, and the like. A crypto guru may not be able to know if crypto is going to go up or down next week. Nonetheless, will provide you with a comprehensive report on why it happened and how we could've profited from it after it's already happened. Every idea and suggestion will be correct, because, how could it not be?

A criminal goes to jail for 10 years, gets out and reoffends. The public is outraged, why did this guy not go to jail for life? Obviously, a guy who commits a crime like that is going to re-offend!

How could the West not foresee Putin was dangerous!? Look at this highly specific analysis using only points which lead towards the conclusion of Putin being dangerous, it was all there for anyone to see at any time!

Religion, sports, war, politics, business, news, cultural commentary, you name it, it's everywhere.

I agree but those are examples of predictively valuable understandings that are proven with results. Engineering is the worst possible example because you're highly results based, you're working with proven formulas and methods, and you can test your theory both in the maths and in results to ensure its validity. Whereas I'm talking about unproven logic formed during the environment created by hindsight being taken as validated by offering a reasonable, or unreasonable explanation of why something occurred.


Well, it can't be that obvious or it wouldn't be so prevalent, but yeah, I'm sure to many it's obvious.

The antithesis of academic historians' efforts. — jgill

In studying history, because we're precisely not analysing isolated incidents in a vacuum, it should be difficult to fall into the trap my OP describes. In any case, you can still employ methods likely to produce predictive value while studying history, it's the logic that needs to be (or is theoretically reasoned to be) predictively useful. There should be an explanation that would have predictive value and some method of determining whether that value is or isn't there.

Though many experts do abuse hindsight, and it's possible to do it as a historian too, this issue shouldn't impact experts who are good at what they do. Because their main aim is to explain things in a predictively useful way, and they should practice methods likely to produce that value.

I'm not saying you can't analyse using hindsight. I'm saying that hindsight is a riskless format while analysing an occurrence in a vacuum. Without taking the analysis outside of that single incident, it will never be exposed to any threatening elements, since it was done knowing the conclusion. Hindsight offers an opportunity to learn, but the value needs to go beyond predicting the known conclusion, and yes, that's obvious, but examples, where that value is falsely assumed to be there, are omnipresent and it was bugging me so I made a thread about it.

Which consequences are worth lying to avoid? What rewards are worth lying to get? And who decides?

Humans are capable of - and perhaps masters of - calculation, and recognising when lying is preferable to telling the truth. Perhaps it's for self-gain, perhaps it's to cultivate an image or maybe it's just to cheer up a friend. "Domination" is a narrow lens to look at this, and it's controversial, I could go down the road of challenging this description but I don't think it would lead anywhere. The particulars of this situation have a clear power dynamic, but it's not like the powerful have no use for lying or masks, instead, masks have utility in basically every and any social circumstance.

Secondly, there is no "mask narrative". The deception here is intentional and calculated. It's like you're analysing the situation as someone who doesn't know any better. You know that the PC office worker is being intentionally and purposefully deceptive, to appear as a model employee is the purpose of this deception. The deception is the mask, if there was no deception, and the PC office worker from the start openly expressed how foolish the boss was, then there would be no mask or deception to talk about. It's by design, and the continuation of this deception requires continuous intent.

We use masks for all kinds of reasons, but it's always calculated. For example, the PC office worker may present as apolitical until probing the situation to see whether being truthful will lead to conflict or kinship. Is it courageous to say whatever you think with no regard for consequences? Or foolish?

Humans are so fucking good at lying, we do it seamlessly, effortlessly, instinctively. To characterise us as having our psyches shattered (exaggerating) by telling some lies to our boss just seems very unnatural to me.

It's also odd to say this is worse today than before. In the Soviet Union, for example, society was founded upon telling lies. You'd lie about how much work you did, you'd lie about your beliefs, you'd lie about where you came from, lie about anything you needed to in order to survive. Most societies didn't have freedom of speech, few rights even existed, and those higher up the hierarchy could act with greater severity and quite arbitrarily. The boss can fire you or harass you, which sucks, but in the past, you could be killed, which seems significantly worse.

It's a bit hard for me to comment on the irresoluteness of people who are resolute online... Even guessing how frequently that is the case would be beyond me. However, much of what you've described again doesn't seem like an inner conflict. If I know my co-workers are Trump supporters and I hate Trump, I may keep my mouth shut to avoid conflict, but that's not inner conflict, right? Instead, to avoid direct conflict, I'll make a post on my social media and mock them online.

Isn't such duplicity just standard in social interaction? We can wear masks when needed, without losing sight of what's a mask and what's real. It's almost as though your argument hinges upon that not being the case.

