The rest of this is really off-topic — Pfhorrest

Not actually at all, because the examples just show how complex existence is.

You even yourself mention the divide of 'abstract' and 'concrete' with numbers. Objective beauty? I would think that would be something subjective. Again a different, but important juxtaposition. Inflation isn't something that just refers to money, there can be for example asset inflation, which is a different phenomenon and of course in physics inflation has another meaning. How real are these phenomena? Yet here is again a new way of looking at these issue as being social constructs. And a 'country' isn't physical, because it isn't just a landmass as a continent, it's much more a social construct and an institution, something in our minds. Yet you say that they, countries, definitely exist. Hmm.

In my view it's simply naive just to define existing to be something physical as it leads in philosophy to materialism/physicalism, which are quite shallow ways to model the World. They usually lead people down the reductionist rabbit hole which sidelines the abstract as just as our imagination. Yet we truly need the abstract, we need concepts, to understand the World around us.

Hence the question is that if God doesn't exist as physical material object, does God then exist in the abstract, does it exist as an social construct, a concept, something subjective, a mindset or mentality? Now I don't know about any religion that wouldn't say that you have to believe in God and it's a matter of faith and believing. No religion says that God is found by a proof. That it's a matter of faith ought to ring a bell that this isn't a question of proving existence of something physical and concrete.

That’s right “latino” is not considered a race. It’s an ethnicity, meaning It applies to anyone of any race so long as he is Latino — NOS4A2

Don't think that racism / ethnicity have any true logic to themselves. It's all horse manure that in the end simply justifies xenophobia and is fitted to the present situation whatever it is.

Stop looking just at the racism in the US. The history of European racism and the true race ideology divided the "white" people as happily and eagerly as Americans are dividing their own citizens into races. Serbs, Poles, Russians, Belarusians, Czechs, Slovaks, and Ukrainians, all were there with the Jews subhumans. And Americans would now refer to these people being "white". It doesn't make any sense.

, you are simply fixated on the idea of simple duality of existence and non-existence and think that something like the matter of religion / religious faith comes down to one basic question: Does God exist or not? And that's the ONLY issue here at stake and you hence can simply compartmentalize people into two and then as either God exists or doesn't, the agnostics are just confused and whatever.

Do numbers exist? Does beauty/value/morals exist? Does inflation, money, value, countries exist? Physical existence is only one thing.

So agnosticism is inherently incoherent, an evasively articulate grunt, babytalk.

Ah, the haughty atheist.

Makes always me feel even better about agnosticism.

I'd like to hear your subjective philosophical arguments, since there are no conclusive answers to this question. — Bella Lack

I assume our hard wiring isn't so much different from other subfamily homininae and very much the same as the Neanderthals, but that we have language and written language has made all the change.

The importance of language and written language, that has given us the ability to explode our informational knowledge, is severely understated as we still have the quite mechanical World view and philosophy being in an dominant position. Hence we have this fixation with genes, with our brain etc. And of course, because we still have problems to grapple with notions like "intelligence", "consciousness" and even "learning".

That for philosophy language is so crucial ought to hint how important all this is, but no.

Thanks and for your observations.

At least Pfhorrest cleared his thinking when leaving out agnosticism:

Agnosticism isn’t listed as an option because that’s an answer to a different question. Agnosticism is orthogonal to theism/atheism. — Pfhorrest

Well, you did ask "So I'm just curious, among the theists and atheists here both, how central or important is that to the rest of your philosophy?", so basically as you note this question does reflect on the whole philosophy of a person. But I guess you are only interested in the dogmatic people here.

You see, Bertrand Russell doesn't eviscerate agnosticism with his famous 'Teapot in space' argument. The exist-not exist question is in my view far more subtle and complex as it typically is represented. It pops up in questions like "Do numbers exist?" Unicorns surely don't exist, yet at least for my seven year old daughter unicorns are very important.

If the Chinese subsidise their industry, so what? — Benkei

Well, once a group of companies dominate a market, new rival competing enterprises don't emerge as the ideal free market theory would predict. Real world economy doesn't work that way. You see, after forcing out other competitors from the market those previous competitors won't be competing in the R&D sector etc.

