I can see the importance of such distinctions, I agree though I wouldn't have described it nearly as well. There's a lot you've brought up which I ought to think more deeply about.

Is there a need to distinguish between the practical elements of social facts and the elements which make claims that could reasonably be disagreed with? I could be satisfied to call a soccer ball a soccer ball, if people call that the truth is not something I can see myself going out of my way to argue against that. I enjoy being able to refer to a soccer ball as such and be understood. However, I don't wish to accept social facts which make claims that are guiding people towards ways of thinking which lead to misfortune or negative social effects. Social facts seem to be an umbrella to a great many different kinds of claims.

I don't really disagree that the terms objective and subjective have issues. Thinking of alternative conceptualisations has been on my mind lately but I've yet to settle on anything. Mostly what I am interested in is looking at the effects of a viewpoint on an individual and challenging the individual to ask not what is true but what effect their ideas and beliefs are having on their lives. Analysing characterisations or narratives - looking at the consequences and evaluating what outcomes are good and why and how can we try for those outcomes.

In being interested in that, I look at why that's not happening by default. Why do people hold onto ideas or interpretations or have perspectives that are clearly having a net negative impact on their self-esteem, success or whatever else? The truth quality is something that I see come up a lot and there's something about the truth that makes it the least malleable thing, it's something you have to just accept.

The kinds of evaluations I want to ask people to make are invalid because the truth can't be changed just because it's inconvenient. That is why demonstrating how what was incorrectly called truth is actually often a set of decisions which have been made by you and that makes it less easy to shrug off responsibility for the conclusions. Then we can evaluate the conclusions by their effectiveness at bringing about desirable outcomes as opposed to their truth quality.

The reason I said that OP was a building block for nihilism was that I prefer to evaluate things in this way as opposed to their truth value. Even if God did exist and had created objective moral order and our existence had objective meaning (whatever those things even mean) then I could still choose my own way of evaluating outcomes and choose what gave me the outcomes I desired. Thereby retaining and defending what I have built irrespective of any truth value of alternatives.

My interest in OP is based on such thoughts, as far as the best method for determining what is or isn't true, honestly, I had given much less thought to how this might bear on that. I was really thinking more about challenging the unwarranted truth status given in a variety of contexts which I was unhappy about.

Whether something is objective or subjective tells me how I should approach trying to understand it. When it comes to objective truth, it is experienced involuntarily, it is what it is irrespective of how or what I think about it. Therefore, if you say "B" is true then my options are to either accept that it is true or argue that it is false. I'm restricted to a particular type of conversation - finding out the truth of the matter.

Whereas if something is subjective, then the conversation can go in many different directions, so many lines of inquiry become valid.

When something subjective is called an objective truth, the door to all these different directions is shut closed. Where all these different lines of inquiry were possible, we can now once again only debate the truth of the claim.

There are many examples of this happening and OP is just one way in which people do it. OP is saying that the truth value of the facts arranged does not necessarily make your conclusion a truth. If it isn't the truth then you should need to justify it in a different way than "its the truth". You have to justify the framing in a different way and really consider its pros and cons or effectiveness.

I think about OP in talking about cultural or religious norms, morality, political framings, causal arguments, justifying one's behaviour, defending characterisations, justifying interpretations, many things. Just any situation where someone characterises a choice they've made as a truth which you either accept or are ignorant of.

Consider that we're talking sufficiently abstractly that any reason, any fact, any justification, any supporting story, any sentimental attachment for anything are being quantified over. We're in precisely the space of reasons where these delusional attachments you speak about are in play. Yet here you speak confidently about "what is"! With no qualification. — fdrake

What I have said is that you are either aware of the personalisation of your arrangement or you are deluded, not that using narratives or characterisations makes you deluded. I have said that the truth of the facts used in the arrangement doesn't substantiate the truth of the claim which is really self-evident. I have said that the conclusion arrived at by the arrangement can be correct and validated by the arrangement. That the conclusions of interpretations of the fact could be factually correct or factually incorrect.

a methodology. A style of interpretation. But it's ultimately a vascillation between degrees of credibility. You are happy, as I have said, to accept that your forebears and inspirations have given you the acuity to speak unqualifiedly of "what is". Whereas those who do not share this methodology will be prone to delusion. Every filter bubble declares its interior reasonable and its exterior irrational and irrelevant, a mechanism you have so well described in the thread. — fdrake

The methodology you describe is one you likely subscribe to as well, why then this response?