In the real world... We can choose our friends and partners, including our friends at work. We'll gravitate towards people who share our values, and away from those who don't. Some may experience that their job is very different from their online experience, but I think the opposite is more common. If you're a liberal truck driver or a conservative university lecturer, I suppose things might be quite hard for you, but for the majority, you'll be around like-minded people.

Managing multiple identities has always been part of social life, and we've got many tools for dealing with the problems presented there. Many of them aren't productive, and some aren't so bad. But the modern era isn't exacerbating the problem of conflicting identities, it's allowing people to demonize and ignore conflicting perspectives.

We can hear the news from the source we want, be part of the circles we want, and present the image of ourselves we want. So how does that produce an environment of many identities that conflict? Don't we have an unprecedented ability to manufacture our environment both online and offline to suit our needs?

Here, technological progress, particularly through mass and social media, provides us with the “freedom” to tie ourselves in ever more convoluted psycho-social knots which present themselves to us as novel experiences or experimental or disposable identities, while having the same fundamentally stultifying character of limiting our ability to narrativize a coherent and unified self in a meaningful social context. — Baden

What are these sprawling, numerous, conflicting identities that paralyse people? Is the modern US characterised by group paralysis or mobilisation?

Social media has created new forms of political pressure, where small numbers of people who very actively condemn something can cast a glaring spotlight on something, which causes huge businesses or governments to react in ways they'd never have done for a small physical protest.

Either our social state is of increasing radicalisation and tribalism, or of "personal paralysis" and inner confusion. What sounds more typical for you? A conservative who listens to conservative news sources, uses conservative websites, has conservative friends, has a job with predominately conservative co-workers, lives in a town that's predominately conservative, or just some odd mismatch of random belief systems all over the place?

Facebook is a personalised page with intimate details of your personal life and thoughts. Twitter allows you to follow people and see content from those you like and/or think like you, it forms echo chambers. They're not suited for pivoting from one identity to the next, they entrench users.

Is social media exacerbating conformity, herd mentality and radicalisation, or the proliferation of endless conflicting identities? Are they not mutually exclusive? Or am I missing the point in taking things in this direction?

The hyperlinked comment addressed this topic in the exact way that I thought had been lacking, as did this recent post to me. I entirely agree with what you've written, and you've done a great job at laying out these issues, much better than I could have.

People do misrepresent themselves online, but in a conformist way, and yet also competitive, in a way that resembles how we usually think of high school. That's the only thing that I missed in your laying out of the issue. The literal social element of social media and the aspects of peer pressure and herd mentality, competition within social groups, and all of these normal aspects of social behaviour are magnified with social media.

I guess when it comes back to your OP, I don't understand this focus on an inner struggle and I want the emphasis to be on an external pressure caused almost entirely by social media. The psychological and social pressures are being produced on this massive scale, which is how we got to where we are. But I got the feeling from your OP that you were talking about something along the lines of inner turmoil or confusion or "personal paralysis"

Why is the emphasis not on peer pressure and social anxieties and the desire for validation being magnified in a toxic way by social media? The coercion and self-censorship it produces? Surely you see the political tribalism? That's not being caused by inner conflict.

Although I don't want to quote your OP piece by piece and say the same thing, I feel that what's lacking in your takes is any mention of the basic ideas of peer pressure that social media is exacerbating.

The thesis presented here then is that this phenomenon of multiple and fractured identity formation, the creation of self-conflictual selves (subjectively experienced in the long term as unhappy, meaningless and anxious selves, characterized by indecision, irresoluteness, and inaction) is not a bug but a feature of advanced society and the more “advanced” the society the more a feature it tends to become. — Baden

The other part of this which I want to challenge is the characterisation of political disorganization and powerlessness. US society doesn't seem filled with indecision and irresoluteness... Isn't it the complete opposite? To me, it appears fanatical, social media facilitates this kind of peer pressure and herd mentality which drives users into a frenzy. The political mobilisation through social media is unlike anything ever before seen, simple hashtags can organise massive movements so quickly.

I feel like I must be misunderstanding something...

Anyway, for doing something about social media, I think it related to the issue of consumer choice, and whether consumers should be allowed to decide what's good for themselves. It's kind of like portion sizes at fast food places, I think they should be limited because the consumer can't be trusted to make responsible decisions. We've already shown we can't, now we need to declare ourselves the loser and ask for help. Social media should be looked at for causing addiction and certain practices should be banned. Otherwise, not sure what can be done about it.

Provided parties are trying to be intellectually honest, and deal with arguments fairly, then what does respect add? I've learned a lot even during intense and even hostile debates, but the requirement is being a harsh critic of yourself and to be willing to give others a win. Collaboration between completely opposing views isn't possible, you need to put your argument forward and let people try to smash it and see how well it holds.

