Metaphysics. The question of whether there is a God - and if so, what is his nature - or not, and one's views on ontology (the nature of being) and our relationship to the universe I think is most fundamental. I place primary on one's fundamental attitude towards being (i.e. our relationship to it), then we can start with the thinking (epistemology, logic, and ethics is much dependent on epistemology.)

All right, cool, as long as you're being consistent.

In your analogy you imply that a local business - say, like a sporting good store or a shoe store - is part of the opponent (you liken it to the face of the opponent.) So just to be clear you're saying that these stores are the enemy, or at least a part of the enemy.

Start responding yourself. When is violence justified? — unenlightened

If the problem is with the state/the system why not go after them as opposed to random private businesses?

It's a bit of a tangent but since you're coming now from the individualist side on these topics I'm wondering about how some things works in your moral framework. What do you make of the right to self determination? — Benkei

I support it. If, by virtue of the discussion, we're just talking about groups I'll deal with groups but it's not my ideal method. I deal with individuals whenever possible. If we're talking about macro-level issues like international relations we do need to shift lenses.

Yeah, I engaged Streetlight because I was bored yesterday. I usually don't engage him, but when I did originally engage him yesterday it was just to try to flush out his own position as opposed to actually arguing with him. I wouldn't waste my time with that.

I had fun though. He's a quick responder and he's not stupid. It was kind of like talking with an antifa member; as long as you manage your expectations when it comes to an actual, productive conversation and don't get too hostile with him it should be kind of fun. He's not a dumb guy he's just an extremist.

I've also somehow been having productive conversations with Benkei lately.

Why is it impossible to judge someone as an individual? Some % of the rioters are white, and some % of them are from decent economic backgrounds. There's literally video of Logan Paul, a multi-millionaire youtube personality, going through a mall in Phoenix with other rioters. It would be a pitfall to lump everyone together.

You must separately justify the degree to which you absolve, or even just sympathise with, people due to those mitigating circumstances.

Exactly - it needs to be judged on an individual, case-by-case basis. I do feel bad for someone who never had a father due being arrested for pot or something stupid.

Keep in mind this extends far beyond systemic racism - white people or asians have problems too. Maybe they're ugly or short or have a weird voice or their mother never paid enough attention to them etc. These are all unique, individual things to that person.

Why the fuck are we talking about Ted Bundy? @BitconnectCarlos The topic is "Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?" I hope that at some point you get around to answering that. Thank you.

If we're going back to this topic and I've stated this before but I do support police reforms - better training, body cams, independent agencies going over police reports - those are all fine. I've also opposed the war on drugs for years now. End the war on drugs now.

Are you suggesting that we have absolutely no means at our disposal to assess the degree to which someone's actions are constrained by their circumstances? That, when faced with the starving child stealing a loaf of bread and the bored celebrity shoplifting a pair of sunglasses, we have nothing to tell the difference in responsibility between the two? — Isaac

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm happy to acknowledge mitigating circumstances. Not everyone who commits a crime is a monster, and the case of the starving child is completely different from the celebrity.

In order for someone to retain their humanity we need to regard them as an independent, moral agent capable of making their own decisions and being held responsible for them. Otherwise you're just denying something that's core to them.

EDIT: In the case of low IQ individuals we often do strip them of their agency and this is controversial, but it does make sense to me. It's still sad though.

Again, it's not a fantasy it's a hypothetical. I can't fantasize about you because I have no idea who you are. I'm just taking your ideas to a logical conclusion.

There's an asymmetry here which you've acknowledged. Violence conducted by cops or whites towards blacks matters, but violence conducted by minorities towards business-owners or whatnot - is just a distraction. I'm just demonstrating that premise with a hypothetical.

All I want to hear is "it matters."

Ok, it's nice to know that you'd consider that if you or a family member were assaulted by an angry minority who was angry about racial injustice that it would just be a distraction. Thank you.

Why the fuck are we talking about Ted Bundy? @BitconnectCarlos The topic is "Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?" I hope that at some point you get around to answering that. Thank you.

