-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Blue states smart! Red states dumb!
- Thread starter Cimarron
- Start date
- Status
Loki said:I believe. I certainly believe in the separation of church and state, and have stated as much many times on the forum. What I disagree with is the notion that there can be no moral instruction provided by the government. You seem to think that I'm trying to "slip religion in" somehow just because I'm a proponent of so-called "traditional morality", which is not the case. Certain values, such as the ones I listed previously, are not inherently religious in nature, and, in fact, are the backbone of any successful society (if that society is to be sustainable in the long term). Such virtues were espoused by Aristotle over 2000 years ago-- was he religious? No, but he realized that certain values are beneficial to both the individual and society, and, after much consideration, I happen to agree with him. In fact, by kinda implicitly suggesting (I'm saying this "weakly", because I don't want to misrepresent your stance) that an appeal to morality must of necessity be religious in nature, you're essentially saying the same thing that staunch proponents of organized religion have always (mistakenly) said: that without religion, no morality is possible. Now, again, I'm not REALLY saying that you're implying this, but for you to gather from my previous posts that I'm somehow against the separation of church and state, well, the only way that you could correctly say that is if you feel that all moral values are religious in nature, or need to be buttressed by religious dogma in order to prove effective. Aristotle didn't believe that to be the case; I use him as an example because he was not religious, yet he recognized that certain values promote social well-being. Period. That's my entire point-- I'm not looking for a "back door" for religious encroachment on government affairs at all. All I'm saying is that certain values and standards promote the health of a society, and that this has always, and will always be the case. These values have tangible, practical results and benefits for a society, and so they should be championed by any sane society imo.
Just think, for a moment of what a simple return to temperance (to take one such value) would do for our society: it would affect everything from personal financial woes incurred due to excessive spending (though some is of necessity, much is not), to teen/single-parent pregnancies and its attendant ills, to drug use and its accompanying evils, to excessive corporate greed-- you name it, and a return to this one value would have a marked effect if people were exposed to it from a young age and society put its stamp on such a value. Instead, we live in likely the most intemperate culture in history (or on the short list of the top two or three). The results of the disavowal of these simple, sane moral values are all around us; I don't see why you equate my championing of such values to "pushing religion" on people. I'm not that way at all-- you'll never see me enter a thread shouting that "Christ is the way, the truth, and the light", despite the fact that I wholeheartedly believe that to be the case. I've done a lot of reading, and a lot of thinking in my life, and am fully capable of supporting any stance I take with reasoned argument as opposed to faith-based arguments (and advocating faith-based morality-- which I am not doing-- would be an instance of this).
Hope this makes things a bit clearer.
Hey Loki. I really like your posts (they are looong though haha). I must say that I find myself oddly repelled by the idea of "teaching morality", but I can't really put my finger on why. Logically I can't see a problem with teaching fairness and honesty in schools. That's good stuff, but something about it doesn't sit right with me.
I notice that you sort of allude to the idea of the country heading in a bad moral direction. I'm not sure I agree with this. I think what you see and feel as a moral decline is some weird phenomenon that seems to happen to everyone as they age. (Myself included). It always seems that the younger generation is heading down toward this total garbage heap, but generation after generation keep being born and statistically violence, teen pregnancy, drug use, murder, all that stuff, stay at a pretty even rate.
Throughout history you can find all these references to "younger generations" being morally corrupt, and on the verge of complete moral bedlam. But it never happens. I find the idea interesting because I feel it a bit myself.
Anyway. I'd just like to thank you for such level headed talk. I'm a Democrat myself, and find myself constantly embarrassed by my fellow democrats.
I'll tell you what loki, I believe on always re-evaluating that which I've deemed acceptable as I gain more knowledge, and as I increase my capabilities, but for now I believe the world can still diverge FAR FAR more from that which you deem virtuous/moral. I believe that right now we're approaching the point when we don't need a vast majority of individuals to contribute to society. Once that point is reached, I see no reason why not to allow even far more radical behaviour than is present right now to take hold of our culture, and become acceptable in our society, so long as the system can bear it, which it'd seem like it can provided we take some measures.
Hedonism should be allowed, people will eventually be productive to our society while retaining such a characteristic, or at the very least they won't be any impossible to sustain resource hog.
Materialism is also acceptable, someday those who're so may change if they so desire, if not let them be.
The thing is as I've said society is finally approaching the point where it need no physical labour, and intellectual labour need not the whole population. As such, why are we to interfere in the affairs of others? So long as we can prevent oppression/aggression, and so long as we control population size, such a system will be sustainable indefinitely. Everyone will be free to pursue that which they desire, and If they tire of it they can seek something else. Why should we spoon feed our views upon others, if it's entirely unecessary, and if as you agree they're not more correct than those of others? I say, let em be, and let us all enjoy it.
What's the problem with the use of drugs? Brain damage, addiction, harm done to others, organized crime? If that's taken care of, say by means to reverse the damage to the individual, isolation, the gov. freely providing the drugs indefinitely. Should they not be allowed?
What's the problem with uber-free sexuality? STDs, psychological scars, pregnancies? If those are taken care of, then what? Why not allow pure sexual freedom?
What's wrong with obesity? health problems, unattractiveness? If those are taken care of... then what? for example there are animals with lots of fat, I'm sure we can find some means of making them healthy, we can also provide communities for them to be with others that find them attractive. If so what is the problem?
What's wrong with being uber rich? That there are some in need, that we should try and help others? If we take care of those, why not allow those who desire to, to be uber rich(so long as they don't collapse the system, of course.)?
Same goes for pretty much any other reversible act that may affect the individual himself.
Note that my ideas are very long term ideas for society, given the size of the universe, and further technological progress... we can bring forth this new ideal society.
What's functional, what's less functional, does it even really matter, if we're not in a hurry to do something and so long as society can still function, with some headroom? I say that nor the functionality, nor the sustainability of a society is something that should make a particular view more correct than another, as you've said, If I'm reading correctly. While true, it has to be taken into consideration if we desire to prolong society's existence, it should be nor our sole nor our primary guide. So long as functionality is unecessary for sustenance it can be done away with, and there is no reason to not do away with excess functionality and just keep it there, should we not have any other purpose for it, for the sake of something that is in the end abstract.
PS IF we someday found some way to allow indefinite exponential growth, their need be no need to limit reproduction.... but still it should be controlled(as to stop some unstable individuals from doing something irreversible such as killing their child... Or brainwashing the poor innocent, defenseless young one.)
edited
Hedonism should be allowed, people will eventually be productive to our society while retaining such a characteristic, or at the very least they won't be any impossible to sustain resource hog.
Materialism is also acceptable, someday those who're so may change if they so desire, if not let them be.
The thing is as I've said society is finally approaching the point where it need no physical labour, and intellectual labour need not the whole population. As such, why are we to interfere in the affairs of others? So long as we can prevent oppression/aggression, and so long as we control population size, such a system will be sustainable indefinitely. Everyone will be free to pursue that which they desire, and If they tire of it they can seek something else. Why should we spoon feed our views upon others, if it's entirely unecessary, and if as you agree they're not more correct than those of others? I say, let em be, and let us all enjoy it.
What's the problem with the use of drugs? Brain damage, addiction, harm done to others, organized crime? If that's taken care of, say by means to reverse the damage to the individual, isolation, the gov. freely providing the drugs indefinitely. Should they not be allowed?
What's the problem with uber-free sexuality? STDs, psychological scars, pregnancies? If those are taken care of, then what? Why not allow pure sexual freedom?
What's wrong with obesity? health problems, unattractiveness? If those are taken care of... then what? for example there are animals with lots of fat, I'm sure we can find some means of making them healthy, we can also provide communities for them to be with others that find them attractive. If so what is the problem?
What's wrong with being uber rich? That there are some in need, that we should try and help others? If we take care of those, why not allow those who desire to, to be uber rich(so long as they don't collapse the system, of course.)?
Same goes for pretty much any other reversible act that may affect the individual himself.
Note that my ideas are very long term ideas for society, given the size of the universe, and further technological progress... we can bring forth this new ideal society.