I don't want respectful disagreement, I want attempts at annihilating my ideas. If they show flaws, I can make a change, if they show the idea to be entirely wrong, then I can replace it. If I think my idea holds, I can feel reassured. It's only a problem to be talking with someone who actually has no intent to talk seriously, and just wants to inflict damage, then I get bored.

An intense debate is more fun, and I love conflict.

I read the OP but not this whole thread. Your OP is one where misinterpreting a few words seems like it'd cause problems but I did my best to understand it.

I understand that this OP is to be the result of concerns specific to the cultural and political environment in the US. As the conclusions tended to lead towards explaining cultural and political conflict and seemed to continually come back to concepts like freedom or change. I might be wrong on that, yet I don't want to talk about it at all but instead offer some different emphasis.

Our personal identities are concerned more with general psychological character and our social identities more with occupation, career, status etc.—not that these don’t overlap or aren’t located on the same spectrum, but that personal identity tends to reflect ideologies of “individuality” (which in so far as they remain within the social sphere [in so far as we are “sane”, i.e. recognizably social actors] are just more social narratives) and social identity tends towards ideologies of the collective. — Baden

Need to reiterate the quite reasonable risk that I've missed something, but anyway. What continually popped into my mind while reading your OP was the handful of documentaries I've watched about Facebook and Facebook addiction. In one case Mums in their 30s to 40s, would post pictures about their holidays, children, and pets. What they'd eat, and do for the day, and the excitement that came with a like of their picture or a nice comment. Presenting all the good parts of their lives, while leaving out the bad. Some treated it like it were a full-time job.

In a separate case, there was a documentary on how multi-level marketing schemes would attract mothers who perhaps had had their children leave home. To sell accessories, cosmetics or clothes, and to present this image of themselves on social media as living a great life. As things would start to go poorly, they couldn't face the shame of admitting their failures online and so felt forced to maintain the lie. They preferred to continue their losing strategy than embarrass themselves to friends and family.

Social media has taken away the barrier between the personal and social, all spaces are social spaces. It creates a state of being constantly on display, which creates constant social pressure. That social persona, however, is personalised and individualistic and exists on a page for one's exclusive use, presenting intimate details of one's life and thoughts. Social media has created an environment where so many are either addicted or forced to constantly present the image of themselves they want others to see online.

So, I guess my question is, doesn't this create the condition where social identities are deeply individualistic?

I don't really see this "proliferation of identities" that conflict with each other, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean. What I see is that the enormous social pressure has created an environment in which you're not really free to "explore" different identities at all. In fact, if you mention the wrong political idea online, the worry is the grave social implications it will have. And people would rather lie about doing well than admit there's a problem because they're focused on the social image they're cultivating.

In consumer culture, a teenager will follow social influencers and conform to what's happening on social media to fit in and cultivate an image. If there's any intent to cultivate an identity, it's because it's trending and there's a need to follow to fit in. However, for adults, it's probably more likely to see the goal of presenting success to others, a happy family and marriage, etc.

Political and cultural topics have been subsumed into the social sphere, where I'm not sure the ideas themselves are taken that seriously at all. There's a need to have the right opinion, it's so common to hear about friendships being ended because of something someone said about Trump or something like that.

I think the online social element is being criminally underplayed in your OP.

It's remarkable you cry strawman again while failing to make a single correction throughout this exchange despite being asked to do so. I have quoted you saying everything I've argued you to be saying. I expect whatever trivial corrections you could make wouldn't change much, so feel free to keep these tightly guarded secrets to yourself.

Well, it surely ain't right to reject a non-trivial argument without countering it with a non-trivial argument. Unless, of course, you simply do not comprehend the argument ... — 180 Proof

I expressed my problems with your argument, if you agree that I wasn't misrepresenting you then what's the problem? Yours is an absurd scheme that sets up an ought from a forced promise, and really only adds to the list of problems with Searle's ought being objective. Objective morality is such absolute nonsense...

Your argument.. is a promise you forced on people creating an ought which makes it objective? I could take the same argument and create 10000 promises from it and 10000 moral truths. Presumably for starts, literally anything related to the social contract, I could make into a moral truth. Raising your fucking hand to ask the teacher a question can be a moral truth. Stopping at a red light. Anything I want. It's so mind-numbingly absurd. What other promises are we forced to make? Who decides what promises people are forced to make? How can any of that lead to objective moral truth?

No doubt. And so my claim of your projection is well-founded: you reflexively reject what you say "confuses" – challenges – you and so refuse to patiently think through it. — 180 Proof

I took you at your word, that objective means epistemological fact. Only, you then compare morality to something like jurisprudence, so I thought I better check.

