No, we're not. — Ying

How do you know?

You could not be more wrong.
It's all about Point of View. — charleton

Different points of view mean seeing things differently.

Disagreement would be two people with identical points of view getting different results.

I think you will find that this is a pattern which is far older than the United States. There is no way for any organism to exist without using resources from ecosystems. — Bitter Crank

But how many organisms do this?: 1.) Take from their environment far more than they need; 2.) Justify this by saying that it is an investment that will lead to a net gain down the road; 3.) Ignoring the destruction the whole process has left, take even more of what they don't really need; 4.) Repeat 1.)-4.).

It depends on your present position relative to philosophy.

If you have specific questions, such as "Why is there something rather than nothing?", then delve into those questions.

If you have certain intuitions--maybe you sense that there's more to life than what your culture has led you to believe--then delve into those.

If you simply heard about this thing called philosophy and are wondering what all the fuss is about, pursue that angle.

Etc.

The American Dream was bought with credit. It was bought with resources borrowed (or taken) from ecosystems, non-renewable energy, indigenous peoples, etc., not just money borrowed from banks. This borrowing was wreckless. A lot of consumption more than investing. Externalities not included in the prices of that consumption.

Like with any debt, eventually you pay one way or another. We are massively in debt.

The American Dream was not sustainable.

Well, the solipsist argues that others do not exist. And then the Buddhists and other like-minded folk say the self does not exist. Descartes can be criticized on the grounds that he assumed there was an I to the experience of having a doubt, given that he was supposed to be entertaining 100% radical doubt. — Marchesk

Does not change the fact that a consensual exchange of ideas is highly implausible between people who do not mutually believe in each other's existence.

Or it exists platonically independent of any actual quantity. — Marchesk

Depends on what everybody has agreed on.

Alternatively meaning does not exist in the head (semantic externalism), and language does not reference private states (Wittgenstein). You also have the behaviorists and the eliminative materialists. — Marchesk

Depends on what everybody has agreed on.

Sydasis — Sydasis

Your argument sounds like utilitarianism.

I could be wrong, but I believe that utilitarianism basically says that whatever maximizes aggregate pleasure and minimizes aggregate suffering must be done. Altruism--acting in the interests of others--is just another thing to calculate (the good feelings resulting from acting in the interests of others minus the risks that such action brings, such as the risk of the people you let in causing harm) in a utilitarian scheme, I would say.

If you reject utilitarianism then you have a lot of work left to figure out the right thing to do. Are you as a state/nation partially responsible for their refugee status? If yes, you probably have a moral obligation to offer relief in some way.

That barely scratches the surface of the things you have to consider.

If you are an ethical altruist then you can skip all of that and go straight to the question "What is in the best interests of others?". But who is "others"? Just the refugees? The refugees and everybody already in your state/nation? Everybody on Earth? How are you demarcating "others"? How do you justify your demarcation?

I essentially disagree with this. — Marchesk

If people were not essentially in agreement--we exist (can't imagine a substantive dialogue between a being who believes he and the other exists and a being who believes his own self and/or the other does not exist); the symbol "1" represents a particular quantity; words uttered aloud are associated with thoughts in the mind of the utterer and are not random sounds; etc.--the exchange of ideas would not be possible.

The exchange of ideas is probably mostly referencing that essential core.

The beliefs of whoever best masters that essential core are probably the beliefs that prevail.

Did heliocentrism prevail over geocentrism because disagreement came to a head and the facts settled that or because agreement could no longer rationally be denied?

I like using self-organizing systems metaphors. If the universe(or multiverse) is an auto-peiotic development, then it moves progressively from a state of lesser dynamic differentiation-integration-stability to a state of greater integrity. What this means at the level of cultural evolution is that our origins are necessarily violent and chaotic , but our future holds the promise of the sort of interpersonal agreement you state as a fact, but most would hold onto as a dream. — Joshs

Maybe even better than the alternatives I thought of.

Of course, whether we judge the other to be agreeable or not is a function, among other things, of the breadth of our perspective. The fact that Western Europe, for instance, is in the midst of its longest period without war, is considered by some a sign that we know how to agree with each other at the most general political level in a way we didn't used to. — Joshs

Is this agreement pre-existing, a priori, or whatever adjective you want to use, and then discovered, arrived at, made conscious, etc.?

Or is it previously non-existent and then created, manufactured, etc.?

At a more up-close level, however, real intellectual disagreement can be measured by the negative affects(hostility, disgust, bewilderment, ridicule,etc) that run rampant in discussion forums and many other places, as reflected in the vast machinery of the litigation industry.
On this forum there are almost as many philosophical worldviews represented as there are contributors. These world views are not reconcilable in the sense that you can't reduce Hegel to Kant or Kant to Plato. — Joshs

Many years of observations have left me inclined to say that 99% of the time such negative effects are due to people talking past each other, not any real disagreement.