I actually spoke about this distinction at some length in a previous post, if you'd care to fish around. The gist of it was as above; also, I stated that since the purely philosophical question (as to truth) will never be adequately answered (seeing as how relativism is a valid critique of absolutism), then we have two choices before us: to either resign ourselves to stagnation and eventual decay, since we can never know what is "true", philsophically, or to embrace that which can be shown to promote certain quantifiably beneficial states. It is thus a way to sidestep the relativist's dilemma (and perhaps not a clever one) and focus on progress as opposed to what I feel sometimes to be "overintellectualism" (i.e., "thinking oneself to death" while never reaching firm bases for action). There's an elaboration of this in my previous posts somewhere. Sorry if I can't pinpoint it for you (understandably
What's functional, what's less functional, does it even really matter, if we're not in a hurry to do something and so long as society can still function, with some headroom? I say that nor the functionality, nor the sustainability of a society is something that should make a particular view more correct than another, as you've said, If I'm reading correctly. While true, it has to be taken into consideration if we desire to prolong society's existence, it should be nor our sole nor our primary guide. So long as functionality is unecessary for sustenance it can be done away with, and there is no reason to not do away with excess functionality and just keep it there, should we not have any other purpose for it, for the sake of something that is in the end abstract.
PS IF we someday found some way to allow indefinite exponential growth, their need be no need to limit reproduction.... but still it should be controlled(as to stop some unstable individuals from doing something irreversible such as killing their child... Or brainwashing the poor innocent, defenseless young one.)
edited
Just an aside, the "pragmatic fallacy" as a logical fallacy depends on causation not being established. One can't simply say something "works" simply because there is perceived effects after the supposed cause. It could actually be something else or nothing at all. A good example of this would be the placebo effect, even though the pill itself doesn't do anything.
gohepcat:
But we wouldn't be teaching specific morality (such as "premarital sex is bad", or "drug use is bad" for example, though we do the latter all the time as it stands anyway), we would be teaching broad ethical maxims that have been around for thousands of years and deal more with mastery of the self than anything else; they are not properly "values" so much as "states of being/mind", and are applicable to any situation a person finds themselves in. Thus something like temperance is not a value in the same way that "no premarital sex" is a value, as "no premarital sex" applies only to the sexual sphere (and is thus an example of a "moral"), whereas if a person is temperate, it will necessarily inform all of their actions in every sphere of life, leading to large-scale social improvement (thus temperance is an example of a "personal ethic"-- that is, a "general manner of behavior"; ditto for the other virtues I'm advocating). If individuals are poised, temperate, and civil, then their aggregates-- societies-- will be as well. I can't fathom a person who wouldn't want that, and, quite honestly, those who wouldn't want it don't really deserve to be considered, both because they would be in the extreme minority as well as because they have no logical basis for their opposition to these virtues.
Now, realize when I say "an extreme minority that should not be considered", I am referring to those who would explicitly flat-out state that less temperance and civility is preferable to more-- not merely of people who disagree with any of the particulars of my posts herein (just to be clear; the last thing I need is to hear chants of "you'd suppress the everyone who disagrees with you!!"). This is a sensible stance in the same way that we do not allow the views of NAMBLA to inform our social notions of propriety vis-a-vis pedophilia; in every society and under every value set, certain fringe elements are not going to be considered when setting social policy. Under mine, that fringe element would just happen to be those who flat-out do not believe in the wisdom of these maxims (temperance, civility, charity etc.); these people would not be penalized or punished in any way, mind you-- all I'm saying is that they wouldn't inform our decisions as to policy (e.g., the implementation of virtue advocacy programs in the schools). The same way we would not allow a person who explicitly believes that more murder and death is preferable to less murder and death to inform our policy decisions and social mores as to the legality and propriety of murder. This is not some Nazi regime I'm proposing-- I'm an American, and have strong notions of individual liberty. People are free to act and believe as they wish; all I'm saying is that society is under no obligation to encourage certain clearly wrong modes of behavior and values ("wrong" in the sense that they engender the universally undesirable conditions, that we nearly all agree upon, noted earlier). Only an idiot (or a tyrant) would outlaw certain beliefs or practices, but neither do certain values deserve to be promoted as they currently are in all spheres; the state has an obligation to its constituents to advance certain values that will best lead to a sound, optimally functioning society (note that my definition of "optimal" is an attainable one, by no means a perfect society; it takes into account human nature and the existence of flaws and immorality). Clearly, no matter the values promoted, society is never going to be perfect-- does that mean that we should not strive to get as close as possible, instead resigning ourselves to the status quo? I'd argue (and have argued) "no". For this, I'm castigated.
Also, if the teaching of "morality" in schools seems vaguely unsettling to you, I can only posit that this is most likely the result of getting that phrase "don't push your morality on me" drummed into our heads a bit too often. First of all, morality is taught all the time in schools, both explicitly and implicitly; indeed, morality is taugh via acculturation by the very process of social interaction (which occurs in schools as well as everywhere else). Transmission of social mores is thus inevitable so long as we remain social creatures. Every time a teacher tells a third-grader to share, or to stop berating a classmate, they are teaching "morality"; every time classmates enforce their own intergroup morality via heavy-handed measures (shunning, fighting, name-calling etc.), they, too, are teaching morality via acculturation. Since the teaching of morality, both explicit and implicit, is part and parcel of our social interactions, it will always occur. So we would be remiss as a society, then, in not advocating the very best of that morality in order that future generations consequently achieve a greater measure of "success" (that is, lower incidence of the aforementioned deleterious conditions).
Some of it is certainly attributable to us all wearing rose-tinted glasses as we age, but not nearly all of it. While I do not deny that our society has made strides in certain areas to bring the observable rates of certain phenomena (such as murder in big cities) down to similar levels as in the past (though even this is a tenuous assertion-- statistics are a bitch that way; needless to say, such discussion is beyond the scope of this topic), it has come at a great cost, both human and financial. Further, many of those conditions have not decreased, but rather increased; in any event, this somewhat misses the point: focusing on numbers is pointless in a sense, because even if our society is making strides in certain areas (say, if the murder rate has decreased from 1992 until now), advocating virtue could only logically lead to further improvements; it can never be posited that increased virtue will lead to more murder, or more obesity or rape or greed. And so if the effects can either be positive or at worst nil (which I don't suppose to be the case, but for argument's sake), then why am I being crucified for pushing for these things?
My point is that advocating some of these simple ethical memes would lead to similar effects at far less of a cost in the long run. The reasons that, say, murder has gone down (assuming it has; I know that it's gone down from the early 90's til now in NYC, but I haven't looked at the relevant stats for the nation) are myriad-- everything from increased funding for intervention programs in schools, stricter penalties across the board (resulting in higher incarceration costs), so-called "quality of life" crackdowns that net convicted felons etc. The point is that all these things may work, but A) they cost a lot, and B) they are, at best, band-aid solutions, like so much of our social policy is. I propose fixing problems at the root, and the surest way to do that is by fixing the individual via cultural osmosis and making them consequently conform to virtue to a greater extent, which will then bear tangible fruit in the lower incidence of these various social ailments. Yet for championing something so commonsensical I'm pilloried. Go figure.
Divus:
Your post would take entirely too long to respond to fully. If this was Friday instead of Sunday night, however, I would have done so. I happen to believe that a lot of what you're saying is way out there (as some may feel my ideas are ), and presupposes entirely too much. Were you previously "zidane1strife" on the old board? Your musings seem to echo a lot of the ideas and sentiment he had. I would say that you should look again at what my beliefs as expressed in this thread have been grounded in; you seem to keep coming back to the notion of philosophical justification, which is an area that I've purposely tried to steer clear of (not because I'm incapable of discussing things on that level, but because I don't necessarily feel it germane to this topic). Where you do speak of tangible, quantifiable states, you're using technology as a sort of deus ex machina-- something that will magically take care of all the attendant ills of an unvirtuous society; needless to say, I disagree. I'd elaborate, but, well...yeah. Just realize that you are, in essence, supposing a utopia, though you're replacing virtue and justice with technology and progress, that people will be shielded from the ramifications of their actions. While it may work on paper, and for the specific sorts of ills you've mentioned in your post, realize that new sorts of social ailments will arise from new social realities; we will never eliminate or make negligible the incidence of these deleterious tangible conditions, if only because so much of it springs from our inalterable (note: but not unmitigable) human nature. And so even in such a future society as you describe, the championing of virtue would only result in a better state of affairs and a lessening of whatever social ills still remained after technology came and "cleaned things up" for us (and these ills would exist). My point is that striving for excellence-- in individuals and consequently societies-- is not something to be discarded as "outmoded" or "not beneficial". We must not look askance at virtue. These ends, and these values (virtues) that promote them, are supremely desirable. The ideas I've been elaborating upon are, to my mind, the most reasonable and feasible way for a society to make true progress while still honoring its various mandates (providing for the welfare of, and protecting the freedoms of, its citizens etc.).
