The best possible results are clearly not happening to the degree and in the ways that it can and ought be in a representative form of government.

I also don't think the it's physcholgically toxic to recognise oneself as the villain. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Wow, I would think it would be terrible (and possibly impossible) to view oneself as the villain. Aren't we all the protagonists of our story?

All that's being spoken about here is regonising the harm the presence of the oppressive social context has done, and perhaps a specific role they might have played in that. To recognise harm which has been done to someone is not toxic, it just honest. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Oh, you don't mean the villain. You mean the protagonist must admit that they have flaws. I am good with that.

The word "villain" brings a lot of emotion to a discussion that already has plenty. Won't it be easier for people to admit they have caused harm (which many{most?} are still wholly unwilling to do), than it will be to get people to admit they are "the villain"? Hitler was "the villain" of WW2. Thanos was "the villain" of Avengers. Biff was "the villain" in Back to the Future. That does not mean everyone else involved in those stories was perfect, or that no one else caused harm...but they were not "the villain".

I also don't think the it's physcholgically toxic to recognise oneself as the villain.
— TheWillowOfDarkness

Wow, I would think it would be terrible (and possibly impossible) to view oneself as the villain. Aren't we all the protagonists of our story? — ZhouBoTong

Not impossible, particularly if and/or when 'we' revel in knowingly harming others for no good reason at all. Some folk like to think of themselves as the villain.

Regarding the racism link...

I do not think that everyone who exhibits beliefs and/or behaviours that originally stemmed from racist belief is equal in any other 'racist' way. Sometimes. Sure. Not always though.

Not all sneers are racially motivated. Not all muttering under one's breath is accompanied by racist overtones or has racial undertones. Such charges can be quite misplaced if all one has to go on is muttering and sneering. It could be all about the person's character and very well may have nothing at all to do with race or the color of skin.

We must be very careful who we charge with being racist. Such charges need to be made when it is the case, but sometimes people seem a bit trigger happy, so to speak.

It is not at all uncommon for an adult to learn something new about where a certain phrase originated, and sometimes those origens are questionable. One who finds themselves in such a situation may or may not also have a habit of negatively judging an entire population of people based upon the color of their skin alone. They will however have learned that something they say/do is offensive.

Not all these people are villains, even if they are prima facie evidence of the residual effects/affects of institutionalized racism.

Not if 'we' revel in knowingly harming others for no good reason at all. — creativesoul

I actually 100% agree with that. I even typed something along those lines, then wasn't sure it fit the points I was making. If we admire villains, then we could see ourselves as such. I like to think that is a very small percent of the population, but I could be way off??

What on earth? — creativesoul

My thoughts exactly. I think we have gone as far as we can. Thanks for the time.

I don't think there is any difference between the two.

In the stories in which we harm others with our flaws, we are the villains of the piece. We were the one who, in one sense or another, did something were not supposed to or a part of something doing the harm. We never get a pass because "We are not as bad as Hitler, Biff or Thanos" because the harm of another does not take away our own. There are no comparisons to be made, no excuses that we didn't cause as much damage as someone else. I do mean the villain. That's what it is to be flawed in a way which harms others.

You are, for course, right. People don't want to think of themselves as the villain... but they must to recognise the harms committed, otherwise we are just pretending they don't exist.

In race issues, for example, trying to insist racism is just those intentionally racist villains, rather than any of the structural "whiteness" which is no-one's direct action or intention in particular.

No. The context of the harm is also those structural impacts. Sometimes they might even do more damage than someone who is intentionally racist (consider someone born into a structure of poverty vs someone shouting a racist slur). Those structural impacts, with threads interlaced with white identity, are also a villain. If we cannot recognise this, the harm and it ethical significance, that something is there which ought not be or have been done, something not redeemable, not undoable, we are only engaging in a pretence about a problem.

I think we have gone as far as we can. Thanks for the time. — ZhouBoTong

Hmm...

I expected you to at least address what I said...

Ok...

I guess???

Be well. Oh...

And thank you!

People don't want to think of themselves as the villain... but they must to recognise the harms committed, otherwise we are just pretending they don't exist. — TheWillowOfDarkness

In race issues, for example, trying to insist racism is just those intentionally racist villains, rather than any of the structural "whiteness" which is no-one's direct action or intention in particular. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Surely, you are not making such a broad brush stroke here?

