I'm just wondering why God (a being of supposedly supreme intelligence, wisdom and love) isn't held to a greater standard than humans. Isn't God supposed to resolve issues with the least violence, the most intelligence and compassion? — BrianW

I'm not an Abrahamist but I think there are parallels in behavior we accept in humans with extra authority and power. Children are often told not to do things that parents can decide to do in certain circumstances where they deem it necessary. Ordering the children around, using force in extreme situations with the children - forcing them to use a seatbelt as a mild example, pulling one forcefully back from the street. Police can use violence, courts can do things to people that others cannot - this would be precisely not vigillante violence, vengeance is mine says the court system (lol) and all that. Military leaders making horrible choices, bombing targets with known or heck intended civilian casualties (WW2) had a lot of that. Individual citizens deciding to bomb the mafia would do prison time.

Not that any of this need be morally simple, but most of us allow that people with extra skills, positions of power, special knowledge get to do stuff that would be 'sinful' if kids or regular citizens or the unskilled did it.

So, with all that being said, for those of you that have issues, what is the dang problem with our profession? — Anaxagoras

There is a marketing approach from pharma that leads to new diagnoses with the first and strong motivation in creating new markets. This is not remotely criticized enough by psychiatry or even psychologists. And many of the former participate in this.

There is a pathologization of individual response to a variety of traumas and stress, where their brains are considered to have chemical imbalances which need to be adjusted with chemical treatments. Rather than normal until proven abnormal - a little bit in the sense of in law with innocent - we have deviation from hypothetical norms indicates brain abnormalities.

They hand out a tremendous amount of, for example. anti-depressives, effectively cutting off a feedback on both the individual and general levels about quality of life. Instead of perhaps questioning the external factors we cut off the feedback, similar to giving pain killers to people with a variety of issues: broken legs, infections, whatever (and we also do this with over the counter pills to drop fevers that are part of our immune reaction and no one seems to say much about this, but that's another issue with similar roots).

That's a start.

And note: this is primarily to do with phychiatry from the thread title, and much less to do with clinical psychologists.

Note: There has been a push to refer to “mental illnesses” as “brain disorders/malfunctions” instead. The physicalist implication of this - if we stretch it somewhat - could be such that conditions are treated physically with bias toward pharmaceutical medications over more nuanced and less empirical scientific research in the field of psychology. — I like sushi

On the one hand it is less empirical, but on the other it is often more empirical since sociological studies can show correlation and cause related to external factors -poverty, sexual abuse, alcoholic parents, pretty much any trauma, sexuality, and more. IOW the brain based physicalism approach actually goes against much extremely well documented research. Pathologizing individual reactions to different kinds of traumatic and long term stress is a good business model, leads to terrible social policies - since the pharma/psychiatric model basically shuts off feedback about society both a the individual and the general levels - and create dependencies since it generally does not resolve resolvable patterns.

It's a bit like if doctors prescribed pain killers for most symptom patterns. To do that is to shut off information and feedback our bodies are giving us.

With psychotropics it oddly acts as if we were effectively solipsists, not part of any external relations and causal patterns.

Which is delusional.

The approval of amphetamine use in children was a huge boon for drug companies, but it doomed children like me to a life of unforeseen problems. — Chisholm

I'm sorry to hear this. It is a money making paradigm based on poor philosophy and questionable science. My mother ended up 'in their care' and her medications caused untold problems. She had PTSD, but was diagnosed all over the place. Related to this is a generalized hatred of emotions, which pharma and psychiatrists systematize. There are also very strange assumptions of normality.

Certainly possible. Sean Penn has said sometimes he hates acting. My impression is it was being taken over by the character he hated. Gestalt therapy involves taking on the identity of parts of the dream, even objects in the dream. Very powerful.

I wonder what this can imply about the nature of consciousness or psychology? — Wallows

If you pay attention carefully over time to yourself in waking states, you will notice that it is not so different. Different subpersonalities take over. They have different beliefs and points of view. Some optimistic, some not, some think taking action is best, others having a more wait and see attitude. Try to break a habit that is well ingrained and you will find at least a hint of one of the other drivers of your 'car'. In dreams these parts get bodies, the ego can face off with them, be friends, be enemies, whatever. Dreams personify and objectify parts of use including undigested experiences. What you learned in class might be a house or an uncle in a dream. (I am not saying that this is all dreams are or can be, just that this is one of the things that can happen in dreams) In waking we can notice the effects of these other subpersonalities, but we don't get to meet them, see their facial expressions, get chased through a swamp by one of them.

