Try what? Their are no behavioral instructions above...just results of some behaviors you have not described. — ZhouBoTong

Not just behaviour... belief. Discussion is how it's started, about universal morality. Universally held/shared moral beliefs... regardless of that which is subject to individual particular circumstances. Common sense agreement upon who ought wield power over people.




You're just not making any sense at all to me. Clearly stating that a goal to end racism is misguided is itself quite the contentious claim. It's false on it's face, no matter what method one employs to meet that goal... diversity training notwithstanding.

Some people do not need diversity training, for they've already had a diverse group of loved ones, friends, and family members for long periods of time. Some of these people find it all rather telling...

Do you have black, asian, latino, and/or an otherwise diverse group of loved ones, family members, and friends? Just curious.

...mainly I just wanted to discuss the notion of whether there should be an attempt to abolish an identity of a group that has discriminated against other groups. If we say we want to end sexism and create an equal world, thus demolishing the patriarchy, does that entail that males should no longer think of themselves as male? Or that white people should no longer identify as "white"? And if that's so, should "black" and other racial categories also go away? — Marchesk

Abolishing the identity of a group... whatever that means... does nothing at all to help end male chauvinism, racism, sexism, ageism, etc.

I did listen to a podcast fairly recently where a feminist was saying the goal of feminism (or a goal of some feminists anyway), was to abolish gender. An ideal world is one in which people don't identify as a certain gender. Yes, the biological reality of sexual differences still exists, but the identity and roles around gender no longer would. — Marchesk

Abolishing all gender is to impose one's own belief(gender nihilism, if you will) upon everyone else in society. It is an authoritarian style attempt to force everyone to hold the same belief. No different in kind than the oppressive problem it's meant to be correcting.

Different people have different beliefs concerning what's acceptable/unacceptable regarding everyone's behavior. Different people are going to have their own unique reasoning, moral underpinnings, and/or guiding principles for believing whatever they believe, and they will all have shared belief as well. There is so much overlap. We agree on much more than we disagree. Those agreements provide solid footing for substantive communication and/or discussion about how we ought treat others.

That's what underwrites this conversation, no? Racism is about that. Sexism. Ageism. Feminism.

When regarding one's thought and belief about how men and/or women ought act, what duties they ought have, etc., that is their own personal right to believe whatever they want; providing that their right to exercise those freedoms do not knowingly cause unnecessary and demonstrable harm to someone else by doing so.

I tend to think the focus here to ‘combat’ or even ‘end’ racism is misguided. — Possibility

End racism.

What on earth could be wrong with that as a goal?

The theoretical aim of the workshop is to increase ‘awareness’ of minority experience - it’s just poorly executed, or poorly understood by the facilitators...

...What I mean by ‘minority experience’ is basically an experience of humility, or devalued conceptual identity that is common to minorities...

...The resistance to it is normal, but the capacity to experience this kind of humility is important to understanding the subjective experience of racial disadvantage, even when active discrimination does not occur...

...What if the participants decided, rather than resist and deflect by blaming managers or the decision-makers, to ‘take the hit’ and experience the humility and sense of persecution that comes with their conceptual identity being devalued. “I am harmful to minorities for no other reason than that I am white.” Forget the question of whether or not this is accurate, and just go with the affective experience of humility and guilt that comes from attributing significance to the thought itself, and the impact of cognitive dissonance it creates in relation to how you see yourself. — Possibility

So, rather than end racism, you are advocating making everyone suffer from it?

'Misguided', you say? Hmm.

Surely there's a much better way to improve the racial relations in the US aside from glorifying and further perpetuating it's(racism) existence.

So...

The reactor looks like a globe atop a squat obelisk. It cannot be gotten near when it is on and producing this - never before seen by anyone aside from this guy - 'gravitational wave'. It goes off and on by placing it atop the pedestal.

Did I misunderstand?

Did he not say just that, or words to that effect/affect?

You knew I was off base earlier... that I had not correctly understood the work situation. I had thought all along that that someone who said the contentious remark actually was a part of the diversity training team.

That led to things based upon misunderstanding.

My apologies for my part. Reading too much into it. You really never specified. Did you realize that that was unbeknownst to me - to even be a problem - because your replies never objected?

I take back what I said about the quality of the diversity training team. It was based upon my own misunderstanding of the actual situation. My apologies to the team.

I just re-read, and either we cross-posted and you edited to add more to the OP or I have no clue why I was on about...

Will people always devalue other humans based upon insufficient evidence and irrational reasoning?

Probably.

That doesn't mean that we ought not do everything we can do to eliminate such.

