↪Pro Hominem How could then Authoritarian left / Economic left be then also rational? — ssu

It's a measure of what degree any belief is based upon an appeal to reason and evidence as opposed to ideology or magical thinking.

Under the correct circumstances, all sorts of positions could be quite reasonable. In general, the moderate left is most likely to correlate with rationality, although extreme conditions could vary that considerably.

My view is not tied to the christian perspective, because secularism is something that arises from the concept of "Religion", be it monotheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, etc ... The Roman Republic fell, like the Bronze Age civilizations - the latter was very more indirect than directly but still applies - thanks to the definitions I have described that arise from secularism.

You don't necessarily need a christian society to have the secular term applied:

Ex:

Disbelief in the established pantheon of Gods;
Worldliness instead of a spiritual life;
Cultural diversification and tolerance;
Denial of the established authority;
Social decadence caused by the corrupt morality and politic.

That's how you die as a Republic and is reborn as an Empire. — Gus Lamarch

There's probably an interesting conversation here, but we are WAY off the topic of this thread now.

The thing that most of the people, and all atheists, don't understand is that only God which can be grasped by reason exists. And that God is not perfect. Perfection and wholeness is beyond existence. Existence is bounded by non-existence and the True God is Absolute. You cannot put it in a box of logic. — Eremit

Paraphrased, one cannot make either logically valid or logically sound statements about God, because God is non-existent.

If only people understood that, there would be no need for discusions like this — Eremit

Well said.

The general dimensions are normally believed to look like this: — praxis

I think we need to a third axis:

Rational <-----------------------------> Irrational (Magical? Conspiracist? Nonsensical? Trumpist?)

secularism
— Pro Hominem

"Indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations; worldly rather than spiritual; the act or process of diversifying; a complete denial of all established authority and institutions; state of deterioration or decay, especially due to being excessively morally corrupt or self-indulgent." — Gus Lamarch

Wow. That is a singularly argumentative attempt to define the term. Uh, this would probably require its own thread to unpack.

I would venture that it appears (although I may be mistaken) that your analysis is from a decidedly Christian perspective, so it seems problematic to me to cite examples that predate Christianity. I am making some assumptions there, but I am trying to be up front about them.

I really don't like the term either, so I'm glad you called me out on it. In fact I think it's fairly useless -- what exactly am I NOT believing in? Besides, it's so ethnocentric -- we don't go around claiming we're non-believers of Shiva or Ba'al, etc.

Regardless, apropos of this discussion I figured it was only honest to label myself by the common term. — Xtrix

Wasn't intending to call you out. In other words, I wasn't suggesting that your use of it was inappropriate in any way. Really I was just looking for your opinion on "post-theist", which is a term I'm trying to use in my discussions and perhaps trying to nudge others into using as well. :blush:

Individual freedom and democracy are bubbles of secularism too. - Examples could be the Roman Republic period, the Classical Greek period and the Late Bronze Age period - — Gus Lamarch

I don't really see how secularism applies in those cases. How are you using the term?

I've often wondered why sci-fi assassination conceits always involve Hitler. Much more would be gained if you went back in time to kill Luther. This would spare you at least the worst elements of the Thirty Years War, Hegel, Marxism, WWI and WWII including Hitler, plus evangelical religion including the pernicious influence of US pentecostalism, all in one fell swoop. You could even keep a Protestant reformation, just lead by someone who wasn't an utter nutcase (although you'd probably have to assassinate Calvin too) — coolazice

I think Constantine is a better choice. Avoid Christianity/Catholicism altogether.

Yes, like instead of responding to what the theist actually says, the atheist spins a demeaning fantasy. — Dfpolis

What the theist has to say IS a demeaning fantasy. Restatements of stale ontological tautologies don't change that.

Have you ever argued with a true believer? My sample argument is actually quite accurate.

Look, I'm just hazing MadFool for fun. Sorry if you felt you got caught in the blast. I've thoroughly examined the case for theism and found not only that belief in "god" is not consistently rational, but that if one has a humane sense of morality, it is unconscionable. In other words, I think it's not enough to say that god doesn't exist, it must be said that he shouldn't exist.

And that negates the other things? Pollyannaism.. screening out what one doesn't want to see when evaluating. — schopenhauer1

Negates what? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I acknowledge that there are undesirable things in human experience, but I was making the point that you seem to be enumerating them and emoting about them to exclusion of the desirable things. I suggest that your case as you've presented it is unbalanced on the side of pessimism.

I agreed with your identification of complexity as being integral to human experience, but I see complexity as a feature, and I think you're suggesting it's a bug.

Your question was "where does that leave humans?" I think it leaves us as powerful architects of our own outcomes, with much greater upsides (and correlating downsides) to be had than what mere animals can achieve.

There are some who say that the secularism that we currently experience would happen during the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe if it were not for Luther's reform and all the movement that would come out of his protests - of course, probably without the technology we currently have -. Christianity, in fact, had already been weakening thanks to the stability and economic prosperity of the 12th and 13th centuries - in western and central Europe, excluding Iberia, and southern Italy -. — Gus Lamarch

I'd say he lent more to the development of democracy and individualism than secularism. The scientific revolution and the decline of monarchy were more responsible for the rise of secularism, in my opinion.

How so? Clarify your thoughts more, please. — Gus Lamarch

Schism, moral turpitude of Renaissance popes, deep ignorance among the clergy, etc., etc. Basically all the stuff that would have required the Counter-Reformation even if there had been no Reformation in the first place.

The Church had become an easy target.

I agree that the existence of differing religions does not, by itself, logically require that they are all false. However, the multitude of mutually exclusive belief systems does provide a good reason to approach each of them with considerable skepticism.

If one begins from the condition of skepticism, then the burden of proof is flipped. It is not the task of the rational person to explain why not religion, it is the task of the religious person to provide grounds for the rational person to entertain their ideas in the first place. Since virtually all religions stem from and are supported by "pre-rational" (historically) world views, they have all been unsuccessful at providing these grounds. Eventually, they all demand that one cede their rationality somewhere along the way in favor of "faith". In that moment, the belief ceases to be a rational one.

I try to take the eastern approach and live in the moment as much as possible.
The moment, with no regrets of the past and no worries of the future, is always pleasant.
It seems that the moments that are not pleasant are the ones not lived in the moment.
Have you thought about this? — Pop

This seems a little oversimplified. I feel like it may apply to particular types of unpleasantness, like some anxieties or disappointments, but it would fail horribly in the face of, say, passing a kidney stone, which would force you very much into the moment, where you would experience much that was unpleasant.

I do agree within the limited case of not worrying about all that stuff on his list because it's not really useful to do so. We can, but we shouldn't, unless we are in a situation where we are affected by one of those items more directly.

the initial crack — Gus Lamarch

He was predated (fairly significantly) by both Wycliffe and Hus, to name the most well-known examples. Luther's advantage wasn't his novelty or the strengths of his arguments, it was the power of his patron.

Also, the Catholic Church had cooperatively arranged itself into the form of a straw man with a huge target on its chest.

Premise: God is omnipotent.
1)Is there such a thing as “a rock that God cannot lift”? (it either exists or it doesn't exist)
If there is no such rock, then -> god cannot create a rock that he cannot lift (because such rock does not exist) -> god is not omnipotent (because he cannot create the rock) -> which contradicts the original Premise
2)If such a rock exists, can God create such a stone? (he can or he can’t)
If he can, then -> god can make such stone -> god can't lift this stone -> god is not omnipotent -> which also contradicts the original Premise
If he can’t, then -> god can't make such stone -> god is not omnipotent ->
which still contradicts the original Premise — xinye

You haven't asked the most important question. Can man create a god who can create a rock he can't lift? Seriously. Think about it.

The discussion was about "why you post on this forum" and eventually it became a deluge of people making public what I stated in some past post:

"Your argumentative fallacies don't work here Flight" — Gus Lamarch

I made a joke about Disney and then invited someone to comment in a completely different thread. Because I post on this forum to entertain myself, which is the most rational reason to be here.

Please leave my name off the role sheet for witch hunts. Thanks! :blush:

The argument for the absence of free will given that God is omniscient proceeds as follows: — TheMadFool

Maybe God's omniscience works like any other argument one has with a theist:

1. God knows that X
2. God is presented with evidence to show that X is false
3a. God changes his whole position on X saying you didn't really understand it in the first place, OR
3b. God ignores the evidence on the grounds that he knows X and he is omniscient, therefore X is not false, the evidence is false (fake news!)
4. God calls his pastor to be reaffirmed that X is true, and his pastor reminds him not to vote for baby-killers
5. Since God never loses one of these arguments, he must be omniscient

If there is determinism, it is physical or perhaps biological in nature, and if we are ever to know anything about that, science will have to get us there. There is no determinism for the sole purpose of stroking the ego of a magical wizard-ghost.

