You are right, but this task is almost unachievable. — Number2018

What if it is unachievable but seeing that it is, is the correct answer? What if the ideals of our ideal selves aren't realistic? We aim to be rational but should we ever expect to be entirely rational? The aim here for me is to reimagine the ideal in light of the best possible understanding of what we can and can't be reasonably expected to do. I see myself as the watchdog for my own rationality, ever sceptical and distrustful, expecting but forgiving myself for being realistically irrational.

The arrangement of the ad's truth does not include the external reference to "the actual truth of the quality of the perfume" that may or may not result from the independent consumer's taste and decision. On the contrary, what makes the ad effective is producing the virtual image of jouissance, hope, beauty, success, and possession. — Number2018

I think we do see advertisements making reference to the quality of their product but firstly we realise that the masculine, confident voice which describes them is importantly masculine and importantly confident. We are tempted to believe the story because he seems trustworthy, he seems to know what he's talking about, though he's an actor reading a script. Secondly, the ad is producing the virtual image as you describe, the ad is giving us both what to believe and why to believe it both explicitly and subliminally. The consumer consciously sees themselves as a rational actor but is unconsciously excited and enticed by the opportunity for self-actualisation and the actualisation of their desires. At the very least, without psychologizing the consumer, we cannot explain the ad's construction without acknowledging the subliminal message and tactics. The explicit and subliminal are interwoven, the explicit acts as a front to give the illusion of rationality and control.

I think that your analysis overall is much improved and wonderfully written, I don't disagree with anything you said and I am taking notes on how you've said it because it was much better than if it would've been me. I am not going to comment on everything, I am still processing a lot of it and I don't know if I have much to add to your analysis.

What is being sold is the inclusion and participation in unrecognizable capitalistic desire arrangements and the capitalistic financial axiomatics. — Number2018

I agree though I don't think they are unrecognizable, they're present in the collective consciousness and this is important. The capitalistic arrangements are comprehensive value systems, they constitute standards by which we evaluate ourselves. The American dream is an example of this, it's about how purchasing leads to the perfect domestic and social life, a standard for measuring success.

It's even less about whether you personally feel this way, but about how you feel you will be judged based on these standards whether you like it or not. Creating not only a social pressure to conform but also forcing a particular kind of reaction if you are concerned about how people see you and it's hard not to be, impractical not to be.

Asserting your own rules for what constitutes success or beauty, half-difficult and half-impractical, if the perfume presents an image of professionalism and empowerment, whether you see it that way is only half the story, you're hoping others see it that way too. For when you buy the perfume, you're hoping that this is going to positively affect how you'll be seen, which legitimises changes in how you see yourself. We grow up seeing fictional characters or people we know embodying their roles through various markers such as in a high-class lady using a perfume. Can you pay no attention to it? Wear what you want to wear, look how you want to look and assert yourself as that high-class lady even if you don't fit the image and nobody else sees you that way?

Overall, I am not trying to discredit everything here, one can buy the perfume for reasons besides its quality and be logical, rational and practical in doing so. It might actually be more foolish to have a fixation on the quality of the perfume if it means we're ignoring the secondary function, the truth besides the truth. Of course, I'm not sure there's any benefit in being irrational, it's like throwing darts in the dark.

Lacan — Number2018

On Lacan, I think that he is talking about something slightly different to us. There is some cross over for sure but we can say he is utilising "the truth besides the truth" concept for the unique discourse schemes he has presented. What he's aiming to do makes sense to me but we're working from very different perspectives, I find it hard to relate to where he's coming from. I do not like to psychologise people I don't know, I prefer to look at the discontinuity between a behaviour and the given reason, therein lies the unconscious. Too much about the advertisement makes no sense without acknowledging the truth besides the truth, we can infer a lot from its construction and its success, which makes what we're doing possible.

The truth besides the truth exerts its own real force, which should be taken into account, that was my message here. That really just means acknowledging it and allowing it to enter our consciousness, without necessarily talking about all of its implications and how acknowledging it can be useful. Though, as with my last thread, this has just consisted of everyone except you misunderstanding me. You really were the difference between these threads being a waste of time and very engaging and helpful to me, thank you for that.

1.1 but I think we can come up with more reasons for this
(1) Comments which address multiple people at once
(2) Not always responding to people who mention you
(3) Always mentioning someone in your comment

These things are true for me and I think it has that effect of having more mentions than comments.

Try refuting the statements I made as opposed to characterizing them or trying to assign an argument to my position that I did not make — JerseyFlight

Haha, you're too much.

I admit when I've been refuted, I am happy to learn from others even if they offer a better understanding in an unflattering way.

You called me a "human-nature-supernaturalist" but news flash, that doesn't make me one. You merely ascribe positions as a way of debating people, it's a constant. I wouldn't describe myself as conservative either, but, I guess it doesn't matter what I say does it?

You said was "better society from better humans requires better environment and high-quality nutrients" and then you expect me to deduce from that "oh, he's talking about 0-2-year-old development" to the exclusion of I don't know, literally anything else? I didn't tell you that you're wrong, I just said, there's no way I'm going to agree with that because it means I allow you to dictate what is "better" in each context.

Dr Schore would not say "you are nurture" or "you wouldn't be able to talk to me without the proper nutrients" because he doesn't try to create this ridiculous dichotomy between nature and nurture. You aren't using his language, or his understanding or his characterisations. I can agree with Dr Schore and learn from him, without being refuted by you, because you have simply co-opted him, without really understanding him, into your ideological outlook. This conversation is just incredibly silly, I've met few posters quite as fallacious as you. I will just try to avoid you where I can.

What I've listened to Dr. Schore saying has confirmed that firstly, you are terrible at paraphrasing him and although you cite him to justify how you use his work, your understanding is not something he is endorsing. Secondly, you misunderstand to what extent Dr. Schore is actually nurture-orientated, he is not trying to establish some dichotomy between nature and nurture but explains that the two work together. This is my position also, I think almost nobody you've cited Dr. Schore to has actually been invalidated by Dr. Schore in the way you think they were. I think that you have a barebones or worse understanding, of him and probably shouldn't be citing him at all.