The point of disagreement regards the consequences of your commitment; skepticism regarding any story told using facts. It seems you want to have a general skepticism that any arrangement of facts; which I take to be an account, or a story told using them; can be true. But your arrangement of facts is "what is"! And you know the Earth is round because it was "proven". Not because you've seen it from space, because you have evaluated evidence and trusted people, and made reasonable inferences based on that information. — fdrake

Could you for a second slow down and ask whether yourself if you have understood me properly? I am not arguing for scepticism regarding any story told using facts. I am not saying arrangements are useless for understanding things, I've argued the opposite. If the arrangement has been made with the purpose of discovering the truth then my OP has almost no relevance anymore. Perhaps only to point out that people are biased which was already obvious to everyone. I never argued that this bias makes the arrangement useless.

When it comes down to it, your viewpoint is as dependent upon story as any others' - it's simply a question of skill. — fdrake

I mean... I agree? I don't think I've said otherwise. Did I ever even use this word "story"?

In one breath you will say it is impossible that the Earth is flat, and that it was proven to be round, in another you will forget what establishes the truth of those things; well reasoned accounts! — fdrake

I didn't argue this and there's no disagreement.

What I contest is how you are using the notion of arrangement to separate truths from stories using them, based on the argument above. An arrangement is not a mapping from facts alone to interpretations, it's a productive relationship between facts and interpretations to facts and interpretations; you need to interpret+investigate skillfully to speak truthfully and keep falsehood + irrelevance at bay. The facts alone don't do that. — fdrake

Sure.

I am with you that facts under-determine interpretations; I am not with you that the under-determination of interpretations by facts allows you to conclude that (unspecified commonplace things) cannot be decided by facts - because there are judgements of relevance, emphasis and narrativisation that go into the facts themselves through their discovery mechanisms — fdrake

I didn't say it necessarily means that you can't conclude that (commonplace thing) cannot be determined by facts. I said the arrangement itself has been personalised by your choices and you weren't "correct" to emphasise one bit of information or "incorrect" to leave out a key piece of information" because the arrangement has no truth value. You are only "incorrect" in accordance with agreed-upon rules of justification, logic, fairness, reasonableness or whatever else.

You can have an arrangement with a valid argument and factually correct conclusion which could/should be believed regardless of how there is the presence of emphasis of certain points or whatever.

The purpose of all the polemic was to portray you as someone who purports to be using "just the facts", but is actually taking a lot of liberties with storytelling. — fdrake

I mean this might just be the antithesis of my OP which says that nobody is using "just the facts" and everyone takes liberties with storytelling and can't help but do so. It's become very difficult to retrospectively go back and say which of your points are valid criticisms and which aren't or which of my responses no longer make sense because I believed myself to be understood (or misunderstood).

"I talk about what is" but that belief in "what is" is fallible and how I use it or argue with my beliefs is necessarily subjective. My interpretation of what the facts mean is not determined by the facts alone and I create my own narratives using the facts I choose to emphasise and without doing that, I would be stuck and unable to argue for anything.

Mutual agreement will not save you. An agreement is simply a shared interpretation. The community of flat earthers shares an interpretation of facts that the Earth is flat. — fdrake

That's the world we live in, earthly manners of acquiring agreement are all there is, do your beliefs give you supernatural powers to compel others to be reasonable or logical? I talk about what is, the consequences of reality can be considered after.

That's right, there are rules we follow because we desire the results that they bring about, the method of proving something I subscribe to doesn't have a true/false value, it's either effective in leading me towards the truth or it fails. I don't know the truth by default, I discover the truth through the methods I employ which have been figured out by others before me. The Earth being flat is impossible according to the methodology I employ for determining what should or shouldn't be considered impossible.

If my methodology could be whimsically changed to suit my preferences then it would no longer be effective in leading me towards truth and what would be the purpose of it? I rigidly apply high standards for determining the truth because that's how I succeed. If it were not in my benefit to know the truth then I wouldn't try to know it but it's almost never the case.

I don't know what to say to what you've written, there's scarce argument, few responses to anything I've written and bold assertions. I can't understand where you're coming from anymore.

I understand bias has negative connotations, I don't know of a word that helps me to avoid these. Biases, when you are trying to determine the truth, are a hindrance, biases in your subjectivity are what make life enjoyable and meaningful. We discriminate based on our biological proclivities but there's nothing there to replace it if it went. You wouldn't care if you lived or died, if your family was taken care of or not, you wouldn't be human anymore.

