"Cui bono?"
Racism (again for the slow fuckers way in the back) denotes color/ethnic prejudice plus POWER of a dominant community (color/ethnic in-group) OVER non-dominant communities (color/ethnic out-groups). Whether Hutus over Tutsis, Israeli Jews over Israeli Arabs, Hans over Uyghurs, Turks over Kurds, Kosovo Serbs over Kosovo Albanians, Russians over Chechens, Israeli Ashkenazim over Israeli Sephardim, American Whites over American Blacks Browns Yellows & Reds, etc, this description of racism obtains. — 180 Proof
"Intent" is irrelevant.We can't read minds though, and we can't prove intent, ... — Judaka
Yes.... and the pattern more than anything proves the oppression.
Who is this "we" that "needs to interpret" what's "harmful"? "The relevant demographic", as you say, those harmed by "the pattern" of "oppression" recognize the selective mistreatment and violence independent of whether or not this "we" "interprets" it "to be considered racist". As I comprehend (& use) the term, racism is first and foremost an ideological-juridical-sociological concept, Judaka, about how groups and societies are legally-civilly regulated into hierarchies – castes – and policed (i.e. "order" maintained via phenotypical scapegoating ~Girard)For something to be considered racist, we need to interpret it to be harmful to the relevant demographic.
No. "The legacies of racism" themselves are what's racist; "the inaction" is a constituent feature – indoctrinated social inertia – of these "legacies".In fact, you've argued an unwillingness to upend the legacies of racism to be racist. The inaction's harmfulness is what makes it racist, yes?
This is completely connfused for reasons already given above and my previous posts. On historical-empirical and experiential grounds, I refuse to conflate and confuse personal anti-black prejudice (i.e. hatred, bigotry) with structural-systemic-social anti-black discrimination (i.e. racism) as your comments – assumptions – suggest that you do. Prejudice, like the poor, might always be with us, but social arrangements of racial castes (i.e. dominance hierarchies) are artifacts of political-economic ideologies of given times and places and, therefore, can be resisted ... until these pernicious social llarrangements are replaced. This is why prejudice (re: moral) and racism (re: political) are functionally different phenomena, though tangential, which are effectively opposed to the degree this functional difference remains intellectual explicit and thereby operational.Basically, we can't parse between what's racially motivated, and where some other motivation is at play, and we can't be expected to prove it, so long as we interpret harm, we'll describe it as racism, is that fair?
Is a specific harm to "the relevant demographic" structural (re: exploitation)? systemic (re: discrimination)? or social (re: exclusionary)? If yes to any of these questions, then that specific harm is racist – and those functionaries who carry it out or who uncritically benefit directly (or indirectly) are themselves racist.I just want to know in a descriptive sense, how you'd avoid calling any harm to the relevant demographic as racist.
The Iroquois word for this ahistorical statement, schop1, is BULLSHIT (same word, btw, in countless other languages over dozens of millennia of countless indigenous peoples):So in the end, if we think of future generations at all, it is just plain old selfish ... — schopenhauer1
Excerpt fromThe Seventh Generation Principle is based on an ancient Haudenosaunee (Iroquois)* philosophy that the decisions we make today should result in a sustainable world seven generations into the future.
You ain't gonna miss your water until your well runs dry ...
The description on Amazon.com reminds me of Pierre Hadot's Philosophy as a Way of Life. Thanks anyway. :up:There's a book, Ars Vitae: The Fate of Inwardness and the Return of the Ancient Arts of Living, by Elizabeth Lasch-Quinn, which you may find interesting. — Ciceronianus
It's quite plausible, especially in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. AFAIK, there aren't any grounds to doubt it. :smirk:The idea is that the belief in a continuing future society serves as a driving force to prevent society from falling into chaos.
Is this assumption true, though? — schopenhauer1
The Real (e.g. Spinoza's substance, Democritus-Epicurus' void, Laozi's dao ...)So maybe the question is, if there is and can be something infinite, what would that be? — Gregory
I'd define reality as .. — Cidat
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/749399Here are some of my own attempts... — 180 Proof
I don't know what you mean by "identify" when you suggest that nothing in the posts I've linked describe the "why & how of racism". Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect you didn't actually (or carefully) read what I'd written.How can we identify the "theory & practice"? Why is something part of the "theory & practice" of racism? — Judaka
I don't know what you mean by this sentence.I hope your answer can show why an interpretation of harm to the relevant demographic is inaccurate.
No.1) Is it correct that sexism, racism and other similar terms, do not function descriptively, and are moral terms that we use if and when we perceive something to be harmful to the relevant demographic? — Judaka
Consider this post from an old thread "Racism or Prejudice? Is there a real difference?" in which I sketch the "why & how" of these "isms" ...2) To what extent do you agree that the terms are ambiguous in terms of "how", and "why" and in describing the harm they cause?
"Social realities".3) Is "ending' racism & sexism, for you, referring to the simplistic definition (prejudice) or the comprehensive one (societal realities)?
