Should we ask if it is true? Should we ask if it is reasonable? — Judaka

It makes no sense to ask these sorts of questions about white privilege. "White privilege" is all of the different benefits and/or privileges that whites have in the United States simply because they are white.

We both know that systemic racism exists.

Ask enough non whites about their own personal experiences regarding systemic racism. Ask them how racism has affected/effected them personally. Listen to all the stories, and then ask yourself if you have ever been treated in those ways simply for being white? If the answer is "no", then you've just learned a bit about your own white privilege.

It's not that hard to comprehend.

If white privilege is an arrangement of truth... — Judaka

That's where you go off the rails...

We agree that systemic racism exists. White privilege is an inevitable consequence of systemic racism(implemented by racist whites against non-whites).

Yes, much of my discussions about privilege get stuck at people failing to understand the concepts talked about in my OP — Judaka

I can see how that could be problematic. There are some very important 'concepts' being discussed. However, I'm stuck on the fact that you do not seem aware of the actual relationship(s) between systemic racism and white privilege.

And can you give examples of what your critique in the OP applies to? When do you believe it is especially relevant to bring up? When someone writes or speaks, what reminds you of it? — fdrake

I've been sitting back reading this thread with the hopes of better understanding what Judaka was getting at in the OP. You've found a way to tease it out quite a bit. Impressive actually... for me anyway.

So, if I have Judaka right, he's talking about situations where everyone agrees that a group of statements are all true, but he's also saying that the way those statements are used, and what they're used for(the arrangement?), can vary remarkably.

Is that about right?

Does the following count as one of those arrangements we agree on?

I think that one can reasonably prove that the US government has purposefully constructed the relevant laws in ways that they knew would disproportionately affect the races. You need to look at how the US governments handle politics, the major goal is getting the party re-elected and everything done takes this into account. The policies appeal to the racial undertones that have been present in the US and still are. Nonetheless, the result can't be argued to be racially neutral.

There's a lot of room for interpretation here but there's a level of inexcusable simplicity in thinking that because the government doesn't use language that targets race, they can't be racist. That laws that don't mention race can't be part of systemic racism. I encourage you to further your education on this vast topic, if you're going to be as involved as you have been in this discussion. — Judaka

So, I take it that you and I agree that systemic racism remains inherent, to some extent or another, within America.

However, when it comes to the notion of white privilege, it seems that we're nearly at complete odds.

So, to me... if I've got it right... that is a prima facie example of what the OP is getting at. Would you agree?

No argument here...

I did say "usurped" the idea. He mouthes the words.

The Democrats appear to have adopted much of Sander's rhetoric; I doubt it will translate into actual policy. But ever hopeful. — Banno

If history is any indication, with these two, the necessary changes will likely not be made any time soon. However, Those two are much closer to making those changes than Trump actually is. Trump has usurped the 'America first' idea, but unfortunately it is accompanied by xenophobia, which means white America first, and fuck everyone else(historical allies besides the UK) at the same time. That pains me, because I fear that the idea itself will continue to be correlated to Trump and xenophobia.

By changing the meaning of the terms...

I hold that there really isn't a clear distinction between invention and discovery of ideas... — Pfhorrest

This presupposes that all ideas already exist in their entirety prior to being discovered.

You believe Trump is for peace?

:vomit:

SEP on Truth is a good starting point...

computers can be sentient too, no? — Shawn

Not if I have it right...

Put your hands in the air, and step away from the bong!

:wink:

Hi Shawn.

...wouldn’t you agree that hammers have purposes? — Pinprick

Nah. Hammers do not have purposes. They are used for our purposes. Having a purpose could be rendered as aiming to do something or other in particualr. Hammers do not aim to do anything.

It does not follow from the fact that we've been wrong about some things that we've been wrong about everything. It does not follow from the fact that we cannot know some things that we cannot know anything. It does not follow from the fact that we cannot directly perceive everything that we cannot directly perceive anything.

That's how I handle the all too well known limitations of our physiological sensory perception.

Others can posit that's it's all illusory, if they like.

:wink:

Kamala Harris' speech at the DNC offers a glimpse of hope that some of the unraveling will be mended soon...

That was a brilliantly crafted speech. She exuded sincerity, genuine goodwill, and exhibited fierce determination against unjust unlawful discrimination. She also knows quite a bit about what is required to realize the necessary changes(equal treatment under the law). That is(will be) the first female president of the United States of America!

Awwww.... there is a nice side to Street.

:wink:

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. — Judaka

Yes. I definitely concur. They are different words. They're not the only such set though. Bird and birds. The difference is quantity. The latter is a plurality of the former. That's how it works, and my knowing that much is what grounded my earlier question to you; one which you initially readily agreed with, only to change your mind later after facing the consequences of that common sense use.