We definitely grow into that, sure, but look at how long it takes as compared to all other life.
You seem to begin your evaluation when we are adults but ignore how weak and dependent on others we are for so many years when we are young. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

So when you refer to humans as the most insecure and weak species, you mean when they are babies?

I agree with this and hope I did not indicate otherwise. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

This was regarding the selfish gene and personality. OK, well good to hear. But the gene is driving us as individuals. IOW whatever traits are connected to parents that procreate, will be passed on. Those traits will not necessarily lead to individuals that are fittest. That word can have all sorts of false connotations, wheras when Darwin adopted it, he meant....better designed for an immediate, local environment.

in any case when you mentioned it earlier it sounded like it meant that we would each as individuals be driven by our genes to be the fittest of the species. And that's not correct. It would not necessarily at all lead us to want to be better or fitter than other individual humans.

We are not all born with the equal ability to think. Nature will not know this and thus will still push all poor thinkers to being the best thinkers and fittest. It can only work with what was born though. Nature demonstrably tries to bring all organisms to their best possible end, even though that best end might be inferior to the fittest of our species. I hope that is understandable the way I have put it. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I don't see nature pushing us to be the best thinkers and fittest.

I don't see nature making sure most people are the fittest of our species.
— Coben

Neither do I and don't think I suggested that. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

nature does the best it can with what it has to work with in insuring that we work to be the fittest of our species

OK, i see here you were only suggetsting that nature ensures that we work to be the fittest of our species. We may not succeed, but nature ensures that we work toward that. I don't see nature doing this, nor to I see most people working toward being the fittest of our species.

I also don't see nature pushing people to be the best thinkers.

Perhaps you mean, if we lived in what gets called nature. Like say in hunter gatherer societies. I am nto sure. But I don't, for example, see nature pushing people to be the best thinkers in cities. Really, I don't see it anywhere. But I am not sure what process you see that you are referring to.

Nature is working with each individual to insure they are the fittest homo sapien? I don't see this. Many seem content with less than being fittest, some content with not being fit at all. — Coben

This is not surprising as our tribal natures insure that there is a hierarchy in our species as otherwise the tribal members would war against each other perpetually.

Imagine us as a pack of dogs. One the fittest has been found, the Alpha male, the numbers of challengers or challenges to his rule tend to drop off till he shows weakness. That is when he is deposed. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Nature is pushing us to be fittest and our tribal natures ensure there is a hierarchy? This is me, trying to get a handle on this.

The nature you see us as pushing us to be the fittest. what is this nature? What are you referring to?

Those statements give true facts and all three stand on their own merit.

We are the weakest and most insecure and nature does the best it can with what it has to work with in insuring that we work to be the fittest of our species.

If you disagree, tell us why? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I don't think we are the weakest species. Not in physical strength, nor in adaptivity. We have driven a number of species extinct. We can beat up many species. If you meant weak emotionally, I don't know how you measure this and it seems we vary widely. I don't know how to compare our insecurity, those of us that are insecure, to that of various prey animals....like, say, rabbits. The slightest sound or movement, they freeze and check or dart for cover. Though, as I mentioned to measure the insecurity of animals and even us, is not an easy thing to do.

The selfish gene you mentioned, according to Dawkins, ends up memorizing traits that lead to it propagating. It is not something that is selfish in the human sense of egotistical. I can assure you that Dawkins is not attributing personality to dna. But given that we are the product of ancestors that survived and then conquered vast swathes of the earth, wiping out other species and continuing to do so, and this has been memorized, so to speak, in DNA, that you yourself say is driving us to be the fittest, how could we possibly be the weakest most insecure species?

This second part, bolded below, makes no sense to me at all....

We are the weakest and most insecure and nature does the best it can with what it has to work with in insuring that we work to be the fittest of our species — gnostic

I don't see nature making sure most people are the fittest of our species. Though I am not sure what you are referring to as nature, since earlier you contrasted nature with our dna. Nature is working with each individual to insure they are the fittest homo sapien? I don't see this. Many seem content with less than being fittest, some content with not being fit at all. And I don't know what process you are referring to where nature is ensuring they are not like this.