Yes, but I'm talking about aliens, not time-travelers and also there's no guarantee that we could call each other the same species, in which case cannibalism would be true. — TheMadFool

Sure there is. When they kidnap us for sexual experiments, if they produce viable offspring who are themselves capable of reproduction, then we're the same species. I mean, this has already happened - look at the Ancient Egyptians. You think they built those pyramids without help?

Our ancient hominid ancestors aren't considered human. — TheMadFool

"Hominid" and "human" are directly derived from the root "homo", meaning man. You are entering on a slippery slope here. Homo Neanderthalensis were "human", but they were not "homo sapiens".

↪Pro Hominem I started reading about him because of his hymns and advocacy for music. J.S. Bach and other composers of the north German organ school, whose compositions I've studied, used Luther's and Lutheran hymns in their works.

I've read his catechisms, and I find his ideas are still very appropriate and applicable in today's world. He argued that the head of the household should discipline the family in Scripture. The three parts of Christendom which Luther said should be memorized and constantly repeated are the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. St. Augustine had a large influence on Luther and is referenced throughout his major works.

In the Smalcald Articles (1537) Luther said of the papacy: "The pope is not, according to divine law or God's Word, the head of all Christendom. This name belongs to One only, whose name is Jesus Christ." And so as seen here Luther was in stark opposition to the pope and the government of the Roman Catholic Church. He also held contention with the mass in the papacy, the invocation of saints, and monastic vows. — dimension72

You haven't asked a question yet, so it will be difficult for anyone to engage with this thread. You seem to admire some of his ideas and contributions, but what is it you are looking for from this board?

Do you want people to argue the merits of particular doctrines? If so, your thread should start with a position on something, say, "headship in the family", and then you could lay out your beliefs citing Luther and invite others to raise objections or observations. If you are going to do that, you should post in a theology related section, as well.

You need to invite discussion of a particular idea if you want participation, not just say "Luther: discuss".

I hope this is helpful. It is meant to be. Good luck.

He must really feel terrible about all those poor, innocent, infinitely valuable malaria-spreading mosquitoes that have been killed lately. I wonder if he'd consider creating a sanctuary for them — BitconnectCarlos

Keep in mind, the point he started this whole bizarre journey from was that a being whose primary stated purpose is to pass judgment actually sees all things as equal. The internal inconsistency is jumping up and down yelling "LOOK AT ME!!! LOOK AT ME!!!" but it's like two invisible wizard-ghost deities passing in the night.

Alternatively, in the historic texts (the Christian Bible) — 3017amen

LOLOLOL

This totally took me here:

I disagree with the author of "Sapiens" and for that reason stopped reading his book. It is one-sided. — Victoria Nova

You were hoping for something from the Neanderthal point of view?

Aliens eating us would not qualify as cannibalism. — TheMadFool

It would if they were time-traveling humans who have come from the future to save their interstellar society from our primitive mistakes by eating us.

You're absolutely right to say it gives atheists (like myself) a terrible name. — Xtrix

Curious if you have any thoughts on the term "atheist" itself, as someone who self-describes this way.

I posited a different terminology in another thread. Would be interested if you have any thoughts:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/450371

It doesn't make sense to people who think they're at the top of the food chain. — TheMadFool

Of course not. Believing humans are at the top of the food chains is as absurd as believing in cannibalistic aliens.

The main aim, however, is a philosophical discussion regarding an apparent perception of clothing as ‘necessary’, and the associated moral judgement against nakedness. — Possibility

Clothing began as a survival adaptation. Prehistoric humans needed it to protect them from their environment. As hierarchies formed and communities enlarged, clothing took on a secondary utility in providing an outward symbol of rank or power. That secondary use remains to this day, most obviously in military uniforms but also in designer labels, etc. A tertiary function arises and is codified in religion as a means for the elites to control sexuality among their subject populations (e.g., your Adam and Eve example). This function is still heavily entwined in modern religious practices, but the ebbing of religious belief has resulted in a transition toward greater comfort with nude and semi-nude states, while still retaining clothing (or its naked surrogate, fitness) as a badge of rank.

