I once heard an interesting hypothesis about scapegoating: People resort to scapegoating when their own adherence to the values they profess reaches a critical low where even they cannot deny it anymore. Instead of admitting it and deliberately changing their ways, they metaphorically cast their own sins onto someone else and this way free themselves of the burden of a guilty conscience. This way, they clear the slate and can start fresh.
— baker

Is an interesting perspective. So maybe I'm wrong about the unhelpfulness of such generalisation. — Isaac

The issue at hand is still scapegoating. What is different, in comparison to more traditional cultures, is that modern culture has lost all sense of perspective and measure, so anything and everything can be considered "unacceptable", or "acceptable", but one can never know in advance which. As you've noted before, there is that sense of constantly walking on eggshells.

In more traditional cultures that have relatively clearly defined value systems, one can predict with good certainty what effect a certain action will have in the public space. What will be merely ridiculed, and what severely punished. But in modern cultures, one can never really know.

Still waiting for your reply.

How does a person "stop being a big baby" and how does a person "grow the ability to listen to opposing views without fear that we'll slide into a holocaust if you let other people have their say"?

Have you worked out an actual didactic program for this? Can you present it here?

The other day, I watched a David Suchet (British actor from Agatha's Poirot TV series) interview and his reason for being religious was that he - his mind & heart - just couldn't accept that this (physical reality) is all there is, there has to be more. He did some soul-searching and found solace in the catholic faith. Is this an ego-fantasy, is this what we'd call being in denial (of truth/facts)? — Agent Smith

I think such interviews are necessarily too short, too superficial, and too polite to offer any real insight into the person's religious choices, so I don't make much of the replies given in such interviews. In them, people give some (rehearsed) socially desirable answer.

To really learn what the person thinks on this matter, one would need to get to know them, spend a lot of time with them, build mutual trust.

You've answered your own question. — 180 Proof

In that case, it's not clear how your concept of ethics is still coherent.
"Ethical is whatever serves me in any given situation."

No, even if God exists holiness is a human concept reliable on the responses, on the feelings. of humans. Something is holy only insofar as it evokes feelings of holiness. In any case, we can only look at it from what we know; we know humans enjoy feelings of holiness, and we don't know whether God exists. — Janus

No, that's _you_ don't know whether God exists. Doesn't mean everyone else is the same as you.

The more I engage with you the more I get the impression that you are a contrarian; someone who just likes to argue for the sake of it.

Oh, for crying out loud.

You keep taking for granted your own stance, your own experience, and you hold it up as the arbiter of reality _for_ _everyone. You elevate your own "I don't know whether God exists" to "We don't know whether God exists". What on earth makes you think you can speak on behalf of other people like that?!

Since when did public health policy become - "we'll mandate something and if anyone happens to turn up some data that it's harmful we'll stop". what on earth happened to 'Do No Harm'? — Isaac

It's been like that for as long as I can remember. Vaccinations, hormonal contraceptives, use of plastic, cutting down forests, failing to start building a retirement fund early on, incarcerating 10-year olds with the general population (yay, America thou wonderful!) ...

People tend to be this way: if some measure or other action doesn't have 1. immediate and 2. massive bad consequences, we should go through with it, and whatever negative consequences there are, find a way to blame them on the individual people who experience those consequences.
If the consequences are not immediate and massive, people generally take little heed.

Are the beneficiaries of old-school socialism just too frightening for the newly elevated chattering classes, they need someone tamer, more like them, to help. Someone they are less complicit themselves in the oppression of. — Isaac

Bertolt Brecht, presumably so concerned with the poor working class, out of "solidarity" with them wore a shirt tailored the way the shirts of workers were tailored. Except that his was made of silk.

Just shows you what lengths people will go to to find self-acceptance in a culture where the concept of psychological gender is still uncomprehended. — Joshs

Do you think other people owe it to you to accept you and comprehend you?

I suggest that it is possible to think beyond anger and blame entirely, but we can only do this by getting past the idea that human motives are fundamentally arbitrary and capricious, and subject to conditioning and shaping by irrational social and bodily sources. What do you think? — Joshs

On the contrary, I think it's possible to think beyond anger and blame entirely, but we can only do this by giving up the aims that anger and blame serve, ie. wealth and power.