Also, the people you've cited him against, you were arguing against positions that you gave them through narration and characterisation, not their explicit admission. Same here. I don't know what you think Dr. Schore would be correcting me about but it's almost certainly not something I've explicitly stated.

I've yet to actually see you show that you understand Dr. Schore, I've been listening to him and I don't have any problems with what I've heard him say at all, I think he's been co-opted by you in a strange way to be used for your worldview. Can you talk about his work in the same way apokrisis talks about hierarchy theory? I've yet to see it. The way you talk about him and the way I hear Dr. Schore talk about his ideas, incomparable.

Basically, as usual with you Jerseyflight, you have no idea how little you know about my position. I think hearing that I disagree with you is sufficient to begin a creative narration, which as usual, comprises the bulk of your argumentation. You didn't understand my issue with you, I explained it fairly clearly and I am pretty convinced that Dr . Schore is not the reason you think this way, rather, you like him because you feel he is saying what you always thought. If you were even remotely similar to how he explains his own ideas, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The notion that what humans find attractive is largely biologically determined is from the dark ages? Your characterisations, every one of them really, come from your ego and bias, it is silly. You accused Carlos of fatalism and then stopped replying to him. It seems what I said went over your head, even if Dr. Schore's work was correct and you were correct in understanding and applying his work to your positions, it wouldn't undermine anything I've said in the slightest. I do not wish to continue this discussion though, I can only show you what you are doing and if you wish to continue, that is not something anyone can disrupt.

I believe in the power of thought too, but not to do the impossible, rather, to control the narrative through arranging truth. To render truth an irrelevance through control over the narrative is a simple thing done by everyone.

Whether you like it or not how your brain functions is a matter of your maturation environment, most specifically the development of your attachment system — JerseyFlight

What you mean by "functions" here is selective, because indeed, what is included in this "function" you describe? You are excluding a lot, emphasising some portion of the brain's activities.

You were allowing Carlos' own insecurity to dictate the objective nature of the situation — JerseyFlight

The burden of proof for characterisations like this, minuscule, but do not think that this applies only for you. To characterise you in unflattering ways is always a possibility for me, to do it to the extent that your ideas don't even have to be contended with, well, I'm sure you've seen that before, you can't be blind to this, can be done by a child.

If you want a better society you have to produce better humans, and if you want to grow better humans you have to give them a better environment and higher quality nutrients. — JerseyFlight

"Better" this, "better" that. Highly selective, highly characterised, highly narrativized. Your "truth" is personalised, it is a creation of yours, not something which I should accept unless I wish to relinquish all control.

So our societies make us what we are by placing limits on our actions. And if those limits are well adapted, then we will spend our lives expressing the resulting habits of action in ways that bring personal achievement while confirming those same rules of engagement. — apokrisis

I would like to go back to your example of the Roman army, because one might point out the similarities and differences between discipline there and in the modern army. For example, a restriction on behaviour for the purpose of discipline is necessary but the punishment for that in the Roman army might be execution or lashing, while in a modern army, the measures taken are substantially less severe. I think we could all agree that it is preferable to have the later approach though both undeniably function. Tyranny may become an issue where the Roman general has the complete authority to execute a soldier for a minor offence, whereas the authority of the modern general is far more constrained. I think even if the Roman method was superior in some ways, though I'm not claiming it is, we would still prefer to see the methods of the modern army because we place a high-value on human freedom and life.

It seems we have the ability to impose constraints on behaviours which don't merely sabotage the effectiveness of the hierarchy but also on those that result in infringements upon human rights or our ideas about fairness. To what extent is it practical for us to think that we can introduce such restrictions due the concerns we might have about hierarchies? I am really interested in what is unrealistic for us to try to manufacture and what we should be able to do to make society as fair and pleasant as possible. What parts of the hierarchical system can't be touched?

I am not disputing that hierarchies can be tyrannical or don't have elements of tyranny in them. Honestly, I think this is an ideological angle but let's say it isn't, we should approach this problem from the initial question of: does the empirical evidence put the science in a category beyond criticism? Secondly, if yes, then what does that extend to? The inevitability of hierarchies, yes but what about their functions and structure? And third, if no, then are hierarchies bad and/or is there a better alternative?

Sadly, I think the correct answer to the first question is yes, the empirical evidence does put the science in a category beyond criticism. Thus I am interested in the second question, what is not beyond criticism and what can be maximised for things of the nature of human rights.

I am not surprised to see this debate, I would've been shocked to see you also answer yes, I see your views about "human thought" as being mostly an extreme take on the nature vs nurture debate. You are the most nurture-orientated thinker I've ever seen. I pretty much lost interest when I read your debate vs Carlos.

In any case how do you create a world where attraction is no longer an advantage for one and a disadvantage for another? — BitconnectCarlos

Cultivate a stronger cultural emphasis valuing quality of character above that of physical appearance. — JerseyFlight

The evidence for how looks orientated humans are, is far more overwhelming than the proof for the inevitability of hierarchies. The only actual chance you have here, to destroy this particular hierarchy is to impose rules that constitute the absolute greatest degree of tyranny. I think when you reject reality to this extent, posit the power of human thought to change it in any which way, it becomes a moral issue of "well, why don't we?". It is this very moral conundrum which is being rejected.

I think that you would have to trample on those to destroy hierarchies? If that is what free choice creates.

I am far less interested in where you think your plans might take you, I'm more interested to hear your plans. Provided the focus is on hierarchies, I think things will be unclear. I think any sensible proposal to dismantle a hierarchy will require an element of tyranny greater than what was present in the actual hierarchy.

It is always concerning to see empirical observation and science challenged by ideology. I think you are absolutely on the right side of this debate. I wanted to ask you a question. Do you think moderating how the hierarchy functions insofar as how it is enforced, who rises upward, the power granted to each ring and so on, is the best way to avoid negative outcomes? I think that this is where progress has been and can be made and how we stop hierarchies from being too tyrannical.