Nihilism is usually understood with the worst possible interpretation of nihilism which is the utter pointlessness of life. To me, nihilism is just reality, not an impediment to my enjoyment of life or the creation of meaning. I believe that only through the realisation of nihilism can true pragmatism be achieved. What lies beyond nihilism is an interpretation of nihilism that empowers your subjectivity without rejecting what makes you human.

We presuppose that reality exists and that truth is that which is in accordance with reality. Whether something is true or not is based on whether it is in accordance with reality or not. Therefore, the only thing for an intellect to do is to determine what is true or not true and they are either right or wrong about it.

We could begin by saying that the meaning of a fact can be true and it can also be untrue. That is to say that one can interpret a fact to mean another thing is true and be correct or incorrect about it but it is still separate from the fact that was interpreted. Nonetheless, there is coherency in asking "is the meaning of the fact in accordance with reality?" After all, there are many contexts where the meaning of a fact can be proven, such as within probability, physics, economics etc.

Thus the arrangement of facts can conclude in another fact, there can be a logical or causal relationship between the arrangement of facts, the conclusion and the truth value of the conclusion. The conclusion may not have been able to have been reached in another way than by demonstrating it through an arrangement. Nonetheless, the truth value of the conclusion was not determined by the truth value of what was arranged. The truth value of the conclusion is quite simply the result of the conclusion being in accordance with reality. That it took us the arrangement to understand the conclusion or reach the conclusion demonstrates the usefulness of the arrangement but not its truth value.

I don't believe so. Look at the above example, from (1) (2) and (3) it is reasonable to conclude (4). And when it is reasonable to infer a thing on some basis, it is true that it is reasonable to do so. A particularly stark example is that the syllogism: A => B, A, therefore B, requires that A=>B is true. But perhaps you would not see the inference A=>B, A as an arrangement of facts. — fdrake

Reasonableness is a characterisation and cannot be a truth, you create a ruleset for when something is or isn't reasonable and when the conditions are fulfilled then the characterisation becomes justified but this justification doesn't create a truth value. It is only true that you believe it is justified. The functionality of the ruleset was never dependant upon being in accordance with reality in the first place.

It seems to me you are conflating the fact that facts require agents for explication (through arrangement and narrativisation) for the dependence of facts upon agents' explication of them. An error like saying whether things fall to the ground when dropped depends upon our scientific accounts of gravity. You need to adopt a narrative and arrangement to explicate any aspects of reality; that makes it error prone. But not all accounts (= fact + arrangement + emphasis + narrative) are equally vindicated - they support their conclusions with different strengths. — fdrake

I am not sure how you reached that conclusion, so I can't rebut except to say "no, I'm innocent!".

You said you are not conflating truth with reasonableness, logic, strength of arguments and the like but you clearly are. Reasonableness, logic, validity, they're all characterisations defined by mutually agreed upon rulesets which function without accordance with reality being necessary. They're equally applicable in reality as they are in fiction. I don't know what purpose it serves to bring these things up to me, at the very least, there is no diagreement in the usefulness of these things, I am not trying to suggest that all arrangements are equal by every measurement or that they can't be characterised as being unreasonable, illogical, invalid or whatever else.

You did a good job in the OP describing a few mechanisms that bias can block the generation of relevant truths. I think you have invalidly inferred from the fact that we are necessarily biased when interpreting anything to the claim that interpretations of facts (with biases) are equally vindicated. — fdrake

I am not positing that arrangements are of equal quality, I am suggesting that any evaluation of the arrangement needs to go beyond whether the facts arranged are in fact true. Something which I think is self-evident but people ignore it because they enjoy having the authority that comes with your position being true.

Keep in mind also that arrangements don't just generate truths but also oughts, perspectives, characterisations and many things which we hopefully agree are very subjective. That is more so where our biases become important than merely trying to figure out the truth - where bias just appears to be a hindrance.

That's clearly an invalid argument. The number of arrangements doesn't say anything about their quality, only whether there are reasonable accounts does (and how many there are).

Does the fact that we disagree that your conclusions follow from your premises mean that there's no truth of the matter? — fdrake

It says something about their quality of all being true - considering they're contradicting. If I have true premises and a valid conclusion and you have true premises and a valid conclusion and the result is two contradicting conclusions from the same premises then calling them both true is just absurd. How can two contradicting conclusions both be in accordance with reality?