One idea of subsidies is that the country gains (or retains) a dominant position in the global market. Basically it works just as protective tariffs. Then you assume that you can ease with the subsidies later after your countries own industry is strong on it's own in the field. So the idea goes and sometimes it can happen so (like with German companies emerging from the 19th Century to compete in the global market against British goods). Typically it doesn't work like this, just look Africa, but the Chinese have been fairly good at this.

But I don't have high hopes for them: their fascist government will squash free thinking in the end and that will be their Achilles heel in the global competition.

It simply doesn't matter to you or anyone else, because humans are part of the universe.

You see, when the human race has a finite time in the universe (likely when the sun burns the Earth and kills everything living here, or even earlier), it could be argued that there surely would be that finite blueprint/calculation that states correctly what everyone does ever (in this part of the multiverse, anyway).

Yet it doesn't matter as the blueprint/calculation cannot interact with you. From that blueprint/calculation one cannot make a forecast that says that "this is what christian2017 will write here in PF next". That to be true, then you would have to write exactly what the forecast from the blueprint/calculation says. Yet a forecast, a written text, simply cannot control you.

Or to look at this limitation another way: you can write whatever you want, but you never can write something that you don't write.

Just think about it. Do you feel that you are now confined or not by the above statement?

Why was agnosticism left out of the questionnaire? It's quite central to my philosophy.

If the whole question right from the start is about belief, why on Earth the juxtaposition between existence and non-existence of a Deity that isn't and never has been about proof and logic?

Whereas if the Conservatives win less seats than that, provided all the opposition party's can cooperate, they can form a coalition. It looks like the SNP will win most of the Conservative seats in Scotland, amounting to them winning around 50 seats. Plus the Lib Dems will do well, they may win over 20 seats. — Punshhh

I'd like to ask the Britons here the following questions?

How are the Lib Dems seen in the UK? Is there a wedge in the conservative party?

I gather that there might be a of former conservatives that could be disappointed about the whole mess that the conservative party has made itself and how it has dealt with the issue, yet won't ever vote for such a catastrophe as the Labour party.

As a UK citizen, I suggest a compromise solution to Brexit: be in AND out. — Chris Hughes

?

Why? Do you want to prolong the confusion and have everybody continue to be disappointed?

Be out: Be treated like the US (or Morocco) by the EU. No problem, actually

Be in: forget totally the last years that the UK has been in turmoil and just be like nothing happened, the referendum was just a bad dream.

The Cold War is over though. I’d call what we see today ‘amicable hostilities’ :D — I like sushi

The Cold War is over only in the way that Russia doesn't have the resources of the Soviet Union and doesn't have the Warsaw Pact. Otherwise, Russia's strategy, it's defensive plans against the West, follow quite the same kind of thinking as earlier. Perhaps now it's just not so confined in it's actions with a political ideology as Marxism-Leninism as the Soviet Union was.

So, what are your opinions about the aspirations of Russia? — Wallows

First you have to understand Russia, even it's so difficult.

Russia has an inherent fear and distrust of the West. First came Napoleon, then Hitler, the third time they will be ready. Russia in it's official military doctrine states the number 1. threat to it the enlargement of NATO. That means you (the US). Terrorism is somewhere in the place 15th - 20th place of important issues.

And the best defense is offense. Take the initiative, don't let the enemy gain it.

Russians, especially those in power, justify their actions as defence against especially the US. Any kind of post-Cold War honeymoon ended with the war in Kosovo in 1999. That was the time when basically this new Cold War started: then NATO and Russian troops came close to firing at each other as Russia deployed quickly it's own peacekeepers into Kosovo before NATO troops.

Above all, everything is domestic politics in the end. And in Russia it is a small cabal made up of siloviks, former and present intelligence and military men, that hold power. These men, especially their leader Vladimir Putin, need a sinister enemy to justify his actions against his domestic opposition. The silovik mind sees foreign intelligence services behind all grass roots opposition movements. And of course, Russia is seen as a Great Power and the fall of the Soviet Union, in Putin's own words, the worst catastrophe ever to happen.

