They damage those around them, ↪baker. — Banno

So what? They get away with it! And society at large loves them, at least secretly!

People admire aggressive drivers, for example. And generally, people blame the victim or at least the one who is worse off. People love winners.

I don't think something like justification applies to circumstances with such complex origins. I think the word applies to actions or beliefs so making such a state of affairs would not be justified, but the existence of the state of affairs is not the sort of thing that the word 'justified' meaningfully applies to.

I'd rather minimise such disparities. — Isaac

People generally believe in the just-world hypothesis, and there is evidence suggesting that such belief correlates positively with mental health.

By this hypothesis, disparities exist among people simply because the people with less income, lower education, lower socio-economic status aren't trying hard enough. In this view, solely the less successful person is to blame, and there's nothing that other people can or should do about it.

Also, it seems that most people believe that disparity is normal, a given, and not something to take any action against.


It's not clear what the motivation for reducing disparity is or should be. Do you have any ideas?

Laughable if it wasn't so sad that people really think like this.
/.../
Yeah, another kid who thinks he has it all figured out because he's discovered some Ayn Rand or Thomas Sowell — Xtrix

Some people really are able to think and live in cutthroat terms, though. They don't have humanist sensitivities. For them, it's perfectly normal that species, including humans become extinct -- nothing to make a fuss about. They can be quite careless about their own death as well.

I am not a theorist or have a vision. — Tom Storm

If you don't know what you want or where you want to go, then how can you do anything?

But various approaches predominate at different times. — Tom Storm

Various approaches? Then how can anything be accomplished?

Who says they are happy? — Tom Storm

I'd prefer to give real examples, but it's not suitable in this case.

Why what? — Tom Storm

Why is psychopathy classified under mental illness, when it helps people to be successful in their careers and life in general?

Who says they are happy?

Oh, come on. Just look at that smug satisfaction! That self-confident contempt! If that isn't happiness (for adults), then what is??!

If they can't defeat others, sure, then they might feel something like unhappiness (or is it righteous indignation after all?). But is it then psychotherapy's goal to help them to defeat others, so that the psychopath can feel happy?

Psychopathy is more often known these days as antisocial personality disorder, I am fairly certain that people only present like this if they have experienced abuse of some kind. It's a post trauma state. — Tom Storm

But why? If they are successful in their career and happy, how can this possibly be classified as ill mental health?

Do you think there'd still be such a need to facilitate social change if we actually addressed disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth? — Isaac

Do you believe that such disparities are not justified?

That's true. Also genuine change in these areas requires hard work and $ and not just symbols. — Tom Storm

But change toward what? What do you imagine as the goal of all this hard work? What is your vision of a just society?

I would have thought in numbers too numerous to count. Many uneducated working people who have been victims of structural changes to the economy and manufacturing, who now don't have jobs and whose towns are dying and who are being asked by the cultural Left (people they see as urban elites) to hold certain views on society and identity politics. Many of them have left Labor style politics precisely because they feel disenfranchised by what they see as stifling political correctness. As one such person said to me a couple of weeks ago, "We need jobs and housing, not gender neutral pronouns." — Tom Storm

When you said "people who would oppose a progressive cause" I thought only of conservatives of the right-wing variety. And they are certainly not disenfranchized.

Also, in Europe, political correctness is a thing of the right-wingers, not lefties.

So the question remains; how best to facilitate cultural change, whilst recognising the disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth.

But why would such change need to be facilitated? Seriously, can you explain?

One the one hand, we are force-fed the theory of evolution, and with it, the ideas that life is a struggle for survival and that only the fittest survive. But on the other hand, we're supposed to make numerous exceptions to it?!

Under democracy, there are multiple, competing ideas of what counts as "just" or "good". Under democracy, the problem can never be solved.

I could not follow the argument much further. — NOS4A2

You don't even follow it to the right person.

It seems to apply to any concept denoting identity that is ideologically laden somehow: national identity, religious, political, racial, gender, class identity.

In such cases, people will sometimes put forward the charge of the No True Scotsman fallacy, when in fact what is going is an equivocation, given that terms for national, religious, political, racial, gender, class identity are typically complex, multilayered.

https://socialtextjournal.org/eleven-theses-on-civility/ — StreetlightX

3. Calls for civility seek to evade our calls for change. The accusation of incivility is a technique of depoliticization aimed at undoing collectivity. We do not need to debate civility; we need to clarify, expand, and intensify our demands.

