Yes, there are regulations and laws in place to protect the worker. "Democratic Socialism" retains the employer-employee organisational structure but creates social programs to compensate workers for these circumstances. Also, ensuring that a certain standard of working conditions is protected by the government. This is argued by many to be favourable over alternative options. Where do you live and how do you rate things currently? Or if you'd prefer could you comment on how things are going more generally in your view.


What are the defining characteristics of "exploitation"? Can the employer-employee relationship exist without any exploitation?

Labor contracts are a feature of capitalism, but hardly the single defining one. In any case, a lot of work today is remote and online so this "place of production" is becoming an anachronism. Work often doesn't need to be done in an office. In many cases employees just need their own computers and network to get work done, this isn't a 1950s factory. Work is changing very rapidly and increasingly virtual. — BitconnectCarlos

The "place of production" could be an internet site, a youtube channel, and many other non-physical settings but the principle remains unchanged. The business is owned by the employer, the employee offers the employer labour for wages.

What if there's many employers and few employees? What if the employees are strongly organized? What if they're financially secure and don't need work? This is definitely not true. If the wages aren't there you're not going to recruit the right people. There are definitely certain labor markets where things are tilted in favor of the employee. — BitconnectCarlos

Even if all those things were true, only the compensation the employee receives improve, the principles remain the same. The employer makes all the decisions about how the business runs and what is done with the profits. The employee may be satisfied or dissatisfied with their wage, they still have very little or no control over anything to do with the business that employs them nor over the type of work they'll be doing. The employee is compensated for their time and might be compensated well but during that time, the employee must do what is asked of them by the employer and never the other way around.

This is a philosophy forum, many here have something they would like to impart upon as many as they could or believe the world would be better if others saw and thought as they did. But it will be incredibly difficult for you to penetrate through anyone with scepticism about things such as spirituality, energy, spiritual dimensions or whatever. This whole "tool" thing sucks, go for a good God/Messiah complex but besides the ego trip, you will find it difficult to make the peasan-... people listen to you. If I was in your situation then I would cackle about it to myself and bask in my own self-professed glory. Well, how you wield your spiritual power is up to you but that's what I would do. :cool:

I think I understand but I also know I can't fully understand because I don't know what it's like to experience Aphantasia.

But your problem is not Aphantasia, also, you're at least of average intelligence, which's pretty obvious by your writing and thoughts, in my opinion.

Your problem is that other people don't receive your ideas well and you don't feel respected, right?

I have always been told to that I was crazy, there is something wrong with me and other things, which I understand it is a way of coping with some one that has a different points of views. Never the less, here I am, unclear on what do with this at this point. Any assistance would be appreciated. — Kiingarian

Honestly, the answer for me is to realise that your views are not made meritless based on how many people disagree with you or how vehemently people disagree with you. Have faith in your ideas, stand up for yourself and realise that, it's not just important as to whether you're right or not. It's also a matter of self-respect, identity, self-image. Have your own beliefs and be satisfied with what you believe, without allowing others to dictate that for you.

I'm not spiritual at all and if you shared your ideas, I'd probably dislike them. But you shouldn't care, everyone is different, we have different perspectives and if someone is incompatible with you and doesn't show respect to you, trying to fix that is not worth your time or effort. I fear there's very little room for alternatives, if you don't like expressing yourself only to always find yourself being denied, think of some feeler questions to ask people, like how they feel about spirituality. If they say "ugh, I hate it" then you have your answer and you can just refrain from pursuing that any further.

It is certainly true that people have views on the validity of their views, the truth of their beliefs, and so on. — unenlightened

I made a factual statement about what people do.

Beliefs are can be judged by the coherency of the logic employed, their validity, their consistency and other evaluations which focus on essentially directly gauging the belief's quality. Regardless of this "quality", beliefs make up a person's understanding of themselves and what goes on around them. The impact of a belief on how a person perceives themselves and what goes on around them can also be measured as an impact on the effect of their perception or interpretation in other areas. These impacts on other areas could generally be characterised as emotional, psychological, financial, social and any number of additional categories. — Judaka

This is to say that whatever "quality" a person thinks their beliefs have, they (these beliefs, as things which factually exist) act upon a person. They also (as things that exist) act upon us in ways we could attempt to measure or explain. That a person's evaluation of their beliefs or the consequences of their beliefs is flawed or done imperfectly wasn't the main subject of this thread.

Can a belief be judged (including the possibilities of that judgement being done imperfectly, unsoundly, unwisely, inaccurately, subjectively) in all the ways I said? Yes. What logic am I employing that is different from yours?

I don't think I could restate your criticism back to you in a way that you'd agree with, I'll take the blame for that and if you don't want to engage further that's fine but I'll try and you could correct me.

You are saying that one's judgements of something being valid or invalid are using the same faculty of reason as the thing they're characterising as valid or invalid, thus if one's judgement is flawed then it's the worst tool to be used to determine what those flaws are or something like that? You want to include a discussion or admission about the flaws of the observer, to levy criticism at the "insight" of the observer?

This is what I am pointing out that you are not even trying to do in the op; rather you present as uncontroversial a measurable, — unenlightened

I didn't make any normative statement that people should do those things listed, they just can and do attempt to make such judgements. I see them as relative, subjective, whatever, I'm not defending them as having any particular status. It is just so that people have views on the supposed validity or invalidity of their ideas, including psychological ones, and act in accordance with these beliefs. Less controversially with beliefs on other subjects. I don't think I did the things you're accusing me of not doing but what do I have to differently and why?

I see, I understand the context better now. I agree with all you said.

Isn't bipartisanship something forced upon each party by their circumstances rather than something anyone chose? Each party would prefer to be in complete control. What can you do about it?

But actively promoting falsehood is difficult, because I do believe in the value of truth, and so it doesn't come naturally. I guess that it is - more than a benefit or utility calculation - more a matter of virtue-building for me. You try to practice good habits that you think will be good longterm, and actively promoting falsehoods seem counter to that even if it would be beneficial — ChatteringMonkey

Well, I at least agree that in 99.99% of cases, you should wish to be as accurate as possible. I don't think people should be willy-nilly making things up because it's convenient or useful to do so.

Whether we're discussing this question about telling the truth, forcing others to conform to your understanding of what is true, leveraging your doubt about what is true and making convenient assumptions, aiming to be accurate in your understanding versus aiming for concrete practical benefits like what you might get out of narcissism, actively promoting falsehood to others and deceiving them, can all be regarded differently. Your dedication to truth isn't compromised by restraining yourself from trying to convert someone to atheism, it's certainly not the same as preaching there is a God because you believe people will be better off believing there is one. Believing you are incredibly handsome and intelligent when you're just average may not even infringe on the truth - there's some subjectivity to these matters.