That's a start. There are other odd things in there, I think. Though I still find it all rather unclear.

Your argument is persuasive. — Jude Joanis

Great.. It is so rare that anyone ever says anything like this - when originally they had a different opinion - it's a little discussion treasure.

I find it highly unlikely that prices would drop enough to eliminate cartels from the market. Cartels have a comparative advantage over legal producers because they don't have to comply with regulation. — Jude Joanis

But then they have to smuggle the drugs which risks prison and more. They have to hire criminals to sell the drugs and monitor that whole process. There might be some small black market, like there is with alcohol since it was relegalized. And they'd be competing with third world growers who did follow regulations and who also had lower costs. As others have pointed out, we just don't see a lot of people producing unregulated beer and spirits. And the laws will also reflect financial and prison punishments to make it not worth their while. The cartels also need to pay for weapons and defend themselves all the time from violent competitors. Though actually they would probably shift to more human trafficking or other drugs that are still illegal.

Are you trying to say that our genes are not pushing all of us to be as fit as possible? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

No, I am asking you questions...

According to you we are...
.... the most weak and insecure species.
and...
Our DNA, the selfish gene, drives us to be the fittest.
and...

Nature demonstrably creates for the best possible end of all organisms. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

How do these ideas fit together?

Let's have your argument instead of your word games.

Seriously, what are you talking about. I asked questions to get clarification about your ideas. That's pretty fundamental discussion behavior. I am not clear about something. It seems like some of the ideas don't fit together. I am not sure. I ask for clarification. There are no word games at all here.

We are the most week and insecure animal on the planet.
— Gnostic Christian Bishop

How did our selfish gene that drives us to be the fittest in your conception allow this to happen? — Coben

I would not use the word allow.
We are a part of nature.
Nature demonstrably creates for the best possible end of all organisms. It can only work with what it has in terms of the DNA available to it. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

And with us, our DNA, the selfish gene, made us the most weak and insecure animal on the planet?

As you say this gene that drives us to be the fittest.

We are the most week and insecure animal on the planet. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

How did our selfish gene that drives us to be the fittest in your conception allow this to happen?

The first objection I see is that drugs should be legalized to allow a legal path for these drugs to be produced. However, any legal market for drugs in the US would be regulated. Regulation increases the end production cost. Cartels, who already have the trafficking routes into the US would not be subject to these regulations. Only a few unscrupulous farms or wholesalers would be necessary to blend the trafficked drugs with legal domestic drugs. — Jude Joanis

I assume the prices would drop radically once the risk of growing and selling was radically reduced. It is in the interests of the cartels that the drugs are illegal. They'd be driven out of the market. Which raises the issue of whether it is moral to pursue the drug war.

This is not to say there is anything wrong with logic, only that there are those who shut down debate with the sanctity of logic, as if it’s perfect, almost God-like — Brett

Even logic, in application, depends on intuition. First because the premises are made up of language and language is floppy. We can't logically analyze all the assumptions in the specific semantics of our premises and conclusions. We check them, intuitively. We may take on many parts logically, but there will still be stuff we do unconsiously. Then there are process uses of intuition. I look at my premises and think I have checked enough (which is a kind of quale) to be be confident. I check the conclusion to see if somehow I am slippling in something not implied by the premises. This can be partly logical, but the checking will also be handled by intuitive 'senses' that I checked enough, that my history of checking shows I know when to stop, when I have done enough. In and around logical reasoning there is all sorts of supportive and necessary intuition used. Then there is paradigmatic intuition. All the stuff we assume is true about reality. Before qm it could have been argued that something cannot both be a particle and a wave at the same time. That would be logical. Whereas it is logical only given that certain premises in the current paradigm were incorrect. Logical arguments all come out of assumptions.

"Logic" is the smaller circle inside larger "Thinking" circle in a Venn diagram, not the other way around. — Terrapin Station

I agree but I also think (oh, oh) that 'thinking' and 'logic' aren't quite terms in the same category. Like I would change your quote above to...

"Logical thinking" is the smaller circle inside larger "Thinking" circle in a Venn diagram, not the other way around. — Terrapin Station

and then as an aside I would say there would also be illogical thinking and non-logical or perhaps a-logical thinking, which could then be further broken down.