This is where they're vulnerable, and wrong: they demand. You're not going to get anything much by demanding, and whatever you do get, will be given grudgingly and aspired to be taken away as soon as possible. You're also not going to get much from someone who you believe has done you wrong. They've done you wrong the first time around, so why on earth would they not do it a second time?!

You need to, very civilly, call your attorney and, probably, your own engineer. And the town engineer and building inspector. — T Clark

Fairy tales.

They do not respond. Maybe we were too civil.

And so you know: it's not actually possible to get a second opinion on your own. We tried that, but suddenly, they were all too busy. The moment they hear you want them for a second opinion, they don't want to have anything to do with you, or they insist that it's the other party who needs to provide such an analysis.

Obviously, if it was helpful, it wouldn't be overly confrontational. But again, notice that the issue is the confrontational abuse of the other side. When you don't have the vote, you don't have justice, you don't have freedom, and those that have it are complaining that YOU are uncivil, that is manipulative bullshit in action. The incivility, confrontation and abuse starts with the oppressive society, not with those who resist it. — unenlightened

I think though that there are situations where the one in the lesser position of power loses out, no matter what they do, regardless of whether they are civil or not. If one isn't civil, those in power will refuse one on account of not being civil ("The manner of your objection can nullify your grievance"). If one is civil, those in power will ignore one.

The point is that in talking to people who would oppose a progressive cause, let's say trans rights, it isn't helpful to be overly confrontational or abusive, as the goal is to incrementally build support not further disenfranchise the naysayers. — Tom Storm

I'm certain they don't feel disenfranchized. what a strange idea. Do you know (of) anyone who opposes a "progressive cause" who feels disenfranchized?

Sure, they'll often play the victim, but I think this is a strategy on their part, rather than feeling disenfranchized.

The point of civility as a duty is to act that way even when initially disinclined to do so. Far from being redundant, it only matters when you feel someone has broken that mutual social relation and you no longer feel inclined to treat them civilly as a consequence, then you fall back on your duty to do so despite such an initial disinclination. — Isaac

Then riddle me this:

Our new neighbors built a house right below us, on a slope, they cut deep into the slope. There was and still is a danger of a landslide that can destroy our house. Back when the excavation works were being done, we protested, but we were dismissed. When I pointed out to the engineer on site that digging into the slope like they intended to could cause our house to collapse, she said "Your safety is not my problem" and when I objected, she simply cut me short and said that she "isn't going to argue with me".

Now who here broke that mutual social relation? I'm sure that for the new neighbors and the engineer, it was us, because we were the ones interfering with their work.


And just so you know, the terrain is slowly sliding, it's evident.

Can anyone think of other cases where being a kind of thing at all is conflated with being a good example of that kind of thing? — Pfhorrest

Being a true Scotsman.

... Thoughts? — JohnLocke

Do you know any society where the above is not the case? European countries have always been profoundly classist.

Exposure to alternate accents leads to understanding and acceptance. — Banno

Not at all. You should come to Europe. You'd learn a whole new definition of what it means to be a redneck.

I don't know if accent is really that important. I've never seen it as particularly important myself. — Apollodorus

Depends on where you're from. Most countries in Europe have great dialectal diversity. Within one language, a particular dialect can be prestigious, while others considered less or more lowly. There's usually quite a stigma attached to the lowly ones.

Take a look here for German dialects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_dialects
And this for general infor about dialects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect


I myself speak one dialect at home with my family, a supradialectal variant with the extended family, a variation of spoken standard Slovene in semi-formal situations, and standard Slovene in formal situations. But that's primarily because my native dialect is on the list of those least prestigious ones, and I don't want to be discriminated against. In contrast, someone whose native dialect is a prestigious one can make it through life without ever adapting and without ever speaking anything but it, even in school (except in written form).

The dogs bark, the caravan moves on…. — Wayfarer

Now the question is, who's who.

People generally don’t get close enough to one another and perhaps mix too quickly in large crowds and social groups for there to be any effectiveness of such chemical messages. — Benj96

There is also a cultural factor in this.

In Turkish culture, for example, it's normal for parents to yearn after the smell of their children, even their adult children. And they hug eachother and breathe in eachother's bodily smell. And by this, I don't mean perfume, soap, and such, but actual bodily smell.

Just some kid doing his impression of Ayn Rand. I don’t see much point in continuing. — Xtrix

Actually, I think people like him have it really good in life. So often, ignorance in fact is bliss.

Fossil fuels protect people from heat waves. — Kasperanza

Where?