Often when people say they are in disagreement they probably do not know what--if anything--they are disagreeing about.

I am inclined to ask the gods of the intellectual world to eliminate the phrases "I agree" and "I disagree" from all discourse. The latter is probably at best meaningless. The former is probably at best redundant.

If agreeing to disagree can be considered "being all in agreement", then we are all one big happy family here. But I suggest what is missing from this near-utopia is the resources to understand each participant's view as pragmatically true relative to their own perspective, and the ability to link each participant's perspective to those of all the others via some superordinate undestanding.
That is the means by which I can, if not move the other towards my position, at least see their viewpoint as valid and necessary for them given the world as they see it. — Joshs

I have not read more than one Ken Wilber book and a few Ken Wilber interviews, reviews, etc., but his stages in the evolution of consciousness sure helped me like nothing else has understand my perspective and other people's perspectives.

But if you bring up Ken Wilber he is likely to instantly be dismissed as a New Age quack.

The best way to fool yourself into thinking that everyone agrees on the fundamental
philosophical issues is to use a naturalistic vocabulary borrowed from mathematics and physics. These descriptive languages are designed to be so conceptually abstract as to mask important differences in worldview. — Joshs

Can you illustrate that?

Of course women's sport teams are not going to perform the way men's teams perform. Men's athletics, standards of performance, levels of fan enthusiasm, money spent on men's athletics, etc. has a long history.

Major women's athletics is a fairly new thing. Large numbers of women athletes have not been celebrated, fussed over, had money lavished on their needs and so forth, over the last century. Given equivalent funding, institutional support, fan-base development, and all that, women's sport will eventually be more like men's sport -- not the same sized bodies, or testosterone driven athletes--but well funded athletes who have been working on their skills since they were in kindergarten.

I don't think professional sports is worth the amount of money expended on it, but if people like it, money will get spent. But be careful what you pray for.

Professional men's athletics do absolutely nothing for the health of 99.9% of fans. Professional women's athletics are going to do absolutely nothing for the health of 99.9% of fans, either. What is more important -- much more important -- is that athletic activity be democratized in grade school, high school, college, and in adult life so that more people participate in active life styles.

Focusing a lot of money and attention on 1/10th of 1 percent of the population to play professional sports and neglecting the other 99.9% just isn't a good idea. Better that millions of girls and boys have programs to help them find ways to be active and physically fit than always grooming the cream of the crop from little league on up to the major leagues. — Bitter Crank

All excellent points.

I don't know the history very well, but it seems to me like in the U.S. organized sports were conceived by clubs, fraternities, etc. with close-knit relationships with their communities. The typical church softball league of today was the original character of all of organized sports in the U.S. Remnants, such as the citizens of Green Bay, WI owning the Green Bay Packers, can still be seen. Basketball was invented for members of a Springfield, MA YMCA, not as a commodity for Wall Street to market and profit greatly from.

It sounds to me, based on my limited knowledge of the history, that sports in the U.S. had well-democratized origins. I don't see any reason why that culture could not be restored--we have tons more wealth and infrastructure now.

I'm not a medical doctor or an athletic trainer, but if we want everybody to have an active lifestyle it seems to me that it is already available to everybody: step outside and start walking. It may not give anybody the well-sculpted physique that the fitness industry promises with every new home exercise product being pitched. It may not offer the amenities of a gym membership, such as being able to watch the Super Bowl on a large TV while on a treadmill, or grabbing a fresh smoothie on the way back to the office. But unless one lives where stepping outside could mean being in the line of gunfire, or unless one is living in Fargo, ND in early February, there is nothing stopping him, her or anybody else from stepping outside and going for a brisk walk. I see women outside jogging all of the time, so it must not be unsafe for them to be outside. And it costs no money. A bicycle costs money. Walking costs no money. Almost anybody can be active by going for a walk. No need to organize leagues, train officials, etc. either.

Just be sure to use sunscreen and wear clothing and eyewear to protect you from the sun.

By the way, the folderol going on in Minneapolis for the 52nd Super Bowl is a COLOSSAL pain in the ass. Massive traffic and transit disruptions not just on Sunday, but for the 10 days preceding the #$*&@#(@Q)$( thing. Security checks (backpacks, purses, open your coat please...) as one walks down the street. — Bitter Crank

Hopefully the city at least didn't have to tear down streetlights at the expense of local taxpayers. I have heard that that is part of the cost of being a campaign stop during a Presidential election.

Then again, a campaign stop is for a few hours. Hosting a Super Bowl is for two weeks.

Consider it a taxpayer-funded, hands-on philosophy lesson: what life would be like under a totalitarian police state, or something like that.