"The Final Solution" was nothing but an 'explosion' of nihilism (however 'rationalized' by the perpetrators et al e.g. Arendt's banality of evil), — 180 Proof

An explosion of nihilism?! Wow, yeah, I thought it was justified as some kind of righteous revenge against the Jews based on some things they didn't do. It's amazing how simple things become when we place things into categories in ways that support our worldviews. Which "moral framework"? Most moral frameworks don't have names or authors. We didn't need anyone to invent vengeance or how to morally justify it.

Of course, fascist Germany did have its own brand of morality, did it have a name? Who cares?

What do you even think morality is... every act you call evil had a moral justification behind it... You're going to call it by some other name until morality only justifies acts you agree with? Why can't you just settle for explaining the flaws in their logic, the heartlessness of their acts, the cruelty, to demand better?

This kind of grouping is eusocial: basically a truce or implicit promise each suffering person is committed to, by her mere presence and having once had been a suffering child dependent on suffering adults — 180 Proof

The promise is consented to but is committed to implicitly by mere presence, that's an interesting take. You can create an ought by having people be obliged to a promise made unknowingly and by simply being?

Morality is objective because all suffering persons depend on one another to keep the implicit (eusocial) promise both to not harm one another and to help reduce each other's suffering whenever possible — 180 Proof

They don't. You know they don't.

What's the real argument? What did I get wrong?

That's like asking how jurisprudence is "morally commensurate with our human history of" crimes. — 180 Proof

I didn't say morally commensurate and if it's something you added, not sure what you mean.

Does jurisprudence claim only laws that are objectively correct are laws? If not, don't see how it's relevant.

The notion that there are objective moral truths confuses me, everyone seems to have their own rules on how it works, so I shouldn't assume. Can you explain what it means for there to be this objective moral truth? Are other moral frameworks wrong? Is any other form of moral justification wrong? How's it work?

Anyway, cite a single "morally justified unspeakable horror". — 180 Proof

The Holocaust.

Your post has the punchline of deriving an ought from a promise that suffering people were forced into making because of a dependence on each other that we clearly don't have. People are capable of fucking each other over without destroying our society and you're well aware of it. That wasn't even the technicality I was referring to in my post but I'm hardly surprised, moral arguments purporting to be objective always play the same games.

How is your view of morality commensurate with our human history of morally justifying the unspeakable horrors we've inflicted on each other? Even today, it continues. You obviously can't, and so you need every moral system to be judged by yours and put away into categories that create the conclusions you want.

It's just a way to make concepts synonymous with your preferences and to remove what conflicts with your argument from the picture. The meat of morality and all its history stripped away because whatever you disagree with doesn't qualify to be part of it. It's inherent in the claim of epistemological objectivity. "True art", "real poetry", "real philosophy", "real" religion, "true morality". What is your argument when you take that away? An opinion that reads for what it is; an ideal.


What makes someone attractive isn't always consistent either, for example, many African tribes do things like lengthening their neck or ears. But a westerner is unlikely to have any idea why that's considered attractive at all. Fashion trends and interests differ over time and across cultures. None of that changes what's underneath it, which is the reality that humans are attracted to other humans because it's part of their biology.

Moral concepts come back to the same themes, such as fairness, and operate using the same tools such as empathy. Why is lying or stealing immoral? They're not. Stealing is wrong when it's unfair or unjustified, and lying is wrong when negative connotations are attached. Morality is really complicated but it's also really basic.

When we recognise something as unfair, our bodies & brains react to it, chemicals are released and emotions flare. It's hardwired into us to care about things being fair, now what exactly is or isn't fair can be debated, but things must be fair or they're immoral. Can something be unjust but fair? Or just but unfair?

The differences between cultures that you're describing are not fundamentally changing morality, usually, they're just changing what's fair, or justified. We're changing what's fair or just, to whom we must be fair, and whose feelings matter or don't matter.

Though I'm not saying morality = fairness, it's just an example. Empathy plays a large role, as do ideas like duty or responsibility and a few other concepts as well. We can also dehumanize or discredit victims to disregard any poor treatment. My point is that morality has an origin in biology, and is reinforced by our biology.

One can make up whatever reasons they'd like for why fairness matters, but that fairness matters to us is an unavoidable fact of our biology. Morality is not a human construction, it's literally just part of being human to have moral views. I compare morality to sexuality because it's the same in having a foundation in biology but being subject to reason.

Morality falls under the same category as sexuality in its dependence on our biology to exist. But, since it does exist and human society is dominated by our ways of thinking, morality and sexuality are not that subjective. I can't choose whether to be straight or gay, I can't choose who I find attractive, I can't choose to be good-looking, and these things act and exist as more-or-less objective facts.

Suppose you exist in this world as attractive or ugly. In that case, there are real implications, and they can't all be subverted by an intellectual recognition that there's no objective standard of attractiveness.