Oh, wait, all those people in those hot African countries, India, and so on, they should just move elsewhere.

Why do you think this vagueness of the predicates such as a "heap" or a "hole" arise in language? — Shawn

They are indefinite quantifiers. They seem to arise because the level of precision they express suffices for certain purposes.

"Tom is so popular, he has a heap of Facebook friends! Wait, let me check and give you the exact number ... yes, he has 23,456 friends on Facebok!"



As for transforming a non-heap into a heap: this has got to depend on what is being counted and what the standards are as to what counts for "a lot" of said thing.

If you need four of your teeth repaired, then you have a heap of teeth to repair.
If you have four FB friends, then you do not have a heap of friends. By some people's standards, even a 100 FB friends isn't a lot.

That’s because you’re completely ignorant about this topic. If you continue to choose not to take 10 minutes to read about it, please stop trolling this thread. — Xtrix

Bu that's just it: If he read about it, it would be yet another thing he read. And as such, easily dismissable.

Climate is not weather, but it disrupts the weather. We’re seeing it happen before our eyes. The pattern is obvious, provided we can read a graph. — Xtrix

For most people, this is too abstract. It seems to me that unless people experience climate change directly, in a way that doesn't depend on trusting others, they can't really relate to it.

For example, those who have had a garden for at least 20 years, and, of course, crop farmers know climate change first hand. But how are city people supposed to relate to it?


We've had a considerable garden for 40+ years and we try to grow at least the seasonal vegetables for ourselves. Up until some 30 years ago, it was barely ever necessary to water the plants, there was enough and evenly distributed rain. Now, it's impossible to grow anything by relying solely on rain. Also, most of the rain now is torrential, making erosion a major problem, so we had to build terraces and frame all the allotments. In the past, torrential rain was so rare that it was possible to maintain a classical garden on steep terrain. We also need to use ground covers, we had to adapt in terms of choice of varieties, and so on.

The upshot is that in the modern age, polarising available narratives might be just too easy and so not really apply the pressure they used to. It's just too easy to find a group to join these days so little pressure to join one slightly outside of your comfort zone. so we need more real-life social groups rather than virtual ones as they are less flexible, and so more able to pull in the direction of social change. Can't see it happening though... — Isaac

With the popularization of right-wing politics, joining a group that isn't in line with the right-wing government might just be the right kind of pressure and might make people take such group membership seriously. But because the real-world consequences of such membership are likely going to be severe (e.g. losing your job), fewer people are likely to go through with it.

I think you're discounting the psychological effects that very visible movements have. — Echarmion

Not if the government is right-wing. Recently in Slovenia, a right-wing government politician called the protesters "rabble" and another such politician called them "pigs".

I think of civility as akin to table manners. — tim wood

You think there's a civil way to talk to the person robbing or raping you?

And that if they remind you that you ought to be civil to them, they are fully justified to do so, and you, as a proponent of civility, should oblige?

*sigh*

Oddly enough, if that attitude is prevalent enough, it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. — Xtrix

Of course.
It seems to me, though, that an effective climate intervention would need to be more fundamental, one that only indirectly or as a consequence has to do with counteracting human-caused climate change.

From what I've seen, the usual liberal, democratic proposals in favor of ecology are politically correct in regard to what drives human consumption to begin with, they touch upon greed only superficially, if at all. That's why they can't possibly work. What would need to change is people's most fundamental beliefs about the meaning and value of life. And this cannot happen in a democratic society. The solution isn't in reducing consumption or using different products, rather, it's in changing the why for using things.

Follow this to the pdf. Worth the read. — tim wood

Oh? What makes you think I haven't read it?

If corporations knew they could never be held liable for it, then moving past the propaganda into collective reality might be attainable. — Cheshire

What do you mean? Of course corporations know they could never be held liable.

People who are opposed to fossil fuels, are against a cheap, reliable, and powerful source of energy. — Kasperanza

And when the fossil fuels run out?

I don't fear equivocation. — NOS4A2

No, you just use empty filler phrases.

It says more about you than it does about me.

Again, with all the words! Accomplishing things!

Then that's what you fear. Look, words made you do it!

however I'd like to know a few tidbits of wisdom you guys have gleaned out of the story. — theUnexaminedMind

It always struck me as patronizing.


Also:


https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php/Closer_to_truth


So many people love to assume that they are out in the light, while others are still in the cave and yet have to come out, to finally see tha truth.

I shook hands with a man who shook hands with a man who knew Oscar Wilde. — Tom Storm

Awww. :hearts: