[quote-Fukuyama]The left continued to be defined by its passion for equality—by isothymia—but its agenda shifted from the earlier emphasis on the working class to the demands of an ever-widening circle of marginalized minorities.[/quote]

Tired of talking about narcissism? Here are 3 new Greek terms to wear out: Thymos, megalothymia, and Isothymia.

Megalothymia and isothymia are the two elements of thymos.

Thymos is a philosophical concept introduced by Plato as one of the three motivations of man, the first two being needs and desires. Thymos is the emotional need for every human to be recognized by others as human, and deserving of respect. Megalothymia specifically is the need to be recognized as superior to others, while isothymia is the need to be recognized as merely equal to others.

The nice thing about this pair of terms is that there is a built in ambiguity that will lead to lots of disputes as to whether transgendered people, for instance, are asking to be merely equal to others or not. Maybe they are claiming to be more special than everybody else. If I assert the isothymia of white people, is that believable? Everybody knows that white people think they are superior. If you are against open borders you must be a white supremacist. (The Guardian carried a piece the other day in which the author equated the Republican Party with white supremacy.) Thymos = isothymia = megalothymia.

You are absolutely right -- it's not very funny. The band "Yes" is an empty file. My cultural deficiencies strike again.

Who is the man?

I have no doubt that the GOP is suppressing votes, but we should remember that manipulating the vote (vote early and vote often) is something that Democratic and Republican political machines are both guilty of. Different methods have been applied at various times, and different groups have been targeted.

Be that as it may, vote suppression is not tolerable in a society that considers its political establishment legitimate.

The GOP seems bent on achieving long-term or permanent dominance. This is extremely worrisome. No political party can be trusted that far, that much. The consequence would ultimately be the disenfranchisement and marginalization of not only liberals of any stripe, but the poor, racial minorities who do not vote Republican, and various other groups (like gays).

It is true that I am fine with offending some people. It is also true that I do not use colored, negro, and other dated terms. I use either the adjective black or African American and have for a long time.

My usage is quite correct, but I do not think we must be bound by either a fear of offending people (so, some people are just plain fat) or an excessive concern with using the most up to date term. If I hear someone reference "colored", I don't feel obligated to correct them.

I don't find the case for transsexuals or transgendered people compelling either -- but I will consistently use the preferred name and pronoun if I interact with a trans person often enough to know what they prefer.

"Leadership" isn't inimical to the concept of anarchy; it's the " hierarch", the sacred ruler; the "arkhos" or king, ruler that is the problem. Eliminating the institutionalization of rule, government, that is the goal. An anarchic society would still require leadership, organizations, and institutions (but not ones that rule).

Catalonia anarchism was the longest and that was, what, three years? — MindForged

Yes, but it wasn't as if Catalonia was being left to pursue its own destiny without outside interference. Catalonia didn't shoot itself, it was murdered.

Ursula LeGuin wrote a short story (I read it in the collection "The Wind's Twelve Quarters") about Odo, a political philosopher who inspired people to build an anarchist society. The society is further explicated in her science fiction novel, The Dispossessed. There is, of course, a science fiction story along with the political philosophy. It's quite good.

There is nothing about anarchism that makes it impossible, any more than there is nothing about socialism or capitalism that prevents it from being a perfectly marvelous way of life. What gets in the way of politics, economy, and religion is the reliable nature of human beings. We just find it very difficult to suppress our individual urges, anxieties, hatreds, and selfishness so that we can get on with life in a maximally peaceful and productive way. We do OK for a while, but then individually and collectively people go haywire and everything falls apart.

Yes, I understand the term is dated. "Dating" is part of the normal 'churn' in language as people apply different adjectives to familiar nouns. I don't find the "association with a bleak past" very compelling not because there was no bleak past, but because there are myriad reminders of the bleak past, everywhere. When a people claim a new term for themselves (such as 'gay' instead of 'homosexual') they want to retire the old term. Malcolm X is an example: He original name was Malcolm Little.

If people can get away with it, names change. Philip Morris is now called Altria, but they are still in the same old tobacco business. Younger people probably wouldn't have heard of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, but they have heard of 3M. Scotch tape is a 3M brand, even though people shamelessly misuse the term for non-3M sticky products. Best Buy used to be Sound of Music (they didn't sell refrigerators back then). Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo is more memorable as Sony. You'd probably rather have a Nintendo than a Marufuku, its original name.