"Whiteness" being invoked in racial sensitivity discussions?



First if all it's completely wrong to think, believe, suppose, and/or otherwise imply that all racists are white. Secondly, "whiteness" is the amount of white that something possesses and/or exhibits. The more white something is the brighter the whiteness of the thing.

The whiteness within racism is not a villain when the oppressed is white.

So...

You're not making much sense to me here Willow.

We never get a pass because "We are not as bad as Hitler, Biff or Thanos" because the ill off another does not take away our own. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Who said anything about a pass? We are just acknowledging that there are degrees of harm and badness? If I view myself in a light anywhere near to how I view Hitler...I should immediately kill myself. No question about it. Look at the impact he had on the world. If there is any chance of me being that, I should die to eliminate the possibility. What am I missing?

In race issues, for example, trying to insist racism is just those intentionally racist villains, rather than any of the structural "whiteness" which is no-one's direct action or intention in particular. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Why can't we say that racism includes those "intentionally racist villains", but it also includes a lot of people who think they are doing good (or acting neutrally) when they are actually causing harm?

Seems more objective and less inflammatory?

If you just replace "villain" with "bad thing", your point is made more clearly.

Definitions of Villain:

1. a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel.
2. a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot.

It's always a person, so structural impacts and identities cannot be villains. Now I get a story could use metaphor to create a character out of an identity or structural element, but that is not what people think when they hear the word.

Who said anything about a pass? We are just acknowledging that there are degrees of harm and badness? If I view myself in a light anywhere near to how I view Hitler...I should immediately kill myself. No question about it. Look at the impact he had on the world. If there is any chance of me being that, I should die to eliminate the possibility. What am I missing? — ZhouBoTong

If you were him you would not view yourself as the villain, so if you were that, you would have no reason - in your own mind, that is - to flip your own off switch.

Any comparison to the likes of Hitler here is totally uncalled for. I would like to clearly state that. If the similarities arise to the extent that we are well grounding in drawing that comparison, then we've went well beyond racism.

If "villain" applies to both Hitler and some otherwise well intended all inclusive white person, it's language being misused and/or otherwise abused at best, and intentionally misleading language at worst. Seems to be a textbook example of equivocation. That always indicates self-contradiction somewhere along the logical spectrum.

Rhetorically useful. Moving to some. Convincing to others. Unacceptable to one who demands consistent... and thus clear meaningful terminological use.

Hmm...

I expected you to at least address what I said...

Ok...

I guess??? — creativesoul

Well, Ok, since you asked :smile: . But I think you will find my responses starting to sound repetitive...
And I will have to run after this, so I will respond tomorrow.

It's purely a matter of sensible definition, and rightly so. — creativesoul

I am not sure you ever gave this definition. I only know that, for you, one indicator of a well functioning representative government is an increase in well being for most people. I would say that is one indicator of ANY well functioning government.

If it fails to represent the best interest of the overwhelming majority of the people... it is not representative. To say otherwise is nonsense. — creativesoul

We can't just say there are levels of representation? I hope we can because otherwise there is no such thing as a representative government because there is no perfectly representative government. Like I said, humility is never represented. Uncertainty is never represented. The idea that there are few "right" answers and that the world is not black and white is rarely represented. Not to mention standard stuff like every single religion, race, or creed that exists in the country.

Sorry, I have to run. I am happy to keep going, but worry we are about to start repeating ourselves and wondering why the other person doesn't get it :grimace: Feel free to zero in on anything specific if you think it can prevent us from doing that.

I am not sure you ever gave this definition. — ZhouBoTong

What else could it sensibly mean? As I argued already...

I only know that, for you, one indicator of a well functioning representative government is an increase in well being for most people. I would say that is one indicator of ANY well functioning government. — ZhouBoTong

For me?

Not all increases in general overall wellbeing are the result of well-functioning government. An increase in well being for most people can also happen when there is an oppressed minority.

So...

I am not saying that an overall increase in general welfare always indicates a properly implemented - or well functioning - representative form of government. That increase alone is utterly inadequate.

Representing an others best interest(s) is taking deliberate action aimed at increasing, protecting, and/or preserving(at a bare minimum) their quality of life. I am saying that we can know that that is not the case when the results can be shown to have unnecessarily caused harm to very large numbers of citizens while others reaped previously unimaginable financial rewards as a direct consequence of causing such harm. Those are some of the extremes.