Acknowledging systemic racism doesn't mean treating the issues of black Americans as an issue with poverty. It means you acknowledge real institutional and social racism, you're simply strawmanning here. Now I expect that out of Banno and streetlightx, their posts consist of virtual signalling and more virtue signalling but do you seriously still not understand what you're arguing against here? How can someone acknowledge systemic racism but also deny there's a racial element to that? It is beyond strawman, it's just complete avoidance to deal with the actual criticism taking place here.

(1) Criminal Justice (Injustice)
No disagreement, we all see black Americans being disproportionately selected for undesirable outcomes and realise that because the problem is the "blackness" of black Americans, there is no sense in trying to prevent race-based solutions here. Sad for Streetlightx, of course, he wants to monopolise this but he can still virtue signal, it never made sense anyway no worries.

(2) Economic Inequality
This is probably the most contentious category, mostly for both political reasons and moral reasons, we are arguing that race-neutral solutions are more pragmatic here. Again, we condemn racial discrimination, that's the centrepiece of our position but outside of that, choosing who to lift out of poverty based on their race is a bad idea. It is a highly controversial, divisive and difficult to sell. It is immoral. If you need then don't think about this as black vs white, just by introducing Hispanic Americans, the situation becomes stupidly complex. How can you advocate for the US government to prioritise black Americans in poverty over Hispanic Americans in poverty solely because black Americans in poverty are black? Isn't that what reparations achieve? Assuming it actually selected only poor black Americans, that might not make sense though.

(3) Private Institutions / Citizens
Businesses and importantly businesses with important socio-economic responsibilities such as banks, real estate, the film industry, news reporting, universities and so on. Landlords, elected officials and so on. Basically acknowledging that power within society can be and is wielded to bring about disproportionately negative outcomes based on race. Again, racial discrimination is not acceptable, the problem is being recognised, is there a point of difference here?

(4) Social Racism
We agree that individuals are more likely to be selected for racism based on their skin colour, for insults specific to their skin colour. Again, the centrepiece of our position is about recognising and being against racial discrimination, you don't like it either, is there a difference? Whether it's stereotyping, insults, prejudice, bias or whatever.

(5) Governmental racism
Public institutions which again, disproportionately select either predominantly black American communities or black American individuals for negative outcomes in contexts besides criminal justice. Again, wow, again! It is racial discrimination, we acknowledge the problems and want to to see this kind of behaviour disincentivised or punished. We can look at the policies which lead to these outcomes and ask what needs to be changed. What's your complaint?

What exactly do you think you're arguing against? Genuinely interested to know. I am honestly worried because you say good things but you defend Banno when he is anti-white, you don't criticise streetlightx when he constructs a narrative about people based on their race. Do you see how logically inconsistent this is? Just give me the ability to do what banno and streetlightx do, I will create rock-solid justifications for real, overt racism against black Americans with no trouble. Yet we're supposed to pretend like what they're doing is justifiable? I really don't understand you because I would expect based on what you've written, not to be on board with this but it seems that in practice, you are.

I have been doing some reading on what you have been talking about but I have not yet familiarised myself and thought about these conceptualisations enough to say too much.

For anyone interested, this has been helpful.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01948/full#h7

I think that Lacan's conceptualizations represent different arrangements of truth. — Number2018

They are themselves arrangements of truth as well as templates for arranging truth. What I would argue is that both the "besides truths" are included in arrangements and are themselves arrangements. I have come to agree with what you said in the thread about the way truth is arranged, I understood arrangements as consciously understood and purposefully crafted but we do contend with arrangements that we do not fully understand and haven't articulated. Their existence can simply be logically deduced from things of the nature of this very topic, though probably never perfectly articulated. Operating like social facts as you described. I hesitated on the distinction between i.e the institution of money (which we can refer to) and the arrangement of truth which must logically exist but cannot necessarily be referred to or sufficiently described but I think this inconvenience must just be accepted.

My post here is not much different than my post about arrangements, exploring that which is created from the truth but is separate from the truth and cannot be contested by the truth alone. We ask not what is true but what truths are relevant, how are they being interpreted, emphasised, characterised and what role do they play in the overall narrative. This process creates something which exerts its own force and what I called the "truth besides the truth".

Yet, I do not understand why you claim: “To reiterate, the truth besides the truth is how we perceive and react to things. When we dismiss the science behind the patterns as the result of a lack of intelligence or education, we dismiss our own humanity and enter into delusion.” — Number2018

If we noticed patterns and commonalities in our narrative structures and created an understanding of how common arrangements of truth produce common responses, this too would become an arrangement. The question shouldn't be to ask "is this arrangement true?" but to ask "is the arrangement useful" or effective? By acknowledging that what causes the pattern to exist likely also exert its influence on us, we can prepare for that and more easily spot it. What we shouldn't do is throw out the pertinence of the pattern on us by shifting blame, it is wishful thinking. We can challenge whether it's illogical or irrational to have these narrative structures to begin with, they may be instrumentally rational in the effects they produce. Alternatively, they may simply be the culmination of other factors which often meet and produce these effects. Either way, it becomes an ego trip to exclude oneself from processes simply because the results they produce are in some way unpalatable.

I think we should aim to be rational but if we aren't aware of what undermines our attempts to be then we have no chance. If one were resistant to having their rationality undermined by advertisements in the aforementioned way then it would be due to their awareness. The only way we can become aware is to accept some responsibility for their effectiveness, to acknowledge how we diverge from our ideal selves.

All this assemblage exists just as incessantly working; each working part enacts others, and at the same time, is enacted by them — Number2018

I am still grappling with Lacan but my preliminary understanding of Lacan's model is that it is very intuitive. He is taking things a step further and exploring how the individual, other, truth and interpretation/product are exporting their influence on each other in discourse. This is a very intuitive next step and Lacan describes these particular differences that he has identified and in psychoanalytical terms and I appreciate the aim here. I don't fully understand what Lacan means by "truth" nor how he characterises the arrow from truth to agent. I believe the agent actively and biasedly arranges truth to understand it. Often purposefully or subconsciously asserting different priorities or characterisations based on changes to the narrative.