Isaac claimed that the grounds for judging someone, in, say, a court of law should just be compassion so I was responding to that. There were plenty of Bundy fangirls out there who had plenty of compassion for him.

It's not my fantasy. I don't have anything against you personally. I don't even know what you look like so I don't know how I would fantasize about that.

I'm asking you consider a hypothetical because hypotheticals can be helpful. It's not a crazy hypothetical either. It illustrates my point.

Really? So your argument for why you think it should be that way is "that's the way it is". Conservative philosophy in a nutshell. — Isaac

No, my point is that it rationally grounds western civilization. You need to work on your reading comprehension, no offense.

You can disregard self-responsibility, I don't care, but you end up, rationally speaking, in a very different place. We are on a philosophy forum after all.

Oh, ...I don't, know...with an iota of compassion maybe? — Isaac

Are you compassionate towards Jeffrey Dahmer? Bundy? There are people who had compassion towards them - young women, mostly. They understood these men.

It's good that it's not about you. It's not even about individuals, either. It's about groups. If an angry black man mugged you and left you lying in the street it's nice that you can at least acknowledge that this is all just a "distraction" and that it doesn't really matter. Individuals don't matter, group dynamics do.

Why, apart from the fact that it conveniently fits your neoliberal mythology, have you then given primacy to just one of those factors? — Isaac

Because it's what grounds western civilization - it grounds our legal system and the entire notion of the individual in society. I don't know Isaac, for all I know responsibility rests entirely with random neurons firing in our brain. In that case, there's really no such thing as good or bad people. Nobody is to blame here - not poor black rioters nor rich white supremacists who spend every minute of their existence plotting how to screw over minorities.

How are we suppose to judge someone if we don't believe in self-responsibility? If people are just the sum of their influences and environment, why even allow them to vote? What's the point?

It's all meaningless "distraction" violence until someone throws a brick through your business or house or you get mugged.

If there's injustice I'm happy to speak out about it. But I also realize the world's not black and white and that injustice/unjust violence should be condemned where ever it is whether it's from police, black-on-white crime, black on black crime, white on white, white on black, from ANTIFA, from the far right.

You don't get it. Police violence doesn't shatter my worldview. I've already condemned instances of police violence but you don't condemn violence coming from "your" side."

No, I simply don't believe you care an iota about 'humanity'.

But you do care about humanity so I guess that makes you a good person. You care about all of humanity. You're right to an extent though, I think it's impossible to care about humanity as a whole. You don't know them, and some of them are complete monsters. At the end of the day I care about individuals getting what they deserve.

Why. Why the hell does 'that group' become accountable for its actions and not the whole of society? Are you suggesting they're a completely causally isolated group, because that would be an absurd claim.

I meant that group as individuals.

Responsibility primarily rests at the individual level. I'm aware there could be external factors, but in the end you need to own your actions. There are mitigating factors, for sure.

I've already said I'm on board with certain reforms. I've wanted to end the war on drugs for years. Even if the situation with blacks in America were a billion times worse and black people were being threatened with literal extermination that group remains accountable for its actions. When we strip people of accountability, we strip them of their humanity.

Why not just go after policeman or government officials as opposed to random small business owners if you're fine with violence? If you're fine with violence and you hate cops then why aren't you advocating violence there? Kind of makes sense for you to be anti gun control here.

I'm not sure in any case if it makes sense to apply just war doctrine to a situation like this. A group of people is slowly murdered and looted with impunity, it's "enemy" is the society they live in and are supposed to be a part of. It's all rather academic since a majority of people in the US seem to be ready to embrace some of the changes necessary.

The Just War comparison is not a perfect comparison. I adopted it because I was trying to give an opponent an extreme benefit of the doubt (e.g. even if we were at war with the US...) because I know I see things different from those on the far left.

Even so, let's take the examples of the Jews in 1940. Your argument that it wouldn't be effective isn't an argument against the moral right of the Jews back then to bomb and burn buildings indiscriminately as they were murdered indiscriminately by the State apparatus supported by the German people; either actively or by doing nothing. — Benkei

Yes, I argued that it wouldn't be effective but I also made the moral point. There's a scale of responsibility among the German population that needs to be taken seriously and we don't take this seriously when we just treat them as one amorphous blob to be murdered because of their society and complicity.