In aiming to be accurate, valid, logical, reasonable, we can stray from what is true and enter into consistency and reasonableness. A narcissist may not be technically saying anything untrue, their views are just lopsided, in a way that can often lead to conclusions that are unlikely to play out as they expect.

Your response of "tell the truth regardless" in the context of converting someone and purposefully spreading falsehood seems to have two different meanings.

That's maybe a better example — ChatteringMonkey

It's just one foot down the rabbit hole of valuing practical benefit over accuracy and validity!

Right, here's the thing though, why would it be an interesting question if not because we assume that truth has some beneficial effects. What would an argument that says accuracy/truth should trump benefit regardless even look like? — ChatteringMonkey

It's pretty much the status quo but no argument has to be made in 99% of cases. Just disregard benefit. How many debates about theism cross over into the territory of whether people should even be trying to convert each other? Or whether one outperforms the other in the area of benefit? Truth-value doesn't go that deep, you simply call the other party wrong, deluded, invalid, unreasonable and walk away.

so I guess that is my answer, truth has utility, and insofar that utility doesn't weight up against the utility of say the belief a religious person has (or dis-utility that person would experience), truth isn't worth it. — ChatteringMonkey

I see. How would you determine when it's better to accept the utility of a belief or criticise someone for being wrong? And could you see yourself promoting a falsehood you knew to be false because you thought it'd be of benefit to others?

What is psychologic?

In case of the narcissist maybe in practice its more a question of short term effects (hurt feelings, blow to the ego) vs long term effects (a more reasonable self-image) that is the effective difference. — ChatteringMonkey

If one's narcissism could be removed so easily then it's not long for this world anyway. The narcissism example is more to portray a case where one confers practical benefit through being uneven or wrong in their thinking. Another example could be a Christian who is charitable, compassionate, has a sense of belonging and more, this could potentially take precedence over an atheist's disapproval of what he sees as the Christian's incorrect beliefs or it might not. If the Christian is convinced to be an atheist, perhaps all of those valuable traits will diminish or disappear with the beliefs.

Alternatively, there's the other example of:

Another example could be viewing the objective vs relative morality debate through the consequences of each being held by the majority in a society as opposed to which is correct. For example, that one led to decreased crime, increased feelings of safety, purpose, belonging and so on and was thus producing superior effects. If you knew that the one which produced the superior effects was the one you believed to be incorrect, would you oppose its promotion or support it? — Judaka

Or anything you want to put forward. But if the discussion is about, whether narcissism is actually beneficial or not, whether it's better to get rid of it in the long-term, these questions fall outside the scope of this discussion. It only really gets interesting when we admit or speculate that the benefits exist but the belief is invalid, faulty, lopsided, wrong. Otherwise, the answer is obvious. I agree that if we have no strong feelings about whether there's a benefit to being inaccurate then we should try to be accurate.

I will just add as a side note that it is entirely reasonable to say that narcissism should be challenged and my position is that both harmful and beneficial variants exist. I added it as an example because I've been thinking about it lately but in hindsight, I should've stuck to less controversial examples. :yum:

Fair, context is crucial.

Though I don't pay attention to how I'm received on the internet, I know nobody cares. As for developing my thinking, I don't like the idea of being trapped in the matter of true answer to somebody else's question. A valid response to a question like "is God real" should be "why do you even care to debate this?". Well, maybe I won't actually post that response but that's what I think about their thread. Briefly looking over your threads, you do tend to ask questions beyond the scope of what is true. Your threads could be answered by speaking in terms of and often include a challenge of analysing pros and cons. So even though you say that you aim to speak about only what is true, it seems mostly you are questioning what we should or shouldn't be doing, which I like.

I don't think public dialogue, the beliefs we bounce around in society, is about accuracy and validity in the first place. It think it's about where we want to go, and what we should do to get there... so not about "is" but about "ought be" (descriptive vs prescriptive). — ChatteringMonkey

It depends on the context but I'm not arguing against this understanding. If the context isn't appropriate for competing narratives of validity versus product such as "how should we address X" then I see this topic as irrelevant. Both how things are currently, where we want to go and how we should go about getting there are all relevant questions and they're all important.

We can't only ask what is the situation with X, that is not a valid answer. We can't answer what to do without understanding how things are either. We need both.

It's only situations where there's a competing narrative where this "versus' can apply. That a descriptive claim like "I am intelligent and beautiful" we get to choose to emphasise the reasonableness or validity of the claim versus how these beliefs are making the individual feel about themselves. Does that make sense? Or rather, do you agree with what I'm saying?

Is narcissism an example of someone's preference? It's selection seems to be external, e.g. modernity is producing more narcissists. — Kenosha Kid

Perhaps someone's preference plays a role in that? But actually, I meant how we feel about narcissism could reveal our preferences. Like if we're asked to evaluate a narcissist, do we bemoan their inaccurate understanding or celebrate how happy, confident and stress-free they are? Assuming that's our view.

It makes sense that you brought up cognitive behavioural therapy because of how it is a deep dive into how thoughts can be invalid or detrimental. This kind of thing is central to how I evaluate beliefs, ideas and attitudes. I don't believe a belief is a good one just because it fails to clash with what could be or is factual, I want to evaluate its ability to produce desirable outcomes. It gets a bit trickier in philosophy because it's hard to argue on behalf of a philosophy on the basis of what it does for you personally, that's not a great debating technique. And for society, it's hard to isolate one particular idea like, moral relativism, for example, and conclude what it's responsible for doing or avoiding. I imagine for cognitive behavioural therapy, the therapist would still aim to ensure that your beliefs are valid and true, they wouldn't promote something like narcissism even if they recognised the benefits. I'm not sure about that, do you know?

The example of narcissism is useful, and the links to the articles too. I had not come across much research on the way in which narcissism can be beneficial. — Jack Cummins

I couldn't say whether it was actually beneficial or detrimental on average, probably we would want to break it down by the nuance differences in narcissists but I'm sure some people are better off for it and some worse off for it. Personally, I encourage behaviours on the basis of an analysis of practical benefit, even if I know it's untruthful. If everyone thinks they're slightly better and more important than they actually are, without going too far, that seems nice to me.