Emotions are the instruments on which our lives are played. Without emotions our lives would just be a series of flat synthesized tones. With emotion our lives are an orchestra.

Emotions evolved before intellect in animals. Emotional responses (such as fear) protected animals. When an animal perceived danger, its emotions galvanized action without the necessity of complicated analysis. For instance, the sight of a large bird overhead signals to ground animals instant action. The fear response triggers instant action or maybe no action: a movement freeze can be quite protective.

Memory is closely allied with emotions and sensory input. Remembering danger speeds up the survival reaction even more.

Many animals developed intellect to enhance emotional responses. They got better at detecting small details indicating whether danger was imminent or not. So prey animals (like wildebeests) can tell the difference between a full-belly lion (no danger) and an empty-belly lion (watch out!).

All this developed before photo-primate creatures appeared.

The primate evolutionary line incorporated the beneficial aspects of emotions and over time sharpened up the cognitive function. In primates, as much as other animals, emotions are the primary springboard of behavior, triggering protective behaviors, mating behaviors, bonding behaviors, and so forth.

Humans retain the evolutionary equipment of other primates and the preceding evolutionary inheritance. There are complex linkages between emotion, memory, sensory centers, and the pre-frontal cortex where thinking goes on.

It should be noted that in this discussion presumably white people are debating what people who are not white should be called. Some non-whites think white people should take direction from them, not the other way around.

Negroes, niggers, colored, people of color, blacks, African American, and so on are terms which a demographic found being applied to them. Sometimes a particular term were preferred, sometimes not. We white folks might decide that from now on we are going to use the term "aboriginal" to apply to the original inhabitants of the western hemisphere -- whether the native Americans, American Indians, red skins, and Indians like it or not. Are people asians, orientals, yellow, asiatic, or something else?

What about that Sunday school song, Jesus Loves the Little Children? "...red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight"? "Yellow" has negative associations, after all, when referencing people. Loving little children might reference pedophilia. BANNED!

'Colored' and 'Indian' may be dated, may not be the preferred term of the people about whom one is speaking, but neither term is in the category of scandal that using 'nigger', 'red skin', gook, or honky is.

The 1970 population of 200 million was a nice round population, as opposed to the bloated 300 million today. The question really isn't "How large a population should we have" but rather "How can we get rid of the surplus?"

Getting rid of the surplus is a topic which should not be pursued in public (lest the plans leak out and people start rioting). Instead, let's talk about the problem of "too many people":

Americans use a lot more energy than other people do. In a time of perilous global warming, it is essential we sharply and permanently reduce our carbon output. Even with all sorts of green energy, we still consume too much energy and produce too much waste. So, from now on, Negative Population Growth. That means the following:

Illegal immigrants and non-citizens will be expelled in the direction of whence they came. Since the average Honduran uses less energy than the average American (even a green American), the earth will be better off with all Hondurans living in Honduras. Getting rid of illegals reduces the population from about 320 million to at least 300 million in one fell swoop. (Of course we can send them back whence they came from. It will merely be a complicated logistical problem and people will be quite annoyed about it, but... tough.) Next, NPG: Negative population growth. Breeding pairs can be discouraged from doing what comes naturally,. (Well, they can do it, but take a pill, get those vas deferens snipped, tubes tied, what ever it takes...) We need to get the birth rate down to a population shrinking level.

Men and women should be encouraged (taxation, financial incentives, political reeducation camps in North Dakota, Mississippi, and West Virginia...) to have their single child while they are young and healthy.

Eventually the population will get back to around 200,000,000.

Homosexuality will be incentivized.

People will be encouraged to move to states with unpleasant weather which discourages exuberant sexuality. Florida without AC, Minnesota without heat, that sort of thing. There are also many cities which are so depressing people do not reproduce there. Gary, Indiana, Akron, Ohio, Bakersfield, CA, Las Vegas without gambling or water, etc. Living in depressing towns will be incentivized.

"Other methods" may have to be employed... Never mind what. You'll find out if you are not careful!

We don't know what happens when our body dies — leo

Oh, sure we do. It quickly becomes a site of ghastly decomposition. The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out -- literally.