I think there needs to be a distinction between reasoning and intution, the former verbal, logical (at least ideally), the latter black boxed, the processes less clear. Most flag carriers for the Enlghtenment do not realize that intuition is used in the small spaces even in reasoning, that intuition is a necessary faculty, that one can improve intuition (many experts have refined dependable intuition) and some people are better at it. Intuition is often useful when there are so many factors and so much data one cannot break it down into the nice packets necessary for induction and deduction. There were many warning signs that technology, the products of science, are a double edged sword. But these are ignored. Corporations such as Monsanto are very quick to say that people opposing their gm products are going by emotion. This is true for many, though there is also good intentially marginalized research also. The problem with this accusation is that their drive to replace nature with products people must pay for is also driven by emotion, and further intuition and emotion are closely coupled. Something is off. Expert firefighters will feel something is off and pull their team out of a house before it goes down. Their guts feel something based on hundreds perhaps thousands of tiny clues, many they are not even consciously aware of. Corporations and scientists track a very small range of consequences, in their labs and when projecting possible negative side effects - which the latter do not want to find anyway and we do know how that affects research. What is getting poopooed as mere emotion is actually one of the two faculties we have: one is this logical reasoning and the other is intuition.

Yes, it gets tricky to decide whose intuition to follow, but pretending that it is not a faculty we have and that some have it better than others and that there are limits to what logical analysis can do, we are turning the whole planet into a hunk of garbage.

At least in a democracy you can speak freely. In a totalitarian state you do watch what you say, just not to get your hosts into an awkward situation or in trouble. — ssu

In context this is interesting to me ironically. Here the corporations listen. If something might cost them sales they may back down, change approach. Freedom of speech causing change, rightly or wrongly. But otherwise corporations assume a right to control what is called a democracy via campaign contributions, trade organizations, lobbying and control of media and their own oversight. by the relevant government agencies. They do not mind their power and the application of it meaning that they get vastly more than one vote per issue and then control a mass of things that cannot or need not come to a vote.

So here we had, possibly, a corporation change tack based on people getting upset, about a shoe. While some other corporations are busy trying to get us to go to war with Iran. They may not succeed, but they have before and they will again. And yes, when they succeed again a bunch of people will get to go out and march in the streets.

What do you mean? — Etzsche

It means it can be a rationalization to do something that might not be good at all. If the choice is presented as feel terrible about it forever or take some kind of revenge, then it seems more logical, though not necessarily logical to take revenge. But there may be a lot of other options. And taking the revenge, even if it goes well, may not really deal with the roots of the problem.

Also it might feel like taking revenge to, for example, tell the person how badly they acted, in a direct, not victimy way, with some anger in the tone, and then move off. Both parties might experience this as revenge, when in fact it could be seen as expressive, good feedback and taking a stand. Hell, it might even be win win. Of course many situaitons preclude this and it may not feel like enough payback etc. Just saying that even immediate impulsive reactions that don't quite fit the traditional idea of revenge might be there to achieve catharsis and move on.

Generally revenge is changing the other person. Getting over the whole pattern is changing yourself. Now when people tell you to change yourself, this can come off like a guilt trip. I think other people sometimes need to deal with the natural consequences of their actions. However if this sends you to prison, you're at an even worse net loss. And sometimes other people simply cannot suffer that much. Film revenge can often be, for example, the quick death of a man who tortured the heroes family to death. One may never make them experience what you did.

I wrestle with this myself. I am way to cautious to do anything illegal or dangerous to myself, so movie revenge is off the table. But still there can be the urge to hurt and I get what you described as far as feelings. I suppose I don't really think of it in moral terms. It's not that i want to be a good person that prevents me. I just don't want to cause myself more problems. So much as I may scream my head off at them in private, or perhaps, totally legally confront them - this happens once in a while - for the most part I have to learn to live with myself and feel good. My feeling good should not be dependant on them suffering, even if they deserve it.

That’s true, and it’s offered opportunities for oppression or manipulation. But I would also assume that there have been times when it’s all they had and it’s what got them through. — Brett

Probably. It can be painful to notice what is really happening or that things might be better. Hopefully there comes a time when things shift or you do and you can then notice without being overwhelmed.

Thanks

So my question is, have or have not these values shaped the world. — Brett

Yes, their values have shaped the world. I don't think for the most part they are the creators of these values. They are taken from traditions and everyday lived out. There is a delay between the making of these values and their application and belief by everyday people. And some of these ideas were made to consolidate power.