Given that some people take X=all the evidence about the shape of the Earth and conclude A=The Earth is flat, and some people conclude B=The Earth is approximately a sphere. The only distinction between concluding A based on X and B based on X is taste in your account. It makes it entirely useless at assessing arguments on their strengths and weaknesses. — fdrake

Impossible. You know full well that X proves B so why this example?

Which, ultimately, makes the function of this idea be entirely its discursive role. What ideas you throw the idea at to criticize. It can only be applied based on personal taste - tearing down what you dislike, leaving in place all you like. It's a version of faith, but a shallow one. It works to support any commitments you already have by rendering your tastes the last account standing, the only one you have not applied it to. — fdrake

Can you rephrase if you still feel this is valid?

"Explaining the meaning of a fact" looks like a decent working definition to me. With the caveat that facts usually engender multiple interpretations. I guess for me an interpretation is also an ascription of meaning to a fact. — fdrake

Sure.

In some respects a fact engenders explanations consistent with its nature — fdrake

What is the nature of a fact? And is it the fact's nature according to only to your interpretation?

but it is also used with the significance afforded to it by an agent — fdrake

Sure.

Are you saying it is only the logical and causal and epistemic relationships to other ideas that create fungibility? This seems to be agreeing with the notion that I can include or exclude true pieces of information from a position, i.e the "relevant truths" part of my OP while neglecting the rest. Are you saying that the fact's role in a position is more or less defined by the fact's nature? The fungibility is not inherent in the fact itself which has a nature?

I am suspicious that it is a skeptical thesis; the arrangement of facts in an account can be a truth too. — fdrake

How can the arrangement of facts in an account have a truth value? What I can agree with is that it can be logical, rational, reasonable, probable and many other things. Are you sure that you are not conflating truth with things of this nature?

I believe the scope of your inquiry is too narrow, truth has become for you, responsible for too much. Skepticism is guilty of being illogical, it makes unreasonable assumptions, it defies the rules for justification, it defies the laws of probability. There is really no compelling argument to be made in favour of Skepticism, but why is it not compelling? Can you answer that question by simply saying it's untrue?

Drawing a strict distinction between a collection of facts and arrangements using them (if indeed you are doing that) looks to sever all facts from any issue they may bear on. Though you may have a technical sense of "arrangement" in mind that avoids the criticism. — fdrake

Arrangements do not sever facts from any issue they may bear on, they just don't have a truth value. It is the precipice of where the objectively true becomes the subjectively asserted. I have read many on the forum who have the worst view of what it means to for something to be "subjective", which is that it is some kind of personal preference, it's neutral, a good representation of it is "what's your favourite colour?" etc.

That is absolutely not how the "subjective" works because whether you like it or not, you are a biological entity and being that as it is, your brain - the tool you think with, is not even remotely close to neutral or unbiased. This bias is largely responsible for the differences and more importantly, the similarities in our interpretation of facts. No matter what one tries to do philosophically, nobody will ever succeed at removing these biases. The biases, do not even accurately distinguish between fact and fiction, let alone the truth value of facts versus arrangements.

A truth in the sense of a valid argument with true premises, or as providing evidence for a statement conjointly. — fdrake

The problem here is that just one set of facts can give rise to multiple valid arguments with true premises. How can the truth be self-contradicting? How do you choose what "truth" to subscribe to and does that question dismantle the concept of the truth by itself? Which is pretty much the crux of my OP, you can't say that all of these arrangements are truths while there are so many to choose from, arguing that you should do totally different things or have totally different opinions or perspectives on the same set of facts.

I made an error in accepting your substitution due to not properly reading your comment, but I admit that the previous edit had "the truth" where "truths" was appropriate. Therefore, I did make an error there and I corrected it but the error was never a component of my argument nor did it represent a belief of mine. Nor did I change my opinion because of your ideas about pluralities, not every error constitutes an opinion, it was simply an editing mistake.

What it means for something to be true is separate from the actual truth itself — Judaka

What I have said here is that the meaning of the truth (meaning) is separate from the truth (truth), which is pretty much just stating the obvious.

I think my usage of truths and truth is pretty standard, but I am prepared to use a better way if I find one. Now I am prepared to take criticism but you are saying it's unacceptable, incoherent self-contradictory nonsensical language use. I am already listening, I asked if you had a better way of doing it, why then do you state so emphatically what a grievous error I've made? What is the purpose? It only gives credibility to the idea that you have interests outside of merely being helpful. Others have been able to perfectly paraphrase my position, therefore, it hasn't been quite as bad as you have put it.