Fascism just doesn't sound right in my mind, at least not yet. — Wallows

Because it's used just as a derogatory swearword, the word might sound empty, yes. But why to speak about "at least not yet"?

You have to understand that China is a totalitarian system and sees liberalism and democracy as a threat. The people that ordered the tanks to Tianamen Square in 1989 are still the people in power in China. Just look at Hong Kong today, just look at what a cyber-surveillance state the Chinese are creating for their own people.

Separating absolutely everything to good and evil is actually evil, no matter how good the intensions would be.

What's wrong with human beings existing?

Why on Earth even the whole discussion?

If a poor person is stuck on this earth for another 50 years, she would probably rather live in a shed or perhaps even house like a house in Haiti (card board box) then work 2 or 3 jobs to pay a land lord their high rent. — christian2017

This is actually a sign of a deep failure of one extremely important market: the finance market, the banking sector. If poor people cannot get a loan to buy real estate that at least will preserve real value, the above described poverty will continue. People won't get more prosperous: they will pay rent all they lives and die poor. They will be lousy consumers, which means aggregate demand is small in the society. This can easily happen when there aren't all those important institutions at place that make it worth wile (less risky) for lenders to lend to ordinary people without loan-shark interest rates.

I would say libertarians ought to at first understand that if they truly desire liberty and freedom, they will then have to tolerate people that aren't libertarians and simply oppose them. It's great if a lot of things are indeed liberal (in the classic meaning), but likely if you have a democracy, you will have opposing voices too. You likely will have collective left leaning programs. Typically things like health care, social security, some kind of welfare net are things people like. They create social cohesion. If the most libertarian country is Switzerland, it has it's share of the welfare state.

What libertarians don't like to hear is that the most successful countries even if very liberal, are basically mixed economies. Many times libertarians are ideological zealots, who push ideology before reality.

So, we're experiencing the longest economic boom in modern history. — Wallows

Yet people here are from the West, hence they don't actually care shit about global poverty being actually twarted and successfully diminished.

Recently, Marxism is becoming ethical in terms of being more oriented towards situations like the tragedy of the commons. — Wallows

Whimsical bullshit. Marxism is as failed as it was from the start, there is just a new generation that hasn't ever seen Marxism-Leninism in reality and hence the left can blissfully forget everything about all the failed experiments that all ended up in tragedy.

China isn't perfect; but, will most likely dominate the new green economy. — Wallows

China hasn't been marxist for a long time. They learnt that from their "Cultural Revolution". Far proper would be to talk about China being the example of fascism: a mixed economy with the government in control of the economy which opposes liberalism, but tolerates well capitalism.

So, what's your opinion about the economy? — Wallows

Likely goes sideways. Not going to have a huge collapse, but likely the economy is going to be a disappointment.

Zoning laws might seem as a hindrace, but then on another hand, there's positive effects too.

First and foremost, for many real estate developers the prime and only interest is to get as much as money from the real estate as possible. They have absolutely no need to think about others, especially after they have sold the land and gotten their money. Now theoretically you might assume that "maximum freedom" would be the best case, but having absolutely no zoning laws can have extremely bad effects too.

Assume you buy real estate that has been a farming land with picturesque scenery and good traffic connections and build a one family house there. Yet next a real estate developer buys a land to your east and builds a huge mall. Even if now you have services close by, being next to a huge ugly parking lot next to your house lowers the value of your home and real estate. Yet after that another real estate developer builds a toxic waste disposal dump on the other side of your house. The smell of the waste dump is awful and nobody comes to the mall and the place goes belly up. Now nobody will buy your house and you have lost a fortune. Who would live between a waste dump and a deserted mall?

Having no zoning laws simply means that you don't have ANY kind of city planning. And when you have no city planning, it can mean that nobody is willing to take risks as there is the risk of that waste dump or that everybody tries to build a mall on their land and in the end nobody is willing to do that. Cities that have grown without city planning usually lack an effective and coordinated transport system, good roads.