Life after death is just like death before life. Do you remember what you were doing those billions of years before you were born? No. Because you didn't exist in that time. You don't exist; you exist; you don't exist. That's the whole opera in 3 acts.

I got better at staying in that poetic state of mind. — macrosoft

What in god's name is a "poetic" state of mind?

It is poetically denser than ordinary life. — macrosoft

I think Marshall McLuhan had something to say about that.

You didn't address the question of whether and why something he wrote was ensured (if it was censored).

What are your views on death, and why? — outlier

"I follow the Church Without Christ where the lame don't walk, the blind don't see, and the dead stay dead." (From Wise Blood by Flannery O'Connor)

Can this be the end of the God debate? — BrianW

So how's that coming along? I predict the end of the God debate is not just around the corner.

sharpest tool — Jake

He's such a tool.

rather than advance a more noble goal like human flourishing — praxis

I just don't think most presidents, congresses, governors, legislators, or mayors and city councils have been all that interested in the noble goal of human flourishing. OK, every now and then they might be seized by a fit of nobility, but after that wears off it's back to business as usual.

Most politicians are, by necessity, focused on their careers and the best interests of their political parties (venality, in other words). We expect accomplished politicians to resemble the Prince of Darkness; we just don't want them doing business out in the open where they upset women and children or frighten the horses.

a billion dollars he inherited from his father also gave him an unusual advantage — praxis

It seems to me that the democrats had plenty of money to conduct the 2016 campaign. The spending was $1.4 billion by Democrats (Clinton) to the Republican's $957.6 million (Trump).

Another $4 billion was spent on congressional races in 2016. The Republicans have had an intelligent long-range plan to capture state houses and governorships in order to better control redistricting, which is where a party can guarantee safe districts for decades into the future.

Now a call to chastity is an awful cross to carry. But we all have crosses some heavier than others — Rank Amateur

Just so that everyone is clear about this, chastity is a cross I have never considered bearing.

Have either of you heard of Dignity, (the gay Catholic organization)?

The organization was started in 1969 to advocate for gay Catholics within the church. One of their principle activities was the organization of masses for gay Catholics, held at places like Newman Centers (Catholic student centers at state college campuses). There was no shortage of gay priests to celebrate. They earnestly and patiently advocated for decades. In 1986 the church started expelling Dignity from Catholic facilities in the United States (and elsewhere). The ban on gay catholic organizations using church facilities has not been rescinded as of 2018. So much for progress.

The Anglican and Lutheran churches have been far more forthright in accepting gay people. Lutheran ministers can, for instance, perform gay marriages using the standard liturgy (with a slight language change).

Not all protestants have done so well. The United Methodist Church (my church tradition) is deeply split over the issue. I'm not quite sure where Baptists stand (haven't checked).

So what happened to Gay Catholics? Well, they either left the church or they found friendly parishes and became active members without denying their sexual orientation. Most parishes are happy to have active members, whoever/whatever they are. This kind of integration into parishes does not fundamentally change the church, however. Gay people have always been part of the church -- priests, nuns, monks, and members. (How do you think so many priests died of AIDS?)

Yes. Good analysis.

As Lenin said, "Who votes is totally unimportant. What matters is who counts the votes."

Morality seems seriously undermined if people can just override a moral claim by an action. — Andrew4Handel

Indeed, and this happens fairly often. When people override moral claims we call it "antisocial", "wicked", "illegal", "criminal" or some such term.

For example it seems pointless to call The Holocaust wrong after it has already happened and millions of people have died and are apparently beyond the scope of justice. It seems a belated moral judgement. — Andrew4Handel

If one is not going to raise objections or interfere before or during a horrific crime, then it is at least not very useful to declare the criminal act immoral. As it happens, crimes like the Holocaust had occurred before 1938. There was the Turkish genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915-1917. The Turks have not accepted guilt for what they did. There was the slower American displacement of American Indians over hundreds of years which amounted to genocide. We haven't accepted guilt for that, either. Then there was slavery, which amounts to another variety of genocide. Later there was the Cambodian and Rwandan genocide. Once the crime is over and the victors have taken charge...

I don't think we know if any action is moral — Andrew4Handel

I suppose if someone was raised by wolves they would grow up not knowing anything about morality. People, however, grow up being taught some kind of morality by other humans. How do we know what is moral?