People such as @Photios are deluded to think that morality hinges upon something like religion. Can you imagine someone arguing our sexuality requires transcendent properties? That if people thought we only found other humans attractive only because we're humans, that sex and romance would become things of the past?

Morality is so overwhelmingly present in society and all we do, but some think it's so fragile and needs to be protected by making it into something it isn't.

Our morality is just as logical as it is that we care about millimetres of change in bone structure, separating the beautiful from the rest. It has its own internal logic at best, which only we find compelling.
When someone is born without some of the traits that make it compelling (ie ASPD), then it isn't. Simple as that.

@180 Proof

I agree there is objectivity in morality but it's created by our humanness, and not whatever logic you think sounds compelling. All these moral theories just call the morality of others wrong, and theirs right, and then in so doing limit morality to only the concepts that they agree with. Morality has justified wars, genocides, slavery, and a whole plethora of harm-causing behaviour and continues to do so to this day. It cares for humans at the expense of other species, and moral systems always portray their harm as righteous, that's what morality is after all.

Since all that isn't commensurate with what you want, what do you do with it? Discredit it, obviously. Of course, if all morality but your own is excluded as something else, then morality can follow whatever rules you want. Aren't you playing a linguistic game utilising technicalities?

Democracy starts with the government and the very act of voting only occurs when it's fairly organised by the government. The people will never rule over the government, and at best, we can task the government with serving our interests. In applying accountability to the government, upholding the law fairly and ensuring free and fair elections.

It's US propaganda to blame the voters, but when you look outside, to failed democracies around the world, the truth becomes clear. It's never the voters or the people who lack, their conviction and honesty and ability to see what needs to be done is never the problem.

Those parts of the government that were supposed to hold officials accountable are the people's spear and their rights and protections are their shield. When their spear and shield are faulty, that's a truly dire situation, and the democracy is already gone.

At best, the responsibility of the people is to try to their best ability, to maintain those weapons. To protest when they see it's not working. If we're going to talk about the US specifically, the problem is that there's a huge concern with the shield - rights and liberties and much less about ensuring government accountability. The US democracy is pretty fucking awful when it comes to doing that, despite the propaganda to the contrary.

There are democracies around the world that care about both and they're doing quite well, but there's still a lot of room for improvement.

The problem with the explanations of theism is their lack of predictive power, instead merely taking something already known and offering a reason for it. Narrativising, characterising and explaining something one already knows happened doesn't come under any stress unless it's identifying a pattern that should repeat. If the logic for why that thing happened is accurately described, it should not only be true in one isolated incident, it should be repeatable.

Theism can offer many explanations for things, but these explanations cannot accuratelypredict outcomes. For hundreds of years, theistic religions have been forced to give up various explanations as they were proven incorrect. Still, there are things such as "where did the universe come from?" but again, notice that the universe's existence is already known to us, and it's that fact that makes offering any number of explanations possible.

Theism can offer explanations for things where science can't, it's just that those explanations exist in environments where they can go untested. If you already know the outcome, it's easy to offer with absolute confidence all kinds of explanations for why. You see the same thing with commentators in all kinds of fields, it's not because it's "obvious in hindsight", but because the explanation exists in a place where it's safe from having its validity tested.

Once something has already happened the theists can rush in to explain why it happened, but it's not the same as a scientist who can repeat their experiments with accuracy. Scientific understanding can be used to make predictions in the real world, and scientific understanding becomes invalidated when those predictions fail. It's truly difficult and challenging to have a correct explanation that can survive rigorous testing, especially in cases where there's only one correct answer.

A madman can explain why his delusions are real, an egomaniac can explain why they're god's gift to Earth, and whatever else. What good is an explanation by itself? Where's the value? What does it matter if theism can explain something or not? From reading your OP, I'd argue you already understood this and so I'm probably just saying the same thing as you.

I'm often praised by others for being self-aware, I think it's something I'm pretty good at. In my view, one of the worst things you can do for self-awareness is to try to analyse yourself in a vacuum and use logic and reason to figure yourself out. We're pretty good at figuring people out, and at understanding situations socially, at least much better at doing that than figuring out ourselves. However, we're very biased when it comes to ourselves, and rightfully so, it's a good thing to view yourself in a more positive way than you actually are, generally speaking. The best way to circumvent this in so far as becoming self-aware is to use other people to understand yourself. The worst mistake is to think of yourself as an exception to how things work for every other person. Instead of trying to understand your bad habits or tendencies by thinking them through, look at other people who have those same bad habits and tendencies. When you're analysing others, things are much more simple, it removes your bias and all of the fluff that makes things more complicated. If when someone exhibits your negative tendencies, you're able to identify some intuitive explanations for why they're doing that, the chances that your reasons are the same are extremely high. Identify your attributes, characteristics, and experiences, and then analyse their nature in others and apply what you learn to yourself. It won't always be 100% accurate, not every explanation that applies to others also applies to you, you're allowed to be critical, but it's a fantastic starting point and it can help ground you. Don't feel that you need to limit yourself to your own analysis either, listen to what other people have to say, just don't think of yourself as a special case, that's the path to becoming oblivious and entirely lacking in self-awareness.