I would liken it to bathing. It is not strictly necessary for survival, although it certainly can play a contributing role to a longer life in most environments. It is also not strictly necessary for membership in a community, although its absence here is a much greater liability.

Can you just answer the question — BitconnectCarlos

No. He can't. He never does. He won't start now.

Yeah, compared to us that's a Mickey Mouse operation. — Srap Tasmaner

:clap:

The instant an hierarchy is developed, we'll have a place in it and I wouldn't count on us being in the upper echelons; somewhere around the lower rungs, maybe. That being the case, we must pray and pray hard that our planet isn't discovered by an alien life who are as different from us as we are from mosquitoes. What's frightening is that aliens that "superior" might be on the verge of discovering Earth and we haven't put our house in order yet. At best, it might be a big embarrassment, at worst, we might be farmed for our meat. — TheMadFool

Congratulations! I don't know if anyone has specifically delineated the "appeal to aliens" in the list of fallacies. If you hurry, you can claim credit for it!

Sort of like the modern Lincoln Project: he was no friend of the People, but for a little while they shared a common enemy.

What is it about him you were looking to discuss?

Because I was winning every single argument on the Disney forums, so I went looking for tougher opponents.

that we need to make various goals in a complex world to gain items to consume for our survival, comfort, and entertainment. — schopenhauer1

I think you're looking in the right direction when you bring up complexity. Your phrasing of the question is decidedly negative, however. Don't be so pessimistic.

We are more complex than the other animals, with more complex lives and more complex responses to more complex problems. Our struggles and disappointments may seem greater because of this complexity, but our joys are greater as well. Yes we are just engaged in glorified survival, but we have vastly more control over the terms of that survival and its opportunities for pleasure than any other animals do, by far.

That is something you`d have to show in each individual case, and even than it is not clear. — Derukugi

It is, in the death certificate, filled out by a health professional. I'm sure if someone presented you with statistics for other causes of death, you would accept them at face value, as you no doubt do with "the flu" when you make fallacious comparisons to it. The reality is that if coronavirus is medically deemed to be a contributing factor to a person's demise, then they record it on the death certificate. The medical community relies on this type of data all the time. So if the general totality of trained medical personnel find these numbers compelling, you should probably assume they are right and accept it because you personally have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Fact is, for the young and health, Corona is a practically non-existant danger. — Derukugi

This is a deeply ignorant and dangerous statement. For one, you seem to be one of these people who is only looking at death numbers and thinking that is all that matters. If you at some point become inclined to be informed about the disease and make good decisions about it, you need to look much further than that. The long term effects of the disease remain completely unknown and will for years. Current information suggests that people of all ages are showing long-lasting effects including cardiovascular problems, chronic fatigue, and diminished brain function. Many of these are people who had only mild or moderate symptoms from the virus itself. Previous physical health and age are similarly not good indicators as these effects are being seen in people of all ages and regardless of prior physical health or underlying conditions. A study in Germany has shown that among ALL hospitalized cases (regardless of age) the rate of long-term heart problems may be as high as 80%. That means young, healthy people are getting this and ending up with heart problems that are likely to dramatically shorten their life expectancy.

What you have said is not based on the evidence surrounding this disease. It is based on a fantasy that you are choosing to believe, most likely for purely political reasons. Hopefully, the majority of the damage this does when it is all said and done will be to the selfish people who won't listen to reality and are currently responsible for extending the duration and severity of this outbreak. Currently, you sound like one of those people.

If you can't sell your message, it doesn't matter what your message is.
— Pro Hominem

There are those whose aim it is to obfuscate, deny, distort, and refuse to hear the message... so it cannot be sold.

I suspect you are one. — creativesoul

Because no one who doesn't agree with you can legitimately oppose racism? Because you have some special understanding of the issue that only you can possess due to the moral superiority of your particular experience? Because black people taught you about white privilege, therefore it must be real? You still have never been able to respond to anything I've said beyond to attack me personally in some way. It speaks to the weakness of your beliefs.

It's funny. Way back at the beginning of this thread, before I even posted, I tended to agree with your position. The longer you have defended it however, the less your goal seems to be equity. You seem to have been radicalized and to have some need that there is some sort of retribution and culpability leveled at all white people. I am starting to believe that you are a racist.

Deny it all you want. Your words speak otherwise.