Again, I apologize for not responding at length to your points individually, but I hope you can understand. I do need to eat, sleep, and shit occasionally, however.
Hito:
I spoke to that in my last post on the previous page (re: causality). The phenomenon you allude to is known in psychological studies as the notion of "confounding variables", and, as you note, we must be cautious in our judgments about causality as a result of them, even in experimental studies (and that much more so real-world determinations outside the laboratory). As I said, however, a lengthy discussion of causality-- how we ascertain it and the mechanism by which it occurs-- is beyond the scope of this topic (and my patience).
Loki: OFFICIALLY DONE WITH THIS TOPIC
(maybe if I say it loud enough, I'll actually stick to it )
But we wouldn't be teaching specific morality (such as "premarital sex is bad", or "drug use is bad" for example, though we do the latter all the time as it stands anyway), we would be teaching broad ethical maxims that have been around for thousands of years and deal more with mastery of the self than anything else; they are not properly "values" so much as "states of being/mind", and are applicable to any situation a person finds themselves in. Thus something like temperance is not a value in the same way that "no premarital sex" is a value, as "no premarital sex" applies only to the sexual sphere (and is thus an example of a "moral"), whereas if a person is temperate, it will necessarily inform all of their actions in every sphere of life, leading to large-scale social improvement (thus temperance is an example of a "personal ethic"-- that is, a "general manner of behavior"; ditto for the other virtues I'm advocating). If individuals are poised, temperate, and civil, then their aggregates-- societies-- will be as well. I can't fathom a person who wouldn't want that, and, quite honestly, those who wouldn't want it don't really deserve to be considered, both because they would be in the extreme minority as well as because they have no logical basis for their opposition to these virtues.
Now, realize when I say "an extreme minority that should not be considered", I am referring to those who would explicitly flat-out state that less temperance and civility is preferable to more-- not merely of people who disagree with any of the particulars of my posts herein (just to be clear; the last thing I need is to hear chants of "you'd suppress the everyone who disagrees with you!!"). This is a sensible stance in the same way that we do not allow the views of NAMBLA to inform our social notions of propriety vis-a-vis pedophilia; in every society and under every value set, certain fringe elements are not going to be considered when setting social policy. Under mine, that fringe element would just happen to be those who flat-out do not believe in the wisdom of these maxims (temperance, civility, charity etc.); these people would not be penalized or punished in any way, mind you-- all I'm saying is that they wouldn't inform our decisions as to policy (e.g., the implementation of virtue advocacy programs in the schools). The same way we would not allow a person who explicitly believes that more murder and death is preferable to less murder and death to inform our policy decisions and social mores as to the legality and propriety of murder. This is not some Nazi regime I'm proposing-- I'm an American, and have strong notions of individual liberty. People are free to act and believe as they wish; all I'm saying is that society is under no obligation to encourage certain clearly wrong modes of behavior and values ("wrong" in the sense that they engender the universally undesirable conditions, that we nearly all agree upon, noted earlier). Only an idiot (or a tyrant) would outlaw certain beliefs or practices, but neither do certain values deserve to be promoted as they currently are in all spheres; the state has an obligation to its constituents to advance certain values that will best lead to a sound, optimally functioning society (note that my definition of "optimal" is an attainable one, by no means a perfect society; it takes into account human nature and the existence of flaws and immorality). Clearly, no matter the values promoted, society is never going to be perfect-- does that mean that we should not strive to get as close as possible, instead resigning ourselves to the status quo? I'd argue (and have argued
) "no". For this, I'm castigated.Also, if the teaching of "morality" in schools seems vaguely unsettling to you, I can only posit that this is most likely the result of getting that phrase "don't push your morality on me" drummed into our heads a bit too often. First of all, morality is taught all the time in schools, both explicitly and implicitly; indeed, morality is taugh via acculturation by the very process of social interaction (which occurs in schools as well as everywhere else). Transmission of social mores is thus inevitable so long as we remain social creatures. Every time a teacher tells a third-grader to share, or to stop berating a classmate, they are teaching "morality"; every time classmates enforce their own intergroup morality via heavy-handed measures (shunning, fighting, name-calling etc.), they, too, are teaching morality via acculturation. Since the teaching of morality, both explicit and implicit, is part and parcel of our social interactions, it will always occur. So we would be remiss as a society, then, in not advocating the very best of that morality in order that future generations consequently achieve a greater measure of "success" (that is, lower incidence of the aforementioned deleterious conditions).
Some of it is certainly attributable to us all wearing rose-tinted glasses as we age, but not nearly all of it. While I do not deny that our society has made strides in certain areas to bring the observable rates of certain phenomena (such as murder in big cities) down to similar levels as in the past (though even this is a tenuous assertion-- statistics are a bitch that way; needless to say, such discussion is beyond the scope of this topic), it has come at a great cost, both human and financial. Further, many of those conditions have not decreased, but rather increased; in any event, this somewhat misses the point: focusing on numbers is pointless in a sense, because even if our society is making strides in certain areas (say, if the murder rate has decreased from 1992 until now), advocating virtue could only logically lead to further improvements; it can never be posited that increased virtue will lead to more murder, or more obesity or rape or greed. And so if the effects can either be positive or at worst nil (which I don't suppose to be the case, but for argument's sake), then why am I being crucified for pushing for these things?
My point is that advocating some of these simple ethical memes would lead to similar effects at far less of a cost in the long run. The reasons that, say, murder has gone down (assuming it has; I know that it's gone down from the early 90's til now in NYC, but I haven't looked at the relevant stats for the nation) are myriad-- everything from increased funding for intervention programs in schools, stricter penalties across the board (resulting in higher incarceration costs), so-called "quality of life" crackdowns that net convicted felons etc. The point is that all these things may work, but A) they cost a lot, and B) they are, at best, band-aid solutions, like so much of our social policy is. I propose fixing problems at the root, and the surest way to do that is by fixing the individual via cultural osmosis and making them consequently conform to virtue to a greater extent, which will then bear tangible fruit in the lower incidence of these various social ailments. Yet for championing something so commonsensical I'm pilloried. Go figure.
Divus:
Your post would take entirely too long to respond to fully. If this was Friday instead of Sunday night, however, I would have done so.
I happen to believe that a lot of what you're saying is way out there (as some may feel my ideas are ), and presupposes entirely too much. Were you previously "zidane1strife" on the old board? Your musings seem to echo a lot of the ideas and sentiment he had. I would say that you should look again at what my beliefs as expressed in this thread have been grounded in; you seem to keep coming back to the notion of philosophical justification, which is an area that I've purposely tried to steer clear of (not because I'm incapable of discussing things on that level, but because I don't necessarily feel it germane to this topic). Where you do speak of tangible, quantifiable states, you're using technology as a sort of deus ex machina-- something that will magically take care of all the attendant ills of an unvirtuous society; needless to say, I disagree. I'd elaborate, but, well...yeah. Just realize that you are, in essence, supposing a utopia, though you're replacing virtue and justice with technology and progress, that people will be shielded from the ramifications of their actions. While it may work on paper, and for the specific sorts of ills you've mentioned in your post, realize that new sorts of social ailments will arise from new social realities; we will never eliminate or make negligible the incidence of these deleterious tangible conditions, if only because so much of it springs from our inalterable (note: but not unmitigable) human nature. And so even in such a future society as you describe, the championing of virtue would only result in a better state of affairs and a lessening of whatever social ills still remained after technology came and "cleaned things up" for us (and these ills would exist). My point is that striving for excellence-- in individuals and consequently societies-- is not something to be discarded as "outmoded" or "not beneficial". We must not look askance at virtue. These ends, and these values (virtues) that promote them, are supremely desirable. The ideas I've been elaborating upon are, to my mind, the most reasonable and feasible way for a society to make true progress while still honoring its various mandates (providing for the welfare of, and protecting the freedoms of, its citizens etc.). Again, I apologize for not responding at length to your points individually, but I hope you can understand. I do need to eat, sleep, and shit occasionally, however.