It's 2022 why are people still whining about cancel culture, go outside, breath fresh air, watch a movie, go to the bar and grab a beer. — Maw

Indeed, resorting to private consumerism is often advocated as the solution for all of our problems ...

Newsweek. They’re the go-to source for political mud- wrestling between left and right. — Joshs

There is no left in mainstream US politics.

What I miss is a sense of charity. — Olivier5

Why should there be charity? Can you provide an argument for charity?

(I'm not disagreeing, btw.)

Thanks to the same social media and communication technologies even innocent people can be, and often are, pigeonholed, labeled, and "earmarked" for subjection "to a form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles" as per the Wikipedia definition.

When this becomes permissible or is even encouraged by sections of society for political or other reasons, then it becomes a social trend or culture. — Apollodorus

In fact, the animal or person to be scapegoated should be as innocent as possible. Like lambs, infants, or Jesus.

Both right and left wing try to leverage this new social tool to suppress opposition. The question wasn't which political groups use it, the question was whether it was a dangerous tool to encourage the use of. — Isaac

It's not new. The same phenomenon has existed as scapegoating for millennia. Scapegoating is apparently a psychological need.

The point is not whether we should always debate and never fight, I'm with you on that one, there's a time for fighting, there's a time to stop talking and just kick people out of polite society...

...the question I'm raising is how we decide when that time is, not whether it exists at all. — Isaac

I once heard an interesting hypothesis about scapegoating: People resort to scapegoating when their own adherence to the values they profess reaches a critical low where even they cannot deny it anymore. Instead of admitting it and deliberately changing their ways, they metaphorically cast their own sins onto someone else and this way free themselves of the burden of a guilty conscience. This way, they clear the slate and can start fresh.

Hence the name: Originally, the practice was for people to take a goat and throw stones at it; before throwing each stone, naming it with their own sin, and saying that the goat should take their sin and pay for it.

(This was one of the functions of "animal sacrifice".)

Could be. I think the desire to censor comes from fear. People who don’t even see censorship might be fearful about where things are headed.

It takes some confidence in your fellow humans to say, "Stop being a big baby and grow the ability to listen to opposing views without fear that we'll slide into a holocaust if you let other people have their say." — frank

So work this out: How does a person "stop being a big baby" and how does a person "grow the ability to listen to opposing views without fear that we'll slide into a holocaust if you let other people have their say"?

Have you worked out an actual didactic program for this? Can you present it here?

We need to assess independently whether what the mob wants is something agree with and if so join them. — Benkei

Why are you calling them a "mob"?

Except nobody is stomping anyone's views out, they are brought out in the light in all their stupidity and found lacking. — Benkei

Really? There is a "universal chemistry process" of sorts where this happens, and people are merely passive observers and passive enacters of this?

Something can only be considered "stupid" or "found lacking" by someone. It doesn't happen on its own, without people actively considering something stupid or finding it lacking. Something cannot be "stupid" or "found lacking" per se, regardless of the people making such an assessment.

In short, what you're doing is arguing in favor of objectivism, objectivism in the form of objective morality and objective epistemology, where you take for granted that the "how things really are" can be accessed readily by people and that this access has nothing to do with their volition. And further, that some people have such access, and others don't.

It's a common human tendency to externalize like that, and to take no responsibility for one's thoughts and words.
It's a common human tendency to consider oneself "the mouth of objective reality", as if when one opens one's mouth, it's "The Truth" that is doing the talking, not the person.

Insistence on using this popular epistemic and moral strategy is where the fundamental problem is that the OP is pointing at. No progress toward goodwill can be made as long as this strategy is used.

People fought wars over justice to get it. — Benkei

Indeed. And now we have a system where justice is on the side of those who have money. What a victory.

Slavery was abolished thanks to violence. Segregation was ended by government force.

Not really, they just went from being openly enforced on the level of government to being openly enforced on the level of interactions between individual people, or subtly on the level of culture at large. In many ways, this is even worse, more sinister, because now the official discourse can be that "those are the acts of individuals", the government gets to wash its hands, and the country gets a good report on the respect for human rights in it.