Right?
— creativesoul

I am questioning what that would look like? — ZhouBoTong

It would look exactly like the right kind of effort. It would result in less people being suspicious of everyone. It would make it virtually impossible for people to be taken advantage of. It would result in much happier, healthier community of interdependent social creatures.

You should try it sometime.

It would be everyone agreeing that one who does not care about the people over whom they wield tremendous power - have absolutely(I do not just throw such words around carelessly either) no business wielding such power.

Only an elected official ought be writing laws in a true representative form of government(purportedly self-directing people).

Power over people is gotten in only one of two ways. It is either usurped or granted by consent. That is me paraphrasing the admirable revolutionary type thinker Thomas Paine.

When the people know that those making the decisions have taken deliberate actions resulting in clear apparent negative consequences for the people, and those same people will not use the power that they have to adress, overturn, redress, and/or otherwise correct the harm, then the people have learned that that power has been usurped.

It would look like exactly the right kind of effort.

-Actions are considered good or evil (right or wrong) based on their goal which is being accomplished by the consequences of that particular action.
-If the goal being accomplished is good then something is considered right.
- As I stated earlier, we need context to judge an action.
-That context is a goal, which shows why someone did something.
-Therefore, we measure actions based on the goal being accomplished.
-The ends justify the means. — Lawrence of Arabia

With practical matters that have little or no relevance to moral ones, sure. If one wants to do X, and doing X requires doing A, B, and C, then X 'justifies' doing A, B, and C.


There are problems with the argument presented in the OP.

Why someone did something is personal motive. "Why" is a question about one's own reasoning, psychology, and/or motivation. That said, it takes learning the context to determine one's motive. The extenuating circumstances, should there be any, are relevant to the goal, but they are not equivalent to it. Context is not equivalent to the goal. So, there's something amiss with saying otherwise.

The context in which a goal(the ends) was imagined is not the goal. The context in which the plan for reaching, meeting, achieving, obtaining, and/or otherwise satisfying that goal is not the goal.


Generally speaking...

If the ends justify the means, and the goal can be anything whatsoever at all, then to hell with what's good, what's right, what's best, what's fair, what's considerate of others, what's moral, etc.

It's also commonly used ex post facto to gloss over previously clear wrongdoings by diverting attention to some purportedly 'net positive' consequence of the wrongdoing.

Drama queen.

that which is red can be made blue — Bartricks

:mask:

The notion of not being able to place one's hands near the reactor(due to 'gravitational waves') contradicted all the later talk about 'placing' the sphere off and on the pedestal. It lost me with a tremendous amount of forgetting what he was saying amidst two hours of aimless wandering...

Yeah...

Looks pretty convoluted.

Heck, I used to know a Navy seal that told stories of picking fights with those "jarheads" (Marines). — ZhouBoTong

A different kettle of fish.

Don't think that that counts as racism. Fairly common in the military. They all have nicknames for one another. Terms of endearment. Trust me on that. Those guys are bands of brothers. Brothers in arms. That's bestowing impressive amounts of trust upon another human being.

This makes me think of, "violence can stop violence, but violence can never create lasting peace". This seems absolutely true and seems the same type of statement that you are making (do you agree or is it different for some reason?). — ZhouBoTong

A bit more nuanced in some ways, perhaps... Very similar to what followed, as copied below...

However, does this really teach us to never stop violence with violence? Notice it does not, as immediate violence must often be met with immediate violence for short term well-being. — ZhouBoTong

In certain situations this holds good. I would agree.

One will not consider long term well-being when they do not even have it in the short term.

The above seems somehow amiss. As if all well-being is thought of in both long and sort term, as if there is always a difference between the two. As if one cannot think of long term stability while in times of strife.

I will not go as far as saying "we should use racism to combat racism"...but since I have not seen any great examples as to how to end racism, I am not immediately offended by the attempt. — ZhouBoTong

Ending racism is the goal. We can use racism without being racist. We can use racism without succumbing to the same types of irrational thinking. We can use racism without being guilty of devaluing an entire group of people based upon the color of their skin alone. Being racist is judging an entire group of people based upon the racial category in a very specific way; the devaluation of the group and all individuals within it simply because they are part of the group.

We can use racism to show it's failings and unnecessary harm and long term damage that ensues from it... all the while... not being racist.

Like Mandela, and alluding to what you mentioned earlier regarding using violence to stop violence...

I too find that there are situations and circumstances where violence is necessary. I do not find that it is necessary to end racism by being racist or by further perpetuating that sort of thought and belief about others and/or the subsequent following resultant racist behaviour...