Those definitions I have given are pretty standard — Judaka

Clearly not.

You're attempting to claim that "truths" is not a plural form of "truth". If a truth is a true claim, as you also agreed, then truths are more than one true claim. On pains of coherency alone...

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

The "truth" here is referring to the literal state of things being true — Judaka

Those definitions I have given are pretty standard — Judaka

See the indication of another plurality above? Indeed, you've given different definitions of the same term. Multiple standards are problematic when they conflict with one another.


To the first question at the top of the page...

No. I do not, nor did I ever want to accuse you of a fallacy. I'm just telling you what some of the rules are. I'm not making them up. During the same argument one cannot just freely move between distinct and incompatible senses of the same term at their own whim and not get called out on it. It's unacceptable, incoherent, self-contradictory, nonsensical language use.

The substitution method I've employed is the most reliable tried and true(hehehe) method for checking to see if an author is using more than one sense of the same term. Turns out that you were/are. The fallacy was there, and it remains, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge and/or admit of it. Acknowledging it would make you a better philosopher.

I want to stress that what I'm saying is not negative a report of you. It's not about you, the author. It doesn't have to reflect poorly upon you as a person. It's about the writings that you're presenting openly on a public philosophy forum. Public forums are chock full of uncomfortable potential for everyone and/or anyone who so chooses to boldly go where they've never gone before... voluntarily opening themselves(their own belief) up to criticism.

They all think they are moral ubermensch capable of lifting themselves up by their bootstrap regardless of whatever circumstances they find themselves in. At the same time foreigners are to blame because "dey touk our jabs!", liberals are to blame for every social ill and meanwhile they're totally blind to the fact its society and its welfare components that create the choices and freedom to choose among them instead of having to spend all our time just surviving. — Benkei

Someone recently mentioned the inconvenient facts regarding the actual public policies being implemented during those times so long ago still yearned for to this day. These horribly inconvenient actions that resulted in the very time periods championed by those who either have no fucking clue what it took to get there... hence what it takes to get there again, or they are deliberately perpetuating fraud against the American people.

Many, perhaps most, of those who want to make America great again want us all to return to times like they were between WWII and Nixon. Those were the times that socialist policies provided.

Great for your average white folk.

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. — Judaka

For a start, I would not use the term "truth" in so many different ways. It's called an equivocation fallacy. It causes confusion at best, and is a sure sign of self-contradiction at worst.

What's the aim here with the idea of the arrangement of truth?

Ok. Substitution then results in the following...


It is not a flaw, it is an unavoidable consequence of intelligence, that you are able to arrange truths, interpret them and argue the meaning of what you've brought forward is an amazing thing. And it cannot be contested by a true statement alone...




The above replaces "truth" with "a true statement", which if a truth is a true statement, as you've claimed, that substitution ought be perfectly acceptable. The meaning ought not change at all. But...

...the problem is obvious, is it not?

Our ability to arrange true statements, interpet them, and argue the meaning can most certainly be contested by a true statement alone.

Right?

Well I think background context matters quite a bit here. How does one know what exactly. Different bits of knowledge can be known in different ways, acquired by different means, so...

I agree that a broad-brush answer would have to be too vague for much at all.

Unless all knowledge results from the exact some process... which I would not dismiss offhandedly, so...

I'm unsure.

Can someone quote something from Asif that had any sort of philosophical thinking going on?

I think, but could be wrong, that that's part of what counts as "low quality". Street is at least capable.

Ok.

It is not a flaw, it is an unavoidable consequence of intelligence, that you are able to arrange truths, interpret them and argue the meaning of what you've brought forward is an amazing thing. And it cannot be contested by truth alone. — Judaka

And what does the term "truth" mean here? The same as before but singular? A true statement?

So, I'm guessing that by "truths" you're talking about true claims, assertions, statements, or some such...

Is that about right?

The truth can be arranged... — Judaka

No it cannot.

Intellectuals question their own mostly adopted worldview. That's where it begins...

Intellectuals are not all alike. At least be mad at the right ones. Oopsie. I see you're not peeved!

True belief is prior to language. True belief corresponds to reality. That correspondence is truth. Correspondence is prior to language.

We do not gather and arrange truth - as if it were something that exists in and of itself - that can be placed into different arrangements, like many things can... flowers. Correspondence is not like that.

Looks like that line of thinking is built upon conflating several different notions of "truth" all into one.

Irony, you know. I think we make lousy politicians, being trained to represent usually one client at a time, rather than groups with diverse interests. — Ciceronianus the White

That's such a good point.