In this context, 'the truth besides the truth' is a machinic assemblage, generating various effects, including what we may percept as true or false. Due to the omnipresent operations of capitalistic arrangements, we have probably lost the ability to distinguish between authentic and counterfeit experiences. — Number2018

This is a very real example of what you asserted in the thread about arrangements about how socio-economic institutions restrict and influence our worldviews by affecting or constituting the arrangements of truth being unconsciously drawn upon.

The culture of consumption both affects how we see things while also being itself affected, it's social role is deeply interactive. How do I even begin to explain the way in which we extract and assert meaning? The model is actualising our desires, the potency wouldn't be there without that, however, the desires being actualised are not restricted to the product but include her, herself. Advertisements are often about a happy family, a successful marriage, happiness from the act of purchasing, beautiful houses, beautiful people, happy people, what's really being sold here? Consider also the latest trend of "woke" ads, selling the idea of social justice even though it has nothing to do with the product.

I think that narrativization is inherently paradoxical, meaning, there's always any number of convincing narratives even if they totally contradict each other. Why does the advertisement work, what about it inspires us? Given the information we have, how can we eliminate all the plausible-sounding narratives and reduce it to one? It cannot be, and the narrativisation will always be contentious. Often times it comes down to who has the authority to have the final say? Even to say what you yourself are feeling. There's no burden of proof for characterisation that provides authority, though certain characterisations are certainly empowered by various societal institutions and institutions of thought. Characterisations function perfectly fine without ever being in accordance with reality, they are justified by rulesets which have to be believed in to have validity.

I find it plausible, she is one of the viewers but I also see her as part of the product, The experience of the ad, with the serene music, the camera flipping from angle to angle, the woman at the end while smiling at you saying "because you're worth it". What is all of this careful construction aimed at maximising and why is it effective? Does anyone ever get to have the final say? I see this as being very problematic for ever coming to a satisfying conclusion.

I don't know you and don't pretend to, it's just that you said that activities and behaviours in life are formed around death fears, though I would say something like gardening clearly isn't. Perhaps you are giving certain types of people too much credit? Your characterisation of these "activities" and "behaviours" in life may be lopsided?

Honestly, for me, after accepting the possibility and eventuality of death, I stopped thinking in these terms. I think that when one truly accepts and comes to terms with their mortality then they will stop thinking about death. As opposed to thinking about how death doesn't bother you when it doesn't bother you, you won't be thinking about it anymore.

The reason I advocated processes is that if we are looking at fear as a motivator - for instance, the need to complete things before death. Then it seems pertinent to talk about other motivators, most of which come from being involved in a process. Events, particularly ones you aren't excited about, are not good motivators. You do the activity, it ends, you find the next activity - that is boring and boredom is the motivation here. You only do the next activity because doing nothing is boring. Gardening and art are good but do you feel like you're good at these things, do you want to be better? Do you see yourself in a positive light due to your skill at these things? Because without that, these activities just become something to do, with not great meaning or importance. It can suck to be motivated by just boredom all the time, boredom and necessity. I've been through periods like that and it always made me feel depressed and longing for meaning.

I say "you" a lot but I really just mean "one", a person, and not you specifically.

EDIT: I do want to note, you said that you are young but have been close to death and didn't expect to live a long life. I doubt many posters can relate, I can't relate and honestly, it is quite normal for you to be thinking about it more than the average person. I forgot about that when I was writing this comment, just take it as a message to myself rather than to you, as these are things I have thought to myself in the past as well.

Again, this is an improper use of words. If it is an irrational behavior, then its source is irrationality. An irrational behavior cannot be the result of rational thought. — Philosophim

I was aiming to distinguish between irrational thought (conscious) and motivation for action (subconscious) but I agree this was not the way to do it.

I have been guilty of doing these things myself, and correcting them has helped my own clarity in thought and communication. I say this not as a better, but as an equal. — Philosophim

No problem, I think you have brought up some valid concerns, learning to articulate myself better is a reason why I'm here.

With this in mind, is this post trying to state that our beliefs are often irrational, based on emotions and biases, even when we should know better — Philosophim

That is part of what I said, which I said at the end of my OP.

Imagine that said my OP was really badly written, that's the context for what I say next.

More important than what is true, is the science of interaction between the human perspective and the human reaction. The perspective which can be described as involving some truth, falsehoods, interpretation, feeling, experience and so on. The reaction of having being exposed to one or more of the aforementioned "perspective", usual responses or effects. — Judaka

On the surface, what seems important is whether your claim is true and that the truth is what we should be concerned about. However, you've hurt my feelings and I'm upset with you, not to mention, you're making me look bad in a public setting. I'm not really in a state of mind to be calmly, objectively looking into this with you and if I just admit you're right, it's going to make me look bad. Even if I consider myself to be a rational, logical person, I still have an ego, I still care about such things and I am put into a position with this conscious or unconscious desire to reject what you say. The truth has stopped mattering, the debate now has my honour at stake and so I have to fight to win even if I'm wrong. We might say I'm being epistemologically rational while being instrumentally irrational. I know it's wrong to do this but I do it because I'm a little upset, I want to believe you're wrong and I feel like I can't afford to be proven wrong here or it'll hurt my image.

If I am conscious of this then I am still being rational, if I am unconscious of it then I am being irrational but either way, the truth of the initial claim doesn't matter here. What matters is how I've reacted, a very human reaction. Firstly, I am criticising those who ignore these important aspects to what you've said and claim that I should only be concerned with "the truth" and secondly I am saying that (in my example) it would be great if I could be conscious of my reaction but I still mightn't do anything differently. We should feel comfortable engaging in these psychological motivations whether rational or irrational and not simply pretending that it's simply a matter of i.e being an expert on perfume.

Personally, as opposed to having a "bucket list", I have a kind of compulsion to be better off today than I was yesterday, I start to feel depressed when I feel like nothing is changing. Perhaps instead of searching for events, you could involve yourself in a process. Build something, improve at something, watch something grow. Life shouldn't feel like you're just standing still, even though the road you're on leads to a dead-end, you still need to walk the walk.