Yes, cause exists. It explains how a piece of matter affects another piece. — bahman

A journal article I once read concerning the same topics as this thread--physicalism and epiphenomenalism--pointed out that we do not observe causation, we only observe relationships.

I have brought up before here the strong case made by even other sources against the existence of causes, causation, etc.

We separate two events in our minds and we use induction to conclude that one caused the other. But, it is my understanding, nobody has ever observed any such "causing" happening.

Again, if causes, causation do not exist, why does materialism matter?

(This is what came out of the ‘observer problem’; read this.) — Wayfarer

Read it just now.

The most interesting, informative article I have read in a while.

How seriously do people take the inability to cope with life?

If someone is dying of cancer people have to accept that as inevitable but if someone isn't coping with life there are thousands of self help books available and criticism to be had.

It is as if the inability to cope with life is a character flaw or choice. The same goes for mental illness. Mental illness is not strictly terminal so if you die due to mental health it is usually self inflicted. People can cast aspersions on the character of mentally unwell person. — Andrew4Handel

I was going to say read David Smail's internet publication Power, Responsibility and Freedom but it is suddenly unavailable. Hopefully that is temporary and we have not permanently lost that work. In it you would find the answers to all of your questions about mental illness.

In the meantime, you will probably find much of the same material by looking at his books, YouTube videos, etc.

Materialism is a system of belief which emphasizes that physical process can explain all phenomena in the world. Consciousness therefore is an epiphenomenon within materialism since it is not a physical process but outcome of a physical process. We however know that consciousness is necessary for learning (please read the following article). This means that consciousness is causally efficacious. Therefore materialism is not correct. — bahman

Do causes even exist?

If causes do not exist, does any question about materialism even matter?

I'd say that the most watched and appreciated women's sports are those where the line between the genders is the least obvious. — Buxtebuddha

This seems to clearly show that that is not true:

"I do think there’s a huge issue in figure skating and in gymnastics about how our culture, the society at large, views these girls and young women.

How so?

I think that we expect them to be these “perfect” girls. I think that during the time over the last many decades, in which women athletes weren’t very well-accepted because they looked “too masculine, too strong,” whether they were basketball players or track athletes, the softball players, gymnasts were safe athletes. We were all really comfortable with a little girl in a little leotard who looked like she’s just romping on a playground and has these amazing, unbelievably technical skills. They’ve got their ponytails and little sparkle in their hair, and they’re barefoot, and they have their big ol’ burly coach there ready to give them a big hug. It all looks so wholesome and familial, and I think society is super, super comfortable with athletes who are like that. I mean, they’re literally wearing costumes and smiling as they’re doing all this. It’s bizarre in a lot of ways.

What’s sad about it is that they are among the greatest athletes you are ever going to see on Earth, and I don’t think they get as much respect for what it takes to do what they do because it’s all so prettied up." -- Beyond Larry Nassar

Well, there's Women's Sports and then there's women's sports. Or maybe girls sports. The important thing about girl's sports is the same as for boy's sports - children and young adults learning how to handle their bodies, work with others, get knocked around, compete, and win and lose. For whatever social, physical, and temperamental reasons, I think that comes more easily for boys. — T Clark

Sounds like it wasn't difficult for these girls:

"He came over here after Nadia Comaneci, and he brought his system with him, which was a system of abuse. His job, and he says this, his job was to create gymnasts, not to create healthy young women. And other coaches followed his lead. American coaches followed his lead, because, frankly, it worked. He did create great gymnasts. Of course, we didn’t see all the bodies of the girls who didn’t make it. He would berate, belittle them, throw them out of the gym, call them fat, call them lazy, call them weak, and if parents didn’t like it, he’d say, “Go ahead. Take your daughter. Take her someplace else.”

These girls want this so much. They’re so driven. They’re not like the rest of us, as any great athlete isn’t like the rest of us. They are willing to do whatever it takes to be the best in the world and to follow their dreams. The parents get on that bandwagon with them, and they get as sucked into this culture as their daughters, and they stop being the parent and just go along with whatever the coach is telling them because they don’t know anything about gymnastics. All the other parents are doing the same thing they’re doing." -- Beyond Larry Nassar

"I do think there’s a huge issue in figure skating and in gymnastics about how our culture, the society at large, views these girls and young women.

How so?

I think that we expect them to be these “perfect” girls. I think that during the time over the last many decades, in which women athletes weren’t very well-accepted because they looked “too masculine, too strong,” whether they were basketball players or track athletes, the softball players, gymnasts were safe athletes. We were all really comfortable with a little girl in a little leotard who looked like she’s just romping on a playground and has these amazing, unbelievably technical skills. They’ve got their ponytails and little sparkle in their hair, and they’re barefoot, and they have their big ol’ burly coach there ready to give them a big hug. It all looks so wholesome and familial, and I think society is super, super comfortable with athletes who are like that. I mean, they’re literally wearing costumes and smiling as they’re doing all this. It’s bizarre in a lot of ways.