Yes,i t's partly a Buffy reference. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Cool.

I agree that many of the effects of racism are socio-economic, and those will remain ever if the underlying racism diminishes. We are seeing that currently. I observe that systemic racism has reduced significantly in this country over the last few decades, with the criminal justice system as the pernicious exception. Mostly racism is interpersonal now, although Trump clearly would be open to allowing it to creep back into our institutions (sorry for the bias if you're not American). The larger problem is wealth disparity and the stranglehold the very wealthy have on power. The only answer is education. For any of it.

No that it is not the tree I'm barking up at all. If, say, a bank lends money to qualified Black applicants at a lower rate than it lends to qualified white applicants, that bank is in effect racist. It gets to be that way because some loan officers made some racist decisions. If you worked at the bank for thirty years and only made one such decision, you contributed some tiny amount to the bank being racist, not just because you worked there, but because of something you did. Maybe once or twice you wondered why someone was being turned down by another loan officer, but didn't raise the issue. More, but still smallish, responsibility, and so on.

Maybe I could be convinced by some argument about enabling __, or supporting __, or contributing to __, or participating in __, or whatever, but I'm certainly not making any such claim now. I'm just talking about what people actually do that's actually in itself not okay. And making one indefensible decision also doesn't make you responsible for the decisions of the virulent racist in the next office, or for the whole bank, just your part.

We could keep messing with this, but I'm not sure it's much help. What suspicions did you have? Did you act on them in any way? Was there an incident which, if you reflected on it, might have led you to check that guy next-door's numbers to see if there's a pattern? I don't need all this for the tiny point I'm making. — Srap Tasmaner

I still see you conflating systemic and interpersonal racism. I think this is the thing causing the biggest problem in this whole thread. I might even go so far as to accept that "white privilege" is a real thing in interpersonal situations. If the cop gives you a pass because he's racist but you happen to be white, then I suppose you garnered a benefit there whether you meant to or not. If the individual loan officer sees you in the lobby and denies the black person ahead of you because he only needs to sign you to reach his quota, then you received a benefit whether you meant to or not. I mean, I suppose "white privilege" is as good a description of that as any. But so what? What's the utility of having a term for that? If you don't even know it's happening, there's little you can do about those instances of racist activity. If you do know, what do you expect people to do? Demand the officer ticket or arrest them? Tell the bank they refuse the loan? There's no way you'd convince anyone to do that, and it still wouldn't even help anything if they did.

If the scope of what you are saying is that people sometimes racially discriminate against each other, and that's undesirable, and it happens way more often to non-whites than whites, and we could call that disparity "white privilege", then fine. Sold. I don't see how it makes a difference, but I accept it all.

But what happened to George Floyd (and so many others) was so very much more than a "discriminatory act." It was the result of explicit and implicit racist thought and policy at multiple levels, from the individual officer on up. Those policies are quietly defended and extended by racists in positions of wealth and/or power because they are very intentionally trying to derive some benefit from it, or because they are simply morally bankrupt cretins. These people are a minority, but they align themselves with others who are blind (intentionally or not) to their activities. To defeat this system of racism, it must be isolated and dragged out into plain view. Those perpetrating it need to be clearly identified and made example of. To make this happen, the majority of people that have no interest in racism (whether or not they actively oppose it) have to find common cause and change the systems at fault. Even after this is done, it will take some time and that coalition must be maintained.

Calling a huge chunk of these people out by painting them with "white privilege" is not going to help this at all. Especially when you try to sell it as part of the systemwide problem, not just something that could pop up in a given situation. Now you've taken these people who are not exactly allies to begin with, and you've made them defensive. Are they going to agree to go along with you now? Are they going to support your efforts to remove certain people from power? Hopefully they will, but a lot of them would be doing it despite being told they have "white privilege", not because of it.

If you can't sell your message, it doesn't matter what your message is.

This is where someone usually trots out how I'm all personally upset about the term. Besides being false, this is just an attempt to avoid the issue. "Al Gore is a knob, therefore global warming isn't happening." No one here has successfully defended "white privilege" in a systemic context, they keep being forced to return to interpersonal acts of racism. Most of the "white privilege" apologists readily admit that it irritates and sometimes infuriates people they speak to about it, and yet no one can seem to respond to my point about there being no demonstrable benefit, but more likely a cost, to this use of the term. No one has explained why it is beneficial at a time when "Black Lives Matter" is gaining traction to point out, "yeah, but white privilege..." In short, no one has offered a meaningful rebuttal to any of the points I've made on the issue.