I will explain what I mean. If you think about the religious person, their inner narrative is often in dialogue with a personal God In contrast to this, as many do not have religious beliefs, inner dialogue is often in connection with significant others and people in general. So, in that way a sense of self is often based on others' opinions and the social construction of identity. — Jack Cummins

I agree religiosity must impact one's narration considerably and I'd be interested in seeing what emotional, psychological and moral benefits might be produced. I believe that these kinds of considerations are more important than being overly concerned about how probable one's religious beliefs are. We don't have to stop at such effects, we could try to measure or evaluate whatever criteria we might suspect to be affected and worthwhile to know about.

The only thing that we need to be careful about is to not be too eager to accept the bad with the good. However, I think we can usually deal with these things without throwing everything out entirely. We can examine a religious narrator and spot particularities about their style which can be removed without attributing that undesirable characteristic as a necessary component of religious narration. We shouldn't be too eager to go to such extremes, even though I'm atheist, I think a religious narration that is overwhelmingly net beneficial can be achieved and that should be where the emphasis is placed.

So, in that way a sense of self is often based on others' opinions and the social construction of identity. — Jack Cummins

Sure.

I can see how personal property will likely be used to create power differentials, but not how it is impossible to have personal property in an egalitarian society. — Kenosha Kid

The whole thing with IR groups is that the problem of private property does not exist, not because the existence of private property doesn't exist but because there is barely any property. Once private property exists to the meaningful extent of being able to create social hierarchies, that is where the problem begins. Isn't it the IR solution of giving a right kicking to someone who tries to take your stuff, the exact problem a system of an egalitarian DR group would find a nightmare to deal with? Large clans start building houses, fences, creating social obligations and going outside the parameters allowed by the equal private property rule and to retain equality, you have to forcibly reappropriate their property. Seems beyond the scope of the technology, infrastructure and manpower available in any period of time before the 20th century.

Stiles has not gone to great lengths to demonstrate why, for example, the existence of private property in the DR system contributes to his conclusion of why it is impossible for a DR group to be egalitarian. A worker co-op does go some way to demonstrate how (in combination with the abolishment of private property) an egalitarian DR group could be theoretically created. I think it is fair to say though that if the focus of the society is on anything but egalitarianism then egalitarianism won't be achieved. The worker co-op also is still far away from explaining how to create an egalitarian society, there would still be many issues to resolve after that but, sure, perhaps there's a way.

If we remove impossibility from the equation, one could still argue these hierarchies Stiles is talking about did tackle real, pressing issues which were necessary for DR groups to resolve. They were still born of necessity even if we can think of better alternative solutions that weren't thought of at the time or weren't possible given the technology of the time. This logic may even still apply to this day and problems that we discuss here which seem impossible to resolve could be later resolved by new technology, new forms of organisation that didn't exist today.

You're talking about cooperatives as a replacement for capitalism? But that is only a single component of how DR societies are organised, this model can't be applied to every component of governance. Even then, cooperatives still function within the parameters of hierarchical society, it only resolves the existence of a hierarchy within each business. I don't understand your model.

Then for the abolishment of private property or the maintenance of "equal private property", this sounds dystopian to me but to first establish whether it is possible to function like this, I would like to investigate. What is your model for this? How would a DR society be organised to have removed the possibility of unequal private property? How can the existence of unequal private property not result in disparities between social groups?

The thesis of my previous thread on this topic was that HGs wouldn't need have need for an additional socialisation of fairness (or most other things): their neurobiology and their precise situation would uniquely identify the correct course of action or, to put it another way, what their natural morality would dictate would be exactly in line with what they would want to do — Kenosha Kid

I don't disagree with this.

Could you explain this? Might be the fastest ever resolution to a thread with this length OP. — Kenosha Kid

In the Stiles paper, he states:

1. Ideal and practiced egalitarianism and generalized reciprocity can only exist
with an IR system, they are not possible with a DR system.

Some of the DR challenges Stiles talks about :

DR- (a) Leadership roles exist (hunt leaders, ‘headmen’), (b) a council of
elders or headman deals with social disputes and rule-breakers, (c) social
rules are structured and complex in order to regulate labor, distribution of
production, and marriage, and (d) higher order kinship arrangements such
as clans, phratries and/or moieties are present.

Why do leadership roles need to exist in DR?

Proposition 4 - Organized group labor is needed periodically for constructing
and utilizing facilities and for obtaining the abundant resources. This need causes
some form of institutionalized leadership to be created to manage labor.
Proposition 5 - (a) Need for labor cooperators creates commitments and dependencies on specific others, (b) these others tend to be kin, (c) the cooperative labor
produces abundant food and this has to be distributed and stored, (d) kinship relations often regulate the distribution and ownership of the facilities that created
the food and the food itself, and (e) the leaders from (4) above are instrumental
in implementing this function
Proposition 7 - People are forced by subsistence circumstances to dwell together
for extended periods, thus conflict cannot usually be resolved by residence change
as with IR. Some form of conflict resolution is needed. The labor managers and
food distributors of (4) and (5) will usually fulfill this role.
Proposition 14 - DR societies will manifest more complex and structured social
rule systems than IR in order to manage the more complex economic system.

Furthermore that in DR, there is a necessity for ownership of resources.

Proposition 10 - Surplus food, processing byproducts and trade profits represent
wealth. This wealth belongs to the producer group but is controlled by the leaders.
Accumulated wealth creates benefits, not the least of which is avoiding starvation
during hard times, and producer group members strive for these benefits. Since
there are several producer groups in any community, competition results, which
leads to differential increased striving and accumulation. The headmen enter into
social competition with other headmen to enhance their ability to attract more
producers to the producer group, or to make alliances that will enhance competitive success. Differential wealth transforms to inequalities in power, and social
hierarchies result

Without copypasting too much, the article talks about population control, the need for defending territory and many further required administrative tasks to be taken on within DR groups which create social hierarchies. That is why Stiles concludes that it is impossible for egalitarianism within DR, rather than why hierarchies are simply desirable. Of course, once the hierarchy is established then various groups will compete for more control, more resources and profit (which don't exist in IR) and this is also covered in the article. And this all applies to this day.

To put this in context, I'm interested in why we have (had) the social structures we have (had), and whether there are more optimal ways of organising ourselves that are more in line with what makes us uniquely ultra-social, as well as explaining long-term trends away from e.g. feudalism toward some kind of global social group where egalitarianism and altruism are once again becoming dominant. — Kenosha Kid

Outsourcing to other countries, automation, imbalances in capital and our capacity to be egalitarian. The job of those in power within a DR system includes distributing some portion of the productivity of the system to the workers. Perhaps people are just realising that the productivity of the system is not being even remotely evenly distributed and they're not happy about it. My perspective on this issue is that the key issue is how capitalism is very good at producing and very good at distributing unequally. So, we're not backtracking and attempting a deconstruction of the social hierarchy created to make life in urban areas possible. I don't see any attempt to return to egalitarianism, people are just unhappy that capitalism is not distributing the enormous wealth we know exists fairly, with such huge portions going to a small percentage of the population. We have the capacity to be altruistic but instead, this is occurring. I suspect the other answers to this trend are based in philosophy, technology, geopolitics, culture and not relevant to this topic. It's not the same kind of egalitarianism as in IR, it's a demand for a different system of distribution of the productivity and wealth created by our current DR system. That's my view of it.