What’s sad about it is that they are among the greatest athletes you are ever going to see on Earth, and I don’t think they get as much respect for what it takes to do what they do because it’s all so prettied up." -- Beyond Larry Nassar

Further evidence that we have a long way to go before the competitions themselves and abilities of the athletes themselves are what women's sports are known for.

That competition and ability are clearly there, but little is spent talking about them.

Talk about what makes Elena Delle Donne a prolific scorer, not about gender politics, and more people will start to see women's sports for what they really are.

At the very least it would remove some cases where people's careers will be stymied for the sin of wanting to start and take care of a family. — fdrake

Yes, that is what I have noticed about all of the politics of identify: it seems to always be people living privileged lives saying that they are victims of flagrant, systematic unjust discrimination because their personal wishes, such as starting a family, are not subsidized by the system.

Guess who has to make up for it when those people have to miss work because of their personal wish to have a family? Workers who do not have families. Consumers who the cost of maternity/paternity leave is passed on to, including consumers who do not have families.

It is wrong, we are told, if a woman has to choose between work and her wish to have a family, but it is not wrong if a childless person has to choose between work and his/her non-family life. Go figure.

And just because a person is not part of a nuclear family does not mean that he/she is not contributing to family life. You don't hear any complaints about discrimination there. Maybe it is because the unmarried and the childless are not an identify group--not yet, anyway.

The "consumer" is an economic stereotype made possible and created by industrial society. "Consumer" started to become popular around 1900.

Prior to the deployment of various labor-reducing devices using electric motors, automobiles, and so forth, men and women devoted most of their time to producing. Men worked in production jobs (farm or factory, mostly) and women produced food, clothing, and some domestic goods at home. A woman often prepared food from a kitchen garden and used eggs from a backyard henhouse. Food was prepared from simple raw ingredients.

The industrialization of the home converted women from producers to consumers. One drove to a store and bought bread (didn't make it), canned fruit (didn't preserve it), meat (didn't kill it), and ready-made clothing (didn't sew it). The woman shopped for and "consumed" household goods, as well. Families consumed housing and transportation.

"Consumer" is now applied to everybody, even mentally retarded individuals who "consume" custodial care services, so the term has approached meaninglessness. But if you set aside these nonsensical uses, the term is still meaningful.

The economic role of consumption (by consumers) is a critically important element in the modern economy. Something close to 3/4 of the GDP is derived from the acts of buying stuff that define the role of consumer.

In many ways, being a "consumer" is a degraded role, a shrink wrapped stereotype. — Bitter Crank

False dichotomy.

It is not "producer versus consumer". It is "frugality versus consumption ".

And it is an integral component of capitalism, not a latent effect of industrialization.

In Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism Richard H. Robbins shows how a class of people who are willing to consume more and more stuff had to be created and how it is maintained. The propensity to frugality had to be overcome. "Customer service" was created to make people feel like they have some special status when they consume goods (there is nothing special about going to a big box store and selecting and purchasing an item that you really don't need; it is robotic and dehumanizing, if you think about it). I recall this as well: the attractions at Disney World, Robbins convincingly shows and thoroughly documents, are designed to downplay / obscure in the minds of visitors the negative impacts of capitalism and maintain a class of consumers willing to buy more and more stuff.

The capitalist consumer is a social role created and maintained as an integral element of the global capitalist system. Without people playing that role, capitalism would not work.

Personally, I hate acting in the role of capitalist consumer. All of the advertising, merchandising, marketing (I may be in the minority, but I hate junk mail), and everything else trying to manipulate me into buying stuff is physically, emotionally and spiritually taxing. Alas, I have to navigate through all of it to meet my needs.

But don't worry, capitalists. Plenty of people are convinced that the consumer role is for royalty like them even though it makes life stressful; takes time and energy away from their relationships, hobbies, etc.; burdens them with a lot of debt; etc. I believe that some people even love it--if Black Friday was to disappear they would feel deprived.

The distinctions identified in race, whilst having no bearing at all on personality, did once indicate very strongly the cultural heritage of that person and so what adopted values they may have. — Pseudonym

All of the evidence that I have seen says that that is completely irrelevant to why racial categories were created.

Nowadays, thankfully, this is becoming so much less the case that to read anything into race would be unfair stereotyping, but our history of oppression and its legacy still means that someone's skin colour gives a statistically more significant indication of the sorts of challenges they've had to face in life than their ear lobes. — Pseudonym

That does not make racial categories correspond with any reality in the natural world.