I am readily aware of both systemic and interpersonal racism. I have witnessed both up close in person. I am acutely aware that there are differences in the way people are treated based solely (in many cases) on the color of their skin. I doubt that concepts that imply that "all black people are x," or "all white people are y," are likely to help end this state of affairs. I doubt that "all white people" benefit from racism. I doubt that anyone "benefits" from racism except for a limited few in a purely economic way. I don't think most racism is about benefits at all. It is hurt for the sake of hurt. I doubt that finding one more way to focus that hurt is helpful at all.

I think I'm done with this topic. I already was once, but then a couple new people popped in and I wanted to hear them out. Thanks to most of you for the discussion. Cheers.

In many cases, no. The social relation in question is one of particular bodies. If every human lost their awareness skin colour tomorrow, it would not alter many of the present social relations between bodies. The same bodies would still be in jails, poverty striken communities, etc., and the structures of systematic racism would still be present of the bodies. We would just cease to be aware of them — TheWillowOfDarkness

I fundamentally disagree. If we all became effectively "colorless", it wouldn't immediately release people from jails or poverty, but it would dramatically effect how people were processed by the criminal justice system going forward, and it would gradually even out the disparity in wealth accumulation, albeit over several generations. There would still be much to do to address the disparity between rich and poor, and no doubt the rich would invent some other idea to divide us and keep the status quo, but you can't have racism without race.

Totally off topic, but is your screen name a Buffy reference?

My experience of (a) being white and treated white but (b) thinking I'm raceless and treated raceless is what I think of as white privilege. — Srap Tasmaner

If you went with "white blindness", or even the more aggressive "white ignorance" here, I could at least see clear reasoning for it, and my only concern would be deploying it in a way that doesn't do more harm than good. But I can't draw a line to "privilege" because it just doesn't connect with the meaning of the word.

Some here have tried defending it by acknowledging it's not particularly descriptive, but that it is impactful, and my response to that is how clear is the evidence that such impact is positive? If the majority of people you communicate this idea to get pissed off (rightly or wrongly) is that the best way to engage them in a fruitful conversation? I see it as something that has limited utility where people are well-known to each other or have a vested interest in remaining in the conversation, but not in the majority of public discussions of race.

It's like Hillary Clinton saying "basket of undesirables". You can think about what she's trying to communicate and understand what she means, and maybe even come around to agreeing with it, but the fact is that most people won't engage the idea for that long, and it backfires as a rallying point for the opposition.

No no, the differential minimum sentences for crack vs powdered cocaine, famous example of a law that is in effect racist.

There is a legal issue -- since we're here -- about whether a policy (or law or regulation) is known by those enacting it to be in-effect racist, in which case that's a no-no, and counts as discrimination — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, I am aware of de facto and de jure discrimination, I just didn't understand what you were referring to when you mentioned minimums above. The de facto legal analysis turns on outcomes; whether the law, correctly applied, results in obviously discriminatory results. If a law is "known" to be discriminatory by those enacting it, that would be de jure discrimination, because it is within the intent of the lawmaker(s).

EDIT: There is a third option, in which the outcomes of a law are discriminatory, but only because it is being incorrectly applied. In this case, the law is held to be not discriminatory at all, and the court recommends for changes in enforcement or oversight, or suggests recourse in civil suits.

I'm allowing for the possibility that a lot of people contribute to a given institution being in-effect racist, while themselves only occasionally and perhaps quite rarely racist, and perhaps not even knowing it.
(As Michel Foucault said, people know what they do, mostly know why they do what they do, rarely know what what-they-do does.) — Srap Tasmaner

I can certainly agree that people are frequently part of institutions that are racist (or sexist, or whatever) and they may not be aware of it. If their participation contributes to that institution, does it necessarily follow that it contributes to the racism? Can we generalize that every part of an organization is responsible for every other part of the organization? Doesn't that result in everyone being guilty of everything? Shouldn't there be rules governing who is effectively responsible for something within a group that the whole group does not directly participate in? These rules already exist, but are you arguing for broadening them to include if not everyone, then a much broader segment of people? Doesn't this seem like a slippery slope to a place we don't want to go?