Violence is not necessary here and now...

We are all directly and indirectly influenced by virtue of being born into a society. We all adopt our first ideology and/or basic world-view. This is true of everyone. Everyone deserves a certain modicum of respect and value simply because they are human, and we are all interdependent social creatures by our very nature. We all live in a community where each of us can have some degree of affect/effect upon others within that community, whatever it's scope.

One who does not genuinely care about another's life, well-being, happiness, and/or general livelihood cannot be granted tremendous power over that person, for they cannot be trusted to act on their behalf by keeping their best interest in mind.

Wait, won't the root problems always exist? — ZhouBoTong

Will people always devalue other humans based upon insufficient evidence and irrational reasoning?

Probably.

That doesn't mean that we ought not do everything we can do to eliminate such.

Right?

:brow:

You are right that lumping all white people is the same type of problem as lumping all black people (or women or whatever). But I will also point out that being told I am responsible for all of mankind's suffering, isn't nearly as bad as being denied employment, education, or rights. I think you fear that these ideas will come to dominate society (and then could become a problem - whether de facto or de jure) . Wouldn't that be an incredible historical precedent? If a country that is mostly white voted to limit the rights of white people...I am not saying it is impossible, but I am not worried. — ZhouBoTong

That's not a worry of mine. My worry is that the root problems underlying racism will continue unabated if we approach this with the same fallacious thinking that constitutes the problem. All racism needs to be corrected. One cannot correct it if one uses it.

I am watching/listening to that Rogan show.

I'm curious. I've not watched the link you offered on the moon landing, although I've read a number of different people's writings on it as well as watching a number of different 'documentaries' about it... So, unless there is something new in that one - as far as evidence goes - I remain unconvinced of the landing being faked.

So, as I was saying... I'm curious...

What is the standard for the burden of proof here?

Are the anomalies that are being pointed out as evidence of the moon landing being faked explained by more than one account? Is being faked the only explanation thereof? Are the expert opinions the only ones? Are there other experts who denounce the fake landing explanation in lieu of another? Are some of those experts not tied to the governmental explanation in any way?

Surely there are many living witnesses to that landing who watched it happen and/or played an instrumental part of the operation itself... right? Are all of these people liars? Buzz Aldren? Neil Armstrong? All of the other astronauts afterwards? There was more than one moon landing... right?

Is the underlying reasoning for faking the landing along the lines of the US government trying to impress upon the world American dominance and/or exceptionalism... cold-war style? Because JFK said it... we cannot fail or be seen as having failed to actually do it?

The easiest way to avoid any issues revolving around white privilege and/or the residual effects/affects of systemic racism is to do more than just paying lip-service to the idea of equality and equal opportunity.

Prove that one is not part of the problem, by not being a part of the problem. That, of course, requires knowing what the problem is. Walking in another's shoes requires careful deliberate consultation with another about another's life.

Yeah...

Hopefully, they will take a few months or more to actually do a bit of research and consultation with the right sorts of people, and perhaps hire someone in a better more well informed position to help the morale at your place of employment.

Have you consulted any of your black friends/coworkers about the uneasiness of the meeting? Like... What the fuck was that?

It's real easy to see how this turns into an us versus them. — Marchesk

Only for those folk who already think in fallacious ways... all white people... all black people... etc.

The beginning of ending racism must include acknowledging individual differences between people of the same race.

It does very much sound like that, but to be fair to that position, what is being argued is that the social construction of whiteness as a category is what's been historically racist, and people born into majority white societies implicitly absorb those views when adopting that category. It actually applies to everyone in the society in a way, since the terms white, black, red, yellow, people of color, minority, etc. can all be understood as part of the racial hierarchy society tries to place everyone into. — Marchesk

I don't buy that reasoning at all. It's akin to saying that simply because one talks in terms of different races, that one absorbs racist tendencies, thoughts, and/or beliefs. It can be true... but I am living proof that it is not always so, despite having a number of self-professed racists in my outer family circle to this very day...

And I've not gone against those views as a rebellious cause at all...

I just simply always knew that they were wrong, probably as a direct result of having close friends and loved ones throughout my life that were/are black.

Some minorities in the meeting were expressing concern that they were going to be subjected to this discussion because white management decided that it needed to happen. I don't know who all was consulted or pushing for this, but if it's just some of the white people, and they form the large majority in an organization, then you are putting the minority employees in an uncomfortable position as well as all the other white people who didn't ask for it. It's real easy to see how this turns into an us versus them. — Marchesk

There is a very very real argument to be made about such white people who take it on themselves to express what they view to be the problem and what they view to be the solution to the historical affects/effects of systemic racism... including white privilege. In fact, to do such a thing, without careful consultation from those you purport to be speaking on behalf of, especially when they are there - in the room - ... well... that's just taking white privilege a bit farther. It is to employ it... in the face of attempting to resolve it.