True, truths, truth, I am happy to accept that having words so similar which mean different things being used in such close proximity to each other could be confusing. I am not sure on what a better way of doing it might be, I am open to suggestions.

??

I wholeheartedly agree with how you've paraphrased the concept and with how you suggest evaluating arrangements. I don't think it is the only valid answer but it is, in my opinion, the best one, as it is the most pragmatic. The subjectivity of the arrangement hardly detracts from its importance, we should decide what we are trying to achieve and then whether it is a good or bad thing to be trying to achieve and see what works best in the various contexts.

I have a small concern, how do you define interpretation? I use it here to say: explaining the meaning of something. If you agree with that and we are not talking about epistemology or using interpretations to strip a truth of its status as a truth, then I will be more comfortable about responding properly. I said I might agree with Skepticism but after doing homework on what that is, I don't agree with it, I would use the same criticism as you about it.

As for the individual freedom to interpret just whatever.

The rules for justification are negotiated, created or are implicit, there is no necessity for facts to justify or falsify interpretations by themselves. I have ways of measuring the success of my ideas besides their truth value but these ways are pretty common, there is no incentive for me to destroy everything, or at least try to, I think only conceptually it could work but in reality, I am not so in control.

If someone beat me up and stole precious items from me, I could try to interpret this in a way that makes me feel good about it but as if it's that easy. Nobody would wish to be afraid due to such an incident, nobody would want to feel degraded by it but what can you do? You are not able to control your emotions or interpretations at will, you have to live with them. Before we are individuals, we are biological entities and with that comes rules, the rules of our nature and the nature of how things interact.

It is very far away from up to individual caprice, we must play within the rules but the rules aren't followed because they're compelling just rather we have no choice. Within these rules, sure, there is no truth value to interpretation.

Are you sure you want to accuse me of a fallacy? Those definitions I have given are pretty standard, truth and truths are different words. Do you want to say that my argument actually hinges on these definitions? Give me the words you want to have them replaced with and see how much my argument changes.

What is the aim of the arrangement of truth? I have reasons for posting about it and caring about it but why it exists? There is no aim, it is just a natural consequence of intelligence.

What is a god?

Facts don't justify interpretations, the rules for justification are negotiated or created. Sometimes what you are saying sounds like a valid way to argue against me, sometimes I am not convinced I actually believe what you're arguing against.

I am not entirely convinced that if you paraphrased the position you are arguing against that it would describe my position.

I don't know precisely what you mean but it probably is scepticism, to some extent, what I've written, I believe it is the bedrock of nihilism. I don't know, you are baiting me into heavily derailing my own thread here.

How many relevant interpretations can there be of "Some people like petting cats."? If it is a mere fact, what can be disagreed upon regarding it without adding irrelevant detail through the interpretation? — fdrake

True, we would require more complexity in order to arrive at a near-infinite number of different conclusions. I think that as humans, we are different in relatively meaningless ways in comparison to how we're the same. That is why I don't go into a discussion thinking that a near-infinite number of conclusions are likely to come up, I think people are likely to see things in just a few ways, it depends on the subject.

That was my conclusion too and what made me change my mind, if that's the logic then I suppose all the inconsistencies I saw are explained.

Can we divorce the preference for sleeping from the pleasure of waking up feeling refreshed? Or the comfort of snuggling up in bed while trying to go to sleep? Also, most people wouldn't wish to sleep all the time, right?

On second thought, I have reconsidered my position on this, I apologise for giving you grief.

I agree that the conclusion of arranging truths, interpreting them and arguing their meaning can be contested by a true statement. I made an error in my last comment because I didn't read yours correctly. The "truth" here is referring to the literal state of things being true, if you think my language is confusing then I welcome suggestions on what you would have done differently.

Yes, "truths" is just a plural of "a truth" which is something with the quality of being true.

There is a procedure for complaining about forum moderators but Asif gets banned because of "low quality" without any breach of rules being cited or anything? Obviously, each of us might ban different users for "low quality". I can name posters I think are "low quality" and look up their history to confirm my feelings but I am asking specifically what rule was broken or why he was banned.

If we want to look at his latest post history, I am of the view that the wrongdoers in most of those conversations actually aren't Asif.

Yes.