The process of being nurtured through infancy, growing through childhood, becoming a responsible adult, requires that we learn how to cooperate with others, request and give assistance when needed, share, and so on. When we violate the accepted norms of nurture, cooperation, helping others, sharing, playing together, and so on we get aversive feedback (punishment). At a minimum, morality is created through these experiences. Most people are also explicitly taught lessons on what is right and wrong.

Human beings all require this kind of basic morality to be in place in order to function collectively.

That is how we know what is right or wrong. We create principles which we expect ourselves to follow.

I think some people act and they feel satisfied with their action and that makes them believe the action or their prior intuition was correct. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, that's called self-justification. People who engage in wrong-doing, especially when they engage in it as part of a larger collective action, quite often feel very self-justified.

The fact is, people who know perfectly well what is morally right and morally wrong are perfectly capable of doing forbidden acts and feeling OK about themselves. This phenomenon is pretty common. Most of us do this occasionally, but we don't make a habit of it. But sometimes it is essential. I was taught that homosexuality was very wrong. None the less, I liked gay sex, and did it as often as possible. Once I moved out into the larger world and discovered a community of gay men, I was able to redefine gay sex as an inherently good thing and stopped feeling guilty about it.

I, like most Americans my age, was taught that communism and socialism were very, very wrong. Again, once I discovered a community of people who were socialists, I was able to change my thinking.

Morality changes, but moral guidance continues.

It means that you can only be you. I can only be me. You and I (and all humankind) are not made to live forever; we are made to live for a little while, and then die. It is not a cruelty, it is a grace that we have only a little time to become who we will be. "Three score years, and ten..." four score, maybe five. A century. It isn't a long time, but it is long enough.

Living forever, in this body with this mind, would be hell as @Wayfarer said.

There are too many things in the world to be immensely upset about; one can't (and shouldn't) maintain a state of high dudgeon all the time. Some rage is good; all rage all the time is crazy. One has to give it a rest so that one can perhaps actually do something about the wrongs of the world.

I thought that the video Posty posted was kind of stupid, but I'm not upset about it. It just didn't do much for me in the way of tranquility. You all would probably find my idea of relaxing youtube drivel stupid too. That's OK.

I've heard you play. 300 years? You are being extremely optimistic.

Just joking of course. But I believe it is a mistake to think that we would achieve greatness in any field if only we had enough time. We are who, and what, we are. Multiplying a normal life time by any exponent you want won't change your essential nature.

I like to read; that doesn't mean that I would enjoy reading all the books in the Library of Congress -- 16,000,000 plus the British Library's 25,000,000. If I read one book a day, it would take me 112,000 years.

Living forever, preferably in a young healthy body, is a fantasy of heaven transferred to earthly (or extraterrestrial) existence.

I might live to be 100. That would give me another 28 years. I am quite certain that in the next 28 years, even with excellent health, a clear mind, and physical vigor, that I would have the same kinds of experiences and ideas that that I had during the last 72 years. That's because I am still me. I might have a few fresh new ideas, I might find some new experiences that were quite interesting, and so on. But probably not. There will always be diminishing returns. If I were going to write a great novel, I would at least have written a moderately interesting short story by now. If I were going to inaugurate a new era in art, I would at least be able to draw a convincing apple.

I have my grave plot and marker all ready to go -- nothing to add but the date of death. (And mail in the fee to the Cremation Society -- which is something I really ought to get done.)

It's not the status I covet so much as being paid — macrosoft

Did somebody suggest that you were going to get paid forever?

We don't like it when people dump something on our door step and then leave. Get back here and defend your pile of crap!

why do people hate Trump in the U.S.? — DiegoT

Not everyone does hate Trump.

Those who are not fond of, dislike, loathe, or hate Donald Trump are responding to several features:

First, he has zero record in public service. He is an entrepreneur.
Second, as an entrepreneur (real estate) he has not been nearly as successful as he paints himself to be. Some of his projects appear to be manipulative bankruptcies. Many of his hotels are not actually his -- the Trump name is licensed.
Third, Much of Trump's wealth was inherited. This is not at all unusual -- a lot of rich people inherited their wealth. But Trump has presented his wealth as the work of his own genius.
Four, Trump's familiarity to the public is based on his abrasive celebrity shows.