When I say "the truth" the quotations are there to suggest that this is not actually the truth as it is claimed. I am distinguishing between a kind of ideal, which is actually selective and biased. I don't actually think the problem here is a lack of rational thinking. We must contend with the forces which compel us, as opposed to limiting ourselves to lamenting irrational behaviour. The source of this irrational behaviour is not irrationality but actually the deep and complicated mechanisms of thought which lead us to buy the perfume simply because an attractive woman endorsed it and is associated with it.

The beautiful woman does in fact give the prestige and image which the individual buys and they may be satisfied with their purchase. "The truth" then becomes an interpretation of what should matter to the consumer, i.e the quality of the product. We should not reduce problems to a "lack" so easily, rather, be honest in explaining why the perfume is bought and explain it in such a way that allows us to involve ourselves as participants in this process. Because I really do not know who among our best and brightest these kinds of justifications do not exist.

Another fascinating post number2018, I've still been thinking your contributions in the thread about arrangements. I think this is very relevant to my OP and I'm very interested, I need some time to do some research and thinking about this before I can respond.

If they never actually stipulated what white privilege is then how can anyone agree or disagree with it? — Harry Hindu

It was stipulated precisely what "white privilege is" conceptually, which is what is being agreed with. Just as if we agreed there is an intelligence privilege or attractiveness privilege, we can agree that there are benefits to being intelligent or attractive without agreeing on whether it's slightly beneficial or extremely beneficial, without agreeing on where it is beneficial or how. You can agree that it's beneficial to be intelligent in our society without me listing all of the contexts where I think being intelligent is beneficial.

This is just more examples of how yours and creativesoul's political arguments are like those made by the fundamentally religious. — Harry Hindu

It's more examples of how pathetic your refutations are, it's embarrassing to listen to you because you criticise the very behaviour you exhibit. That you paint yourself in a positive light despite this, only shows further your bias and dishonesty.

If the statistics I showed supports what creativesoul said - that blacks can be racist and act on improperly ill-conceived notions, then why didn't creativesoul acknowledge that? — Harry Hindu

As far as I can tell, he doesn't appear to be giving you the time of day, that appears to be the reason why he's not acknowledging what you're saying as opposed to intellectual dishonesty.

If they feel like non whites are attacking them personally because of the fact that they are white, it is very hard to convince them that those non whites are not racist, regardless of whether or not they actually are.

Such frameworks using white privilege do not promote the kind of cohesion that's necessary for ending racism. It does little to create solidarity between people of different races to stand up and fight for one another. In fact, it can have quite the opposite affect/effect. It can lessen the desire to stand up for and fight alongside those who suffer from racism, because it ends up feeling like those people are fighting against the white individual because they are white. — creativesoul

And, I haven't provided only stats. I provided thought-experiments and asked questions about it, none of which were addressed. — Harry Hindu

Yes, they were all silly and haven't I already addressed them?

It's about how the idea of systemic racism is exaggerated for racist purposes and how the idea can snowball and cause black men to be resistant to cops that aren't being racist, which can then result in them being shot and the non-racist cop is accused of being racist. — Harry Hindu

That's certainly a serious problem, most of this discussion has been about such concerns. I was opposed to the term white privilege for similar reasons but the appropriation of the term by ill-intentioned goons is the problem, as opposed to the idea that white privilege exists. We can criticise interpretations, descriptions, appropriations, reactions and so on to the term without trying to deny systemic racism exists.

What are you saying, that nothing has changed since the civil rights era? — Harry Hindu

That's one hell of a paraphrase but no, you're a very honest and upstanding debater.

It severely limits the power of your argument that white privilege is still a problem when they vote for the same people that are part of the problem. It makes it obvious that you aren't interested in justice, rather you are interested in pushing an agenda. — Harry Hindu

Just wow. This is you? That you even tie the two together demonstrates how much of an ideologue you are. "They"? Black Americans? Haha. What changes if they vote "correctly"? American democracy can barely even be called as such, what does it matter who "they" vote for?

What about the high rate of broken families and absent fathers in the black community? — Harry Hindu

Yes, a great part of this is due to drug-related problems which weren't around back then. The war on drugs is definitely not a good place to start to refute systemic racism.

Honestly, you seem to have deluded yourself into thinking that you know me well, I've met plenty like you, give yourself a free pass because you're biased. Happy to judge but the first to complain about being judged, right? Creativesoul treats you differently because of whatever but, you would never treat me differently due to your own biases right? Of course not! Haha.

There isn't this great burden, this urgency to accomplish, you are ready to accept the end and thus can focusing on just living. Death is a clean slate, wipes clean all success and failure, all joy and misery, to nothingness. Meaning is meaningless but you have one life to live, so live well but live free.

What is your definition of nihilism?

Is what you've been doing in this thread critical thinking? Black-on-black crime, black American distrust of police, examples of rich black Americans subverting expectations, these were all true well back into the civil rights era. They're just nonsense things to be bringing up to disprove systemic racism.

What I find interesting about creativesoul's definition of white privilege is that he never actually stipulates what white privilege is insofar as actual statistics or concerns. Which means that you can agree with him regardless of whether you think white privilege is a tiny, insignificant benefit or something of dramatic importance.

He also doesn't stipulate that someone who benefits from white privilege is never going to run into problems as a result of their whiteness. He actually specifically mentions how white privilege can be used to be anti-white and he condemns that - he is not denying racism towards whiteness exists.

Quite frankly, you have only ever introduced statistics which support your argument. Where have you given a balanced account of this topic? Isn't this simply hypocrisy?

In a field like science or maths, this kind of mentality makes sense. There is a right/wrong answer, show me your argument and let's evaluate it together using agreed-upon rules. In philosophy, things get bogged down in simplicity because participation in the deeper discussion means agreeing on more basic premises. If I do not agree with your premise, my only contribution to your question/topic is to explain why I disagree with that premise and hence the basic disagreement i.e is God real (for religion) comes up again and again endlessly. It doesn't matter if you post a great question about God or a silly one. The same really applies to all topics, the deeper you go, the more likely it is for the topic to be derailed into a premise. Which means that the actual question never gets answered, the premise of the question becomes the debate. This is a form of regression that always occurs.