At times, you may fail to identify things about yourself or misunderstand your own qualities. In my case, I was diagnosed with ADHD and autism as an adult, I wasn't able to understand myself and so much never added up. Once I learned the truth, everything started to make sense, and by reading about the experiences of others, I saw how similar they were to mine, and that helped me to learn a lot. In that example, my blunder was accepting explanations that didn't fit, because I was out of ideas until I better understood these conditions and got myself diagnosed. So, if things don't quite add up, don't accept it, you are likely missing some piece of the puzzle. In this case, you could try to search for people with similar confusion to your own, otherwise, maybe consult others. If I had done that from the start, I would've saved myself years of confusion.

Also, consider whether your opinions about yourself are being reaffirmed by others or by the results. For example, if someone is attractive, they're likely to receive compliments about it etc. If your opinions about yourself aren't being reflected in the actions of others or in what you're able to do, chances are you've gotten it wrong. I'm not saying it's impossible that you're misunderstood but you should be highly sceptical in such cases where it appears that's the case. Because far more likely your bias has affected your self-evaluation than anything else.

I think you at least need this aforementioned mentality as a starting point, you are unique but you should at least look at how others are, and evidence your difference by the merit of your behaviour. It's always the most self-unaware that fail to understand others, and characterise others unfavourably, and then themselves in a positive way. The problem is that you're too damn smart, and it's hard to outsmart yourself. We can make compelling reasons that excuse our bad behaviour or interpret things in ways favourable to us, or the opposite if self-esteem is low. It is not only very helpful to learn about others to learn about yourself, but by listening to people you relate with and by learning from them, you might be able to overcome difficulties or challenges and gain valuable insights that would take you years of difficulty to figure out by yourself.

You suggested that 'be respectful' is just not enough - we need more — Cuthbert

I don't remember saying that "we need more"...

You have reasons for when and why you treat people with respect, based on a mix between your personal beliefs and understanding, and your knowledge of how the rules of your culture. — Judaka

I said respect isn't something you can order people to have, it's not enough to just tell people to be respectful. But even if you could order people to be respectful, it would still be insufficient and impractical, because people don't even agree on what is respectful, what the correct etiquette is and what the rules are.

Of course you don't condone violence! Me neither. I'm asking you to remember that violence is there and that dismissing the principle of respect also (unthinkingly) dismisses the principle of restraint of our worst behaviour. I'm speaking up for that principle. — Cuthbert

I don't think that violence should be okay even if you don't respect someone, so I don't understand this. Even if you absolutely hate someone and think they're the scum of the Earth, you're still not permitted to act violently. Why would restraint require respect? If it requires any respect then isn't it respect for human decency or the law and not how someone self-identifies their gender?

Keep in mind that you are the one who has introduced the context of people being assaulted, that was not what I had in mind at all. I condemn violence or aggression regardless of the reason. I don't think our society condones violence for any reason either, and again, some people are evil and do evil, but that's a different subject, I think.

You are right. It's only a modest start. And you dismiss the modest start before we've even started. — Cuthbert

I'm unsure of what you think I'm referring to now, because it was never acts of violence or bullying, anything that would be wrong because it falls into the category of some other condemned act. If we're talking about bullying, harassment, violence, rudeness, vandalism, assault and things of this nature. Those things are not ever justified, the reason for it is irrelevant, especially in the case of one citizen harming another for who they are or what they say. I am talking about things of a much less severe nature than this.

I have not heard anyone apparently clueless or inexperienced. Almost everyone seems quite certain of their views on gender identity. Adults generally claim to have been well versed in the topic and have a settled and confident opinion — Cuthbert

Really? Even on this forum, some people are completely clueless lol.

It is meaningless. Remove the make-up, the clothes, the act, and we’ll see the reality of it all, and whether one’s identity conforms with it or not. This inescapable reality must bear heavily on the gender bender, I imagine. — NOS4A2

I know it's nos but I don't even need to leave this page to find an ignorant opinion. I'm really surprised to hear you think that the average person is well-versed in what it means to be transgender, non-binary or such. For how long have these concepts really been in the public consciousness? LGBT is now LGBTQIA and the list of ideas and concepts surrounding gender continue to change every single year.