Hito:
I spoke to that in my last post on the previous page (re: causality). The phenomenon you allude to is known in psychological studies as the notion of "confounding variables", and, as you note, we must be cautious in our judgments about causality as a result of them, even in experimental studies (and that much more so real-world determinations outside the laboratory). As I said, however, a lengthy discussion of causality-- how we ascertain it and the mechanism by which it occurs-- is beyond the scope of this topic (and my patience
). Loki: OFFICIALLY DONE WITH THIS TOPIC
(maybe if I say it loud enough, I'll actually stick to it
)Hitokage said:The man who preaches that temperance be government mandated cannot compell himself away from an internet forum thread.
Indeed, 'tis a sad commentary-- even I've been affected by our culture.
Note: I never proposed anything be government mandated, but rather government sanctioned (i.e., approved and espoused); people would still be free to act or think unvirtuously in any sphere they so chose; they could create periodicals expressing their viewpoints, have TV shows, give speeches, whatever. Eventually over the course of decades, however (due to government and social advocacy of these virtues), certain unproductive ideals-- the antitheses of the virtues I've mentioned-- would be marginalized and thus the creation of entertainment etc. (a huge socializing force) promoting those ideals would no longer be economically viable on a mass scale; people who still felt strongly enough about certain anti-virtuous ideals, or who wished to eke out but a modest living for themselves creating such fare, as opposed to our present-day millionaire purveyors of vice, would still be permitted to have their say (indeed, divergent viewpoints and fare manifesting gross intemperance, for example, would always exist and should be allowed to exist). What I am proposing in no way curtails freedom of choice or expression. Rather, it is concerned with gradual, positive change over the course of decades-- change that can only ultimately be beneficial for our society. I just wanted to make this point to clarify my above post, lest some pople get the wrong impression of what I am advocating. The above is actually the exact opposite of the gradualism that led us to where we are today. Thankfully, such incrementalism is a reversible process (due to the malleability of our beliefs via acculturation), if we take steps to do so. Like I said, the last thing I need is for someone to misread what I'm saying and start shouting "HE HATES OUR FREEDOM!"
Oh yeah, that's the final post. I actually temporarily excused myself from my ban on this topic because I had forgotten to set my clock back an hour last night and just now realized I had a whole extra hour of time for myself. But yeah, this is the last one.
Holy moley you finally get it, too bad I had to sift through four paragraphs of drivel to get to the one sentence that acutally means anything.
YES Loki, that *is* the problem, and it has *nothing* to do with PC, it has to do with taking sufficient care in using language when BADMOUTHING people to prevent any impression that you're only badmouthing certain people in a category and NOT THE WHOLE CATEGORY
How well YOU know yourself doesn't matter a whit when you're posting on a faceless MESSAGE board. So excerise some damn care.
You mean my reasoning that you're racist. THERE WAS NO SUCH REASONING. You know Loki for someone all high on being a deep and thinking things through you are completely incapapble of detecting nuance to any degree in anybody else. I don't think you put up strawmen for malicious reasons, I think you put up strawmen because that's all you see.
Alright here's a rule of thumb for you. When you're ranting against Russian welfare cheats (which there is nothing wrong with) read over your rant and think to yourself "Hmm, would someone who is racist against Russians in general and not just the welfare cheat ones have made the same statement" And if the answer is YES, then rework the statement, I don't care if you add qualifiers, drop the whole statement, or remove descriptors, just DO IT. Because I don't know you. and YES, a Russian hater would have easily made the exact same statement you did. The fact that the very second thing that popped up in your mind was illegal immigrants in California Just REINFORCED the scary xenophopic aspects of the whole damn point.
In fact take that whole paragraph and when you write something like that again go "Hrm, would a crazy xenophobic psycopath have written down the same thing I did? Why yes.. by jiminy I don't want that. Time to Edit!"
I take issue with the WAY you mention them. Because that's all that exists on messageboards, what you say and WAY you say them. You think illegal immigrants using social services is one of the greatest tragedies. Fine. Bully for you. DON'T state it in such a way that would be right at home in a freaking white supermacist website.
Holy Shit. I am NOT calling you a white supermacist. I'm saying your statement would not be out of place at all if it was placed on a white power WEBSITE. So freaking say it in a way that it WOULDN'T. Your "well I know I'm not racist" defense doesn't mean BULL.
But being a bad communicator IS (on a forum), and the fact that you can't recognize that your method of communication in that paragraph was BEYOND horrible is... odd.
I NEVER GOD DAMN CALLED YOU RACIST.
You just did.
Oh your reasoning is fine. Too bad you're using it to defend yourself from charges that were never raised.
good thing there were no charges, eh?
And that's why in CHAPTER TWO, I mocked the possibility of ANY government program lasting across the five to ten changes in administration you require.. AND mocked the idea of government funded television as Nancy Reagan's "Just say NO" PR effort was a great failiure. AND also provided examples of cultural phenomenons that governments are powerless to fight against in a free society that you don't have any contingency plans for.
No, you are the ones with the mere assertations backed up by nothing more substantial than your own 'anything that happens can be reversed!' logic.
A plan that long term is NOT pragmatic, which is one of the main reasons I mock it so heartily.And it's not unpragmatic 'just because I say so' it's not pragmatic because it happens OVER THE COURSE OF FOUR DECADES.
Alright this statment was made to my charge that you don't recognise that you need to have a heavy hand in order to pull it off.
I said *that* because government influenced media holds not a candle to commercial media
A total effort in the part of the entire society is ONLY found in democracies in the state of war. And even then would falter OVER THE COURSE OF FOUR DECADES. Why are you not understanding that it's exactly the idea of a 'total effort' over a long period of time that is not feasible?
What I am suggesting is that 'loss' of *some* virtues Didn't happen gradually over the course of FOUR deacdes due to a gradual consiste effort by THE ENTIRE SOCIETY (which is YOUR PLAN). Changes in society HAPPEN, but there is always FIERCE resistance, Elvis was Satan, Rock and Roll was the Devil's music, the reason for their triumph over the conservative older generations is not something that I can reliably comment on but it's obvious that neither can you and since you can't state why those things influenced society so profoundly you're not able to counteract their effects or account for them in your wonderful four decade plan of attack that requires a TOTAL EFFORT.
You mean like my stance that you're racist and that the liberal political agenda and mentality has never done any harm to this country? Ah please.
I frankly don't think there was anything even remotely gradual about it. From what I know marked changes in societies happen with sudden shifts from generation to generation. Dr.Spock had more to do with the sxities than any government for example. If it was 'gradual' then nobody would have noticed it happening. But there was a huge amount of hand wringing and fierce attacks on Elvis, Aerosmith, et al.
You can't reverse time. You CAN'T go home again. And the issues remain that 1) I think you're WRONG as to how society went from Beaver Cleaver to GTA:San Andreas (it wasn't gradual, not gradual at all). 2) social values are affected more by pop culture than by government policy (like MUCH MORE), and Pop culture is not something that you can predicit or control. Well.. maybe you can, but it's done by TV congolomerates and record compnaies, NOT government.
No Loki, you fooled yourself. I'm not going to let this go with a one liner. I NEVER argued that the liberal political agenda and mentality has never done any harm to this country, and I'm not going to let you get away with a one line response that doesn' even address the fact that the liberal political agenda and mentality has never done any harm to this country is something that YOU put in MY mouth. Once again I NEVER (and didn't see anybody else do it either) said that the liberal political agenda and mentality has never done any harm to this country and the fact that I didn't is a damning accusation on you because it means that you (at least on occasion) argue against strawmen and not against the actual points and charges laid against you.
the liberal political agenda and mentality has never done any harm to this country
the liberal political agenda and mentality has never done any harm to this country
the liberal political agenda and mentality has never done any harm to this country
Good god Loki, you used the 'Just please don't try to "convince me" that the liberal ideology (as espoused by politicians) has never done any sort of damage to this country' phrase in PAGE TWO, WAY BEFORE MANDARK EVEN JUMPED IN DAMN HIS BLACK SOUL. So what, were you PRE EMPTIVELY arguing against Mandark's use of the word 'immorality'.