The difference that struck me while reading the Stiles paper was the issue of property and labour in DR.

IR:
Proposition 6 - (a) Because of the sharing ethic, and because investment costs
in food and personal items in relation to expected benefits for sharing are low,
there is low motivation for holding or defending private property. (b) This creates
expectations that property is freely transferable. (c) Since holding private assets
is not possible, any trade or exchange with others will be small scale and for immediate consumption/use with no profit motivation

DR:
Proposition 2 - (a) Periods of resource abundance cause long-term settlement if
the resource location is stable. (b) Resource abundance causes larger settlement
size than in IR and (c) in conjunction with the occurrence of periods of scarcity,
large amounts of food are processed and stored
Proposition 3 - Long-term habitation and storage needs cause durable structures
to be built.
Proposition 4 - Organized group labor is needed periodically for constructing
and utilizing facilities and for obtaining the abundant resources. This need causes
some form of institutionalized leadership to be created to manage labor
Proposition 10 - Surplus food, processing byproducts and trade profits represent
wealth. This wealth belongs to the producer group but is controlled by the leaders.
Accumulated wealth creates benefits, not the least of which is avoiding starvation
during hard times, and producer group members strive for these benefits. Since
there are several producer groups in any community, competition results, which
leads to differential increased striving and accumulation. The headmen enter into
social competition with other headmen to enhance their ability to attract more
producers to the producer group, or to make alliances that will enhance competitive success. Differential wealth transforms to inequalities in power, and social
hierarchies result.
Proposition 11 - The dynamics of competing producer groups, periods of surplus
food, and the need for ever more producers causes the socially competing leaders to
strive to obtain additional females for themselves and other sub-group members as
both labor and reproducers of labor. Females can thus come to be controlled as an asset. All these factors cause population to grow. This will increase the frequency of reaching Liebig’s law of the minimum, and will stimulate cultural responses to limiting population growth

Well, I won't paste everything relevant but the existence of long-term resources, including the creation of new resources like land ownership, decision making power, authority over group practices and so on create opportunities for hierarchies that otherwise wouldn't exist. Once you get the ball rolling, things take care of themselves, because having resources and power makes the acquisition of more resources and power much easier.

As for our biological moral hardware, it seems adaptable, there's leeway to define what is "fair". We can't help seeing unfairness but we can be taught that uneven distribution is fair, we just need a convincing framework. Our socialisation teaches us reasons and logic for what is and isn't fair. We can fit hierarchies into our understanding of what's fair. Can you articulate the problems you see?

Could we not have built an egalitarian society of hunter-fisher-gatherer-storers? — Kenosha Kid

From Stiles
In general, one can make the following statements concerning significant features
of IR and DR systems:
1. Ideal and practiced egalitarianism and generalized reciprocity can only exist
with an IR system, they are not possible with a DR system.
6. A DR h-g system will lead to sedentism, population growth, increased socioeconomic system complexity, and social hierarchies. DR systems are not
evolutionarily stable.

Actually, most of your questions seem to be discussed and more or less answered in the article you presented, not sure how much of it I should just copy-paste here but it's better than just paraphrasing.

Social organization
IR- (a) Strictly egalitarian, (b) no institutions for enforcing social norms, (c)
social rules are simple and flexible, and (d) the lineage is the highest order
kinship arrangement.
DR- (a) Leadership roles exist (hunt leaders, ‘headmen’), (b) a council of
elders or headman deals with social disputes and rule-breakers, (c) social
rules are structured and complex in order to regulate labor, distribution of
production, and marriage, and (d) higher order kinship arrangements such
as clans, phratries and/or moieties are present.

Social obligations
IR- (a) Commitments with people are short-term, (b) no one is dependent
on any specific other person for access to basic needs, and (c) individuals can
choose with whom they associate in residence, foraging, exchange and ritual.
DR- (a) People have binding commitments and dependencies through which
goods and services are transmitted.

Property and sharing
IR- (a) Sharing is of the general reciprocity type and (b) there are sanctions
against accumulating personal possessions.
DR- (a) People hold rights over their facilities, stored foods and tended wild
products, and (b) males hold rights over women for marriage to other men.
(c) Sharing networks are smaller than in IR and are more the balanced reciprocity type.

Territoriality
IR- (a) There are named territories but (b) access is free and open to resources
for anyone. (c) It is assumed there will be no territory or resource defense,
though Woodburn did not specify.
DR- (a) Territories have recognized boundaries and user groups, though in
general access is open to known others, (b) certain resources have recognized
‘owners,’ and (c) these resources could be defended.

DR groups create challenges for which the responses to lead to (more) social hierarchies. It seems impossible to have built an egalitarian DR group.

Well said. The only thing I would add is about how "truth" actually functions in our thinking. "Truth" is not unaffected by for example whether someone is an eternal optimist or dark pessimist. There is no such thing as looking at the world objectively, I can make fact-based arguments for contradictory descriptions and characterisations. How we interpret things, what we emphasise, what we see as important, they're going to be important premises in our positions but it's not objectively wrong if one chooses to emphasise the good things or the bad things, what we know or what we don't know, and so on.

The trouble is with those who view their fact-based arguments as backed up by truth rather than just including true things. It's not the same as talking about an actual fact.

My view is that philosophy should be considered conditional, how one evaluates their choices is part of the process. Personally, I see philosophy as though we were cooking and it was just one ingredient, we're trying to make a great dish. I allow people to make their own arguments for what type of ingredient they want and what a "great dish" is. I don't feel threatened by others not having the same answers as me.

I take your point, by the definition of woke you've explained, there are a wide array of interpretations and behaviours within the "woke" population and no single one of these represents the whole population. I also see your point that some may want to appear to be woke because performing this role can be beneficial, it's a practical consideration. While when doing what needs to be done. the aesthetic may be worse than when one prioritises aesthetics, therefore it isn't as impressive to on-lookers at the time. Society at large is concerned with the aesthetic rather than actual change, this is a problem we're facing currently. Is that more-or-less correct?