:brow:

I would be willing to wager that those people do not have many black friends, loved ones, and/or family members with whom they have meaningful substantive discussions about the issue itself... for if they did, they would know better than to approach it without careful consultation, and they would know better than to frame the discussion as they did.

That's horrible HR... fucking horrible.

It would be better to not have persecution. That won't remedy the injustices of the past, or make current injustices any better. — Marchesk

Indeed. Misguided to say the least...

This is obviously problematic. But can't we view it as a pendulum type shift? Surely, we can admit that white males have had a massive impact on world history for the last couple hundred years. If society is a mess, who else to blame but those in power (yes, this is rather limited thinking)? While the quote above is BS, it is better than what many women and minorities had to deal with until very recently (or still deal with - and I say "better" because there was still a room full of white employees)...so I just take the hit for now and hope rational minds win out after the persecuted get to persecute for a while. — ZhouBoTong

How about we 'persecute' the right people... and those, like myself, will be glad to join in. Persecute me for things that other whites have done and/or are doing... and you too(whoever 'you' may be) are guilty of the exact same fallacious thoughts as other racists.

Not all blacks are the same aside from being black. The same holds good for all ethnicities.

That's too bad. I've quite a large number of black friends, loved ones, and family members who find it rather odd when white people act more offended by white privilege and racism than they themselves do. Of course, there need to be some major changes... and things change slowly. But...

"Whiteness as a bad thing" is a horribly racist sentiment. One need not blame all white people for the fact that being white had - unbeknownst to many until recently - certain accumulated advantages in American and world society/history, as a direct result of many many racists being in power for a very long time.. Most... certainly at one time. That is not unique to white people. There are still plenty more racists to be rooted out, including white ones.

However, if one frames the situation as such that all white people are being punished, in a certain sense, for things that only the racist white people have done and do, then any and all well intended attempts to affect the right kinds of change will fail, because the attempt ostracizes and vilifies the white people who are not racist. In addition, it pours gasoline on the fire of paranoid white racists who already think that many minorities are out to get them... that all the minorities are racists just like they are!

Guess what?

Many non white people are racist too!

But... NOT ALL.

their existence as a white person was harmful to others
— Marchesk

Why do I doubt that this is what was actually said? — Pfhorrest

I would hope not.

:yikes:

However, I have witnessed otherwise professional minority women, profess much the same view. "Anyone other than another old white male"... <--------------that was one opinion about the possibility of electing Bernie Sanders as president.

:yikes:

Underwriting all of this discourse are categories. Different folk employ different ones. It leads to all sorts of confusion as well... misunderstanding notwithstanding.

This thread seems to have a plurality of different categories being employed by different participants. There's even been charges of category mistakes(categorical error in judgment, per Kant).

The subject/object dichotomy breaks up what exactly into two, one or the other? Everything? I think not. Everything we talk about? Again, I think not. All our talk? Again... no. It fails miserably at all of these tasks...

It's a false dichotomy. What on earth is it still being used for, and why?

I knew this topic would eventually result in talking about minds... horribly so.

:brow:

The subject/object dichotomy cannot be used as a means to take proper account of thought and belief. All minds consist entirely thereof. Therefore, the subject/object dichotomy cannot be used as a means to take proper account of minds.

:smirk:

All morality is the codified rules governing ones behaviour, and as such all morality consists of that which is considered acceptable and/or unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. After we begin talking about morality, we also begin influencing our subsequent thought and belief about what counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour.

Our belief about that which existed in it's entirety prior to our awareness of it can be false and/or seriously mistaken on the most fundamental of levels. Our moral sensibility is autonomous in it's basic beginnings... when it begins to emerge onto the world stage by virtue of being cultivated within the individual. We all have pretty much the same moral sensibilities prior to language acquisition and use. Things change as one begins adopting one's first worldview. Subjective particulars begin showing up as having direct influence upon important differences between different moralities(codes of conduct). So, there are indeed differences relative to one's own environment. These cultural, societal, and/or familial differences can include codes of conduct and/or principles governing one's behaviour that are in direct conflict with another's. So, there's that...