Permit me to repeat that
Good god Loki, you used the 'Just please don't try to "convince me" that the liberal ideology (as espoused by politicians) has never done any sort of damage to this country' phrase in PAGE TWO, WAY BEFORE MANDARK EVEN JUMPED IN
Good god Loki, you used the 'Just please don't try to "convince me" that the liberal ideology (as espoused by politicians) has never done any sort of damage to this country' phrase in PAGE TWO, WAY BEFORE MANDARK EVEN JUMPED IN
And good gravy QUOTE where Mandark argued that either
that the liberal ideology (as espoused by politicians) has never done any sort of damage to this country
OR
the liberal political agenda and mentality has never done any harm to this country.
In fact.. yes, that's a good idea. Whenever you state what you believe the other person's case to be (which has to be done in a discussion of this format), provide the freaking quotes. That way Mandark can say 'Over there I was saying that liberal polices didn't have much to do with the culture we have today, not that the liberal political agenda and mentality has never done any harm to this country or indeed that the liberal ideology (as espoused by politicians) has never done any sort of damage to this country'. Of course I'm not Mandark so it may be that indeed Mandark's DID mean to say that "HAHA the liberal ideology (as espoused by politicians) has never done any sort of damage to this country AND ALSO the liberal political agenda and mentality has never done any harm to this country." I doubt it however though I wouldn't put it past his shriveled heart.
Where oh where, where oh where where where where oh bloody Where did this happen?
Alright permit me to throw your words back at you.
JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!
Actually I'm more of a student of Greek history myself, and they were shtupping underaged boys since practically day one and certainly through their glory period.
The whole of god damn chapter 4 of my post was meant as a methodical taking apart of your
Which is either a very badly worded or very badly thought point to try to make. Seeing as only prosperous societies are intermprate
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO
I NEVER SAID THAT
NEVER
SAID
THAT
(i'm sensing a pattern here)
I NEVER SAID THAT
THOSE WORDS WERE NEVER UTTERED BY ME
THOSE WORDS WHERE NEVER THOUGHT BY ME
FURTHERMORE
I NEVER SAID WORDS THAT SHOULD POSSIBLY HAVE GIVEN YOU THE IMPRESSION THAT I EVER EVEN HAD A TENDENCY TO PERHAPS CONSIDER THINKING THAT 'these virtues are, in essence, useless once a society reaches a certain level of prosperity'
DON'T PUT THESE THINGS IN MY BRAAAAIN. THEY WERE NEVER IN MY BRAIIIIN. THEY AREN'T IN MY BRAAAAAIN NOW. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU ARGUING WITH? WHO? WHO DOESN'T WANT TO WEAR THE RIBBON?
ALL I SAID WAS THAT YOUR
sucks. That's all I'm saying. I'm just saying that
is not a good argument because you didn't provide examples, while I provided examples of prosperous societies that didn't exhibit temprance, and didn't do so in spectacular fashion. That's all I ever wanted from Chapter 4. All Chapter 4 was supposed to do was make the point that
sucks. That's it. That's all. I never said anything about how valuable these virtues are or aren't. That was never my intention. I never used words that said anything about whether what the Romans, Greeks, Indians, Japanese, and Arabs got up to was good or not, I just wanted to say that
is a pretty stupid thing to say. That's all. That's all. That's all. That's all. That's all.
fffffffffffffudge, I DON'T WANT TO PAINT our current society as some sort of pinnacle of human achievement. *sobs* I'm freaking environmentalist. I hate SUVs, I don't THINK our current society is some sort of pinnacle of human achievement, it never even crossed my MIND.
What. I. Am. Saying. Is that YOU are ignoring back alley abortions, YOU are ignoring homes for unwed mothers, and YOU are ignoring Union-busting. and YOU are ignoring my words that 'they were immoral in EXACTLY the same ways as today. We just put down and villify different immoralities then they did.'
God dammit Loki, stop arguing against your conception of what my arguemnts are, and start addressing what my arguments actually ARE. I didn't say ANYTHING about racism, OR lack of equal rights, so please stop bringing them up when you are replying TO ME. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT RACISM OR LACK OF EQUAL RIGHTS IN THE FIFTIES IT IS BESIDE THEEEE POINT FOR ME.
Now *THIS* I can concede, *THIS* is the only place where you actually address something to me that a reasonalbe person would think I said in Chapter 5. Sure there's some reading between the lines involved, but it's a hundred leagues better than EVERY OTHER MISCONCEPTION YOU'VE HAD.
So while I can see why you might have gotten the impresson that there was nothing the fifites did better than us, what I mean to say is that the fifites had PLENTY of lack of temprance in sex and greed, they just hid the lack of temprance in sex in some not very nice ways and that has to be acknowldeged if you want to view them as a model of where we should be morally in regards to temprance vis a vis sex/money and I fear that you don't. See my point is that the fifties grappled with ALL THE SAME ISSUES that we do. We just villify racism where they villified pre marital sex. This leads to us being less racist then them, while they were more sexually responsible. BUT THE PROBLEMS ARE THE SAME. Your idea that the fifties just had racism and rights issues while we just have temprance issues seems to me to be profoundly wrong. We have racism and rights issues *AND* they had temprance issues. And it is important to recognize that. That's what Chapter 5 was all about.
But, but, teen pregnancies and violent crimes have been declining over the past many years!
Alright that's kind of beside the point(still true though).
The reason I started this discussion with you was because of
Which I still think is crap for reasons that were lost when you started spouting on about 'Just please don't try to "convince me" that the liberal ideology (as espoused by politicians) has never done any sort of damage to this country'
First off, FORGET GOD DAMN RACISM, we're taking temprance here.
Secondly the SUM TOTAL of a societies virute is not something that I'm concrened with. FOR THESE REASONS
1) It's a vauge imprecise meter of measurement.
2 *THE IMPORTANT POINT*) Using the fifties as a model for how to deal with lack of temprance in sex is horrifying as they dealt with it by hiding it. That's why priests and other pedophiles in positions of power had free reign to do whatever they wanted (you just didn't TALK about sex, and since you didn't TALK about it, sexual abuse 'didn't happen'). This *HAS* to be taken into account. But you don't. For you mixing 2004 attitudes on racism and 50's attitudes on sex would lead much closer to an ideal society, whereas I view 50's attitudes on sex with horror.. there was less sex certainly, but there were some truly terrifying things that went along with that which I do not want to see return.
I take the view that how a societies values deals with difficult cases is just as important. And the fifties fall down hard in the way they approached sex.
Uhum I'm saying that you're ignoring the attendant problems that went along with the less sex in the fifties. Of course I'm not going by overall values of some quanitifable element (like teen preganancy) to come to the differing conclusion. But I view that as an oversimplification of the matter. Fifties attitude on sex led to fewer teen pregnancies *and* free reign by sick pedophiles to do as they willed. Not a fair trade-off.
Mandark's actually, the bastard.
Azih made just about all the points I was going to make.
Racism: Emphasis matters. If someone, in the discussion of a problem, goes on a tangent about, or characterizes the cause of this problem as belonging to a particular social group, this will leave the impression that this person has a bias against this group. For further reading, see "I Don't Hate All Christians, Really" by Diablos, Harper Collins, 2004.
Straw men: "has never caused any harm" is different from being a major cause of a specific type of harm.
Role of the government: Believing that something is a virtue is not the same as believing a government can effectively promote this virtue without infringing upon personal freedoms. Two very different things. The inverse also applies.
Zionism: Find something I said on this board about Zionism, Israel, or Palestine.
Racism: Emphasis matters. If someone, in the discussion of a problem, goes on a tangent about, or characterizes the cause of this problem as belonging to a particular social group, this will leave the impression that this person has a bias against this group. For further reading, see "I Don't Hate All Christians, Really" by Diablos, Harper Collins, 2004.
Straw men: "has never caused any harm" is different from being a major cause of a specific type of harm.
Role of the government: Believing that something is a virtue is not the same as believing a government can effectively promote this virtue without infringing upon personal freedoms. Two very different things. The inverse also applies.
Zionism: Find something I said on this board about Zionism, Israel, or Palestine.
Loki said:Loki: OFFICIALLY DONE WITH THIS TOPIC
(maybe if I say it loud enough, I'll actually stick to it
Loki said:Indeed, 'tis a sad commentary-- even I've been affected by our culture.