Hence just to think that zoning laws are a hindrance is naive. The real world is very complex.and it is stupid to view these issues with a broad universal political ideology.

Consider this article:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/us/california-mother-warning-white-supremacists-soh/index.html — jellyfish

Actually quite hilarious. Even if the progressive mom likely isn't religious at all, she has a religious fervour to fight evil and save her boys from being lured into the Satanic cult of the alt-right.

The attitude is telling. It is one reason why politics comes to be so divisive and why we talk about politics becoming tribal. You see, it's not that political ideology that you oppose simply doesn't just work, is counterproductive and make things worse, it is are truly evil. And evil isn't something that cannot accept or understand, it's just morally unacceptable.

I agree with all of this. I'd just add the theme of class. Americans are afraid of poor people. And we hate poor people, who are often just a little poorer than we are. Or no poorer but just with the wrong manners. One can still say 'white trash' without losing one's job. — jellyfish

The term 'white trash' shows perfectly the structural racism in American culture. There's a lot of positive things in American culture, but this isn't one of them. As if then when you are referring to your "own race" such condescending and hateful terms of your fellow countrymen is acceptable. It's a way how the attitude for racism and xenophobia survives.

In then agrarian Finland such racist terms describing the poor people you did find in the 19th Century, a similar time when the term white trash was started to be used in the US. Then we had terms like loinen, parasite in English, which referred to poor people that didn't own a home and basically lived in the sheds of their employer. Yet in the 20th Century these terms weren't used or tolerated anymore. And 'human garbage' would sound really bad. It doesn't simply fit to a society with social cohesion. It does fit to a society with deep class divides.

Just as 180Proof points out, of course povetry is attached to this. Class is something that many Americans don't get as they confuse class with caste, and think about a caste system when talking about a class system. And of course, since the term is so loved by the socialists, Americans just turn away from using it.

Why do we think US interventionism has been anything but America first? Isolationism or interventionism is only a matter of strategy on how to best attain ultimately the same goal. — ChatteringMonkey

Perhaps the problem here is that the opposite for isolationism doesn't have to be interventionism. The thing is that you can participate very actively in international organizations, without intervening in the affairs of other countries. The only thing is to respect the sovereignty of other states as you want others to respect yours.

That's it.

You don't have to close your borders, retreat to North Korea -type isolationism or leave international organizations and look at them as having sinister plans against you. You just opt out from the use interventions. Especially military ones.

In other words, there are people that want special treatment, not equal treatment. — Harry Hindu

Actually yes, because when the ideology starts from racism being central and an integral part how humans form social spheres, it is an inherent struggle. Equal treatment would be bad: it would just let those in power have all their 'white priviledge'. Equal treatment here is defined very narrowly. In my view this kind of reasoning don't make sense: on one hand you uphold something that you would want to destroy on the other hand. And then you get into the silly redefining of racism. It simply turns into a power game.

It's like the people who believe everything, utterly everything is propaganda. Once these people get into a place to operate themselves, they push the most incredible classic 20th Century propaganda ever. You would think they would opt out of the propaganda and try to look for the objective truth or the closest to it, but no.

For what purpose should I notice one's skin color in a job interview? What does that tell me about how qualified for the job they are? As an employer, I am concerned about people's ability to do the job. What does skin color inform me about that? Nothing. — Harry Hindu

Yep. And structural discrimination, especially in a job interview, would happen when you wouldn't give someone similar focus based on their skin.. or simply their name and would use it as a positive or negative detail.

When you look at how structural discrimination is defined and the examples that are given, it's quite straight forward and easy to understand. It makes total sense. But when all these terms are used in the most excessive woke literature, all you get is a mush of confusion. And things get complicated.

The colourblind is a response to the idea of people gaining merit over others by identity. We ought to, according to the colourblind approach, not recognise or describe differences of identity, for identity is only ever a means by which someone gains merit. — TheWillowOfDarkness

?

I thought it is race, gender etc. and not identity. Hence in my view the above should be: "The colourblind is a response to the idea of people gaining merit over others by race. We ought to, according to the colourblind approach, not recognise or describe differences of race.