I do agree with what you're saying as a general criticism of virtue signalling as a kind of political or capitalistic or personal advertisement that only seeks practical compensation. This behaviour promotes cynicism about the entire movement. Media and social media impose a kind of aesthetic through things like cancel culture, even if the aesthetic is just that, meaningless words.

I think it is likely you would be misunderstood and misrepresented if you used the word "woke" or "wokeism" without first defining what you take these terms to mean. Though that's probably true of anyone who doesn't use the term as just a generic insult. But perhaps I'll start using your definitions anyway, my interpretation of the terms aren't productive, I need another term to describe minority positions within what it means to be woke. I don't know if the aggression I spoke of can be blamed entirely on virtue signalling or aesthetic compliance but that aggression in an ideal world would belong to a different term that doesn't represent something entirely different.

We conceptualise our relation to ideas into affected structures such as language, and then reify these concepts as if the emotional, political or cultural significance we attribute is inherent in its meaning — Possibility

Yes, I think you have summed up and explained this phenomenon well, good job. I will remember this.

Valuing this quality as an appearance, isolated from either actual effective change or awareness of a broader reality, is where I think the issue lies. — Possibility

I think you are right that this is a significant problem but there's a lot of disagreement about how these problems we're aware of should be addressed, by this definition of woke, I am woke but I disagree substantially with many others who are woke. I believe the culture war is in a large part, a result of these differing arranging of interpretations, facts, characterisations, narratives and solutions surrounding the issues that one who is woke is woke about.

You've misunderstood me, let me rephrase.

Philosophy is both an academic subject and a characteristic of thought. If your thinking has a philosophical characteristic then it's philosophy, whichever way one chooses to define this characteristic, it exists outside this academic branch. Depending on the definition it will also exist in politics, law, economics, psychology, sport, culture, music and so on. As an academic subject, it can be further characterised as a style of writing, a type of culture, with a certain history and continuous aspect to it. Perhaps it is the culture and broader administrative aspects which are becoming outdated rather than the spirit of philosophy. Even on this forum, many philosophical topics take their shape in a political context. Philosophical ideas become relevant based on how well they can be applied to the political context.

Or for example, questions about ethics and morality could be applied in rather different ways depending on whether the subject was criminal law or government policy on economic redistribution. The conversation still exists about ethics and morality in a philosophical manner even if the subject is actually about law or politics.

The questions about human nature or the human condition persist within our culture, but the subject is culture, not philosophy. It exists in music or film, the practical ramifications or explicit mention of philosophical concepts ends up affecting these different areas of life.

But you even threw culture into the mix. I remember discussing this in another thread.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9857/death-of-language-the-real-way-cultures-decay-and-die/p1

Culture is changing so fast now compared to any time in human history and that change is going to continue to speed up. Your characterisation of an impending dead end seems to go against everything that is happening around you, so why this characterisation? It is not because of the world and therefore it is something to do with you. Just as in that thread, culture is always seemingly declining or being destroyed in someone's eyes but in reality, the rate of change has been accelerating exponentially over the last thousand years. However you're worried about things becoming now, people will be worrying about being changed in the future, it is the way of things.

For this I will appeal to the textbook definition: — kudos

I will humour it but I am using the terms "narrative, narration, narrator" in non-standard ways, as I've tried to define in OP and this thread. There's crossover, I did choose the term because it's a useful image that is similar to the concept I've laid out.

So, what do you think it means in the definition mean where it says, "...in such a way as to reflect or conform to an overarching set of aims or values"? The word has an admixture of usage in psychological and sociological writing, but why choose this word 'narrative,' as opposed to just 'subjective reality'? — kudos

Personally, it is because I wish to place emphasis on the individual as an actor in the construction of their subjective reality. That one does not just "have", one "does". But I am talking about subjective reality, so I mean, it is a term I could have used.

The word is sometimes used as a type of metaphor for form and content that represents to us something about individuals and the group. — kudos

I agree with that.

In the stories we typically see narratives revolve around some clear quest of good against evil or conflict to be resolved. But ideals are more than just our goals and desired outcomes, they can also be states that reassure, confirm, satisfy, and amalgamate. In a story, when you see the hero fail, doesn't it become so much more powerful when he does so because of some trait we envisage as being worth overcoming? And it makes it more satisfying to see when they do finally confirm and satisfy our shared beliefs about such things as the need for bravery, friendship, and so on. So it is in individual and group life, where failed states do not follow only cold machinations, but can take on a narrative tint in the sense that they reflect what is considered good and right by the group and the individuals that make it up. — kudos

I understand and agree with this. So would you also say that the narrative places characters in their respective roles through this process of recognising and realising ideals? Your explanation reminded me of how people of different political or cultural affiliations might emphasise different ideals and thus characterise and interpret the character, actions, thoughts and such things of others. Is this the type of juxtaposition you are talking about or was it something else?


The "real" and "true" are characterisations, like all characterisations, they can be applied after the meeting of prerequisites one sets, to mean whatever the user interprets these terms to mean. It's all made up. I only see consequences and use, the need for coherency. In this case, truth is a tool for juxtaposition, an idea of what a human might experience under impossible circumstances, that helps to demarcate our own circumstances. Sure, it's a useful fiction, grounded in an idea of intersubjectivity.

This thread and my other thread about how truth is arranged or "the truth besides the truth" all talk about the ways in which truth (intersubjective experience) is processed for use by intelligent beings, the process of using truth intelligently makes it no longer a truth. For me, it is a truth that I have this involuntary experience, that I see objects, for example. That others see these same objects. Perhaps that's all it is and the intersubjective experience is just part of the story or the product of another process but that's what I mean when I talk of the truth.

The term is affected, though, by one’s relative position to the idea. — Possibility

I think that is pretty much correct, the extent to which the term is affected by one's political persuasions is absurd. Just like many political terms, they are vehicles to galvanise people politically. This approach has a Nazi-style feel to it, where groups are continually demonised for political purposes. "Wokeism" can be a monster that needs to be slain if that's what motivates people to get involved politically to vote for or give money to the other side. The news media profit from such political outrage and so they're perfectly happy to add fuel to the fire. This goes both ways, it's just the state of political discourse at the moment.

That's not to say either side of the "woke" debate don't have substantial and fairly articulated disagreements but that terms like "woke" are characterised and defined in politically and culturally useful ways to discredit the opposition and portray the other side in a better light. It's impossible to define these terms in a neutral way anymore, you'll be jumped by every side, or what should be a neutral description ends up being characterised as partisan.