It's not just arbitrary. It meant something significant about cultural heritage a hundred years ago, and shameful though it is, it still means something about one's history today. — Pseudonym

No.

All of the evidence I have seen shows that racial categories were arbitrarily created based on arbitrary characteristics and then projected onto people.

The way that I understand it, your characterization of racial categories as objective intellectual tools based on what they "signify" is patently false.

Furthermore, no concrete evidence from history, anthropology, biology or any other authority has been presented in support of this "race signifies biology and culture" assertion.

Rationality is light, supposedly. It is associated with enlightement, wisdom, philosophy, science, blah blah blah. To find fault in rationality is simply impossible. You would have to be either mad or a fool or both to even think of painting rationality in a negative light. — TheMadFool

Which rationality?

Logic as a discipline preceded science, so I could see science evolving as a variation of logic.

But everybody in this thread seems to treat logic as something other than an intellectual discipline created by humans.

Seems anthropocentric to me. Humans uncover some things that work for them and then say that those things are how everything in existence is organized.

What is socially constructed is not the skin and hair colour and nose shape but the importance of these things in influencing our judgements and categorisations unjustly. This in turn focusses our attention on skin and hair colour etc. When someone says 'race is determined by culture not genetics' I think the charitable way of reading this is that the racial basis of prejudice, hatred and discrimination and thence of the study of and focus on racial differences is entirely arbitrary. If we have any charity left and I hope we do. — Cuthbert

No.

Speaking for myself, when I say that race is socially/culturally constructed I literally mean that races in the human species are fictions that people created--mostly to justify oppression, exploitation, etc.--based on arbitrary characteristics/traits and that do not correspond with any known reality in the natural world.

It is so easy that anybody can do it in less than a minute. Pick a group of people, pick a biological characteristic/trait that they have and you don't, and say that based on that characteristic/trait they constitute a race and you constitute a different race. "Those people over there, they have free-hanging ear lobes. We over here have attached ear lobes. We are "attacheds", they are "free-hangers". It is biological reality that no rational person can deny: we are a distinct group separated from them by our attached ear lobes!".

Read "The Sneetches", by Dr. Seuss.

Biological race is, basically, a myth created to justify treating certain people as less than human. Biological reality, as I understand it, is that we are overwhelmingly all the same and that the biological differences between us, as an instructor I had in a college geography class once put it, "are miniscule".

Hot topic lately, which I find rather scary. To be clear, such a 'right' does not currently exist. But there seems to be a movement that seeks to establish it. Anyone care to defend the position that this would be good for society? — Roke

You are being extremely oversimplistic, in my humble opinion.

A right is a justified claim.

Rights depend on context. Something like voting in elections might be a civil right but not a human right.

With other rights, such as the right to finish what you are saying in a conversation without being interrupted, it is not so clear--we can't immediately appeal to status as a citizen or status as a human--what makes them a justified claim. It could be intuition that we have inherited from thousands of years of evolution that makes us recognize such a right. It could be that language and the use of language come with unspoken rights.

Clearly we can't just dismiss something as not being a right based on limited, biased things like our own culture's traditions, laws and values, even if the consequences scare us.

Just because we acknowledge/recognize a right doesn't necessarily mean wholesale cultural and political change. The U.S. Supreme Court could acknowledge a right not to be offended but say that it is outside of the scope of the U.S. Constitution.

In my humble opinion, your concern and the discussion it creates distract us from clearer, but well-obscured, realities. I could be wrong, but I think that it is safe to say that words--as in everyday, ho-hum exchanges, not just the exchange of ideas in political and scholarly contexts--can be very harmful and do a lot of psychological damage. If we acknowledge that words can damage a psyche and cause a lot of suffering just like pollution can damage lungs and cause a lot of suffering, that completely changes the nature of the issue. It takes us from what people do or do not like / approve of to what does or does not harm people and cause avoidable suffering. The latter, in my humble opinion, is where our focus should be. Only listening carefully and employing empathy will tell us if a social movement is the result of people's untold pain and suffering from verbal abuse or is simply people being extreme narcissists who believe that they are entitled to freedom from any words that they do not like or approve of. I don't sense that there is much of the latter going on, so I don't see what there is to be scared of.

What is your stake in the view that "race is culturally constructed" and that "gender is culturally constructed"? — Bitter Crank

Society probably cannot function without gender. At least not at this juncture.

Reproductive technology like artificial wombs might make sexual reproduction, including pregnancy, obsolete. AI might replace humans in parenting. AI might make humans obsolete in military, law enforcement, business and organizational management, education, legal representation, and other work. Males and females might end up all doing the same things, and roles related to sex might not be needed.