The problem is that sometimes there are deeply flawed premises which have to be questioned, many questions don't deserve to be taken seriously because of these flaws. If you try to take them seriously regardless, the whole conversation is pointless because you're both simply wrong.

So it's not as simple as preventing a behaviour, it is often necessary and the nuance on whether it should be done or not, too complex to be put in as a kind of rule.

If you want to avoid regression, you need to find like-minded posters who are likely to accept your basic presuppositions. Many posters simply look for these regressions, usually because they are ideologically informed or ideologically opposed. So if you want to avoid them, learn their names and do so.

However, even the really good posters, you will have a great time agreeing with but will you ever actually add to their knowledge or change their opinions on something? It is exceedingly rare to see that happen (and be noted). I won't speculate as to why that is, all I can say is that if you come to forums like this hoping for that kind of thing, I would advise you that you're wasting your time.

I believe I just mixed up my terms, I think you are simply correct here and my use is inappropriate.

I stipulated that I was talking about socialism within democratic capitalism, I thought you knew that given you were talking about UBI and welfare. It is funny though, socialism is such a stupid word to have two such separate meanings that are both talked about in similar contexts. I would never say such kind words about socialism as an alternative to capitalism.

People don't really beat each other in arguments here, most of the time I suspect each side walks away thinking they put forth the better argument or that the other engaged in some kind of fraudulence. It is exceedingly rare to ever see someone say "no, you are right, good points", almost never. Therefore, there is some level of delusion if someone comes to a forum such as this, trying to show their cleverness or great ideas, they will generally only walk away with the same self-assurance they came with regardless of how good or bad their ideas were.

Nearly every philosophical idea is going to be contentious in some way, if you post anything about religion, for example, anything at all, it will probably end up being a debate between atheists and believers. There is no way to avoid this kind of thing as far as I can tell.

Maybe just remember that you don't have to respond to every post in a thread, you learn which posters you like to read and which aren't worth responding to. At least a few people will certainly say helpful things which are on topic, evaluate the value of the thread based on number of good contributors rather than how many pointless side debates are happening. Philosophy is all about yourself, even if it seems like a group activity in a forum such as this. Try to be your own biggest critic and let the forum be a way to make thinking more interesting and fun, as opposed to expecting to build your knowledge up with other posters. That's my advice on this matter.

I wouldn't have called capitalism my "target" because I have no interest in dismantling capitalism and I am not supporting communism or marxism. It's just a matter of recognising that the government needs to be a counterforce to the natural tendencies of capitalism if you want to avoid hell on Earth. Socialism is just one kind of counterforce, alongside worker protections, protecting the rights of businesses, intellectual property and etc.

I think whether nature can "coerce" is actually an interesting debate but it doesn't really matter too much. It is pointless to point out that you are being forced to drink water to survive but if you refuse to do it, you will be met with violence, just violence of a different kind. People are definitely coerced by capitalism, which doesn't require popular support to survive because if you don't play by the rules then you just starve right? Someone born into a city without a plot of land doesn't even have the option to "live off the land". That's not part of the argument I made, consider it a tangent, I am not opposed to capitalism because it coerces you. I am just saying that if your position is "I hate people interfering with my business", don't neglect how non-government forces are definitely going to interfere with your life and the government is actually the only thing stopping it from being a disaster in many cases.

Justice, fairness, human rights, freedom - that's how I think of socialism. I certainly look for that within capitalism and I view attempts to dismantle capitalism as reckless and unrealistic. Maybe in the future things will be different, new technology and circumstances but not right now.

There's a fine line between personal responsibility and recognising systemic issues. If you spend outside of your means, you don't save money, you don't try to maximise your income and so on - there are consequences for that. People shouldn't try to totally blame capitalism because even with socialism, you are still going to experience financial troubles if you are financially irresponsible. I think it's even okay to have an inherently contradictory position here. To argue for both personal responsibility and systemic change, to say it's both your fault as well as not your fault. That's just kind of how nuance works right? I think we agree on this?

I think with the issue of the name out of the way, your argument is a matter-of-fact stating of reality which must be included in any sensible understanding of systemic racism. That is what I have agreed to and what I felt was mostly what you were saying on page 7. Most of my criticisms that I've argued for are to do with the various dangers of certain interpretations or appropriations of the concept. However, the concept itself, though I was arguing against it before, I accept. I see now that my frustrations were placed on the wrong premise, which you noticed and showed me.

I don't know if others that I would disagree with, would define white privilege differently than you, Banno did agree with your posts with no amendments after all. The issue was with how I was conflating white privilege with the various ways in which the white privilege concept can be interpreted and applied.

In modern society, one of the jobs of the government is to stop people from stamping all over your ability to live freely. I'm not going to tell you all that you already know, you are able to imagine how other individuals, businesses, groups or whathaveyou can infringe upon your rights in such a way that you mightn't have the resources to do anything about by yourself. Assuming you can agree with that, the question becomes whether poverty and protection from poverty don't fall under a similar category.

Socialism (within democracy/capitalism) are outcome-based protections of many liberties. To contextualise the need for protection in the first place, I have to refer to the non-government forces within our society that are simply bigger than the average citizen by such a magnitude that they really don't have any choices to be making in the first place. The biggest of which is capitalism itself, which certainly coerces you into working, decides your worth and whether you're even valuable enough to be
getting paid in the first place.

Poverty itself deprives the individual of freedom, one's options are limited down to a point where they don't have options. Maybe that wouldn't be the case for you, for whatever reason, but surely you can see it being that way for others.

The other side of things is that as just an individual, without the government, your options don't make any difference on the level of how capitalism functions. You are totally helpless to anything to challenge the system by yourself. If the system itself is unjust, your only option is to just live with it. There are strong arguments that can be made for how that is already the case today but actually the government isn't doing much about it and we can clearly see that you have absolutely no way to do anything about it by yourself - as with the rest of us. Thus your only recourse is to use something like the government if you wish to challenge that system.

In other words, you are certainly going to be coerced either way. Capitalism doesn't coerce you by forcing you to do something, it coerces you by restricting you to such few options that to say you aren't be coerced into choosing one of them seems like semantics. In a sense, freedom is afforded to you based on your success within capitalism, socialism is about recognising a universal human right to such freedoms. Do you not see yourself as being stuck within two bad situations?