So those who employ a broader awareness in thinking without aggressively attacking the attitudes of others are now (understandably) distancing themselves from the term ‘woke’. — Possibility

I define the political dispute as being about how we interpret discrimination, oppression, prejudice, equity and what should be done about a variety of social issues related to these interpretations. There's also a dispute in approach, to be "woke" I would characterise as being highly intolerant (of intolerance) as they define it. It can be quite aggressive, both in how it's done and how ambitious it can be.

The fact is that most of us are ‘woke’ (broadly and inclusively aware) in some aspects, but not all. It’s a work in progress, and we don’t always have the patience for a broader awareness in thinking all the time. — Possibility

The issue is that all sides of the current political discourse condemn stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination and so on but they do so in a way that is abhorrent to others. Disagreements on definitions, pervasiveness, priorities, solutions etc, constitute the larger political disagreement. We will have to see how things develop, I think others are too comfortable with their predictions, we don't have the tools to predict exactly how things will end up.

Well, even if we forget about the laypeople, different areas of philosophy are discussed in relation to how the government or businesses should handle various legal, economic, ethical, cultural issues. Perhaps "philosophy" has become a study of history for many and we shouldn't forget that the same kinds of problems are still being discussed today even if it's being categorised differently. Every area of life and thought has been developing at breakneck speed and much is changed. Has our understanding of what philosophy is failed to keep up with the changes in society?

I'm sure you know these things, but I bring them up as premises in my argument and to help you to understand my process. It's not the case that I think everything I write is news to you.

I'm just not sure that this new demographic of people who are only really interested in these new formats for discussing and learning about philosophy are taking consumers away from traditional philosophy. I imagine that it's the opposite, people are introduced to traditional philosophy through these new mediums. I don't deny that some people are only getting their feet wet, I'm just saying that the majority of these consumers are probably not a realistic demographic for more serious and complex forms of philosophy. Philosophy can be stimulating and enjoyable, a recreational activity that doesn't have to result in great wisdom or expertise. Expertise, wisdom or whatever in philosophy, if it were measurable, will resemble a pyramid, with the bottom being filled with people who dabble. That's how it is with most things, I don't disagree with your comment I'm just... I'm just saying that this is the way of things, for every subject, politics, economics, geography, sport - everything. 100-200 years ago, the bottom rungs of the pyramid consisted of 99.9% of the population, they were substantially less advanced in comparison to today. So if OP is asking, how is the trend of philosophy looking? Are we reaching a doom and gloom scenario? Then I would say that it's the opposite. I say that philosophy is adapting and has somehow left the term "philosophy" behind.

I struggle to characterise the spirit of what you say, do you think my optimism is misplaced? Or did you perhaps just want to gripe about a practice, somewhat relevant to my comment, that you disapprove of?

I am having difficulty understanding your meaning, unfortunately.

They involve juxtaposition of individual and group ideals with practicality — kudos

I don't actually understand what juxtaposition or ideals you're referring to.

Their role as a whole masks their implicit and symbolic side, which constructs their transitory existence to appear like something static. — kudos

The role of one's narration masks the implicit and symbolic side of the narration? It constructs their transitory existence to appear like something static? I don't understand what you're getting at.

But essential to it is that it differs on each viewing and is constantly reordering and reimagining the ideals of individuals and the group. — kudos

I'm lost.

Narratives also tend to craft language with which to express themselves, like “narrative logic.” From my own experience, the magnitude of the language is related to it’s form and content. The more radical, sexual, or violent the form and content is, the more so the types of desires and ideals that tend to present themselves. This is no surprise if you think of it as being expressive or at least something that can only be fully realized through expression. — kudos

What do you mean by "narratives... craft language with which to express themselves"? Do you mean the narrator crafts language or something else?

When you talk about the magnitude of the language in form and content, are you talking about how a situation may be described with different levels of intensity and focus? That a focus on violent language leads to interpretations and characterisations etc rooted in violence, for example? If so, I agree, it is a good observation. It can highlight how the different nature/nurture circumstances of the narrator impact their narration and their experience of their environment.

Information is a product, rigorously studying a single topic doesn't sell as well as a neat, interesting presentation. In-depth philosophy and what you're talking about likely appeal to different demographics, hard to imagine that these products are in competition with each other. I agree that a podcast or video will never outdo a book in terms of complexity or how rigorously it approaches a topic. A book has more words, which are more carefully arranged, it is the product of potentially years of work. I think your characterisations are broad and unfair, perhaps we need to manage our expectations for the average lay person's interest in philosophy. Their involvement has never and will never resemble that of a dedicated academic.

No real need to have a debate about semantics, but if what you call atheism means gnostic atheism and what you call agnosticism means uncertainty without coming to any conclusion, then when I say agnostic atheism, I mean uncertainty with a lack of belief. If you take agnosticism to mean agnostic atheism then we agree. Can you clarify your stance on agnostic atheism?

Secondly, can you define "God"? I feel the problem in this debate is how vague the actual claim is.

one merriam-webster defines "God" as:
the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe

It seems the only thing people actually agree on when it comes to the claim of theists on "God" is that he's an intangible, invisible, undetectable being that we barely know anything about and exists.

What he can or can't do is debated by theists, his qualities are debated, what he has done is debated, disproving any of these claims is insufficient for proving God doesn't exist.

It is true that we can't disprove the existence of God but that we're uncertain about a claim which is foolproof against being proven false is pretty unavoidable. It is fundamentally meaningless to point out that a claim which is foolproof against being proven false hasn't been proven false. It means nothing. What matters is how we deal with the situation - what matters is belief. That is why agnostic atheism is a meaningful position and agnosticism isn't. The default position should be a lack of belief, do you disagree?

Society debates philosophy now more than ever, and people think philosophically now more than ever. It's just that philosophy as a standalone subject, especially as in reading books written in difficult to read language, is so woefully outclassed as a product by alternative means to discuss "philosophy". Aren't you just asking why centuries-old books are being outclassed as products by podcasts, videos, television, news media, politics, economics, movies, music and any other field which discuss with varying degrees of complexity and depth philosophical subjects? Have I misinterpreted OP or is this a valid response?