But at this time society probably cannot function without gender.

Race, on the other hand, serves no function other than dividing us and making us easier to manipulate and dominate. The sooner we all see through the smokescreen of race, the sooner we can identify and confront the real sources of suffering in the world.

Race is real and isn't determined by culture; it's inherent in the genetic makeup of a person. — Bitter Crank

All of the evidence that I have seen says that that is false.

Culture is also real, and is learned. There isn't a genetic link between race and culture. There are links of learning and environment, however, between race and culture. People tend to behave like those around them--that's cultural.

Maleness and femaleness are real and are biologically determined. Men are males, women are females. Both males or men, females or women, have certain sex-linked characteristics and traits, and both males or men and females or women learn an array of culturally specific roles in connection with their sex and gender.

All humans inherit tendencies to behave in various ways, and also learn behaviors in early life. Some of the behaviors are "stereotypes", a term applied to specific types of individuals or certain ways of behaving intended to represent the entire group of those individuals or behaviors as a whole. So, girls playing with dolls and boys with trucks are "stereotypes".

A "role" is culturally defined manner of behaving. "The stereotypical male role in a family is to provide financial support and leadership." A "role" may also be biological. The male "role" in reproduction is inseminating females. The female "role" in reproduction is bearing off-spring. The male may play the role of "family defender" because biologically he is bigger and stronger than the female (usually). The male may also play the role of care-giver, which is a role usually assigned in stereotypical fashion to females.

It's just an inconvenient fact of life that roles, stereotypes, biology, and culture are braided together. With some effort the specifics can be teased apart. We struggle to do this all the time. "Was so-and-so born with high intelligence (genes, biology, prenatal environment, etc.) or is so-and-so very successful as a result of obsessively hard work? Or in joke form, "If you're so smart, how come you are not rich?" — Bitter Crank

Social roles are in no way tethered to elements like biology, immediate environment, stereotypes, personality, etc.

What stereotype is the social role of consumer built on? What immediate environment is the social role of consumer derived from? None and none, respectively. Anybody with any traits and background can act in the social role of consumer. Just like anybody with any traits and background can act in the social role of patient, client, suspect, customer, leader, worker, student, teacher, entrepreneur, etc.

And what role one finds himself in can change in the blink of an eye. For a long time, academics were authorities guiding people called students who looked up to them. Now academics are more like customer service representatives working for highly-paid administrators and trying to please paying customers. If the customers--formerly known as students--in your class give you bad reviews your highly-paid bosses who are focused on the bottom line might not renew your contract next semester. Medical professionals also seem to increasingly find themselves and the people they treat / care for in different roles. Increasingly the latter are customers rather than patients--they'll even get a survey emailed to them asking them to rate the care they received!

Social roles are parts in the screenplay called society. Male, female, black, white, gay, tall, short, introverted, extroverted, disabled, healthy, sick, high IQ, low IQ, etc., symmetrical face, asymmetrical face, fat, skinny, etc. might predict what roles one finds his/herself in and how often, but they are not roles themselves, and roles are not constituted of them.

Racial classification is...based on biological clustering of physiological traits within geographic populations. — JustSomeGuy

And it is completely culturally constructed and corresponds to no known biological reality.

The fact that you won't acknowledge that the "acts" you listed are stereotypes does not mean I created a straw man. — JustSomeGuy

There is nothing to acknowledge about stereotypes.

People here are insisting that stereotypes are derived from biology.

Gender is not biology. Man and woman are not biology. Male and female are biology.

If gender is not biology, and if stereotypes are derived from biology, then stereotypes do not apply to gender.

Gender is not a trait. It is a role. Just like consumer, citizen, boss, worker, husband, mother, suspect, leader, intellectual, guru, pundit, etc. are roles. Roles are things that are performed.

Stereotypes are not performed. That is further evidence that stereotypes and social roles cannot logically be conflated.

You have provided zero evidence for your claim other than "because I say so". — JustSomeGuy

I asked for evidence of a social role called "white". How do I know when I am failing at being a "white", I asked. Who would be a good role model for being a "white", I asked.

The responses were evidence of stereotypes, cultures and sub-cultures, not any evidence of a social role.

If there is a social role called "white", ample opportunity to show evidence of it has been given.

I'd also like to make clear that my claim was that gender roles are based on stereotypes--no different than racial roles/stereotypes — JustSomeGuy

I have made clear that I believe that conflating stereotypes and social roles is a fallacy.

And I have made clear my view that race is a social construct. Therefore, even if social roles are based on stereotypes derived from biology, there are no such stereotypes to build a "white" social role with--there are no biological races in homo sapiens sapiens.

and you have yet to show why gender stereotypes are different from racial stereotypes in any significant way, which was your original claim. — JustSomeGuy

Straw man.