I don't even think that's really a left vs. right wing thing; that's just a lot of people trying to maintain the status quo because they cannot envisage anything better.

But is there anything better?
Can people actually live in some better way of organizing social and economical life?
If history is anything to go by, then no.

Here's a perfectly good reason not to visit StarBucks and to let your grievances known by spamming them. If enough people will join, media will call it "cancel culture" again. But really, fuck Starbucks. I don't need to listen to them explain away their corporate greed, we need them to stop this and have them pay their employees a living wage.

Boycotting a company will only result in the people working there in lowly jobs to lose those jobs. And then you will be to be blame that they lost their jobs!

Well, I think, according to most 'lovers (seekers) of wisdom', to engage in incorrigibly foolish (maladaptive) conduct and/or relationships is demonstrably "a wrong way to live". — 180 Proof

What exactly is that?

If most people around you function in bad faith and their main attitude toward others is hostility, while you are the goodwilled, well-intended ninny, then your conduct is foolish (maladaptive) and the way you engage in relationships is demonstrably wrong.

I know that societal rules have a general purpose in keeping order and values and such, but if someone wanted to live a fully hedonistic life, why shouldn't they? — Jake Hen

Watching another person destroy themselves or others gradually destroys people's faith in humanity and it destroys their faith that the whole project of "life" is worth the effort. It tears up the fabric of society. People become increasingly cruel, shallow, and the pursuit of wealth and power becomes the be-all-and-end-all of life.

Oh god.

You keep avoiding the point that the "public" you're refering to, the "subjects" in your "intersubjectively testable" is a very specific group of people, not just anyone.

The claims made by a scientist from a particular scientific discipline are testable only by people with a comparable scientific background. Most certainly not by just anyone.

It's the same in religion: The claims made by a religious person from a particular religious discipline are testable only by people with a comparable religious background. Most certainly not by just anyone.

It is not the case that science is somehow open to all, while religion isn't; or that science is objective, while religion isn't, like you keep arguing. Both require special knowledge and education for the testing of their claims, respectively.

Why don't you concur?

One doesn't have to be religious in order to understand how at least some of the religious concepts work. (Nor does such understanding make one religious.)

You objection only holds as long as we take for granted that god does not exist (so there's no source of holiness).

That's deriving a theme from the story, but it doesn't show the historicity of the events — Hanover

What do you mean by "showing the historicity of the events"? Showing that Eve was created out of Adam's rib?

The point I've made is that there are inconsistent accounts in the Bible that render historical accuracy impossible, so unless you're willing to posit the ancients were incapable of identifying those inconsistencies, you have to conclude the purpose of the stories was not to convey factual accuracy, but it was to convey a particular theme, exactly as you've noted.

Read the account of how Saul meets David. David plays the harp for him and they know each other well and then a chapter later he hears tale of this man David and insists upon meeting him, not knowing who he is. Interesting amnesiac event.

And you take things like that as evidence that the writers of the Bible "didn't really take those things literally"?

The issues you describe are issues concerning the transition from oral culture to written culture. These issues aren't specific to the Bible.

It's perverse to suggest the ancients weren't interested in factual accuracy. If anything, the fact that they kept multiple less or more diverging accounts (witness testimonies) of the same event that indicates that factual accuracy is what they cared about.
Witness testimonies usually differ one from another to some extent, such is the nature of witness testimony. In matters that depend on witness testimony, the most one can do is record whatever witness testimony is available, and leave it at that.

Who is this public? Tell me.

So a holy book would be holy even if human beings ceased to exist then? — Janus

Yes.

The other side of that is that religions posit entities and realms that are not publicly observable, and theories, like karma, rebirth, enlightenment, resurrection, divine judgement and so on, which are not inter-subjectively testable. — Janus

You still haven't answered my question:

Again, it depends on who those others subjects in the "inter-subjectively speaking" are. Who and what are they?Does just any random person, regardless of age, education, socioeconomic status, etc. qualify as your potential fellow subject? — baker

A life is an evolving theme or style, not a random lurching from one meaning to the next.