It tries to eliminate this by giving everyone the same singular identity (person, human, man, citizen, etc. ), so everyone is granted the same merit. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Again no. It simply is that we avoid using racial or gender categorization and look at the merits based on the individual's actions and ability. Merit is based on something totally else than some physical character of the individual. And the colorblindness just is one issue here.

I think you are confusing personal identity with social or collective identity. (But of course, I might be wrong)

. This is why I think ‘nations’ will be gone by the end of the century - the internet will give everyone a common cultural/historical upbringing and in the future I would have more in common with people from other parts of the world than I do today due to having been raised through a common medium. — I like sushi

I'm not so sure about that.

The internet has a lot of negative aspects too. Just like the printing press, which made books and texts common: it didn't only bring have the obvious positive effects, the printing press had a key role in the awful bloodshed called the wars of religion. The internet can divide us also in a similar way.

I'm still trying to understand where this reaction to the idea of color-blindness really comes from. — VagabondSpectre

You aren't alone. One can make a conclusion from nobody giving a simple answer to this.

But some of them have just switched to a new kind of magical thinking. The 'alt-right' boogeyman, lurking in the shadows, is ready to pounce. — jellyfish

A boogeyman lurking in the shadows and ready to pounce, against whom ordinary people have to prepare to defend themselves is part and parcel of American culture as baseball.

Starting from the burglar breaking into your house that one has to shoot or otherwise your family will be killed, it's one of those things that creates xenophobia and the fear against minorities, which then turns into present day racism. A tiny minority harbour ideas of racial supremacy, the fear of criminals or lunatic gunmen is far more typical. The 'alt-right' shooter is a just one version of this, which shows how universal the phenomenon is in America. Few crackpots capture the imagination of a huge country.

1. There is nothing in the universe that can't be understood by human reasoning and logic. Even those problems for which we have not found solutions, we would be able to grasp and understand these solutions if they were somehow presented to us. Through logical thought and reasoning, there is nothing in the universe beyond the capacity of comprehension of the human mind. — staticphoton

And if that human reasoning and logic finds out that to some questions we simply cannot find out solutions even if they exist because of logic? That it would be illogical if we could find the solution.

This actually happens already as we are part of the universe and cannot observe things from outside the universe.

You might deduce that if scenario #1 holds true, that the reasoning capability of the human mind has reached its evolutionary apogee — staticphoton

Why would we assume that? There are many basic questions still open. Like the question in mathematics about what actually is infinity? Taking infinity as an axiom isn't an answer.

Never did, never would. — fishfry

Didn't think so at all, but looking at the present level of American politics, I guess many will put the MAGA hat on you. And soon silly season is here again!

(Well, I have to be happy that once in my life the presidential candidate I voted for got elected... and enjoys now in his second term a lot of support across the political isle.)

Ask yourself: If half of Trump's supporters are deplorable, who are the other half? The Dems won't ask themselves that question because to ask the question requires looking in the mirror at what they've become. — fishfry

It's a tragic error that the democrat party didn't do some soul searching after their ruinous election. I've always wondered who were the idiots that thought it was "now Hillary's time". The popularity of Bernie Sanders (and Trump, actually) ought to have told something was up. But old people seldom see when changes happen.

Who are all the people who would never dream of wearing a MAGA hat yet can no longer support what's become of the Democrats? That's the question to ask if you seek to lead and unify the country. — fishfry

Nobody's thinking of unifying the country. And if the two parties alienate people from the whole process, then their core supporters just become even more important.

For anyone interested — NOS4A2

?

Good riddance for 18th century 'scientific' racism.

I would burn in the fiery pits of hell before I'd ever vote for Hillary Clinton. It was the DNC that rigged their own process to nominate a corrupt warmonger so incompetent at politics that she managed to lose to Trump by failing to lock down the rust belt states. — fishfry

I guess then people think you wear a MAGA hat. :wink:

The Trump presidency: what is nice is how open everything about the chaos is.

Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a Fox News analyst, first walked the president through a map showing Syria, Turkey and Iraq on Oct. 8, pointing out the locations of oil fields in northern Syria that have been under the control of the United States and its Kurdish allies, two people familiar with the discussion said. That oil, they said Keane explained, would fall into Iran's hands if Trump withdrew all U.S. troops from the country.

Keane went through the same exercise with Trump again Oct. 14, this time with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., at his side, according to four people familiar with the meeting. Keane displayed a map showing that almost three quarters of Syria's oil fields are in the parts of the country where U.S. troops are deployed, the people familiar with the meeting said. They said that Graham and Keane told the president that Iran is preparing to move toward the oil fields and could seize the air space above them once the U.S. leaves. - On Monday, the president delivered contradictory public statements about a plan that would keep some U.S. troops in northern Syria indefinitely to conduct counterterrorism missions and protect the oil fields.

"I don't want to leave any troops there," Trump told reporters. "I don't think it's necessary other than we secure the oil."

The president's comments came as the Pentagon was preparing orders for maintaining several hundred troops in northern Syria, according to a senior U.S. official.

California goes for the Dem regardless of who I vote for. — fishfry

Until it doesn't.

You see, the two ruling parties that are in symbiosis can rule only so long that people think they "waste their votes if they don't vote for one or the other".

I'm saying that we should be ignoring genetics - especially where genetics isn't a factor, or part of what it is that we are taking about. Genetics/race should have nothing to do with choosing someone for a job for instance, but you're saying it should - that I should choose someone for a job because they're black. Race/genetics should only be part of scientific conversations of biology and medicine. — Harry Hindu

This ought to be evident, but some people simply are quite infatuated with the rhetoric that ignoring race simply means denial of racial problems and gives a veil to racism. It seems there's not much effort to understand your point here.

I think one problem is that talking about identity here two different terms get mixed: first there is personal identity and then there is social identity. The norm is that we judge people as individuals with theirpersonal identity and their individual actions. What isn't tolerated is to judge an individual by a social or collective identity they have. Because that is what racism, xenophobia and misogyny do. (Then of course being 'colorblind' to people that have a collective identity is totally different from treating individuals equally.)

In the end the woke argument can easily turn on it's head: it can come down to the idea that people, especially white people, are inherently racist and anything else is just denial of this. And once we introduce race as something eternal, something central to the identity of the individual, something real, we naturally give it then credence. And once we give it credence, then we do create racial divides and literally divide people into races.

I’m pretty sure I have more in common with an Englishman my age of any colour than I do with an American or an Australian my age. The mainstay is the cultural understanding - granted there are divisions within countries, cities and even neighbourhoods too. — I like sushi

In the intersectionality roulette nationality and culture define by country isn't hip as it's the thing that the wrong people emphasize.

Yet nationality is a good example of a truly man made or "invented" identity, which can have absolutely dramatic consequences on how we treat each other. Just think what happens when countries go to war. Still, I would say that race, gender, sex, nationality, ethnicity are all not so determinative than wealth. Being rich gives you real privilege in this World.

Outside of that, the US behaves much like other countries do and have behaved. Every national government has as its highest goal to benefit its own citizens first. Other nations' citizens are elsewhere on the list. — Bitter Crank

I'm not so sure does the US allways put it's citizens first (just thinking about the US health care system), but in fact this as a purpose is totally OK and fine.

And this is because there is mutual benefit from having good relations, open trade and exchange among two or more countries. Having your neighbors as enemies simply sucks.

Thank's for a short ingenious abstract of the thread, frank.

Subsequently, NOS4A2 reverted to a standard view — frank

Isn't that a good thing?

So we did with this thread what philosophy tends to do. We made a pile of confusion out of a very simple issue. — frank

:lol:

That would be such a fitting motto for the whole Forum.

No, it’s not to refuse seeing skin-color, or saying someone’s identity does not matter, or to deny racial injustice in both personal and systemic fashions, which suggests color-blindness negates its own intentions. It is only to affirm that one’s skin-tone or preferred racial identity is irrelevant to one’s moral standing as a fellow citizen, a fellow human being. — NOS4A2

Of course. I think every will agree with that. — I like sushi

I believed earlier so too, but now I'm really not so sure anymore.