I never said anything about stereotypes.

If race is not biological, why are children born the same race as their parents? How can we find our racial ancestry by looking at our DNA? How can forensic scientists tell what race a person is based on their blood? — JustSomeGuy

Again, race is socially/culturally constructed based on arbitrary characteristics.

Biological races do not exist in the species homo sapiens sapiens.

Biological sexes do exist. Nobody, as far as I know, arbitrarily picked uteruses to create categories called sexes. But that is exactly the origin of race--some arbitrary characteristic, skin color, was chosen to be used to place people in fictional categories. It did not have to be skin color. It could have been hanging ear lobes, stature 6' or greater, or belly stars. Either way, I guess "you can't teach a sneetch".

I never said it was, you did--that's been my point this whole time. — JustSomeGuy

No, I never said that living up to a stereotype is acting in a role.

I never said anything about stereotypes. Somebody else brought up stereotypes.

You are attacking your own straw men.

You listed some stereotypes, claiming that doing them would mean you are "acting in the role of man". — JustSomeGuy

No I did not.

I listed acts that are performed, such as opening doors for women.

These "roles" you speak of are just stereotypes. — JustSomeGuy

No they are not.

They are acts that are part of a script called genders.

Stereotypes are things like blondes being dumb, white/caucasian athletes being slow, nerds/geeks being inept at mating, etc.

According to you, I am not a man because I don't do these stereotypical "male" things. — JustSomeGuy

Straw man.

I did not say anything about stereotypes. I did not say that anything is stereotypical of anybody.

I said that "white" is not a role like "man" is. Somebody assigned the role of "man" can do a good or bad acting job, but there is no acting job to be done with "white", I said.

And yet despite not doing any of them, I am a man. It's almost as if being a man means nothing more than having a Y chromosome, just as being white means nothing more than having a certain skin tone....anything beyond that is a stereotype. — JustSomeGuy

Male and female are biological facts. Man and woman are not. A lot of theory in the social sciences calls the latter genders.

Social roles are assigned to genders, not sexes. Nobody says, "Be a male!" or "Male up!". People do say, " Be a man! " and "Man up!". Nobody says, "My daughter grew up to be a great female. I'm so proud of her". People do say, "My daughter grew up to be a great woman. I'm so proud of her".

Gender is not set in stone. The act that must be performed--the script that must be followed--in the roles of man and woman varies temporally and spatially. It used to be that being a woman meant being skilled in making and keeping the perfect home. But now in a lot of places not knowing how to prepare meals from scratch does not mean failing at being a woman. Now, it seems, not exerting power means failing at being a woman--"Lean in" is the way to be a woman now, it seems.

The point is that "white" is not in the same category as man, teacher, consumer, leader, mother, etc. "White" is not a role to be played. There is no script--no opening doors for women, or anything like it--to be followed acting in a social role called "white".

None of your responses to me address any of this. They have filled a field with straw men.

I think maybe what WfPOMO might be saying is that there is arguably a male role that is derived from some set of rationally justifiable beliefs about being male, — Pseudonym

The point I tried to make is that race is not biological and is socially constructed from arbitrary traits while sex--male and female--is purely biological and the things it is based on, such as uteruses and testicles, are not traits (just like kidneys are not a trait) and are not arbitrary.

I think maybe what WfPOMO might be saying is that there is arguably a male role that is derived from some set of rationally justifiable beliefs about being male, whereas the 'white' role is only stereotypes, nothing more than the pursuit of power evident in all humanity which, means that, by virtue of historical power plays alone, whites have largely adopted expressions of power where they can. Nothing about being 'white' directly caused them to do this. — Pseudonym

No.

I juxtaposed sex, a biological fact, and gender, a role a person plays. Nothing more, nothing less.

Somebody then suggested that races--white, black, Native American, etc.--are roles just like man and woman are roles, and I showed how that is false. Nothing more, nothing less.

A 'male' role is arguably, not a role a woman would adopt even if they could. According to the logic behind it, its largely to do with greater average physical strength and the inability to suckle children. So, the theory goes, women would not adopt the typical male roles because they are not, on average, stronger, and they can suckle children. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this argument (although I have a great deal of sympathy for it), I'm just saying there is one.

With race, however, whilst a few extreme racists exist who have ideas about racial differences leading to behavioural differences, most people who exhibit 'white' stereotypes do so by virtue of the historical context alone, meaning that had history taken a different route, blacks would have adopted this role instead.

So the argument is, nothing about their 'whiteness' causes them directly to adopt this role, whereas something about a man's 'male-ness' causes him to adopt the roles he does. — Pseudonym

I did not say any of that.