And there's a parallel there with modern times in that it isn't enough to not be a racist but to be actively anti-racist. It wasn't enough not to be a Nazi but to be anti-Nazi. That's the only way to stop racism. — Benkei

In the case of Nazi Germany being anti-Nazi was a serious, serious risk. You're not just risking yourself, you're risking your family. The anti-Nazis in Germany went above and beyond in regard to moral duty, and IMO it's not realistic to ask everyone to behave like that in a scenario where you're under the thumb of a totalitarian regime. Don't get me wrong, it's wonderful that anti-Nazis behaved like that and risked what they did but in many cases it was downright suicidal.

In the case of race today I consider myself a non-racist. I think racism is stupid. I'm not entirely sure what anti-racism is, but I get the sense that they tend to be pretty vocal. Frankly, as a lighter skinned person, I think my job is just mostly to listen during discussions on the those topics. If I see actual racism I'm happy to call it out, but it can be difficult to know in some cases.

So yes, terrorist acts by Jews causing mass casualties among citizens who do nothing as their fellow countrymen are slaughtered would've been totally justified by the time they started the concentration camps. — Benkei

When I was younger I agreed with this, but in reality it would have just likely driven the German population closer to the Nazis and the Nazis would have heavily publicized it and used it as proof that the Jews were intent on destroying the German people.

From a moral angle I find pretty bad. It's not a crime to be a German civilian in 1942/1943. There's just such a large scale of guilt here ranging from babies and children up to the planners of the final solution and indiscriminate bombings of civilians group essentially don't acknowledge this scale of guilt. If we wish to apply morality to war at all that project should begin with the distinction between civilians and combatants - valid targets and invalid targets. Otherwise war is just murder and soldiers are just murderers.

I don't accept that targets like property or even civilians are absolutely out-of-bounds in a conflict situation — Baden

Just to be clear I'm not saying this either. I am saying that intentionally targeting civilians is wrong. Industries directly contributing to the war effort are valid targets. Civilians will always be killed in war.

If that would have stopped the holocaust, I would have been all for it. Done purely for punitive reasons, no. — Baden

If I can recall the bombings were done to destroy the morale of the population and to cower the enemy into surrender. Who knows maybe it helped in some marginal way by removing tax payers.

I know you said you're Jewish, but even if you weren't I think I would see the general point of principle even though I thoroughly disagree with it. — Baden

Do you take the consequentialist view then?

And in 1939, 1942 or 1944? When exactly was it justified for them to attack the society murdering them with impunity? — Benkei

Was it the society or was the Nazi regime that was murdering them with impunity? If it's the entire society you should have no problem carpet bombing German cities which had no connection to the war effort. If you believe it's the Nazi regime you'd probably discriminate a little more and we can have a conversation over what constitutes a valid target.

Watch out that you don't get banned. — ssu

I'd like to see them ban me for that I'm Ashkenazi Jewish with family killed in the Holocaust.

Nobody will say: "Ok, we got the reforms we wanted." Nobody will be happy about the majority of people being against police brutality. Nope, it will go to a level of stupidity where some will see everywhere traces of systemic racism and will attack this systemic racism. So I guess soon burning the US Flag will be an act of protest against systemic racism and then flying the US flag will become a microaggression and racist. — ssu

I can see this being the case. Honestly, my point was that even if the rioters concerns are valid - and I have no problem with body cameras or better training for police or independent commissions going over police reports - there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to go about trying to achieve reforms. Even if the rioters consider this a war there are still valid and invalid targets in war.

And the oodles of evidence for systemic racism?

I'm fine having a discussion about that, but what we're talking about now is the rioters and their own personal moral responsibility.

I said this earlier with Baden: Even Jews in 1935-1936 wouldn't have been justified in destroying local German businesses (ones unconnected with Nazism) because even in war there are valid and invalid targets.