And if they have is the world a better place or not, and if they have shaped the world then why is the ‘common man’ not in a better position as a result? — Brett

1) If the ideas are partial truths and untruths, then there is only so much use an everyday person can get out of them.
2) often the very ideas they hold are not even in their best interests or are part of oppressive systems. I think parts of religious beliefs are like this, though there are all sorts of secular beliefs also. The everyday person has been told what is possible, what their place is, how to get ahead, what learning is, who has the right to decide, who they should listent to....etc. A lot of this might not be in their interests, but they will often fight for it. In WW1 the type of shell shock was bizarre. The men lost control of their bodies, often completely. Of course it was a horrible war and trauma is a given, but I think the severity of the emotional trauma had to do with two things: the mathematical cold ludicrousness of that war coupled with all the noble values attached to war that everyday people were less likely to be skeptical about. They weren't just shocked by bombs and death, they were shocked that there was nothing noble at all going on - they were value shocked and suddenly were face with cognitive dissonence about patriotism, leaders, God, and so on. It was simply too much. In later wars there was more cynicism, even if the goals seemed good.

You wrote nonsense, like this ---.

"I am saying that love is a kind of faith,"

Faith is based on nothing. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

1) love is not logical - that is like faith. It is non-logical
2) there is faith in involved in tfhinking that those feelings of attraction can lead to all the things a marriage or long term love can lead to. That is like faith.
3) there are emipirical aspect to every religious person's faith. They feel a sense of holiness in church. They feel emotional connection to the stories of Jesus. At one point in prayer they felt peace. Wahtever

and yes, I know you see this as them interpreting falsely their subjective experiences.

Interpreting falsely one's subjective experiences. Who has not done that in love?

You can never say anything wrong. The sign of a religious fanatic, in this case a gnostic one.

If you or someone you care about has been wronged, an emotional person would want to retaliate, but laws and restrictions prevent this from being a logical decision. — Etzsche

There are always legal ways to take revenge.

Building off of this, what will become of a person who soaks in this resentment every day for a long span of time? Without any form of catharsis, will the subject be able to make it out alright?

It shouldn't be right for this person to be locked in this cage, or down in a hole. — Etzsche

I agree. It's something I struggle with. I think if one gets passed certain kinds of stages in ones own life, then some of that anger merely dissipates. If someone, for example, treated you cruelly in a romantic relationship - cheat on you, whatever - and then later you go through a few relationships each time being a bit more yourself, getting closer to what you want, and then find someone at last who treats you just the way you want, then the revenge urge will pass or can. One doesn't have to 'succeed' but I think if one moves through the judgments brought up by whatever they did - no one will ever treat me right, life is a lonely hell...etc. for this example - and gets passed them, then the memory has little bite.

None of this is to say that the other person was ok or that anger is wrong. It isn't but one must also notice the other feelings and also realize that much of the bite comes from fears and judgments that it will never be ok, that you have permanently lost something or were made wrong or life is hell, etc.

Only if someone else foots the bill.

They will not put their money where their mouths are. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

These people will stand in the rain and snow outside of planned parenthood, willing to talk or yell at anyone for months. You're just making stuff up to say they all run away.

Focus on the problems with what they believe and do. You don't have to make up other stuff. It's just embarrassing for you.

If they always ran, there wouldn't be a problem and you know that.

If it is, you are out of your league. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Well, there's a vote for clever comebacks over substance.

Not true, drugs, prostitutes, the "low-life" is always an option. — Wallows

Those are not a solution to most people's pain. Let's say you think the world is never going to provide you the love you want, you're heart has been broken a number of times (and perhaps this mirrors what happened in childhood some way), then someone suggesting 'take drugs' is not solving the problem and the yearning of the depressed person. A drug user might take the drug to find a respite from a similar longing, but they haven't given up yet and they are hooked.

If I felt like a loser doomed to be outside and unhappy and unsuccessful, for exmaple,

there's not way becoming a prostitute will seem to be bringing me closer to what I need.