Oh yeah, that's the final post. I actually temporarily excused myself from my ban on this topic because I had forgotten to set my clock back an hour last night and just now realized I had a whole extra hour of time for myself. But yeah, this is the last one.
:lol
Loki, stop it man, you're killing me here :lol
Well, it's simple, once physical monotonous hard work was considered virtuous, it's now consider a nuissance... So long as aggression/oppression is curtailed, there is no reason why we should consider an alternate system less equal to one wherein there is so-called "morality" from the point of view of a particular individual. What is often called virtuous or moral is but an illusion, say a society of individuals who practice polyamory for example, provided the individuals altered their nature or had a nature to allow it, could be considered as moral and virtuous as this one. Same for one where many individuals dedicated themselves as much as they pleased to the arts, sciences, literature, entertainment, or the like.
The problem I see with your views is that restraint is only worthy of use so long as it is necessary. The belief that needless restraint confers some sort of mystical virtuousness, is just that a belief, it has no concrete basis. I don't buy it, and I believe most will never buy it, cause in the end, I think it's not logical. Think about it, if stds where gone from the face of the earth, and pregnancies were no longer a problem(100% effective, no-side effect anti-conceptive), realistically WTF could you tell kids to deter them, that it's not virtuous? Exactly why would it not be virtuous? I see no reason, it's just an illusion... an illusion that once existed, and was backed by religious belief, once you take that away, we see that de emperor really has no clothes.
There are animals that can eat alot and remain thin, and they even live longer. There are humans with similar characteristic. Now, If I can eat two freaking big macs, and there's no negative consequence, or if I can smoke a pack of cigarette's(assume there are none around that would be affected either) and there's no negative consequence.... Why exactly should I not do so, if it pleases me? Hmmm, eh? Or say if I could remain inactive for months, and there was no negative consequence(some animals have substances that preserve muscle mass even while inactive, it's only a matter of time), and I liked it... Would it actually be more virtuous for me to do otherwise? Would that not be a simple opinion. If I've say 60million in the bank, and I do not desire to work, but I desire to party, can you say that that is really less virtuous? Is that not a simple opinion?
The purpose of restraint is only relevant to the management of resources, and their use in such a way as to not harm the individual or those around him. What's "too much" and what's "too little", that is what's adequate restraint within the safely usable resource pool is as you seem to realize, and as it seems you've indicated, subjective. Then, if we're simply using the resources that are safely usable, why exactly is it more appropriate not to use them, to leave them be? I say there is no reason, for such, it's a simple illusion with no real basis, IMHO. Society to function only requires a portion of it's members to dedicate themselves to its preservation, the rest can do as they please so long as they pose no harm towards said society... what's called the upper class, once the nobility, has been free to enjoy excesses throughout the ages, and individuals with such status have existed in many societies throughout history, I see no wrong upon one day expanding it, giving their benefits to a larger portion of society so long as it's within the possible. This has been what's been taking place, many in the modern world live far better than even those with the highest status in the ancient and not so ancient past. Moderation is only necessary so long as the use of a resource poses a threat to the individual or society, either through harm or exhaustion, so long as a resource poses not within a range of use, it is needless to restraint further, and to practice moderation in such a circumstance is no more valid, virtuous or whatever, than to abstain from it.
PS
We've seen time and again, that if there is no negative consequence for a particular action, and if that action is pleasing, many will perform it... even when they've been warned of perpetual torture in the fires of hell. Now, without this ridiculous nonsensical warning, and just by giving them the single abstract basis that it's something nebulous called "virtuous", you expect them to restraint? Such endeavour seems to be a futile one, IMHO.
PPS
Yes I'am, I'm also simple old, masterei, and I'm also known as Master El's Instrument
Azih:
Regarding the whole "racism" issue:
You know, I reflected on my comments and what you said above, and I've come to a conclusion: you are both correct and incorrect. Here's where you're correct:
My phrasing of that paragraph should have been better. Here's why I arrived at this conclusion after reflection: because I realized that I wouldn't say that, in those words, in a face-to-face conversation-- at least not unless I knew that there were no Russian people present. And that is because it would be tactless to say such a thing in a conversation, and any Russian person who might be listening might, in fact, interpret it as bias against their entire group (as opposed to against just the members of their group who flout the law)-- though this tendency to "read bias into" another's remarks is, I feel, usually the fault of the listener provided that no explicit language implicating their entire group was present, which there wasn't. However, due to their ethnic affiliation, there are certain ingrained notions of solidarity which exist, and we all exhibit a rush to judgment (to various degrees) when our perceived "group" is slighted (be it ethnic, religious, what have you); still, if one listens to the specific statements made, one would inevitably realize that I wasn't condemning all Russians, or I would have said something to the effect of "I hate all Russians", or "all Russians abuse our social services". I said no such thing; therefore, a good amount of one's interpretation of my words as in any way either "racist" or "referring to ALL members of said group" falls on the listener's shoulders. Despite this fact, it was tactless of me to phrase it the way I did, if only because I didn't know whether there were Russians reading it (the same way I wouldn't make such a statement in real life in the presence of a Russian person out of consideration and a realization of their ethnic allegiances).
Now, despite the fact that I was wrong to phrase my statements that way, it still cannot be construed as racism by any reasonable person. You say that you "never said it was racist, or that you were racist" (but merely that more care should have been taking in its phrasing, which I've conceded-- not because there is anything inherently wrong with the words I used, but because of audience factors). Fine, I'll accept that (though I'd still like a link to the topic that post was made in, because I'm pretty sure you either stated or implied that the post was racist). But Mandark did state or imply that that post was racist in this very thread, and here's how I know that:
Mandark casually insinuated that I harbored racist sentiment by alluding to a Reagan-era racist gaffe which he likened my hastily prepared examples of unproductive social policy to. I posted this in response to such implications:
Mandark replied with this:
No explanatory text, nothing. Just the link.
Now, given that the quote of mine that he was responding to spoke specifically of "racist posts", and not "posts that could possibly be construed as racist" (big difference due to the audience factors I mentioned; the statements themselves were in no way racist in their formulation), it would have to be concluded that Mandark felt my post to be an instance of "a racist post"; that is, racist. Not "could potentially be interpreted by sensitive individuals as racism", but just plain 'ole "racism". Had he included an explanation that he "didn't think I was racist, but that the statement could have been phrased more tactfully" (as you have done above), then that would be different. But he included no such commentary; based upon the quote of mine he was responding to, the link to my post that he posted, as well as the lack of any clarifying content, it can only be concluded that he was, in fact, calling me racist (or at least that I exhibited an instance of racism, which, to my mind, only a racist person can do). This is why I laced into him-- because I am in no way racist, and have made numerous posts in numerous topics to that effect; to assert that I made a racist post (and consequently am a racist by implication, however slightly/latently) is just utter absurdity, not to mention intellectually bankrupt. My defense of the actual wording of my supposedly (according to Mandark) "racist post" (as well as the reason why I used those examples in particular) is found on the previous page, and I will not rehash it here.
So you're right and you're wrong. You're correct in that it could and should have been phrased more tactfully given that this is a public forum, the same way I wouldn't say that in mixed company in public (again, not because I feel that it's a racist statement, but because it could possibly be misconstrued that way due to listener bias; the words and phraseology used are in no way racist-- check my previous post on the matter). For that, I apologize; usually I'm quite tactful (if I do say so), but we all have our moments-- the nature of forum discussion lowered my vigilance a bit in that regard.
You're wrong in two ways: one, if you at all feel that the particular words used were in any way racist (not "might be interpreted as racist"), which is something I adamantly insist they weren't; two, in stating that "there was no such reasoning" (i.e., that nobody was calling me a racist on the basis of that post, either explicitly or implicitly, which Mandark was, as demonstrated). Further, I wrote out that lengthy diatribe in response to your post (chapter 1), because you posted Chapter 1, seen here:
...in response to my response to Mandark (who did either explicitly or implicitly-- as has been demonstrated-- call my post racist). As such, it was reasonable to assume that you were likewise stating that it was racist; in fact, your very words:
"...if you say something even remotely like 'well it's true so it's not racism' again then I'll run out of my room screaming."