We also all know - as adults coming from a plurality of moral backgrounds - that it is not good, it is not moral, it is not acceptable, it is wrong, it is morally reprehensible to smack an old woman on the back of her head with a shovel for no apparent good reason.

So...

Perhaps it is best to realize that there are many trivial things we agree on, but agree nonetheless. If we agree on some stuff, there's room to explore why and/or how that became the case.

There are common denominators in all morality regardless of that which is influenced by and/or relative to the individual particular circumstances. Not one of us, regardless of individual particulars, likes to believe that we're being seriously hurt/harmed. All of us have some vague but strong visceral aversion to being physically and mentally hurt. This is equally true prior to language acquisition, and thus prior to adopting our first moral lessons(about how one ought act in what situation).

These are true statements about all morality. They are true solely by virtue of corresponding to what happened and/or happens everyday. Developing this kind of discourse provides a more fertile and solid ground for substantively addressing some of the historical problems of morality.

So... what's the short of building seven that opens the door to issues with the official story?

My bad. The building seven issue...

Wasn't it evacuated?

Kennedy stood for equal rights. Many others in American government at the time did not. Hoover has been recorded talking about his own serious issues with Black leaders, and talked explicitly about not allowing them to gain too much power/momentum. So, there was a definite governmental impetus against Blacks... and thus, against the parts of Kennedy's political leanings involving those.

The fetish with 'communism' was real and spilled over into thoughts about American culture by those paranoid fucks that were in power at the time. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

I'm not denying Kennedy's assassination had more to it than Oswald. I'm saying that Oswald worked alone.

The crash of 08...

Well, that looks remarkably like it was not an unforeseen accident.
— creativesoul
Yet a speculative bubbles bursting is something that truly isn't a conspiracy. Many saw this coming, and remember that a lot of the most irresponsible culprits got their millions and didn't go to jail. — ssu

It's not just speculative bubbles.

I'm referring to the financial agents who created financial instruments as a means to leave those depending upon them with inevitable fallout of the bad mortgages when it occurred. Those mortgages were going to be defaulted on, and everyone involved on the lending side knew it...

Here, you call them "irresponsible". I find the exact opposite to be true.

The building was evacuated... yes?

Minds consist entirely of thought and belief. Thought and belief are complex; not simple. Minds are complex.

:wink:

The one issue I have with nearly all explanations of powerful people taking advantage of powerless is talking in terms of "rich" and "poor". Not all rich people are the same. That sort of explanation loses it's bite immediately.

I've seen no good reasoning and/or evidence to believe any of the alternative explanations for 9/11.

I've seen and heard plenty to believe that those in power went into Iraq knowing that there were no weapons of mass destruction aside from the chemical ones that were already known about.

The Gulf of Tonkin. Well... that's already been proven. So much of our involvement in Vietnam was based upon lying to not only the American public, but the world as well, including the puppet government we put in place in the south.

I've seen no good evidence to suggest that Oswald acted in cooperation with anyone else.

I've seen no good evidence that there have been aliens and alien spacecraft recovered and/or captured by US governmental agencies.

I've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that the American electoral process is corrupt.

I've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that elected politicians have enacted legislation that has resulted in demonstrable and quantifiable harm to a very large majority of Americans.

The crash of 08...

Well, that looks remarkably like it was not an unforeseen accident.

In the past fifty to sixty years, I've seen more than enough evidence that nearly all of the governmental agencies put in place to protect American citizens from the negative affects/effects of certain kinds of business practices have been systematically rendered toothless. "Drain the swamp" has been the continued systemic removal and/or dismemberment of many American safeguards originally put into place as a means to protect less fortunate Americans and cultivate a more robust socio-economic landscape with increased levels of equal opportunity.

So, the label "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation such that calling an explanation of events/history by the name implies that it just ought not be believed.

It becomes a matter of what constitutes sufficient and/or adequate reason to believe.

What counts as evidence, and is it adequate and/or relevant to the explanation, and in what way?

...his vision for Iran is a liberated country returning to how it was before the 1979 revolution... — Punshhh

So... re-instate the puppet government?

WTF???

A liberated country would not have been led by a propped up leader not chosen by the people. Hence, the revolution.

It makes much more sense to stand with those protesting injustice and tyranny, and to let those privileged westerners protesting their feelings echo away in silence. — NOS4A2

So... ignore American protests to American problems as the president?

WTF???

This presupposes that the westerners are not protesting injustice and tyranny. Seems to be based upon an all or nothing notion of injustice and tyranny. It's not so black or white.

The point, of course, is that Trump condemns and ridicules certain American protestors, and here claims to stand with foreign ones, which really places his motivations in question.