"The truth" was perhaps more abstract than I was going for but conceptually it is simple enough to understand. That there are truths is less important than why a particular piece of information matters, what it means, what the implications of it are, does it tell the full story, who is bringing it up and for what, what should be done about it and so on. If you don't create your own reasons, you will only end up adopting someone else's and that may not best serve your interests.

Fair enough, I will rewrite that.

You're going to have to rephrase yourself, I don't follow.

Nice attempt, don't feel bad, I said what I said because I don't think anyone had a chance.

I don't expect much from a site that has streetlightx as a forum mod but banning Asif for "low quality" is quite amusing. I wonder what he said that got him banned?

I'm genuinely interested to see if anyone here can paraphrase your position correctly.

I spoke with Carlos, that conversation is here on this thread.

Carlos doesn't see privilege as "being about" anything than the truth, naive as it sounds. At least he is capable of articulating an argument for it though, you on the other hand... Solidarity amongst the underprivileged? How much thought did you put into that and did that thought come after you were adopted by the leftist pathology or before?

I would say you are taking your argument in a poor direction, the claim that someone can be born as someone else is made by an adult, the onus is on them to describe exactly how that might work. We do not need to identify when "you" becomes "you", all we need to do is say that "you" are a biological entity and that without being born, you wouldn't exist. That is a simple truth, all of this "soul" nonsense just makes things complicated.

Let me be clear, I agree with what you have said but that is not a fair description of my opposition to the privilege framing. I have not described it as an insidious, pernicious framing simply because I am just worried that you are wasting political capital.

Yeah, ok; I'm stuck on the bit where the reason we shouldn't use the word "privilege" because it pisses off the privileged. — Banno

I don't think that was "the" reason? If you are going to paraphrase my argument like that then I don't think restating what I've already said will do me any good. I will say, you are adept at creating the narratives that suit you, it is a talent.

If all you want to do is promote awareness of how a lack of ramps is deeply inconvenient to people who can't use stairs then surely, you can do that without the privilege conceptualisation. "We need more ramps" people ask why you say "some people can't use stairs and it's not fair or practical for them", done. The rest is about political capital, can you convince people that this is an important issue, that they should care. The able-bodied privilege angle, you surely can't think that's a good idea. Your plan to convince people to help is to guilt and shame them? Tell them that they're ignorant of these issues because of their able-bodied privilege? Like, you tell me.

So if I leave the first line out of that post, do you agree with it? — Banno

Agree with what? Agree how?

Are you trying to describe a problem neutrally? Then it fails. Are you trying to describe the problem in a way that makes people want to help? No, surely not. Are you trying to describe the problem in a passive-aggressive, obnoxious way? Then yes, it is good.

Why do we build stairs instead of ramps? Well, they are cheaper, they take up less space. They are convenient.

Stairs were not invented in order to exclude folk. But it is what happened.

So how will you react to this? Seems to me that you have a choice. We need more ramps.

Please consider the people who aren't able to use stairs and what a big difference having ramps would make for them.

Thank you.

Getting rid of the privilege is good but I don't see any reason to talk about able-bodied people, the injustice here is how disabled people are neglected with regards to stairs. How do you explain the need for explaining that the alternative to agreeing with you is for people to be ignorant, uncaring and selfish?

There is basically no step in the process of ending the advantages that you are talking about that fits anything like the description of "recognising your privilege". The focus shouldn't be on deleting these advantages in the first place. Where inequity between the races is a result of the past, it is due to past injustice allowing only people of certain races to prosper and wealth travels down the family line, the towns, the cities and so on. Where inequity between the races is being perpetuated, that is real racism, real oppression, real problems that need to be dealt with.

Most of those who are "better off" are still peons in the political apparatus, what are you hoping to achieve by asking for shame, guilt or to have them acknowledge their privilege? There are two aspects to why privilege is a poor conceptualisation, the first is that it doesn't actually help in any way and the second is that it is harmful in many ways. If it was helpful in some ways and then hurtful in others, we could talk about whether "better off should suck it up" but I've yet to hear anyone defend it. That's the issue.

I would much prefer it to not talk about the differences between narratives and facts and focus on the outcomes of the conceptualisation and evaluate these outcomes. I can't do that, however, because the only counterargument I've ever heard is that the narrative is the truth and there is no need to explain why the truth should be known by people. If you stand by the argument that your narrative is in fact, merely the truth and you shouldn't have to defend it then the discussion can only become about why that isn't the case. To explain how you have arranged the facts in such a way, characterised them in such a way, interpreted them in such a way, that it creates a highly specific narrative and whether you make this narrative is something you can choose.