I simply said that a post-racial society sounds plausible while a post-gender society does not, and that transgender people might therefore be better served by a focus on how we are all the same rather than a focus on their struggle with gender.

In other words, if gender could be dissolved then that could liberate transgender people from their struggles. But the dissolution of gender seems highly unlikely to happen anytime soon, therefore resources available for helping transgender people are not well spent doing things like attacking gender by saying calling somebody a "man" is violence.

Of course the social role of "white" exists; and "black" and "gay" and all others. Stereotypes and social roles exist because we are not all one big cultural frappe, the same everywhere. Cultural groups are just unique enough to be noticeable. So, what is the "white" social role? Among other things, it's a distinctive kind of language (depending on geography); it's certain kinds of food and clothing preferences; it's a way of relating to institutions (like the police or government officials) that is a bit different than other people's; it's a generally practiced style of self-presentation. Han Chinese, Nigerians, Argentinians, Ugandans, Indonesians, Zimbabweans, Russians, Peruvians, French, Italians, Swedish, Canadians... pick a group, any group, and there will be a certain style of "XYZ" culture which will be unique to a particular time and place. — Bitter Crank

Cultures and sub-cultures are not social roles.

Social roles are things like teacher, student, client, consumer, boss, leader, citizen, suspect, elite, man, woman, intellectual, mother, father, etc., etc.

Some people with certain characteristics might be more likely to end up in certain roles, such as African-Americans in the role of suspect, and be likely to have to play the role differently, such as not being believed, having deadly force used against you, etc., but that does not make those characteristics a role.

So you want me to tell you what white stereotypes are? — JustSomeGuy

No.

If "white" is a social role, tell us how one knows if he/she is or is not successfully acting in that role.

Living up to stereotypes is not acting in a role.

But these things are also stereotypes, so you're sort of shooting yourself in the foot.

The truth is that these "roles" you're talking about are all based on stereotypes, whether they're gender roles or race roles or whatever the case may be. So, you can either say that these roles are legitimate or that they're not, but you can't cherry pick. — JustSomeGuy

None of this tells me how I know if I am or am not playing this "white" role well or who would be a good role model for me.

I do not believe that the social role of "white" exists. A white person might be more likely to have a role like master and less likely to have a role like servant, but that doesn't make "white" a role.

It is contradictory to say that determinism is true.

If everything is an effect of an antecedent cause then that includes determinism. Therefore, with respect to determinism it is correct only to say that something is determined.

"Determinism is determined" is the only correct statement.

Still waiting to hear what determined/caused determinism.

Do you think stereotypes or expectations about the way people of different races should act would fall under the category of "roles"? — czahar

No.

I know if I am or am not being a man--I am or am not opening doors for women; I am or am not being a protector and provider; I am or am not sexually active.

I know if I am or am not being a civilian; citizen; worker; elite; etc.

There is no such thing with respect to race.

If you disagree, then tell me how I know if I am being " white". If I am failing at being "white", who would be a good role model for me? Do you not hear how ridiculous that sounds?

Sometimes one hears about a "post-racial society" and then something happens which pretty much obliterates the idea that we are anywhere close to being a post-racial society.

If we were a post-racial society, then we would think about race as much as people today think about phrenology - measuring the bumps and indentations in your skull to learn about one's personality. We don't think about phrenology. We are a post-phrenology society. Post racial? Not even close. — Bitter Crank

I can see society without race.

But gender seems to be too much a part of culture to be discarded. Among other things, there are not racial roles, but there definitely are gender roles.

I do not believe that there are biological races. Race is based on arbitrary physical traits that do not constitute a unique biological group.

Gender--I don't know.

I am not ready to say that reproductive organs are in any way arbitrary. Fair skin is a trait. Kidneys are not a trait. Are those who say that gender is culturally constructed saying that uteruses and testicles are arbitrary traits? Is the pattern of distribution of uteruses and testicles in the human population the same as eye color? Sex organs are as arbitrary as eye color and tell you as much about a person as eye color?

You hear about a "post-racial society" sometimes, and it makes sense. A lot of people are ready to discard racial categories and put race in our collective rearview mirror. Are many people ready to discard gender?

We have plenty of people, both men and women, lamenting the decline of "chivalry", so we have a long way to go if we want to discard gender.

This thread is further evidence of the power of gender. If transgender people really are as vulnerable as some people here have said, maybe they would be better served by focusing on how they are like everybody else instead of how gender does not work the same for them.

A difference in taste, that is all. — Rich

Determinism says that B is an effect of A; nothing more, nothing less. A could have never happened and we would not have B. Something else could have happened, and some other effect could have resulted.

Fatalism, on the other hand, says that nothing different could have happened. Everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen is set in stone.

It claims everything is already determined. — Rich

That sounds like fatalism, which is not the same thing as determinism.