I'm saying that when very large swathes of the general overall population can be shown to be much worse off than they were before certain pieces of legislation were enacted and it is undoubtedly a result of those pieces of legislation, then we have all the evidence we need to show that that government has failed the people.

It's no big secret how it came to be like this... in the states anyway.

Are you saying that a well functioning(properly implemented) representative form of government results in circumstances/situations where unacceptably high numbers of people are unnecessarily harmed, so long as more people are not?

:brow:

Surely this would be a mistake, and so if it were the case that actions had unforeseeable negative consequences upon too many people, such acts would be reversed, corrected, and/or otherwise redressed.

Right?



An increase in well being for most people can also happen when there is an oppressed minority. So... just because there is an over all increase in well being for most people, it does not mean that that government is an acceptable one or a well functioning one unless it's aim was to do as little as possible while still being able to point out some improvements in quality of life. But...

It takes more than just that to be a properly implemented representative form of government, such as the US has, or is supposed to have anyway. I hope we agree here...

Tomorrow.

:smile:

Do you agree with the following?

The best possible results are clearly not happening to the degree and in the ways that it can and ought be in a representative form of government. I'm speaking about the United States, in particular, by the way.

:brow:

Sentiments such as "All white people are seeking to oppress me" or "all men are dangerous" are based on sweeping and dysfunctional generalizations and belong in exactly the same category as statements like "all women want is money". Such generalizations are indicative of a thought-pattern of someone who has emotionally been hurt or has an inferiority complex.

And I believe that's what we may be seeing in action, especially among the more fanatical of these groups. Self-hate often manifests as hate for the other. It is they themselves who identify very strongly with a specific group in society and have come to regard it as inferior. That's why "radical" feminists want women to be more like men. They admire men and their achievements, and regard women and women's achievements as inferior.

Why did an activist group like Nation of Islam seek to revise history to give black people a more prominent role? Because their perception was that black people's role in history was inferior to that of other societies. They were fighting themselves. Their own perception.

As you see there are two dimensions to this:
1. The subject identifies very strongly with a specific group, like male, female, black, or white.
2. The subject perceives the group they identify with to be inferior.
Notice, both are undertaken by the subject, and in both cases one can ask what exactly it entails and why it takes place.

Of course, the mind is masterful in playing tricks on itself. The last thing it wants to do is admit its own faults and would much rather project those on someone else. Thus, our present situation is born.

"Whiteness" isn't referencing the existence of a person with white skin, but the existence within the social context of white idenity and its relation to opression. The equivalent in disability context is the able-bodied identity and bias.

I get a little tripped up when you mention "social context of white identity." I understand the whole social context part, trust me, but when you mention "identity" in a more abstract way you tend to lose me. Would you mind clarifying a little more concretely?

I would like to add that disability has a strong social component and I'd say there's a little more to it than what you described, and I'm happy to explain but I don't feel like getting side tracked (I could explain if you're interested.) Again, with your point on disability you lose me with the "able-bodied identity" part. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't quite understand the lexicon.

In terms of psychological toxicity I'm more referring to the oppressed rather than the oppressor. I'm not too worried about the privileged class here.

Just for the sake of clarity here, I am white-passing or white depending how you define "whiteness." I'm an ashkenazi Jew so depending on who you ask I am either white or I'm not and I've never really attempted to delve deeper into the question because I just don't see it as particularly meaningful to me personally. In other words, there is no real answer as to whether I am "actually" or "really" white even though my skin is white. But no, for all intents and purposes I do not understand what is it like to be a person of color in the US.

I am however disabled so I experience disability-related issues daily and I'd be far more aware of them than the average person. I just feel like there might be analogies to racial issues we're discussing here so I'd be interested in exploring that.

Well this got very long. After this, I may try very short responses to see if we can focus in on our difference. I actually think we generally agree on the changes we want, we just disagree on how to make that happen.

This first response is tied more to the conversation with TheWillowofDarkness than our specific back and forth.

If you were him you would not view yourself as the villain, so if you were that, you would have no reason - in your own mind, that is - to flip your own off switch. — creativesoul

That seems fair. I was responding to the idea that we should admit when we are villains. I agree that, most likely, we would not see ourselves as villains, but if we did, we would have to destroy the villain by any means necessary. Villains are rarely (almost never?) reformed in stories, so it seems a poor metaphor if we are hoping for white people to change their behavior. It is a good metaphor if we are thinking that white people need to be removed from the equation for the good of everyone else...but I don't think that is what @TheWillowOfDarkness was getting at.