Much of his career carries with it more than a little odor of dishonesty and flim flam.

Trump has made little effort to perform the role that politicians traditionally at least attempt: the statesman with gravitas. Trump eschewed any sign off gravitas (substance and dignity) from the getgo. While not being uneducated himself (presumably he learned something in college) he favors the impression of being anti-intellectual. Americans do not expect their presidents to be learned scholars, but they want them to respect learned scholars (because the president needs to get good information on which to make decisions). Trump seems to be in very short supply of good information about anything.

Trump is cynical; this is standard in politics, but he makes little effort to conceal cynicism the way most politicians do. His election strategy was to play to the lowest common denominator in crucial states. We don't like open cynicism.

Trump has little respect for the kind of role that most Americans expect the President to fulfill.

Trump didn't invent the right wing, white supremacists, racism, anxiety about poorly controlled immigration from Mexico and Central America, and so on but he has done nothing to allay mainstream fears about the right wing, photo-facists, crypto-fascists, authoritarians, and so on.

Barack Obama, George Bush II, William Clinton, George Bush I, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, J. F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, F. D. Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, Warren Harding, and Woodrow Wilson -- have all been problematic in various ways. Presidents, of course, are not perfect and it is a very difficult job. But most Presidents have more or less played the role that was expected of them. Most of them have been reasonably competent. Perhaps Trump is most like Warren Harding. Harding died in office, so maybe Trump will be kind enough to do the same. His Vice President can follow suite.

Trump has more forthrightly revealed what ruling class politics is really about -- protecting the ruling class and fucking over everyone else. He has pulled the curtain aside (think of the Wizard in Oz 'reveal' scene).

In summary, Donald Trump is an arrogant asshole.

I might, but what product actually delivers what it claims to deliver? (I guess yoghurt is fairly reliable, but that's only 4 or 5 species of bacteria out of... thousands.) Probiotics aren't regulated, so whether they contain what they claim, as much as they claim, or anything more than dust from the warehouse is anybody's guess.

There wasn't much of anything left in the large intestine, though I suppose the walls were coated with samples of bacteria that were there before. The appendix is also supposed to keep a sampling of microbes on tap. But this didn't, after all, involve antibiotics. The furthest extent of the colonoscopy tube is where the small intestine joins the large intestine; one could see some of the cilia-structures; it looks quite a bit different than the colon. One could also see the opening into (or out of) the appendix, if ever the appendix decided to open up.

Since the microbiome is so important in our function, I'd like to get the mix that produces intellectual brilliance, creative genius, sunny equanimity, physical prowess, and a robust immune system. The varieties that I had before produced nothing but bullshit.

Twilight sleep — ArguingWAristotleTiff

What I got was some benzodiazapine and fentanyl -- the stuff that everybody is overdosing on and dropping dead from. It worked great--I was awake to watch the show. Now, afterwards the nurse told me she had to tell me to keep breathing several times but I have no memory of that. There were a couple of moments that were painful, but not terrible and very short -- when they turned the head of the scope backwards to view the asshole from the inside out.

The results were zero polyps, zero cancers, all good.

I was starving: a can of soup, a piece of cold chicken, some toast, cheese, a sweet potato with fresh apple sauce and cranberries (now in season).

is there nothing to say to a person who defines the Church as a group of paedophiles? — CarlosDiaz

Probably there isn't much that can be said that will make much difference. One could say something like"The Church hierarchy clearly has tolerated child abuse when it should have rooted out the individuals who were in violation of everything the church considers holy. It did not, much to its undoing." or something along those lines.

Then move on, unless you really want to get into the child abuse scandal, which you probably do not want to do.

It's like when I reference socialism, and somebody says it's a totally unworkable fraud, I know there is no common ground with this person. One just has to move on.

Don't you think that before pinpointing mistakes in my writing... — CarlosDiaz

I wasn't criticizing your writing really, just the way you (and other people) terminate engagement. I mentioned that it wasn't all about you, it was about that sort of termination popping up fairly often.

Some people do not share enough of your commitment to or interest in the church to have a conversation in much depth. The same goes for me and people who loathe socialism: we might as well avoid getting into a squabble, because their views and mine are just not going to be similar.

Jake and Rank Amateur were discussing your topic several hours ago and it didn't go very well. They don't share enough agreement.