Getting back to the example of the Jews, why shouldn't they have rioted? I think your position is extreme here. Their very existence was under threat. I would say their scope for justified counter-action was wide open. For me, based on a straightforward utilitarian and consequentialist position, pretty much everything was permissible for the Jews if, of course, it would have contributed to their safety as individuals and as a people. So, strategy aside, on what ethical basis, if any, are you objecting here? Why is it wrong? You have a dominant party aimed at destroying an oppressed minority. If anything they have an obligation to do everything possible to defend themselves, right? — Baden

Yes, their obligation is to defend themselves, and their existence is threatened. The Jews are very much at war here. There is, however, a just war tradition both in Judaism and Christianity which speaks to the necessity of differentiating between valid and invalid targets.

Don't get me wrong, there's an argument that everyone and everything on the opposing side is a valid, legitimate target. Lets imagine a 10 year old German boy in 1940 who goes to a corner store and buys a pair of shoes. Maybe the tax goes to to the war industry. Maybe even in 4-5 years that boy could be fighting in a Nazi uniform. There's a case to be made here for killing him if we're going by purely utilitarian grounds.

Still, the cost for indulging in this 'total war' or 'win by all costs' scenario is that you turn into the ******* devil. This kind of thing happens in war, but at the end of the day that 10 year German boy is really no different from a 10 year old Jewish one. When it comes to rioting, simply the fact that a German business exists doesn't provide grounds to destroy it. Destroying businesses can leave people homeless or unable to afford food or crucial medication. I can condone the destruction of certain German businesses but there needs to be sufficient reason.

Why is hypothetical unsourced harm more important to you than real harm done on a daily basis? Why does it weigh heavier in your considerations regarding the protests than the lived reality?

By the same token, you can think of all the hypothetical instances of police brutality agitating against police brutality and for police reform would do.

In my discussion with Baden he asked me a question: Why don't disabled people riot? We (I say "we" because I mentioned I have a disability earlier) haven't rioted, so the situation is hypothetical. If we were to riot there would actually be harm.

If you're asking me about real riots which ended up destroying real black-owned businesses then that harm has been very much documented. That harm is very much real and will likely persist for years to come.

Why not? — Baden

Because it's incredibly unproductive and some of the those businesses we burn might even belong with disabled people. Or maybe siblings or parents of the disabled.

We can advocate for changes in legislation, but I wouldn't really count on it too much. Far better to network through other people in the community and form those connections. The best way out of dependence - and this applies just generally, not only in the context of disabled people - is getting wealth, and when you destroy local businesses often owned by those of the "oppressed" class you're really just shooting yourself in the foot. Financial independence is huge for overcoming systemic bias.

...the primary ethical responsibility of the individual is to oppose the wider injustice

Injustice ought to be opposed where ever it is. If Jews in 1935 started destroying German shops I'd condemn that - no problem (there are Holocaust victims in my family.) We shouldn't turn a blind eye simply because someone who committed the injustice is an oppressed class, and when we do that we actually end up dehumanizing them because we're not holding them up to the same standards as everyone else.

Of course in the case of Jews rioting the wider injustice is Nazi Germany. When I say that the Jews shouldn't have done that or that the rioters shouldn't have done that that's not saying "oh bring in the tanks" or that we need a heavy handed response. I'm just saying that they shouldn't do it.

Fundamental to that perspective is the establishment of a form of equality that extends beyond the theoretical into the lived experience of all communities and social stakeholders. — Baden

We get it - you want equality: Who doesn't? Who wouldn't want a more fair America?

I definitely get it. Showing you my victimhood card here - I am disabled. I have a disability protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act and I can tell you that discrimination against those with disabilities is pretty rampant. Yet, you don't see us setting buildings on fire or demonizing abled people who contribute to structures of systemic blah blah blah. We have our solutions and we support each other - it's not like we're totally indifferent about things.

And from this vantage point, the primary ethical responsibility of the individual is to oppose the wider injustice — Baden

Yes, when you divide people into oppressed and oppressor the oppressed is justified in doing what he needs to do to even the score. Any calls to the misdeeds done by the oppressed are just products or sympathizers of the oppressive system. The oppressed aren't individuals or moral agents - they're just an amorphous, oppressed blob whose singular purpose is to dismantle systemic injustice and if they need to break a few eggs to make the omelette then so be it - they're fighting evil. It's all just black and white - no shades of grey. Oppressor vs. oppressed. Poor vs. Rich. Black vs. White. People are defined by these identities.