We agree that some folk have an advantage, but you are objecting to the use of the word privilege here; that you see this word as part of a framing of the various problems that is itself problematic: — Banno

That is a good summary of my position. I would only caution against trying to equate the narrative of privilege with reality, I do not wish to conflate interpretations and narratives with facts.

The anger and hostility felt, say, by marginalised Blacks, will not be removed by re-framing the question — Banno

There is injustice and so there should be anger. I don't want people to tolerate injustice, that's how it continues. Hostility and aggression are perhaps, topics to revisit but the main issue here is what people should be angry about versus what privilege encourages people to be angry about. What re-framing should be trying to achieve is to emphasise the moral importance of combatting injustice without creating unnecessary tension between people. Characterising injustice in contemporary terms as opposed to being embittered about the past. The mass incarceration of blacks is happening right now, people shouldn't be thanking their lucky stars to not be black, they should be challenging how such an unjust system can exist in the supposed leader of the free world.

American exceptionalism and patriotism are obstacles to productive change, the American dream which characterises the poor as lazy and the rich as deserving, treating drugs as a crime issue instead of a health issue. Actual perspectives causing real problems, just examples, there's a long list.

I'm not saying nobody is tackling the real issues, they are but the conceptualisation of privilege is a complete distraction. There is no place for the real issues, which get drowned out, in a sea of anger towards inequity between the races, of which almost nothing can be done. Privilege isn't merely a neutral, ineffective framing, it is a distraction, it divides people senselessly, it emphasises the importance of your race and the race of others, encourages discrimination and anger towards identity groups.

The ideal framing would challenge the injustices where it hurts, without dividing people based on their race but uniting them. Encouraging discussion about issues that can be resolved as opposed to how advantaged or disadvantaged the race you were born as is.

Doesn't the ability to evaluate anything in any way require assigning truth values? Even the question "do I feel that this solution is fair" requires there to be an answer that is either true or false. — Echarmion

If I say that "I don't like bob", that's not something I put a truth value on but if you ask "is it true you don't like bob" I will say yes. So, it is not involved in my decision making in the event of a moral dilemma.

How do you suppose an A.I. would gain consciousness without human input? — Echarmion

The A.I. is just an illustration of my point, no need to get too bogged down in the details. The point is that humans are biologically predisposed to think in moral terms, we are predisposed to have particular feelings about children, violence, fairness, pain and all of this plays a part in how morality is developed. So often when it comes to meta-ethical relativism, there are issues about how morality is going to be able to function given that meta-ethical relativism just strips it of all authority and meaning. So one of the ways it retains those things is because of how morality functions organically in healthy people due to the influence of our biology.

As for the moral dilemma, when I listen to people talk about moral dilemmas, I hear "it's just wrong" and "what is being done is horrible" more than anything else. Not even dilemmas but on actual moral issues, most people cannot give explanations for why something is wrong without their feelings. People won't say "it's right because I feel like it", obviously, feelings don't work that way. Feelings are highly complicated, reason and feelings aren't separate, they mix and you can't take them apart and examine them.

One great example for how morality works is the meat industry and dogs, many Asian countries eat dog and it's considered truly awful by many meat-eaters, it crosses a line. My explanation for that is the dog has acquired an image or status in some societies as "man's best friend", Certain cultures view dogs as loyal, loving, great pets and not food. This is where things become complex, the characterisation of the dog is what makes the eating of the dog evil. Mass poison some rats and it's fine but mass poison dogs and you're a monster. The rat is a pest, the dog is a loyal and loving friend - how can you betray and eat a loyal friend? That's wrong.

As for cognitive dissonance, it is naturally occurring, to reduce cognitive dissonance requires a conscious effort.

That much I understand. But, in the case where you are faced with a moral dilemma, don't you then run into a performative contradiction? In order to solve the dilemma, you employ reasoning, and that reasoning will, presumably, reject some answers. What is that rejection if not assigning a truth value? — Echarmion

Those answers rejected aren't being described as untrue, they're being judged in other ways. An emotional argument like "it is horrible to see someone suffering" for why you should not cause suffering might or mightn't be a logically correct argument, it is based on my assessment. Everything about my choice to call a thing moral or immoral is based on me, my feelings, my thoughts, my interpretations, my experiences. The conclusion is not a truth, the conclusion can be evaluated in any number of ways. Is it practical, pragmatic, fair and the options go on. For me, it is never about deciding what is or isn't true.