Care to post a link to a thread or post as an example to clarify what you mean?I’m objecting to otherwise non-religious people who want it to engage in philosophical inquiry spending inordinate amount of time wallowing in — giving special attention to — mythical stories, just because they were raised with them. — Mikie
:rofl: Amen.Proselytization is much more likely to come from the atheist side than from believers. — T Clark
More arboreal roots than architectural "foundations" – but yes, for the most part the Pre-Socratics strove to suppliment and/or substitute rational conceptions (Logos) of reality for religious / esoteric verse-fairytales (Mythos)The thing is, much of Western philosophy is based on esoteric or religious foundations. — schopenhauer1
:up:Certainty has gone and society seems atomized - I find this exciting, but many fear it. — Tom Storm
:100:I think the most important challenge we collectively face is dealing with the practical economic and ecological consequences of the 'continuous growth' paradigm, and the enormous problem of plutocracy and corrupted politics. — Janus
:yawn: i.e. adolescence of the species ...Western culture is undergoing a crisis of meaning — Quixodian
:chin:Any thoughts? — Jack Cummins
:fire:The irony here is that although with the image of the cave Plato is warning against the persuasive power of images he does so using images. And this is often taken to be not an image but the truth itself. — Fooloso4
To be African American is to be African without any memory and American without any privilege. — James Baldwin
Against stupidity we have no defense. Neither protests nor force can touch it. Reasoning is of no use. Facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved — indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them, and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions. So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied. In fact, they can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make them aggressive. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous. — Dietrich Bonhoeffer
What's referred to here as "naturalism" I think is more cogently conceived of as Pre-Platonism (e.g. Milesian, Ionian & Eleatic cosmologies) from which subsequent "Platonism" is abstracted (and then, IMHO, reified (fallaciously) into transcendent "forms" "categories" "essences" "emanations" "universals" "patterns" etc).In other words, Platonism(or philosophy)and naturalism arecontradictorypositions.
— Lloyd Gerson, Platonism vs Naturalism — Wayfarer
:fire: I very much appreciate this insight. Thanks!There is no better source of why this is not true than the works of Plato. Several of the dialogues can be cited, but Timaeus, in which Socrates remains mostly silent, presents a clear picture of the inadequacy of the Forms. In this dialogue, much or which is a monologue, Socrates expresses the desire to see the city he creates in the Republic at war. He wants to see the city in action. The story of the city in the Republic is incomplete. It is a city created by intellect (nous) without necessity (ananke), that is, a city without chance and contingency. A city that could never be.
For a more detailed discussion: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12008/shaken-to-the-chora/p1 — Fooloso4
The contemporary proliferation of bullshit also has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality, and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These 'antirealist' doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry. One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial — notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit. — Harry Frankfurt, d.2023
:100:That's our vanity. What's in it for AI? — Vera Mont
:cool: :up:... lifelong career is bullshit [...] He wanted to prove he didn't get fired because of incompetence. He wanted to prove to them that he was bored to his skull. — L'éléphant
No.Most prostitutes are women, but men also prostitute themselves.
Questions:
Is it a good thing that "prostitution" (under any name) is stigmatized? — BC
No. I prefer "hoe".Do you feel obligated to use the euphemism "sex worker" rather than prostitute or whore?
When its transactional, hell yeah.Is sex "work"?
No. Porn is an industry. Escorting is an industry. Brothels are an industry (e.g. Nevada, Amsterdam, Bangkok, Cologne). Massage Parlors are an industry. Marriage is an industry. "Sex" itself, however, is just an (often consensual) activity.Is sex "an industry"?
I've heard it's the "oldest" ...Is selling or buying sexual access a legitimate commercial activity?
Yes, everywhere. (This may eliminate or substantially reduce sex trafficking.)If selling sexual access is a legitimate commercial activity, should it be officially recognized, regulated, and commercially encouraged, like any other trade?
It is when buying from an unpimped hoe.Is buying sex a legitimate, normal, moral act?
Unfortunately, all – most – do not.Do you think "sex workers" (as opposed to "prostitutes") freely choose to sell sex?
Some, female and male, sure.Do you think adverse circumstances is the likely cause of people becoming prostitutes?
Different kinks.Does promiscuous sexual activity reduce the need for people to buy sex?
Hell yes – "unattractive" chronic masturbators need to get-off too!Is "unable to obtain sex any other way" a legitimate reason to use pr[ostitution?]
Ah yeah, another reason to feel fortunate that I've remained childless.Hypothesize your reaction to a son or daughter coming to you and declaring their intention to begin a career as a sex worker ... — Baden
I don't think so. It's much more than that. "Time" is ... scrambled eggs which cannot ever unscramble (and reshell) themselves.Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time? — Pantagruel
:up:I also think you need therapy. One striking thing is lack of connection with others, which is an extremely important component to a happy life. — Mikie
:brow: ...Yeah, not sure if the Niki character is real, or it's just someone trying to bait folks — universeness
...
"Since the insignificance of all things is our lot, we should not bear it as an affliction but learn to enjoy it."
"'Why don't you ever use your strength on me?' she said.
'Because love means renouncing strength,' said Franz softly."
"The objection to shit is a metaphysical one. The daily defecation session is daily proof of the unacceptability of Creation… The aesthetic ideal of the categorical agreement with being is a world in which shit is denied and everyone acts as though it did not exist. This aesthetic ideal is called kitsch…"
"As you live out your desolation, you can be either unhappy or happy. Having that choice is what constitutes your freedom."
*
"A novel that does not uncover a hitherto unknown segment of existence is immoral. Knowledge is the novel's only morality."
~interview, 1984
"The stupidity of people comes from having an answer to everything. The wisdom of the novel comes from having a question for everything."
"These days, when sexuality is no longer taboo, mere description, mere sexual confession, has become noticeably boring. How dated Lawrence seems, or even Henry Miller, with his lyricism of obscenity!" — Milan Kundera, d. 2023