...seem to imply not that you feel that my phrasing of the matter could have been more considerate/tasteful (which I admitted), but rather that the phrasing/wording itself was inherently racist (i.e., that the post was racist)...which it wasn't. Saying that "here in Brooklyn, Russians abuse our social programs" is a statement of fact and observation. Would it have been more tactful to use the generic "people" instead of "Russians"? Yes, I've admitted that. But the fact that my statement was more specific (in mentioning a particular group, who happen to be the only people I've personally seen do this, which is why it came to mind most readily as an example), does not mean that the statement is "racist". Just so we're clear as to what racism is:
(Courtesy of Merriam-Webster)
Clearly definition 1 does not apply to my words, as I never stated that all Russians abuse social programs, nor that, of the ones who do, their "Russian-ness" is what compelled them to do so. Nor did I ever state or imply that Russians were somehow an inferior class of people as a whole (though lawbreakers-- no matter how that lawlessness is manifested or who manifests it-- are an inferior class of people, though not intrinsically so). So definition 1 is out.
Definition 2 deals with prejudice and discrimination. Let's see what "prejudice" means:
First off, definition 1 is out, being concerned with legal claims; seeing as how I am in no position of power to grant or refuse claims on the basis of my beliefs, it cannot apply. Further, even if I was in a position of power, such beliefs as I've expressed would in no way influence any decisions I made as to legal claims or the allocation of resources. In other words, if I was head of the local welfare or food stamp office, I would never deny or overly scrutinize Russians applying for said programs just because they are Russians (no more so than the routine scrutiny you give all applicants for social programs; I believe in stricter standards and penalties across the board so that all instances of rule-breaking will be reduced, whether it be done by Russians or Italians or Swedes; understood? The rule of law is my criterion, and those who deviate from it will justifiably be excoriated).
Definition 2a (both sense 1 and 2) is out; 2a(1), because it deals with "preconceived judgment or opinion". My "opinion" and "judgment" is only of those Russians whom I have seen engaging in illegality. Therefore, it is a judgment formed after observation, and it is a judgment concerned only with those people whom I have witnessed doing so, not with the entire group. Definition 2a(2) is tossed out because my opinion (again, specific to those people whom I witness flouting the law, not the entire group) is not formed "without just grounds or sufficient knowledge", it is formed only after sufficient grounds have been established (i.e., witnessing the illegality).
Definition 2b is inapplicable for the same reasons as above. Definition 2c states that prejudice is "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics". First, recall that it has been established that I am speaking of individuals, not "Russians" as a group; the only "group" it can properly be said I am speaking of are "those Russians who abuse the system". Similarly, an individual in this group would be "a Russian who abuses the system" (not simply "a Russian"). In light of the nature of this group (Russian lawbreakers, not all Russians), yes, there is hostility there on my part (as there would have to be if one is concerned with justice), but that hostility is not irrational, being grounded, as it is, in verifiable observations specific to that law-breaking individual or group. It is not a hostility or a "judgment" that I then magically extrapolate to encompass all Russians. That may be what someone might read in to it, but as has been demonstrated in as clear language as possible, that is not the case.
If you'll recall, we were working our way through the definition of "racism", the second definition of which stated that racism is "racial prejudice and discrimination"; I just defined prejudice and discounted its application to my post or my reasoning, so let us continue onward to "discrimination", which is defined like so:
Definition 1a can be put off for now, being too broad to parse. It can mean "discriminating" in the sense of "a discriminating consumer", or in the sense we most often associate it with, which has negative connotations; I feel this latter sense is sufficiently spoken to by the remaining definitions, so let us proceed. 1b is concerned with things such as visual or audial discrimination (i.e., physical phenomena), and is thus inapplicable.
Definition 2 has positive connotations (or at the very least is irrelevant to the situation we are discussing), and so is not the one you'd be looking at if you wanted to impugn my character.
Definition 3a states that discrimination is "the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually"-- this, it would seem, could at least be applied (however tenuously) to our situation. However, all that needs to be pointed out is that I am not discriminating "categorically" (speaking of the broad category "all Russians"), but rather individually, with those people deemed to possess similar characteristics (i.e., being lawbreakers, being Russian) by way of direct observation then being grouped into a separate, specific category (i.e., "lawbreaking Russians", not "Russians" in general). Therefore, this definition is not relevant to my post or my feelings on the matter as expressed.
3b reads like so: "prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment"; as is obvious, this assumes that the above criteria as to what constitutes a "prejudiced/prejudicial" outlook, action, or treatment has been met, which it has not been. My "actions" towards, "outlook" on, or "treatment" of Russian people in general is in no way affected by my feelings regarding Russian scofflaws-- they (the scofflaws) are a distinct class whose membership in the group can only be determined by direct observation of their activities rather than grouping them solely on the basis of ethnicity (which would lead to one thinking/expressing that all Russians are lawbreakers who abuse our social service programs, which would be an instance of racism, unlike here).
As we can see by the above reasoning, my post was in no way racist, as my words cannot be fitted to any of the definitions of racism or its related components. I apologize for going through it so painstakingly, but I want it to be absolutely clear that my post and my words have in no way, shape, or form contained racist sentiment or undercurrent. So Mandark's (either explicitly or implicitly, depending on how he eventually spins it; the evidence is shown above in his post) supposition that the post was an instance of racism is an unsubstantiated assertion that in no way comports with fact. As such, I took great exception to it, and let him know about it; you don't just toss around a word like "racist" or "racism" whenever the fancy strikes you, despite the fact that-- as has been conceded-- my words were a bit tactless given the public nature of the forum. However, I also maintain that, so long as the content of my words was not explicitly or implicitly racist (which has been demonstrated to be true), then the responsibility for construing my words in such a manner lies in large part with the listener (the other, lesser, part lying with my admitted tactlessness, for which I apologized) due to listener bias, ethnic allegiance, or other preconceptions which color their interpretation of the very neutral and unassailable words on the page.
So yes, I shouldn't have used the word "Russian" in a public forum, the same as I wouldn't use it in polite conversation when discussing such matters (unless the ethnicity of the audience was known, in which case one can largely rule out such "listener effects" as I've noted, and is consequently less guarded in one's speech-- though apparently not even then, since yourself and Mandark-- two non-Russians-- attacked me for my phrasing, with Mandark going one step further and baselessly calling it "racist"). I'll be more careful in the future, I can assure you, if only because I'm not about to take the time to defend myself again when I really should need no defending in light of my posting history as well as the fact that if other people care as much as they'd seem to about such things, they should perform an analysis just as I did above before attempting to label me as a "racist"-- this goes for Mandark, yourself (if in fact you were saying that the post was racist), as well as anybody else who would rush to judgment due to preconceptions or mere ethnic allegiances.
As an analogy, if a black poster (i.e., a person who is not a member of the group in question) said something like this in a thread about corporate malfeasance:
"Man, these white people are always embezzling millions of dollars from these companies."
I wouldn't jump on them and call them a racist, though I'd think it a mite distasteful in mixed company (to the same exact extent that I feel, and have admitted that, my phrasing was distasteful, which it is, but it's not something to chastise me over-- you could've just said "hey Loki, you could stand to be a bit more tactful with that", and I likely would have conceded that very fact and edited it; instead, I got viciously attacked, my character called into question, and spurious allegations of racism made both explicitly and implicitly both in this topic as well as the original one; this obviously would make anyone bristle).
The fact of the matter is that it's highly probable that the only instances of the embezzling of millions of dollars that our hypothetical poster had heard about involved white males (being overrepresented at the top of corporations, as they are). By merely making a statement of fact based on observation, it cannot rightly be concluded that he is lumping all whites together as criminals, or that he necessarily has a poor view of whites in general on the basis of the actions of these few people (both of which would be racist). If he had a history of racially-charged rhetoric, then such an interpretation might be understandable (if not provable based on the words in the particular embezzling incident above), but, at the time that I made those comments, I had no such history, and yet still was attacked as if I was a David Duke-in-waiting striking out against minorities and immigrants. This is a foolish and unproductive way to approach things, the same way that my phrasing might have been a bit foolish (but not incorrect in terms of content, and certainly not "racist"). In short, you don't punish or speak to an instance of honest indecorousness by attacking one's character in such a harsh manner as you did, nor by claiming "racism" (which requires a burden of proof to be met that entirely hasn't been met, as shown above) and hoping it sticks, as Mandark (and possibly yourself-- I'm not sure) did herein. It is unacceptable, and unacceptable, imo, to a much greater degree than any violation of good taste that I committed (which I did).