That’s quite true, but as you say, the mass may stay the same. Individual have always moved away from their roots and started a new life. Of course it doesn’t necessarily mean they abandoned their original values, nor that those values fail to find a place in their new life — Brett

No, but either way we have a large group and the group continues. It does slowly change its beliefs. The mob in Rome (cause I think that's what the Romans might have called the common man) likely had other expectations and values. I think one quality of the common man is that they consider their beliefs to be on good authority and they are not cynical about them. IOW you might have someone else who professed to have this or that value, but it is Machievellian or a front, but not with the common man. And unlike certain parts of the well educated classes they are less like to proudly assert their open mind - and assertion I consider mixed, so this isn't me judging the common man. I think this steadfastness and certainty in relation to their values may be a strength - I mean it can cause problems as well, since whatever the problems with an asserted open mind, a closed mind is also a problem. But despite the problems it can cause being hard in one's values, it also can make one very tenacious. And less neurotic.

What I was meaning is that they’ve done so without giving up their values. — Brett

I am sure some don't, though I see a lot disappointed: in God, in life, in their country...and changing. The mass may stay the same but individuals can shift when presented with enough experience that seems, at least, to counter their values being right.

If it’s true that such a man exists and has always been there, and endured, then why, how?

How and why do they survive centuries of nonsense? — Brett

They don't have another option.

Maybe it's just included as a courtesy to folks who don't think that there are only physical phenomena? — Terrapin Station

That's a sweet idea.

Most people would not then say that we have a theory that "completely explains all physical phenomena in the universe." — Terrapin Station

It's odd that the word physical is in the definition, since in physics there are no other phenomena. I have seen it mentioned like this in a variety of places. Not journal articles but still scientists talking.

It's too late in the advertising game to complain about using the flag to sell products. It's far, far too common. — Bitter Crank

Though like a dead metaphor, it's still a metaphor. (not that that contradicts anything you wrote) Enjoyed the Hail Mary pass response....

Though I have to say, either someone got it really wrong in market research, or they over reacted. — Brett

Overreactions are infectious, and that holds true for the various political groups. And is especially true nowadays. For good and for ill. I am quite sure that it could have become a storm in a teacup that still had real effects on shoe sales. And this year, in this time, and given Nike's more or less neutrality, it would have been the left. But in another period of time it could have been the Right, if, say Nike was an openly liberal compary supporting liberal causes, freaking out that a company is using a national, patriotic symbol, and they would have had an infectious storm in a tea cup.

And so in desperation to save us at the last minute, they will commit Harikari, and take the rest of us down with them. — Punshhh

Britain will survive either way. That many on both sides couch it and so binary and end of Britain if the wrong choice is made isn't helping anybody.

I can’t help thinking that the common man is looked down on by people (who I’m reluctant to define: inner city, whatever) because his life just looks so ordinary to those who need constant stimulation, constant new experiences and as a result constant change. And yet it’s the ‘ordinaryness’ that’s behind his survival against all the ‘isms’. Whatever you people might think, he is a survivor. I don’t know why his values are so shunned. — Brett

I have a very selfish reaction to people on one level. How much can I be myself around them and what happens if I am? And then also how would I be viewed, even if nothing in particular happens, if I was fairly open. All groups have norms, so all groups judge and on some things - for every major group with would even include things I just can't categorize as dangerous - they can judge very harshly. Wrong clothes, wrong way of standing, wrong beliefs, expressing the wrong emotions, wrong leisure activities are some areas. So when we say the common man, I get a vague picture of people with conservative social values and the norms that go with that. They can come from various economic classes, but share a kind of patriotic, men are men, women are women, set of perhaps even neo-classical values- talk of character. In relation to them I feel constrained in ways I do not in relaiton to other groups, with, often, the added issue of potential violence. I am not gay, for example. But it still feels like a box. Now don't get me wrong other groups have, I think very pernicious boxes they want you in, but for example in my public schooling, I was under the thumb of the common man. Very traditional values, very traditional ideas about child rearing - though corporal punishment was no longer legal in schools. Other groups can economically punish, socially ostracise, label - at least through most of my lifetime - but the direct in the room attacks would primarily be indirect and not physical. So I have issues both with the comman man's very binary reactions and with the very blunt dangers one experienced especially when young. And, again, this is not a class issue for me, though more of the comman man is not middle class, they are in there also. The midwest is filled with commen mon in all classes for example.

For me his values are shunned because he shunned me. Now there were not in my past all these confrontations with violence. A couple. But one plays the game, just as one would play the game in a corporate environment with its bizarre values and economic punishments ready at hand.