If we could press a button and eliminate ethnic histories there'd certainly be some not outlandish case for doing so — BitconnectCarlos

Glad you think so, even I recognise that we're talking about a goal that could take hundreds of years to complete, the annihilation or complete watering down of ethnic histories.

no, i want outsiders - if they choose to engage - to engage as a partner, not as parent or a king unless the offense is very egregious. other cultures will have problems, just like yours, but it's all about how you address it. it's about tact. — BitconnectCarlos

The way you talk about your race is a problem, I won't play games about who is and who isn't allowed to speak, especially when it's based on ethnicity or religion. I never really addressed the "Jewish" people, only ever you, because each person is different, I don't take you to be the spokesperson of a race. You know my stance and we don't have to discuss it further. I agree in principle that these issues need to be handled with patience and respect but diplomacy rarely factors into my posting online, I would handle things differently in different contexts.

you can talk about british history, french history, irish history - it's fine to celebrate that heritage and your connection with it. i'm fine with "german pride" as long as it strongly rejects nazism - again, its all about the story behind it.

there is no "white racial history." brits are not poles who are not czechs who are not italians. there is no "white history." — BitconnectCarlos

White racial history is much more of a threat in the West than the various ethnic histories, especially in the US and Australia. I don't think either ethnic or racial histories have any strong basis in reality, they're pretty nonsensical ideas but that doesn't stop them from being politically and culturally impactful. As for ethnic histories in Europe, I think it's important to remain ethnically inclusive. French history should belong to the French nationality, not the "French ethnicities", do you not think that is the best way forward?

https://quizly.co/how-woke-are-you/ — Baden

Ah, oh no, test said I'm totally woke, this whole time I didn't realise. :sweat:

Why are narration and bias connected, is it not possible to narrate in an unbiased way? By the word ‘biased’ I’m taking it to mean being exposed as predisposed to making decisions in an unfair or prejudiced way; is this the way you mean it? — kudos

No, by bias, I meant that we have particular tendencies, opinions, feelings, as opposed to being neutral. Offer improvements and I will edit, I do recognise your interpretation as reasonable but it is not what I meant in this case.

What’s frequently called ‘objective truth’ is like narration. However, narration is associated with unreality, but narration is the sublation of unreality so as to appear in the guise of plainly concrete reality. In film for instance, narration guides the story but has the common characteristic feature of being real events experienced by a subject. As I see it bias and challenging of narration is opposed to this because it’s about emphasis and definitiveness.

To talk about narration as if the real and unreal could be easily distinguished is something like weaving a narrative within a narrative. As if there is a position from which our actions - in a narrative sense - could be judged like a movie where we claim to know what is real and what not, isn’t that a kind of illusion don’t you think? — kudos

Narration processes a meaningless experience into something that can be understood. It is the only vehicle by which we know the truth, we've never experienced it in any other way. This necessarily ties together truth and fiction, they can't be separated, the narration is both real and personal. A narration might never express an untrue thing to be true and yet the picture it paints could still be misleading. What is true, untrue, fair, reasonable, unbiased and such, are all like, narratives within the narrative about the narrative. Characterisations, emphasis and interpretations etc can alter the role of real events in the narrative. So, it is not my intention to say that we can distinguish between the real and personal, the process of narration blends them together so well that although it is surely true that these two components are what is being blended together, once they have been blended, it not a simple matter to undo what has been done, or to even recognise what has been done.

Yeah, under Judaka's ideas there would just be no Jewish people or Jewish identity. I've already been over this with Judaka and I don't feel like rehashing this.

Assimilation can always be an option, but it should never be something to be pushed or forced on a group of people. It takes an incredible degree of arrogance to come as a complete outsider to another group and just tell them outright that they need to "be like us" or "become western" - whatever that means. We've already seen this narrative play out so many times in the Western world like with the Native Americans I just can't believe some people haven't learned by now. — BitconnectCarlos

I am against compelling others by law or violence to give up on the idea of ethnic histories. The spirit of the ethnic history's retelling matters and how a person identifies with their ethnic history should be taken into account. While I think that any form of allowing people to identify with and recount history through the lens of ethnicity is dangerous, there's still room for compromise. There's also no benefit in replacing a dangerous idea with another dangerous idea, such as being too heavy-handed in how we treat others with different ideas than us.

I just don't think it's a coincidence that Israel has such a strong belief in ethnic histories and they're in such a mess with ethnic-based disputes. I don't think it a surprise that the CCP is heavily invested in the Chinese Han history and identity whilst being perpetrators of ethnic cleansing. The ethnic conflicts in Africa, the middle east, Europe and around the world. To equate strong beliefs in ethnic and racial histories with racism and tribalism, it's not a stretch, bitconnect, this isn't about some Western cultural attribute. Anyone can just look at history and make the connections.

Your responses in the thread on the Israeli-Hamas war in Gaza did not represent the "spirit" that I might endorse. You used the ethnic history of the Jews to sanction conflicts, to claim special rights to land, to describe a history of persecution by other ethnicities, you talked of ethnicities owing other ethnicities compensation and so on. I'm sure there are people who do use ethnic histories in a more-or-less innocent way, to describe their ancestral roots, to take a special interest in a certain history, to practice some interesting holidays. Maybe it's not something I like or agree with but I'm not going to call it racist and tribalistic thinking if the shoe doesn't fit.

You want "outsiders" to shut up about it, let and let live you say, don't be so arrogant to tell others what they can and can't do. But this is a bit of an over-exaggeration, it's not like the West can force the citizens and governments of these various nations to change their thinking and such concerns have got nothing to do with whether ethnic histories are ethical or not.

Within the West, European ethnic histories are virtually a no-go, talking about a white racial history as a white person, is a huge red flag. Many want to celebrate minority ethnic and racial histories, I think it's ridiculous but even then, I think people should have the right to say ridiculous things, I'm against legislating against it. Having a debate about it, discussing the ethics of it, are not things to equate with the genocide of Aboriginals or Native Americans. You are free to think and talk as you want but you are not guaranteed to be free from criticism.

You represent what makes ethnic histories dangerous, these insane characterisations. If you would prefer, I'm happy to talk about middle eastern politics instead of European. Just so I can avoid your absurd language that treats me as part of an ethnic and racial monolith that spans centuries. Or will you complain about how I'm not letting other nations play out their wicked racist fantasies as I got to? (as the West)

edit: Actually, forget it, you can just read what I've already written to bitconnect if you want that, I'm done talking about this with you.

The timeframe of centuries is incorrect, the West has gone from the worst subscribers to ethnic and racial histories to being, at least, appalled by their racist and tribalistic history. Each decade brings more change than the last, our cultures are changing at breakneck speed. The West making strides towards being ethnically and racially inclusive and reducing the interpretative relevance of race and ethnicity, that's what I want. It's precisely because of the West's history that these strides need to be made. Most of what you're saying is incoherent to me, misplaced grievances and confusing hypotheticals. I don't want individuals to see history as an "us" and "them" thing based on race or ethnicity, it's a simple idea. I want countries and cultures to be ethnically and racially inclusive. Do you have any opposition to this idea which isn't just recounting how racism and tribalism have existed for centuries?