You seem to miss the essential role that style plays in allowing us to venture forward in life. — Joshs

I think you underestimate the daily struggle for survival.

I can say that this thread has shaken out some pretty crazy and entertaining posts, and I do thank you for your contribution in that regard. — Hanover

I do hope that your bad faith will somehow come back to haunt you.
But if it doesn't, then that's just proof that might indeed makes right, and you actually have nothing to complain about.

Gay men perhaps display a less guarded posture with perhaps more relaxed musculature; they seem a bit more carefully groomed; slightly better put together clothing -- regardless of what they are wearing; a more open sort of verbal expression. Perhaps one is more likely to find gay men at an art gallery than a used car auction, but I know people who contradict that. Gay men do seem to regard (see, evaluate) other men more carefully than straight men. — Bitter Crank

A homosexual man told me that most homosexual men are macho types like heterosexual men.

In my experience, the quickest way for a woman to find a good friend is among homosexual men. But I don't think this has to do with the man being homosexual per se, but rather that he, as a person, had to work through some quite difficult things (due to "not being ordinary"), and if successful, emerged as a decent, sensible person.

The most sensible persons I have known have all been homosexual men.

No. At a philosophy forum, you should do better than that.

Can you overcome shyness? Yes, but the underlying disposition is still there. One simply learned to channel it. — Joshs

Thinking of such traits as permanent might actually be a coping mechanism.

I think people are more flexible and more malleable than the official discourse acknowledges them to be.

People on the autism spectrum don’t line to be considered pathological. They prefer to be considered as having a cognitive style. One can say the same of those with Wilson’s syndrome and many other inborn dispositions that give distinct personality profiles. Is autism a belief that one could or should outgrow?

Life is hard enough. Thinking that one should be accepted and respected "for who one is" is for the most part a dangerous idealism.

Will you drop yours?

More importantly, mine is a genuine question. I'm actually not sure whether you understand what I'm talking about. There have been discussions about identity at the forum, but I don't recall correctly whether you participated and to what extent.

You re lucky you have the luxury of not having had to grow up a feminine acting gay male who was endlessly reminded by his male and female peers of how non-trival, non-superficial and non time-wasting gender behavior was to them. And it was precisely because they assumed my behavior was merely an arbitrary and silly choice, a learned phenomenon, that they were able to justify their ridicule and bullying to themselves. — Joshs

What do you know of my growing up, or of my present?!

We are born with many personality traits that are robust and stable. to recognize them in others is to see their style, the art of their being with you. Recognizing the art of their personality style allows you a greater intimacy with them. Gender behavior is an art of being, and not seeing it deprives both you and others of this intimacy of relation.

For one, I'm fairly certain that you don't want to be intimate with the majority of people on this planet. I'm fairly certain that you don't want to be intimate with me, heh.

For two, the topic of this thread seems to be particularly close to your heart,and associated with trauma, which might still be too fresh to discuss this topic at a forum like this.

Good for you. I've made my point. — Tom Storm

This still doesn't mean that those who question the nature of human identity are "resenting or undermining people for who they are".
Do you understand that?

There are few things less noble than resenting or undermining people for who they are. — Tom Storm

... people for who they are?

The way the term "identity" is used in discussions of people's identity, is a misuse, compared to what the term means in logic. At best, it's a misleading use.

"Identity" implies permanence, context-independence. A square is a square, even if it s among a thousand circles, and a circle is a circle, even if it is among a thousand suqares, or looked at under UV light, or whatever. Human "identity" is not like that, because human "identity" is subject to change, subject to arising and cessation, and it's context-dependent. The same person is sometimes a teacher, a patient, a customer, a husband, but not all at the same time in the same place; sometimes, their skin color is relevant, other times, it isn't. And so on.

Things that are subject to change are not fit to be regarded as self.

The larger issue concerns what it is we are born with when our parents fist. — Joshs

This is just the starting point, the initial "cards one has been dealt". After that, development can proceed in many ways.

how our personalities differ from each other, how one has a temper and the other is shy.