What definition would you give for nihilism?

Never mind, I agree that your definition of white privilege is necessary, as a premise for understanding systemic racism and for measuring it. What I am against is not your definition of white privilege but the way in which people use your definition, some of those ways you specifically condemned and you talked about using it in none of the ways I have criticised. I am very biased against the term white privilege, I used my bias to critique you, rather than the actual argument you laid forth. I am wavering on whether the word "privilege" has the implications that I have argued, your use is fair use. You don't seem to be addressing the "whiteness" of people as I claimed but the "whiteness" being discriminated against by systemic racism. Something which can be condemned as a component of systemic racism by anyone.

There is no point in me trying to search for disagreement, I agree with the basic argument as laid out on page 7.

This thread is about privilege. It has evolved to be about a specific kind, aka white privilege. Given that my focus has been exclusively upon the exemption and/or immunity from being injured as a result of being non white that all white Americans share, regardless of individual particular circumstances, skin color is quite relevant. — creativesoul

I know you're done talking to me but I have been considering the differences between your definition of white privilege and others and realised I may have really underestimated how different the two are. I am actually prepared to say that there is a white privilege by your definition. Where if I am a teacher in a class and gave homework to half my students but excluded the rest from having to do homework as some sort of special privilege, I think that's correct. I am going to backtrack quite a bit on what I saying to you, I think almost all of my criticism towards you is invalid, I think I really misunderstood your position here, sorry.

EDIT: I am not supporting that your version of white privilege is actually helpful. I am just saying that it's fair use. Not really trying to rebegin a debate but just to say that I think a lot of my criticism of your idea was invalid.

What about being white makes the moral responsibility to challenge systemic racism greater than having a different skin colour? Why is the onus on being white here at all? If you're going to say that it's because of power, wealth, political influence, social influence and so on, why not actually put an onus on the actual possession of the things which lead to your actions having greater consequences and therefore there being a greater imperative for you to do something?

Secondly, being the beneficiary here doesn't usually actually give you the ability to do something about it precisely because most of the time, you aren't actually even a beneficiary but rather just someone who is not targeted for disadvantages. Most of the time you aren't going to even be aware of it, even if you're aware of the reality. How can you tell if you got a job easier due to your skin colour? Specifically, you, as opposed to just "people generally of your race"? When is it ever the right time to stand up and say "no, you are just giving me a free pass here because I'm white" or "you wouldn't be so generous if I wasn't white"? Overt racism already gets obliterated, you can lose everything if you're caught.

What single instance can you point out that for a white person who has (not may) have been benefited by systemic racism or a lack of racism towards them where they should have stood up and done something but didn't? Perpetrator, victim, bystander, does it really change based on whether you are a beneficiary or not?

Even the differences of police treatment of races is an unbelievably difficult topic, few instances by themselves can be proved to be racist. We look at George Floyd case and the main reason that people say it's a part of systemic racism is because of the statistics. Elijah McClain, it's the same problem, you look at the individual incident and even though it's obviously ridiculously bad police work, did racism play a factor? It's part of a bigger picture but the individual case alone doesn't prove that. Even the most egregious examples of systemic racism within recent history, just by the facts alone, you would struggle to be certain of racism.

What we're already seeing from people who use the term "white privilege" is the results of it being obviously near-impossible to actually look at someone's actions and know with absolute certainty (they will deny it) that racial motivation was at play. Which means that in order to challenge systemic racism in your day-to-day you have to assume racism took place even though you are severely lacking in any hard evidence. It is so easy to be called racist in today's society because of that problem.

A rich white kid may acknowledge white privilege but that doesn't actually mean that he benefited from white privilege - you haven't proved that and you don't know that. We are just making yet more assumptions based on statistics. I think you are severely overestimating the framings usefulness, the concept will just create a generation of lost and confused individuals who know systemic racism exists but are woefully unprepared and uneducated on what to do about it.

What matters is that they are a body (with a skin colour) which is treated with respect, given a place on a society, etc., so it's not a simple matter of ignoring race.

It's not good enough to say, "Race never matters, ignore it and just think about other things". If there are people of a certain skin colour who are treated badly in a society, it is an act upon them, upon their body, with its skin colour.

The equitable society cannot just ignore bodies different skin colour, as if it didn't matter where they occurred or they were treated. They have to understand a body of any skin colour is to be respected, understood to belong, treated justly, etc.

It must actively understand each individual, with their skin colour, is valued and belongs. It is not colorblind. It gets up and pronounces each person belongs in their own skin: a society in which White, Black, Asian, etc., such that it matters how each of those bodies is treated by society. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It is really quite amazing, how few people on this thread have actually even attempted to deal with the problems that I've brought up. You don't want to discuss the effectiveness of the framing, the ethics of it, the fairness of it. That's fine, puts you in the majority.

All I can say to your response is that you aren't really dealing with the logic of racism, you seem to just want a certain outcome because of its beauty but there are significant disagreements here. First, let me clarify that my goal is not to say "race never matters" but ask "to what degree do we want race to matter?" and to create some clear rules. For me, this means never characterising or describing problems in terms of race unless absolutely necessary, avoid characterising issues in racial terms unless absolutely necessary and never inform yourself about an individual based on their race.

With systemic racism, we agree, that's an area where it is absolutely necessary to talk in racial terms but where that line is drawn from it being necessary to unhelpful is something of a disagreement. "White privilege" crosses a line, it creates divisions rather than merely describes them, it leads to race-based thinking rather than merely describing the race-based thinking of others and it emphasises the importance of race in areas where it isn't appropriate.

When you argue that economic redistribution should aim to achieve racial equity in terms of outcome, you are talking about the state recognising your right to economic privileges based on your race. At this point, It is clear that you are not logically opposed to systemic racism by how it discriminates on race. What you are opposed to is the oppression of a race of people by the state. The way to help make amends for that is to help that race to catch up by giving them economic privileges.