Representing an others best interest(s) is taking deliberate action aimed at increasing, protecting, and/or preserving(at a bare minimum) their quality of life. I am saying that we can know that that is not the case when the results can be shown to have unnecessarily caused harm to very large numbers of citizens while others reaped previously unimaginable financial rewards as a direct consequence of causing such harm. Those are some of the extremes. — creativesoul

I actually don't think we are too far apart. I agree with you on where we would like society to be (or end up). However, I keep arguing because I don't see any description of how to get there. Above the word "unnecessary" is an example of the type of things that are confusing me. For example, I believe that capitalism has caused "unnecessary" harm in its efforts to increase people's access to resources (probably because it does not have a goal of increasing access to resources, but instead the only goal is profit). However, I don't KNOW it has caused "unnecessary" harm because we have not seen a society industrialize and modernize without some significant growing pains. I think the US should look at countries that have universal healthcare and better availability of education for all, and feel inferior. However, almost every country that I would say seems to have a significantly better government, is a relatively small country with a very homogeneous population. I don't know how important those factors are? What I do know, is that there is not another America out there that we can compare to. This does not mean we should not try some new shit ("new" for America anyway) in an attempt to emulate those other countries. But we are more experimenting using trial and error than "knowing" the better way. I do think it is safe to say that any political ideology that does not have the goal of increasing the well-being of everyone should be eliminated easily....and yet this is not so easy...even libertarians THINK they have the well-being of everyone in mind (as incredible as that seems).

I'm saying that when very large swathes of the general overall population can be shown to be much worse off than they were before certain pieces of legislation were enacted and it is undoubtedly a result of those pieces of legislation, then we have all the evidence we need to show that that government has failed the people.

It's no big secret how it came to be like this... in the states anyway. — creativesoul

I feel like my history knowledge is not terrible, but I am struggling to discern what is obvious to you here...? Are you talking specific policies like undoing Glass-Steagal? or more general ideas like the Reagan/Thatcher dogma that trained half the country to believe that government is bad and taxes should always be lower...and that we should worship our capitalist overlords that make life possible?

But notice the big problem...how can we solve this when half the country still believes Reagan? (ok, maybe only 40%, but they vote at higher rates than is typical)

Are you saying that a well functioning(properly implemented) representative form of government results in circumstances/situations where unacceptably high numbers of people are unnecessarily harmed, so long as more people are not? — creativesoul

I don't think so.

Surely this would be a mistake, and so if it were the case that actions had unforeseeable negative consequences upon too many people, such acts would be reversed, corrected, and/or otherwise redressed.

Right? — creativesoul

Any time it is clear and obvious, I agree. I think we are arguing because I think it is rarely clear and obvious.

An increase in well being for most people can also happen when there is an oppressed minority. So... just because there is an over all increase in well being for most people, it does not mean that that government is an acceptable one or a well functioning one unless it's aim was to do as little as possible while still being able to point out some improvements in quality of life. — creativesoul

I think this is important for our disagreement. This is a VERY modern idea. I very much agree with it, but I don't think there has ever been a country where no one felt oppressed? (have you heard the billionaires respond to Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax - the "oppression" is almost unbearable, haha) Do you have a few successful oppression free governments in mind?

So until very recently, a government would be deemed successful if it improved the quality of life for most of its citizens. We are right to demand more. But we should not assume it is just that easy.

The best possible results are clearly not happening to the degree and in the ways that it can and ought be in a representative form of government. I'm speaking about the United States, in particular, by the way. — creativesoul

I agree, but I am less focused on the "representative government" part. I am leaning toward a constitutional democratic dictatorship these days. Historically, when there is a "good" emperor, things are good for the people. However, history also shows that one bad emperor can ruin hundreds of years of progress. So, the constitution protects human rights and limits the power of the leader. Democracy further limits the dictator's power and allows the people to choose the direction of the country for the next decade. It would also leave a "recall" option.

How do you think the US should fix itself? This is the cause of my entire argument. I agree with where you want to be. I have not seen your way of achieving that other than everyone agreeing with you...which I have some serious doubts about.