Sometimes. you know, it is impossible to get simple arguments through the thick skulls of otherwise intelligent, caring, sensitive, handsome, charming, Christ-like individuals. For the sake of the forum, just move on. You'll eventually be writing about something they and you can agree on enthusiastically, then it will be nice to be on good terms with them.

(Yeah, I know; sounds great in theory, and truth be told, there are times when I have been painfully rude and undiplomatic in face-to-face settings, and it's surprising that those people ever spoke to me again. (Well, some of them haven't, actually. I've been banned from one of my sisters homes by her husband who found my views on certain elderly -- now dead -- southern senators (real racists) to be intolerable. I think the last time I visited their house was 20 years ago.)

Arkady: Why should I say in three words what I can say in two? I'm economically efficient with my rhetoric. "People of color" sounds like a throwback to Che's era if anything is. — LD Saunders

It's the NAACP not the NAAPOC. What is the matter with 'you people'?

Golly gee whiz! It's fine that people are sensitive to language, but the fault of 'political correctness' is that it implies one is exceptionally informed and caring about everyone with disadvantages and diversity and equal opportunity, and all that when, in fact, such actual sensitivity may be far from the reality. And even if it isn't far from reality, most of the language correction I hear hear is mere game playing, point scoring.

Oh, I'm not gay, I'm queer. Oh, I'm not queer, I'm homosexual. Oh, you know, I'm non-binary. Oh, I just don't believe in labeling people.

Negroes, "I'm a colored spade, a nigger; a jungle bunny, jigaboo, coon, pickaninny, mau mau, Uncle Tom, Aunt Jemima, Little Black Sambo..." (line from Hair), darkies, niggas, blacks, colored people, people of color, African American, Afro-centric... Hispanic, Spanish American, Chicano, Mexican, wetback, spic, beaner, latino, illegal alien ... WASP, white, wop, kike, bohunk, anglo, dago, redneck, hillbillies, trailer trash (not a slur! it's merely descriptive) peckerwood, honky, whitey, gringo, cracker, caucasian...

I started to answer your messages because I thought you wanted to talk and had something to say but I was wrong — CarlosDiaz

I wish people would stop using this sort of pompously dismissive response -- it's been cropping up more often lately in various threads, and it does not improve discussion. (And, btw, I don't intend this to be a terminating response to you.)

Thank you! I've had one before, so it won't be a complete surprise. The worst part right now is drinking 2 more quarts of salty slop.

There's snow on the ground this morning, 31º. The weather ball is green so frigid lows are foreseen. A low of 15 for Saturday. Brrr.

Have a good day. :flower:

Should i cease the pursit of earthly achievments?
@Johnpveiga

Yes. Stop immediately.

One thing I noticed in the returns is that in various states 3rd party candidates have drawn more votes than usual. It is probably the case that some of the third party people are awful, but I do like to see 4% -10% showing up for alternative candidates just because it suggests that people might consider an alternative to Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Alas, I am not voting. But vote blue, no matter who.

Hey, I have a great excuse: I'm having a colonoscopy tomorrow and today is prep day. Not straying more than 5 seconds from the bathroom. Certainly not going to stand in line hoping that lightning did not strike in the next 20 minutes (because if I was standing in line, that's when...)

Had I planned ahead, I could have voted early, but I had forgotten about today and the sturm and drang of total clearance.

On the plus side, Minnesota often has the highest rate of voting in the country, and I live in an area that is a Democratic Farm Labor stronghold, so the liberals will be taken care of.

One of the candidates for Attorney General is Keith Ellison, formerly in Congress then Democratic Chair for a while. He had a sort of sex scandal -- his girl friend is accusing him of kicking her out of his bed. She says she has a video of it. Who was the third party in the bedroom making the video, inquiring minds want to know. She doesn't want to turn the video over because it was private. Well, Madam, I should think you would consider the whole thing to be too private to bring up publicly. If somebody kicked me out of bed, I wouldn't shout it from the roof tops. Geez. Getting expelled from a bed is usually not a compliment.

We also have a Somali woman running for congress, DFL endorsed. She had some sort of financial irregularity which she dismissed with the kind of breezy logic that one expects from the practiced political operator.