I wonder if George Floyd could have just moved some things around to improve his own life...

...a knee perhaps?

This talk as if anyone can achieve the American dream is such myopic nonsense on it's face. Common sense tells us all better. All we need to do is think about... for just a minute or two...

The resident Trump supporter suggested that because we can move a box, we ought be able to have whatever life we want, and by implication if we do not have a good life, it's our own fault(perpetuating the machismo individualism rubbish that is so rampant).

One can make some changes, therefore one can make all the necessary changes that need made in order to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, regardless of the socio-economic circumstances one may be born into. Hard work and keeping one's nose clean is all you need to become a poster child of the American wet dream... self made!

What a crock of horse shit.

Some... sure. Just because there are plenty of examples, it does not follow that anyone can do it. We create the socio-economic landscape, and it ought include opportunities for everyone, not just those fortunate and capable enough of making their own way in the current landscape, so to speak. We as a society owe it to ourselves to create as many different ways as we can for any and all individuals to be able to make it.

I’m sure that if a drunk driving victim had the opportunity to wear a mask that protected them from getting hit by a car, they would do so. — Manbabyzeus

That misses the point entirely. Trump, and each and every individual who refuses to wear a mask in public is taking a risk with another's life.

Drunk drivers do the same. The difference is that those in power acknowledged and honored the need to legally prohibit such things as drunk driving. However, had those in power not, but instead behaved in precisely such ways, then they would be guilty of taking serious risks with another person's life by driving while intoxicated.

Trump is the drunk driver who gets to write the rules governing his own behaviour. He clearly does not care or he does not know that he's placing other lives at serious risk. Neither is acceptable.

Everyone is not Einstein. Not everyone can successfully start from nothing and acquire a comfortable peaceful free lifestyle, not that he did, it's just another bullshit line of thought from those who believe that Einstein failed elementary school or some such shit supporting their own false belief that they are somehow 'self-made'. A fantastic self absorbed mental orgasm repeated all too often in today's popular narratives(rugged individualism).

In fact, no one can. We are by our very inevitable nature... necessarily... interdependent social creatures.

I believe you can choose your own morality. One can be convinced of the value of certain moral principles, the danger of others, and can alter his beliefs thereby. People convert all the time, for instance, at least when given the freedom to do so. — NOS4A2

And if one's morality is such that they cannot do both, be free and help the society(by helping others in as many ways as they reasonably can) they have no business whatsoever having any power that affects/effects the lives and/or livelihoods of those others who they refuse to help.

Including employment. Employees are people, not a means to an end.

I don’t believe some legislator knows how to run my business better than I do. Likewise, I don’t need nor want the state to step in where my own employment is concerned. But no I do not believe everyone takes the responsible action. I just believe that they are capable of doing so. — NOS4A2

Oh look... the very privileged point of view.

We've established that all sorts of different utterances 'following' that form can be stated.

None of them can be believed by the speaker at the time - aside from misuse of verb tense when reporting upon what's already happened, such as Isaac's example. Even then, it's a misuse. That's not how we're supposed to use those words.

The form is utterly inadequate for taking proper account of all of the particular meaningful language uses that count as being of that form.

Isn't that a huge problem for the accounting practice itself?

Privilege talk sheds light on underprivileged people. That's a good thing, if we're aiming at an equitable, free, and fair society.

Some use it as a weapon, but that does not mean that it's not good to talk about it. Some folk run stop signs too.

My immediate thought is that it does not follow from anything you wrote that truth is an inconsistent concept. In fact, I would - and have quite successfully - argued that truth is not a concept at all. What does follow from what you've shared is that that particular accounting practice cannot take proper account of correspondence.

An individual right not to be made sick by others? Of course intentionally infecting others with disease is a serious crime, and one has every right to hide in a padded cell to avoid community infection. But there is no right to not be infected by others, just like there is no right not to get wet from rain. Life is a risk. One must take the precautions he deems necessary in order to be safe. — NOS4A2

There is no right to not be killed by drunk drivers either. Laws against it are to protect people from those who do not care enough about other people's lives, so they take that risk... with their own life and others'.

The exact same 'argument' holds good for wearing masks at this time.

For fuck's sake, get your head out of Trump's drunk driving ass for just one fucking minute.

My pessimism has me thinking a move to the right is the more likely outcome. Along with it, a further rejection of scientific advice and rational discourse. — Banno

The Democratic convention is talking about a platform that moves to the left of where we are today, which isn't saying much. But, it's also left of where we were with Obama, which is a good start.

If we can get the monetary corruption under control, it would go a very long way to moving towards more community oriented thinking...

On another note(more relevant as a result of Harris)... "Defund the police" pretty much means "Fund the social/community programs"...