I don't think one can expect people to have unconditional respect for others, I'm sure you don't have that because if you did it would mean you're unable to think and express yourself. You have reasons for when and why you treat people with respect, based on a mix between your personal beliefs and understanding, and your knowledge of how the rules of your culture. If you were told to respect or tolerate something you disagree with, or a law was made to compel you to accept something you found intolerable, you wouldn't be happy about it, and may not go along with it, right? That's not a call for you to empathise, I'm being more cold and practical about this.

One of the points I'm trying to make is that this is a social and cultural topic, not just a personal one. The types of comments, jokes, teasing, behaviours, gestures, etc that are acceptable change over time. Some people are assholes who will do what they're going to do, but what the people around this person are willing to tolerate or go along with can be impacted. There are many issues to be worked out, many different problems that the average person is not able to navigate effectively. Let me also be clear that although some people treat 2020 as the end of history, I think this is the dark ages in many areas. I'm sure we will not be viewed favourably by future generations, this is a work-in-progress. When such a significant part of the population is part of the problem, it is a cultural and societal failure. So, no, not everyone needs to agree on the rules, and I'm not saying any set of rules would do. I have my opinions about what the general rules should be, but they're not the same as yours and I'm not sure what we'll get. I think currently that most people are so clueless and inexperienced with regard to gender identity that most views and actions are more of a product of ignorance than some well-thought-out alternative.

People have concerns and questions when it comes to gender identity, some due to gross misunderstanding, some questions that make a lot more sense to me. The solution is not "be nicer" or "be respectful", these issues need to be worked out. As the average citizen becomes better educated or experiments with alternatives on the what, why, how and the rules of what is acceptable and what is expected from all parties etc, we'll see change. I think this change will be defined by the evidence available and a general desire to improve the quality of life for everyone. The trend has been positive and I expect it to continue.

I can tell you're a kind person, and that your motivation is to be kind and respectful to others, and I appreciate the need to be flexible and deal with things on a case-by-case basis. I always advocate for dealing with things on a case-by-case basis, and emphasise flexibility and taking context into account. In this matter, since people who struggle with gender identity have to face a lot of shit, I'm especially concerned about how a small action justified when viewed in isolation, can add up when it occurs regularly to create something very unpleasant. So, it's completely reasonable to factor into the equation all types of concerns and a general discussion should also include these concerns. In fact, it is precisely these considerations that merit a greater discussion about gender identity, to increase awareness and organise an appropriate response.

Your "golden rule" might be fine in isolation, it might work well for you but as a solution in general it's not feasible. Gender identity is communicated in less than a second, and it is communicated to every single person one meets, this may be several or dozens of people each day. Our expectations for how others treat us are communicated by our expression of our gender identity. Ideally, gender identity is communicated without words, and also ideally, everyone is informed of how they are to treat someone based on their gender identity and sex. To avoid awkward situations and to ensure everyone is treated fairly.

We're pretty far away from that right now, most people don't even understand what it means to be non-binary or transgender. Let alone appreciating how this changes how they're supposed to interact and what the rules are. There are all kinds of opinions about what is appropriate behaviour when it comes to gender identity, the rules are extremely unclear. It's not really good enough to "treat with respect" or "treat as you'd like to be treated". It's valuable for everyone to agree on what the rules are and to know them without having to ask every person they meet.

Not that long ago, most people weren't sure what the rules were or how to treat someone based on their sexuality. The responses used to be very different than they are today, and completely inappropriate by today's standards. I'm not saying that conversation is over but it's come a long way, gender identity is still in the dark ages comparatively. The question of "what makes someone a man or a woman", for example, isn't just about deciding who's opinions are invalid, it's about creating rules for how people should be treated. Right now, it's something like the wild west, it seems everyone has their own opinions and operates by their own rules. This makes things incredibly difficult for everyone, don't you agree?

What we call the gender binary is an abstraction or idealization resulting from an averaging that flattens all the individual differences — Joshs

I agree.

My language can be clumsy when it comes to this topic so correct me if I'm wrong. When someone calls themselves "non-binary", they are saying they don't fit neatly into either male or female categories, abstractions or not. When I said experiencing being non-binary, I meant this experience, as opposed to having a view that gender is binary or not.

I think my point about the uniqueness of individual gender agrees with Moliere’s ( perhaps for slightly different reasons) about the advisability of letting each individual publicly define their own gender. And it agrees with his assertion( again for slightly different reasons, and specifically with regard to gender) that the person who has had to deal with challenges to having their gender behavior accepted might come to know a little more about the natural of gender than someone who never was accused of behaving in a gender-nonconforming way. — Joshs

I've spent a lot of time listening to people with such experiences to better understand the topic of gender identity because I believe that perspective is important for me to understand when considering this topic. But ultimately I decide for myself what to think, even in cases where people with better qualifications than I exist.