I would vote blue no matter who but the roster of democratic candidates just isn't very satisfying. The candidates that are red can jolly well drop dead.

I think the reality of transgender or transsexual identity has come to be a "false consensus". I have no data, so this is an off-the-cuff analysis. Initially [Christine Jorgensen, 1951] transsexuals were simply too much of a novelty or aberration to register. Later on (1960s-1970s) they became more familiar in the gay male community (whether M to F or F to M) because they received acceptance among their fellow pariahs.

Now they have become a cause célèbre; whether that is a prelude to a consensus that being trans is OK, I don't know. But their cause célèbre status is more a function of media interests than a popular desire to accept what is still a concept with dicey PR aspects. At least, that's what I observe here in the Midwest US.

There were trans people in the 70s, 80s, and 90s who transitioned and pursued a professional life. They generally suppressed information about their sexual status, but didn't deny it when asked. Today trans status is much more forward, demanding recognition and acceptance.

o expand on JS Mill's example of free speech, it's the difference between shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theatre and quietly asking one's neighbour 'Do you smell smoke?'. — andrewk

Pedants on Patrol

John Mill? I thought it was Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court Justice in Schenck vs. United States; Holmes said that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The wording in the opinion is: "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic". "Crowded" was added in common usage.

Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war.

I don't know whether or when this decision was overturned.

Now, did anyone ever falsely shout "fire" in a theater? As it happens, they did.

Per Wikipedia (blessed be the site forever)

Literal examples:

People have indeed falsely shouted "Fire!" in crowded public venues and caused panics on numerous occasions, such as at the Royal Surrey Gardens Music Hall of London in 1856, a theater in New York's Harlem neighborhood in 1884,[1] and in the Italian Hall disaster of 1913, which left 73 dead. In the Shiloh Baptist Church disaster of 1902, over 100 people died when "fight" was misheard as "fire" in a crowded church causing a panic and stampede.

Leave it to a Baptist hick to be unable to enunciate "fight" clearly enough so it didn't sound like "fire". Up with elocution lessons.

If you quietly whisper "Do you smell smoke?" to your companion, she will leap to her feet and scream "FIRE!" -- at least, that is how it might happen in a grade B movie.

we all agree such a universally hated person should have a defense attorney in court who argues for Manson's position, — Jake

I don't know what Charles Manson's 'position' was or what "his side of the story" was, but isn't one function of the defense to assure that the defendant isn't railroaded? That the laws regarding evidence, testimony, conviction or acquittal are followed, that the judge's rulings are fair, and so on? (Are defense attorneys expected to believe their clients are innocent or only that they are defendable? I don't know.) It isn't so much that the defense has to buy into the thinking of the defendant.

It seems philosophers can serve a useful function by exploring the boundaries of the group consensus, because what is widely assumed to be true is not always so, and correcting such mistakes seems constructive where possible.

What are the limits of such a process? When should a potentially incorrect widely shared assumption be challenged, and when should it be left alone? — Jake

Philosophers do well to both explore the boundaries of group consensus and challenge the central content of group consensus when it appears to be faulty. Sometimes a consensus is assumed, such as "Free trade is good for everybody." Or, "A strong defense (including thousands of nuclear bombs) is essential to America's freedom." or "Diversity is inherently and always a good thing."

In the examples, a thinking person (officially a philosopher or not) can reasonably question both the boundaries of consensus and the central idea.

Any group consensus about "who we are" (whoever "we" is) usually makes for a rich field for philosophical examination. People (all 7+ billion of us) are prone to doing bad things, and we quite often do very bad things with enthusiastic abandon. Any group who thinks they are an exceptionally fine example of human niceness is probably flat-out lying to themselves.

Calling into question a group's consensus about their fine niceness will never be popular, of course. Saying nice things about other people who thought they were nice, but about whom it is now agreed were not very nice at all, can get one in even more hot water. Can anyone say something nice about Mao's Cultural Revolution, for instance? We know Adolf & Co. is pretty much off limits for nice statements. There are some quarters where one can not say nice things about white Americans without causing offense. (We are, after all, as bad as, if not worse than Adolf & Co., according to some people.)

Should the common self-images of group identity be challenged? It depends on how much one wants to live in peace. If one does a good job puncturing a faulty consensus, one will probably unleash a hornet's nest of disapproval.