Having a temper or being shy used to be considered marks of bad character back in the day, and a person was expected to eliminate those marks. Nowadays, the terminology has changed ("having a temper" falls under "emotional dysregulation" and "being shy" falls under "social anxiety" or "risk aversion") but those are again and still, considered undesirable traits.

If you were to simply deny gender-related claims but support the idea that personality traits give us global styles of perception that are robust, then I would say your thinking and mine weren’t far apart.But my guess is you want to deny any connection between personality and cognitive style, because when it comes down to it, gender is a personality style.

I see no reason to think that either personality or cognitive style are permanent or pervasive.
It's sometimes convenient to think they are. And many people tend to persist in theirs, so this makes for the impression that they are permanent and pervasive.
But on the other hand, people who want to improve thier life are told to "change their mindset", "overcome limiting beliefs" and such, which goes to show that neither personality nor cognitive style are necessarily (deemed) permanent and pervasive.

What determines someone to be a man or a woman? Genotype? Phenotype? Psychology? Social role? Naming? — Michael

No, the question is what determines the importance of whether one is a man or a woman, or something other.

Personally, I think gender/sexual distinctions are important for organizing social and economical life, primarily for practical reasons. So that people know which public toilet to go to, or which part of a clothing store to go to, and such.

Beyond that, I think issues of gender/sexual identity are trivial, superficial, transitory, and a waste to invest into. Regardless if it is a heterosexual woman investing into making herself look particularly female, or a heterosexual male investing into making himself look particularly male, or someone undergoing a sex change operation. Things like that are a waste of money.

You act like deciphering intent and motive is all that difficult. — Hanover

No, aggressively projecting onto others is easy.
Your favorite is to presume ill will by default and to act in bad faith. So you "are" always certain about what the other person is thinking, eh.
You don't talk, you don't listen, you impose. You hit first, and if the other person doesn't fend off your attack to your satisfaction, you consider yourself to be right and to know the truth about the other person. Facts be damned.

Rather typical for a lawyer, but not conducive to open and meaningful communication.

And I can dress like a Dark Sith Lord and demand that you address me as "My master". What is so special about sex/gender that people can identify as a sex they are not, but identifying as something else you are not, well that's just crazy?
— Harry Hindu

Ask yourself: why is the above laughable rationalization more important to me than being friendly and somewhat accomodating to transsexuals? Why don't I want to be friendly and somewhat accomodating to transsexuals? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Transsexuals and some other groups are demanding uneven, non-reciprocal relationships with people who are not part of their category.

I'm supposed to be accomodating and friendly toward a trans, but the trans doesn't have to be accomodating and friendly toward me. No shit.

They seek no gain from making you believe they're a woman. — Hanover

Of course they do! That's the whole point!!

They make themselves look like a woman in order to get the social and economical benefits that women have.

Some examples:

In poor Asian countries, many young men transition into women because this way, they can more easily find work as female(-looking) singers, dancers, and prostitutes.

A petite, balding man is generally not considered attractive as a man; but if he transitions into a woman, he makes for an average or even above average good-looking woman with the psychological, social, and economical perks that come with that.

If a woman is stuck in a lowly job or doesn't climb up in her career, nobody bats an eyelid; but expectations are higher for men. So some men, afraid of career failure, transition into a woman where career failure is not so heavily stigmatized.

Male-to-female athletes: those men couldn't cut in the men's league, but they can outperform women. (How about female-to-male athletes??)

What makes it unethical for a person to knowingly consent to the procedure? — Hanover

By consenting to such a procedure, they express their disdain for social norms, and they want their disdain to be respected by those who hold to the social norms.

They want to have a special place. They want to be one of the special categories of people who do not have to engage in mutually reciprocating and mutually acknowledging relationships with others. Historically, these categories have been the royals, the aristocracy, the clergy, and the generally wealthy and powerful. They could look down on the commoners and the plebeians and despise and abuse them, and it wasn't considered problematic to do so, they got away with it. Who wouldn't want to be in such a special category?!

I feel we are all here because we care about something. — Andrew4Handel

Feel it, brother!