As far as I am concerned, you are not arguing against systemic racism being wrong for the same reasons as me. You are not saying it's ridiculous to discriminate on race in any, least of all, the most important areas such as who occupies positions of power, which "races" have access to wealth and so on. I don't consider such a thinker to be at all aligned with myself at all.

Then consider the matter of reparations, here one is arguing that by virtue of your race, you have a separate history from other Americans, you can be evaluated differently by your race and the correct identification for yourself is your race. Again, the concern here is how this race has been treated horrifically in the past and you want to make it up to (the race of people) who were subjected to past injustices. When one thinks this way, they emphasise the importance of race as something which defines the individual. What they are against isn't race-based discrimination, they are against discrimination which leads to outcomes of oppression and hatred.

This is all relevant for the term "white privilege" because perhaps you were never opposed to giving people important identities based on race which are fine to use to treat people differently in the first place - even if it leads to unpleasant consequences for people. I am free to treat you differently based on your race, you are only opposed to certain outcomes of my treatment. Therefore instances of "black pride" or something are good because feeling pride in yourself is good while "white supremacy" is wrong because feeling superior and devaluing others is wrong.

I am not saying that your position is incoherent but it isn't really anything similar to what I want, which is to devalue the importance of race across the board in any context that it can be done. The solution to "white privilege" for me is to change the policies and institutions which are responsible for perpetuating undesirable outcomes based on race. I am not interested in dismantling a majority of the "white privileges" because I am not interested in assessing outcomes based on race. I am only interested in dismantling the systems which discriminate based on race and unfairly impose, oppress and otherwise negatively impact people based on their race.

I did make a few assumptions here but it would take more than for you to merely deny them for me to rescind them. If I am wrong then please explain how.

You're like a communist who talks about the issues of capitalism to criticise critics of your ideology. The flaws of society don't justify the flaws in your ideology. You keep prattling on about how bad things are like it's a coherent justification for your approach and when that doesn't work, you just get upset and start acting tough. Your approach is the same on everything of yours I read and considering you have 6k posts, that's an awful lot of the same thing. I get a kick out of reading it though, please continue.

So one can be white, be conscious of systemic racism, and be in opposition to it? If that is true, whither "white privilege?" If I denounce any claim to it and actively work against it, how is it properly applied to me? — Pro Hominem

I mostly agree with your points in this thread but I don't think you can challenge the idea of white privilege on this front. It is like saying that if you disagree there should be an "attractiveness privilege" but you are extremely attractive, nobody should argue that you have an attractiveness privilege. Of course, it doesn't work like that, the fact remains that you receive the various social benefits (among other kinds) of being attractive - whether you think it's immoral that you do or not.

By the way pro hominem, what is your answer to this?

I am interested, do you account for historical explanations? For example, if we eradicated all forms of systemic racism in the US (magically, instantly) but black Americans are still disproportionately poor (not changed), would that be a problem for you? — Judaka

Making assumptions based on race; depends a lot of how it's done, no? Is it in intellectual act of critique which highlights socio-economic-legal disparities ("privileges")? In this context assumptions based on race are neutral on the metaphysics of race *; it doesn't have to matter what race is for the purposes of showing what it does. You don't hold any opinions of any individual, you hold opinions of a population based on disparities that the population has been shown to face.

That is much different, I hope is clear, from holding a negative opinion or treating someone badly in a manner rooted in their race. — fdrake

Yes, I know others have called white privilege a racist term but I don't believe that is fair. The name aside, you are merely describing reality to the best of your ability and I agree that that way includes talking about race. As I said, using the white privilege framing doesn't make you a "racial discriminator" (are we not using the word racist here?).

socio-economic-legal disparities — fdrake

Excellent, thanks.

By systemic discrimination I understand a socio-economic mechanism that increases the chances of negative outcomes for members of a group * based upon their membership of that group. — fdrake

I wasn't expecting this response but since you gave it, I am interested, do you account for historical explanations? For example, if we eradicated all forms of systemic racism in the US (magically, instantly) but black Americans are still disproportionately poor (not changed), would that be a problem for you?

A discriminatory prejudice is a negative judgement of a person that results in holding an unsubstantiated negative opinion of their character, capacities, and possible behaviours causally derived from an agent's recognition of their membership in a group. A racial prejudice is a discriminatory prejudice where the group assignment mechanism is race — fdrake

I mostly agree. Another topic I'm interested in is examining the consequences of being attractive versus being unattractive in the modern era. I think that just as someone who thinks about this topic a lot, the chances of me prejudicing against someone based on their looks simply skyrockets. Of course, I am not aiming to do that but when someone is not thinking about looks in this analytical way and to the degree that I have, they are just simply less likely to prejudice on it. Though I am not saying nobody should talk about race or attractiveness and challenge what kind of impact it has on society.

I think besides just talking about it a lot, it's how you talk about it and for me, systemic racism should focus on the act of discrimination as opposed to differences between the races. It's kind of unavoidable to talk about the attractiveness of the person because that's the subject but here, we are not aiming to talk about blackness or whiteness, we are aiming to talk about racism. I am against talking about racism in terms like "white privilege" because the focus is not on the cause, it's on a race. The consequences of talking about race and focusing on race are increased chances of being racist, increased likelihood of race becoming interpretatively relevant (used to understand) for people. That's what I believe at least.

I'm not going to call merely describing reality while identifying people by their races is racist, I do that and have done it many times this thread. — Judaka

I'm not against calling people black and white, I've done that throughout this thread.

What utter nonsense!

Racial discrimination is all about the color of one's skin. You cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing upon it. You cannot focus upon it without focusing upon skin color. — creativesoul

Racial discrimination is all about discrimination, skin colour is just the thing being discriminated against. You asked me for my experience with it, I don't have a personal story but I have Chinese friends who I've seen deal with it. Yes, I'm aware my friend is Chinese but that's not the problem, the issue is the person who is saying racist remarks to my friend. My friend could be Chinese, Filipino, Mexican, Russian - it doesn't matter. I don't actually see why it matters at all that my friend is Chinese and not some other ethnicity. I don't understand how this is even about him, he didn't do anything except meet the wrong people.

I really just don't understand why you're saying this.

You're in quite the mood today.