If we take a kind of God's eye view, we can look at these people as victims or at least marginalized. But for me growing up on the ground, they were authority figures and if I was not careful, they would put me in my place and with great hatred, a hatred generated by those very values. I do not see them as the primary problem. I see certain elite groups as the primary problem. Here whole countries can be devastated by the elite needs for power and more more more in various ways.

I have also been in very leftist environments and then there are other aspects of myself that can be judged harshly. There are no major groups where I can be myself. I have to be on guard. So it is not that the common man group, which we probably should define, is the only one ready to enforce norms. And lefty groups perhaps anarchist ones today what gets called the alt.left, are much more violent than when I hung out with them. The political radicals and the hippies for example could hang out. That must be more problematic now. The anarchists I knew got along well with working class people, homeless people and had a nuanced take even on religious people. Idon't think I was just lucky. I think something has changed. Everyone seems to feel justified in leaning toward violence and binary thinking.

I suppose the main point for me in this is that the common man survivor group is not just on the wrong end of judgments but also judges. And on the ground on the street in bars at pta meetings at city councile meetings, whereever, you can be putting your ass on the line just beind outside whatever the relevant box is, and find yourself in danger on the way to your car or walking home from school. Or on the less physical level looked at with hatred for things that are merely different, not even threatening these people in any practical way.

I have worked alongside these people for much of my worklife. I know how to navigate this. And I am not fraidy cat in the physical sense. I can throw a good punch and they tend to respect me - of course I am not showing my full self to them. So it's not like i have been a victim. But that I even have to waste time over what I consider trivia - though also on more major issues - hiding part of me or even my natural way of being and thinking, leads me not to either see that as simply put upon by elites. But often as people allowing themselves to be used by elites and by ideas that contain incredible hatred and self-hatred in them, and as wanting to enforce boxes and norms on others.

I want to add all that to what seems like your implicit perspective in the op and thread.

I'm not certain, but I think this thread may be the most pitiful I've read on the forum. Condescending, ignorant, naive, arrogant, disrespectful. Pitiful. Have any of you ever worked for a living? Do you know anybody who isn't isn't affluent or college educated? — T Clark

Yes, and for my whole adult life and part of my non-adult life, much of it working class work, and yes, i know lots of people who are not college educated though for me the comman man would include many people who go to college. I consider most people the common man - though it's not a term I usually use.

Correct. Nike and patriotism have no connection. If Nike wanted to prove their patriotic fides, they could start manufacturing their shoes here instead of SE Asia, and pay their American employees a living wage. — Bitter Crank

And even then, if they did all that, it'd still just be manipulative riding on the achievements of others to use that symbol. It's a sneaker made for money, It's a bit like putting a crucifix on the sneaker. Whether one thinks the crucifix is a symbol with negative or postive associations, Nike earned neither in making that shoe. Nor with Betsy Ross' flag.

And Nike I expect already have the damage-limitation PR ready for whatever Fox News etc. throw at them (which in any case will probably be only to their advantage—"Help, we're being attacked by some old white guys on media most of our customers hate, what ever shall we do?"). — Baden

The really rather disgusting thing is that however you see Betsy Ross' flag
what the hell is it doing on a sneaker. Frankly I think those who see the flag as a postive symbol would also be miffed, not because it's a symbol of something bad to them, but because a company is using the symbol to sell its products. It is branding through the symbol, which is different from someone selling flags. And the controversy only helps Nike.

Oh, they didn't get to use a historical symbol as manipulative meaningless branding that probably would have been effective with some people for no reason at all.

So a way to determine how many S's are thinking x as a symbol of some particular y is to survey S's,

preferably outside of some other S trying to presently persuade them to see x as a symbol of y

(because then we might instead only be learning about the influence, or about how S wants to position themselves socially, re alignments and so on, rather than learning whether S was really thinking about x as a symbol of y). — Terrapin Station

[my bold and emphasis above]
Which is ironic in the context of Nike since branding, which is all about such persuasion in its branding and branding of symbols and then branding with symbols. And putting a flag on a sneaker seems kinda tacky and problematic either way. If it's seen as a positive symbol - thus enhancing the sneakers image - that's kinda parasitic and if it's seen as a negative, well, then it's bad marketing and annoying some people. In a sense I am saying (now) that I agree, but in context what you are saying in not really something Nike wants us to understand. They want the symbols to be the thing, period. The Nike swooth means incredible stuff (objectively and universally ((I know that's silly))) and thus their sneakers are great.