The issue of gender identity is not limited to classification, but covers a range of topics about gender-exclusive areas, gender-exclusive activities, legal rights, language, social and cultural norms, obligations and expectations, manners and many other topics. Also, it includes many different views in the fields of biology, psychology, philosophy and so on. It is a much bigger topic than someone freely describing their gender and avoiding resistance. Gender is significant in culture, religion, social norms, politics, philosophy and the list goes on. We can consider questions about social etiquette and norms for inclusivity, pronouns using new words or terms like ze/zir, the preference for using gender-neutral pronouns and words, gender norms, assumptions about people based on gender and even the act of assuming someone's gender. These issues and many others are too big for any one person to decide, do you not agree?

I'm not sure if it was a misunderstanding or if you've appreciated some of my points but your latest description of how identity is communicated and received is more agreeable than what I understood you to think in previous posts. Though I still disagree with your insistence on deferring to a person's description of themselves. My freedom to describe the world as I see it is invaluable to me. I recognise what others say as a valuable source of information, as opposed to just taking the view that they know themselves best, I think they know things about themselves that only they know, so I take what they say into account. Sometimes I will trust them because I've no reason to doubt them I offer no objection because I don't want to offend. Sometimes I'll go along with a request as a courtesy, this is how I approach the issue of being asked to refer to someone as a specific gender, absent of any glaring absurdity.

Can you clarify, could you be describing something more like doing someone a courtesy or giving the benefit of the doubt as I have here, as opposed to believing whatever you're told regardless of your own personal views? Because surely you do have your own personal views about how gender is determined and expressed and yada yada... right?

I don't think so. But, then, I don't think of personal identity like you do. I'm not looking to define these things in order to pass judgment on who counts as who. That's exactly what I'm advising against. So where you say — Moliere

Do you agree that characteristics are part of someone's identity? Even things like being good-looking or intelligent can be part of one's identity. Do you make your own decisions about how good-looking people are or do you ask them to tell you what to think? Not only would that be strange and silly but it'd also be totally impractical. We have to actively demonstrate to others our identity by our actions, dress, words and the information we give them. How many people have you even had conversations with where they dictate to you all their various identities? Does it take hours?

I'm saying we ought not debate personal identity. It's not up for debate because to debate someone's identity is dehumanizing. It puts someone in the position of proving their own existence. How could someone possibly do that? — Moliere

Because if anyone can be any identity then no identity even means anything anymore. If anyone can belong to a group because they say they do, without meeting any qualifications whatsoever, then being part of that group no longer means anything. I don't think you understand what you're saying, there's no way someone can go about life with the expectation that others are going to believe everything they believe about themselves. My talents and skills make up a big part of who I am, of my identity, but I don't expect people to believe I have those skills or talents without having given any proof that I have them. I don't feel dehumanized by people forming their own opinions about me, that's necessary for them to think. I might feel dehumanized by people saying I can't have my own opinions and that I need to believe whatever they tell me.

The rules, I suggest, is to treat others with enough respect that they need not prove themselves. Asking for proof of someone else's personal identity belittling -- it says to someone they are so ignorant that you know them better than they know themselves. — Moliere

If you want to be viewed to have or be of a particular characteristic then in most circumstances, you need to demonstrate that you have it. Sometimes people will give you the benefit of the doubt, it depends on the context. People put great effort to display their gender identity, would your advice be that they shouldn't need to do that? They shouldn't need to dress, act or speak in a way that communicates their gender. Instead, they should just explain to every single person they meet what their gender is. That's so impractical! That's why people demonstrate it through other means, and why explaining it to others will never be an alternative to that.

I really want to emphasise this, your proposal is completely impractical. When I say prove, I don't mean by providing a logical argument and laying out the evidence. We do it without words, we demonstrate it. Gender identity is communicated in less than a second, and only in exceptional or rare circumstances will there ever be a conversation about it. How can you make this process redundant by just asking people to believe what others say about themselves? Even if everyone agreed that it was the right thing to do, it couldn't be done.

People with nothing but a stereotypical experience of gender make up the norm, we have a right to be part of the conversation about gender identity as it impacts us and involves us. We have the right to think and evaluate the evidence and form our own opinions despite never having and never being able to experience being non-binary. People are capable of having a non-binary view of gender without experiencing it for themselves. If someone has a binary view, it's not just because they have never experienced it, all the reasons that generally apply to why people think what they think applies to this particular belief as they would any. Also, I don't think you're reiterating any point Molieire made.

I'm sure you deny the existence of all manner of things you've never experienced before. Obviously, you don't deny the existence of things you've experienced because you've experienced them. So I'm struggling to see the sense in telling people about how the things they don't believe in, they didn't experience. I agree with your post but I don't agree with posting it.

What does anything you just said have to do with my conversation with Molieire or anything I said? It just sounds like you're sulking about people disagreeing with you.