If you choose this vantage point, that's on you.

Animalistic is not objectification. An animal can still be regarded as having agency - still capable of making choices and having preferences, in this case during sex. Otherwise I agree with you. What you’re saying is related to relationships that extend beyond the sexual act, but we weren’t really going there in this thread. — Possibility

Sure, I get what you're saying here and it probably comes down to his we define 'objectification.' I do notice a lot of language around sex involves objectification, though - "get it," "take it" etc.

But sure - the animal comparison might be better. It's not too important to me though whether we use 'animal' or 'object' - I see sex as a break from civilization; a reminder that we're not just rational, civilized beings who take part in the routines or rituals required to maintain modern society. I do think this "animalism" or "objectification" or whatever you want to call it takes places from both sides though.

Taking account of the part society plays in in the behaviour of some population is not the equivalent of assuming it is entirely responsible for everything. — Isaac

Both. — Isaac

I'm just thrilled you're able to acknowledge personal responsibility. As individuals we can't really control external social systems, but we can control ourselves. Once we acknowledge that people have agency and that they are at fault for doing what they're doing.... that's really all I wanted to hear from you. I understand that there's social factors at play, but one's actions ultimately come down to that individual. Presumably, since you'd blame yourself if you destroyed and looted a local business then we can draw the conclusion that the rioters are also at fault.

My question is: Do you think these four grouping categories about where you are from (race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality), are essentially important? Or are they holding us back? — Wheatley

I wouldn't call them "essentially important" but they can be important when it comes to forming connections and relationships due to how someone else's answers compare to our own. Basically, when we don't know people we look for connections. We all have a cultural heritage and it can be fun to talk culture with people. It provides a safe, fun, informative ground for getting to know that person and their culture.

Obviously, I'm not going to be like "oh you're from X, therefore you're like Y" but there is such a thing as cultural trends and if someone bucks a trend that's interesting in its own right. Learning another language is an excellent way to gain insight into another culture and help form a bridge. Personally, I regard my cultural background as important but in no way is it the entirety of me - only one aspect.

The reason it's not of "essential" importance is that we can (or at least should) be able to hit it off great with people from different backgrounds. I think values and worldview are more of "essential" importance.

and they are to blame for the damage caused by making an entire community so furious and desperate that they resort to rioting. — Isaac

An entire community so furious - so even the rich white kids who decide to go into a mall in an urban area and vandalize it during the riots are just....the fault of the government. People apparently don't have agency, they're just little wind-up toys to be wound up and released and whatever damage they cause is clearly on whoever wound them up. I swear you could come across a man beating a pregnant woman and you'd be thinking "god, how could the evil forces of systemic racism/classism/capitalism/etc be doing this to her!"

Serious question though: Do you apply these standards/this account to yourself. If you were to destroy a local business, would you blame yourself or something else? Plenty of these rioters are not from the community being vandalized, they're from outside.

I'd be pretty pissed off I should think. I don't see why how I'd feel about it should come above how the community feel about their plight. Why should I ask a group of underprivileged, down-beaten protestors who've just had one of their community murdered to give a shit about my feelings here? — Isaac

Sure, and what if they wanted to destroy and loot your house after? I mean it's just the voice of the under-privileged, who are you to object?

Surely those small business owners who had their livelihoods destroyed and the businesses that they built up over the years have no valid claim against the voice of the under-class, though.

Good sex is animalistic, and I think objectification during sex is entirely natural and fine. After sex, if you're going to carry on a relation with that person, you're probably going to want to start treating them as a reasonable person again. Or maybe not. I don't know, it's up to that relationship, but I remember Kant viewed humanity or dignity as tied to our capacity for reason and if you have a partner who you view as incapable or bad at reason it's gonna be hard for the relationship if not totally impossible. You'd basically have to constantly manage them.