As for A.I, I don't agree, intelligence doesn't require our perspective, I think it is precisely due to a lack of any other intelligent species that this is conceivable for people. It's much more complicated than being based on empathy, one of the biggest feelings morality is based on is fairness - even dogs are acutely aware of fairness, it's not just an intellectual position. We are also a nonconfrontational species, people need to be trained to kill and not the other way around. All of these things play into how morality functions and morality looks very different without them. An A.I. computer would not have these biases, it's not a social species that experiences jealousy, love, hate, empathy and it has no proclivity towards being nonconfrontational or seeing things as fair or unfair.

But isn't it the case that, while you may intelectually realize that your basic moral assumptions, your moral axioms, are merely contingent, you are nevertheless employing them as objective norms when making your moral decicions? — Echarmion

I don't consider morality to be mainly an intellectual position, we can look at other species and recognise a "morality" to their actions. Lions have a clear hierarchy in their pride, there is a really interesting guy called Dean Schneider who raised some Lions and spends a lot of time with them. Here's a video of what I'm about to talk about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnTlNKZYFjQ check 1:40 specifically.

He physically smacks a lion to teach it that clawing him is not okay, explains that this is how the pride develop boundaries of right and wrong. It's okay to play around but if you actually hurt me that's not okay and I'll give you a smack. Surprisingly the lions just accept it as fair, you see a similar thing with dog trainers, they explain that the dog is acutely aware of its position in the pack, it has a very specific way of seeing who should eat first, when it should look for permission to do things form the pack leader and so on.

I've heard that when rats will wrestle each other for fun, the bigger rat will let the little rat win sometimes because otherwise, the little rat won't play anymore since it's boring to lose all the time. I draw parallels between these kinds of behaviours in animals and the behaviours we can see in humans. It's only much more complicated for humans due to our intelligence.

As humans, we can go beyond mere instincts and intellectually debate morality but that's superfluous to what morality is. Certainly, morality is not based on these intellectual debates or positions. I think people talk about morality as if they have come to all of their conclusions logically but in fact, I think they would be very similar to how they ended up if they barely thought about morality at all. One will be taught right from wrong in a similar way to lions and dogs.

Since morality isn't based on your intellectual positions, it doesn't really matter if your positions are even remotely coherent. You can justify that suffering is wrong because you had a dream about a turtle who told you so and it doesn't matter, you'll be able to navigate when suffering is wrong or not wrong as easily as anyone else. The complexity comes not from morality but interpretation, characterisation, framing, knowledge, implications and so on.

Okay.

Finding agreement is easy Banno, you will find that on this forum I have argued for dramatically increased economic redistribution, argued against racism and discrimination, I am anti-Trump, I am against the mass incarceration. I believe the US has a lot to learn from some of these Scandinavian countries, that's the future of capitalism and if it isn't then it will be a dystopia where countries keep getting richer but that wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. We probably want many of the same changes.

I am not the person you have made me out to be, let's start with that, so I can avoid a pointless line of inquiry.

When you talk about privilege we need to separate facts from interpretation, interpretation from the consequences of those interpretations. If you can't do that, we cannot actually discuss this together, since that's where the disagreement lies. In a sense, by how I have acknowledged economic inequality, the existence of systemic racism, the statistics which show inequity between the races, that some disabled people can't use stairs, I have already acknowledged this aspect of privilege. If that is all you want to hear then that's that, I acknowledge reality.

Privilege is a narrative about this reality, it is not as simple as agreeing to the above. There are so many ways to characterise the injustices about our world and of all the ways, acknowledging the privilege of straight white men might be one of the worst. You are playing into the very injustices that we are both angry about. Economic issues, social issues, these are due to the American political system being a disaster, past iterations were openly racist and sexist and now Trump, Trump of all people is president. Do I think some rich white kid using the "white privilege" framing is going to do anything about that? No.

Actually, the leftist approach to dealing with these issues is so counterintuitive and nonsensical that I cannot even begin to imagine how many people like me, have been turned off by it. The ideology is so identity-orientated, it's so prejudicial, it's so angry and hostile. By acknowledging privilege, it means that someone is getting themselves into that, I've seen it enough to know that's a fair assessment. My disagreement lies in matters beyond the privilege, it's about the ideology behind it and how privilege is characterised in fanciful and aggressive ways.

When did the discussion ever become about what @Banno can or can't live with? Was that something of interest to you?