You see, earlier I too thought about in similar fashion as above, and thought there is no contradiction, that actually both sides are just making a different point.

Yet Banno has stated that race is central to his identity (or to the identity of people). He of course has no problems as he can enjoy all the white priviledge there is as a 'white fella'.

Let that sink in.

It's not that some people are racist or some people use 'colorblindness' as a mask and this has effects on everyone. Race and the color of your skin seems to be central. So not only is race something real and inherent, but also very important to one's identity, central to it. It's not something that you could overcome. So I guess that NOS4A2's above statement then is offensive.

Anyway. Without impugning motives or casting aspersions, many commentors on this thread baffle me with their uncharitable (to say the least) responses to what Banno, TheWillowOfDarkness, Swan, Bitter Crank, Isaac, et al (from both white & non-white perspectives) have quite clearly said thus far. An incorrigible muddle, I think, from a persistent and pervasive habit of conflating personal prejudice with social-systemic racism. That way leads to the burqa side (as suggested previously) ... — 180 Proof

Oh, yeah. Hence my quoting Shakespeare... — Banno

And this without impugning motives or casting aspersions. :halo:

This is the challenge to liberalism. In denying the significance of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, liberals deny aspects that are central to an individual's identity. — Banno

Banno, tell us how race is so absolutely significant to you, that it's central to your individual identity.

That would be a strange thing to do. So you're saying the US can't step down from a role of continuous interference in the affairs of other nations which we justify because we think the people would really rather have some coca cola and stand in line voting for a puppet we installed? — frank

No.

What I'm saying is that those who cherish the idea of isolationism typically really don't think it over just what that splendid isolation and detachment from the World would really mean. Even with the so-called isolationists there is this naive egocentric idea that everything evolves around the US, hence the US is guilty of if not all, but nearly all of the bad things that happen in the World. Which is nonsense.

It's like an excess of otherwise healty criticism of one's countries foreign policy that leads to a situation where all the positive things are forgotten.

Woke people are against it because the question of "individual merit" turns the value of people into a counterfactual question within racial relationships with in society. — TheWillowOfDarkness

How does it turn the value of people into a counterfactual question?

Instead of understanding an individual of a racial group belongs to a society, the question of "individual merit" is pulled up before that belonging is granted. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Unfortunately I don't understand what you say here. Could you rephrase this, if you have time?

When the merit understood by society (e.g. wealth, status,etc) is divided along some racial line, the notion of individual merit turns into a judgment of the belonging of people in that group. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But that surely isn't at all what we mean by judging people from their actions. Wealth, status etc. are exactly the opposite of what is meant here: how wealthy you are surely doesn't give any insight about your morals, how well you behave or how honest you are. Criminals can be wealthy and people can inherit wealth even if they couldn't create themselves similar wealth, you know.

What would be requirements like that that have anything to do with race, though? You'd have to believe that there really are ability differences due to race, but there aren't. — Terrapin Station

I guess the reasoning falls back on the idea of 'white priviledge'.

Basically that if it isn't requirements like being taller and running faster (than the majority of women), it is something similar that divides on racial lines, not because of inherent racial differences, but social advantages and disadvantages formed thanks to earlier (or present) discrimination etc.

I think the whole idea is quite condescending, because putting race and gender before individual abilities puts then these stupid ideas of race into the forefront and they are treated as given. The ludicrous outcome is that then we are judged by some stereotypes of us and denied the possibility of not being in that mold.

Also, there isn't much logic to it. Because why stop to race and gender/sexual orientation? The next logical step would be to treat similarly one truly important divide that makes us be treated differently in the world, and that is nationality, the way we are separated into being different citizens of countries.

This of course goes totally against the woke agenda: nationality is the one thing that is deemed fictional by the left. It is something to be opposed because it's the role that is cherished by the (extreme)right! This just shows how the whole construction is more political than something else.