Being ethnically inclusive is not power sharing. Why not let the remaining tribal chiefs of Aborigine run the government? The ones that are left. — schopenhauer1

Can you phrase this in a way that isn't completely moronic?


This is why I was not happy with the title of the thread being "ethnic identities". I think an ethnic group can voice concerns that are not shared by other ethnicities. Ethnic identities are probably fine if we take away ethnic histories and ethnic exclusive cultures. Especially when we're talking about families which recently immigrated and so on. The crucial thing is to have inclusive, pragmatic categorisations which transcend divisive, racist narratives.

I'm just having a hard time understanding you and so I thought maybe we might be using different definitions. I'm not denying that people with ethnicities did things. What I'm against is people identifying with history through their ethnicity. I'm against people like bitconnect saying that Jews today have a right to land because Jews inhabited the land thousands of years ago. I'm against talking about people talking about their ethnic group as an actor in history that they identify with. I'm against people talking about their ethnic group as "we" and others as "them".

You stepped in and defended Jewish culture (at least for bitconnect) being ethnically exclusive, utilising and identifying with ethnic histories by saying that "the West did things". I said Australian culture is ethnically inclusive, Australian history can be identified with by Australians of any ethnicity and you started talking about our history as a colony.

Well, I don't get you at @schopenhauer1, I don't get what the two things have to do with each other. As I said, to begin with, the West is just exporting criticism it often levies at itself to other nations. If nothing I said cleared up any misunderstanding, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree, I cbf debating whatever ideology you're working with.

What is an "ethnic history"?

The point was that ethnic conflict was part of Western history. I'm not taking the bait on these red herrings. I never said this is the case. — schopenhauer1

When your way of life won, and you did all the nasty things to get your way, you can start being "inclusive" and hand-wringing about your misdeeds after-the-fact. And then, in ultimate irony start being the social justice warriors on behalf of everyone else because you "learned your lesson". — schopenhauer1

What "nasty" things did I do? Are you not referring to crimes inherited by my ethnicity? You talk in such ways often, it is clear you are not talking about my citizenship.

Of course not.. It's easy to say when you're already in the green zone, buddy. How convenient. You can't go back in time, no.. But to proclaim "But we eximplify blah blah because NOW there is no conflict".. Not sure I buy it. — schopenhauer1

If Australians are practising ethnic histories then they can't condemn others for doing it, when they stop they can't condemn others because it's just too "convenient". Knowing that every large nation has a history of using ethnic histories, are you just suggesting that nobody can condemn it? I really don't understand your angle, maybe there isn't one and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Wait, are you denying that British-European history did basically take control of Australia? — schopenhauer1

I've explicitly acknowledged it multiple times.

So you intend to use the racist philosophies of the past as a compass to guide you as to the correct ways to do things now? When does the West get to shed its skin of its past mistakes? Why do the people born today bear the sins of crimes committed long before they were born?

I claim that belief in ethnic histories helps to inspire hate, and here you are, holding ethnicities accountable for crimes based on group membership, justifying tribalistic and racist views. Make no mistake, it is possible to view the world through the lens of ethnicity and race, as has been done in the past, whether by the West or others. That's not the question here, it's about whether it's unethical to do it and whether it should go away, as you put it.

I don't support embracing Australia's racist history and making it an important part of how we see ourselves going forward. Should you choose to view contemporary Australians as just the latest line in a continuous white British-European history then you can spin this objective into something insidious. It is a ridiculous way of seeing things, unpragmatic and foolish, just like the practice of using ethnic and racial histories in general.

When your way of life won, and you did all the nasty things to get your way, you can start being "inclusive" and hand-wringing about your misdeeds after-the-fact. — schopenhauer1

Racial and ethnic groups aren't to be talked about as if they were capable of making mistakes, winning battles or committing crimes. Are you still playing devil's advocate or are these your real opinions? I'm not trying to erase European history, I'm against characterising the history in racial and ethnic terms. I'm not denying European racism, I'm condemning it and blaming ethnic histories as being partially responsible for Western and non-Western racism. My condemnation of racism is meaningless unless I take these steps.

Any person, Western-born or not can look at Western history and say "ethnic histories in part led to such evil acts, we ought to condemn them". Are you are asking for the perpetuation of ethnic histories on the basis that you don't want to allow certain ethnic groups to "get off the hook"?

You want Western imperialism to be remembered and avenged someday? You want the "responsible ethnic groups" to feel guilt, shame, what? What exactly is your ideal scenario.

Change the title, I am not saying that ethnic identities are unethical, I am saying ethnic histories are unethical. The appropriate level of interpretative relevance of ethnicity is yet another thread, when I say ethnic history, it is part of a wider condemnation of other identity-based histories such as racial histories, religious histories and gendered histories. I am talking about the breaking apart of history into an "us" and "them" narrative along the lines of such distinctions.

If for example, someone is ethnically Korean but lives in Australia, and they identify as Korean and know their family came from Korea, that is perfectly okay. Maybe it depends on what an "ethnic identity" is, I'm not prepared to debate this, not clear on this term.

A separate but relevant issue is the notion of cultures belonging to ethnicities and the repercussions for inclusion/exclusion based on that criteria. I believe that for example, an Australian should be able to practice Australian culture, identify with Australian history and be every bit as Australian regardless of ethnicity, race, religion and so on.

What I don't think we can avoid is seeing history through a political lens, European settlers shouldn't be referred to as an ethnic group or racial group but a political faction, even though they were certainly racist. I don't have a problem with cultures having names or political/geographical groups proclaiming ownership of those cultures. "French" culture can exist but it can't belong to a specific French ethnicity, only the political "French" faction and membership to this faction could be demonstrated by, for example, French citizenship.

The only complexity I see for this topic is that certain cultures seem to rely on ethnic ties for their continued existence. If Aboriginal culture did not pass on to those of Aboriginal descent, I think its chances for survival, in the long run, would be significantly lower. However, to me, this just means that adaptation is needed, I don't think ethnic exclusive histories or cultures can be considered ethical.

Finally, to clarify, I am not saying that we can't look at the history of Aboriginals and learn about it, I am saying that the Aboriginals should be defined without relying on their ethnicity. Aboriginal culture was never supposed to be ethnically exclusive to begin with, it only became thus after colonialism.

Ethnic histories justify racism because they allow people to inherit grievances, fault and characteristics through their ethnicity. We can claim credit, responsibility and ownership of historical events based on our race or ethnicity. We are allowed to exclude or include on the basis of ethnicity and we are allowed to see political and cultural issues as disputes between ethnic groups. That's why I oppose them.