In short (yeah, haha), there was nothing at all racist about any of my comments, nor about any of my reasoning in elaborating upon those comments. Mandark was totally in error, and totally at fault; in making the post he did responding to the quote of mine he did (with no clarifying text), as shown above, the only reasonable conclusion a person can draw is that he was charging me with racism on the basis of that post (i.e., that the post was racist). I take great exception to that both because it is factually inaccurate and unsupportable as well as because of the effect racism has had on my own life, and the lengths I go to in my own life to try to build bridges between people rather than burn them, as self-important as that might sound. I really shouldn't have had to defend myself in such a manner, either here or particularly in the original topic where I made that post, which is where you jumped on me for it rather than gently chiding me, which would have been a more proper (read: commensurate) and productive course of action (and would've likely led to me editing the post rather than adopting a defensive posture against spurious implications of racism) than attacking me as savagely as you did then and (possibly) now.
Mandark, for his own part, was totally out of line. Jury's still out on you, Azih. But if you believe that my post was in any way racist (not "could be construed as racist", which is largely due to listener effects), then I'll have to send you to join Mandark in the dank, cold cell in the corner. Don't worry-- if you roll doubles three times, you can get out (or if you have a "get out of jail free" card).
I wanted to speak to this as soon as possible, because the charges (both real and implied) are serious and merited examination. As for me supposedly "not being able to detect any nuance of thought" in others' posts, well, I certainly can. Like I said, your "Chapter 1" post was made in response to my post which was made specifically in response to Mandark's post, which-- as has been demonstrated-- can only reasonably be construed as either explicitly or implicitly calling the post (and thus me to one degree or another) "racist", seeing as how it contained no clarifying text and he was responding to a quote of mine asking for a "racist post of mine". Had he merely meant something more along the lines of what you've (I think) brought up, in terms of the tactlessness of the phrasing given the forum, he should have stated as much, no? Because the following cannot properly be understood any other way:
Poster 1: "yeah, find me a single racist post I've made"
Poster 2: "Sure, here you go <insert post with poorly phrased yet totally non-racist content>"
Further, it seemed that your "Chapter 1" (seen above), coming on the heels of my condemnation of Mandark, was, in effect, backing up his take on my post, which was necessarily that he thought it was racist. Your comment about me supposedly saying something like "...well it's true, so it's not racism" bolstered that analysis, since the "it's not racism" part can legitimately be taken (given the context) as that you believed that it was racist. In other words, attacking the generic statement "it's B, so it's not racism", means that "B" and the criteria determining racist content are totally unrelated (i.e., one does not determine the other and is independent of the existence of the other), so you are attacking the relatedness of the two things ("B" and racism). And this is true-- the truth of a statement has no bearing on whether it is racist (though, in an absolute sense, I'd have a hard time seeing how something that is objectively true can be given a negative connotation, but that's neither here nor there). The only criteria that can determine whether or not a statement is racist are the very definitions I've elaborated upon above; as has been shown, my statements were in no way racist.
Further, I was not saying anything like "it's true, therefore it's not racism"-- what I was saying (separately) was that:
A) it's not racism (see this entire post for proof), and...
B) these statements are based on my direct observations; this point was only brought up to explain why those examples sprang most readily to mind when I originally made that post, not as a defense against the charge of racism as you state. In fact, if someone had made the same observations as me, and yet said something along the lines of "all Russians abuse our services; I hate them all", then their comments would indeed be racist, despite the "truth" of their particular visual observations (here, their clear error lies in extrapolation to the entire group, which I did none of, and would do none of).
Again, the argument about "observation" (and the frequency of that observation) was only invoked to account for why that particular example ("Russians" instead of "people") came to mind more quickly, which is why I said it. This is a common psychological phenomenon related to exposure (obviously), and it holds across many areas and for all people-- it's not just something I'm "making up" to wiggle out of things. When I post, I tend not to think much about what I'm saying (believe it or not given the length of my posts), and so usually just say whatever comes to mind; usually I don't have to worry much about "filtering" anything because, like I said, I know myself, and I have not one sentiment or thought that I wouldn't be entirely comfortable explaining in a public forum-- I have nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about. So I usually just start typing. However, as is clear from this case, none of us is perfectly tactful at all times, and I admittedly made a faux pas in how I phrased something given that this is a public forum. For that, I apologize. But further than that I will not go: I will not apologize for the content of my statements because, quite honestly, there's nothing to apologize about (as explained in this post). There was no racism; moreover, whatever racism might be read into my post is largely the responsibility of the listener, not myself (in the same way that I have an obligation to be tactful, they have an obligation to examine things critically before casting aspersions; the critical examination of the supposed "racist" content of my post, as seen above, proves that there was no such racism exhibited).
The rest of my thoughts on this whole "racism" nonsense can be found in posts #124 and 137, which contain some elaboration on these points. And if you guys are not using any of the (numerous) official definitions of "racism" that I have debunked above, but are instead using some magical floating standard (e.g., "I know it when I see it"), then you are engaging in the worst sort of reasoning, and committing logical fallacies that far outweigh whatever ones you feel I've made herein (you seem to be particularly fond of the word "strawman", for instance; this was be addressed in an upcoming post).
As I said this needed to be addressed with all due haste, as I take attacks (implicit or otherwise) on my character very seriously, as I would expect any sensible, decent person to. Sometime within the next several days (most likely friday or saturday) I will get around to addressing the meat of your post, which is concerned with the main topic (or what became the main topic) of this thread. I would like to just say, however, that if you're so concerned about "strawmen", you'd do well to reread in particular my statements concerning personal freedoms/liberty under my "system", as well as the role and control of the media, and how gradualism will ultimately affect the sort of product put out by it (the key: the profit motive remains intact). Please don't respond to this point now, however, as it'll just make my job take all the longer.
As I said, I'll respond in full to your post later on in the week; I hope that this thread will remain open in the meantime, as I feel that-- aside from the racism crap-- it is an interesting and vital discussion, with valid and persuasive arguments on all sides (yes Azih, even you ;P). I'll try my best to get around to your stuff too, Divus, though I can make no guarantees-- you do raise some interesting points, however.
Anyway, toodles for now.
AND DON'T CALL ME A FARKING RACIST (whoever did, and there was at least one such person).
Regarding the whole "racism" issue:
You know, I reflected on my comments and what you said above, and I've come to a conclusion: you are both correct and incorrect. Here's where you're correct:
My phrasing of that paragraph should have been better. Here's why I arrived at this conclusion after reflection: because I realized that I wouldn't say that, in those words, in a face-to-face conversation-- at least not unless I knew that there were no Russian people present. And that is because it would be tactless to say such a thing in a conversation, and any Russian person who might be listening might, in fact, interpret it as bias against their entire group (as opposed to against just the members of their group who flout the law)-- though this tendency to "read bias into" another's remarks is, I feel, usually the fault of the listener provided that no explicit language implicating their entire group was present, which there wasn't. However, due to their ethnic affiliation, there are certain ingrained notions of solidarity which exist, and we all exhibit a rush to judgment (to various degrees) when our perceived "group" is slighted (be it ethnic, religious, what have you); still, if one listens to the specific statements made, one would inevitably realize that I wasn't condemning all Russians, or I would have said something to the effect of "I hate all Russians", or "all Russians abuse our social services". I said no such thing; therefore, a good amount of one's interpretation of my words as in any way either "racist" or "referring to ALL members of said group" falls on the listener's shoulders. Despite this fact, it was tactless of me to phrase it the way I did, if only because I didn't know whether there were Russians reading it (the same way I wouldn't make such a statement in real life in the presence of a Russian person out of consideration and a realization of their ethnic allegiances).
Now, despite the fact that I was wrong to phrase my statements that way, it still cannot be construed as racism by any reasonable person. You say that you "never said it was racist, or that you were racist" (but merely that more care should have been taking in its phrasing, which I've conceded-- not because there is anything inherently wrong with the words I used, but because of audience factors). Fine, I'll accept that (though I'd still like a link to the topic that post was made in, because I'm pretty sure you either stated or implied that the post was racist). But Mandark did state or imply that that post was racist in this very thread, and here's how I know that:
Mandark casually insinuated that I harbored racist sentiment by alluding to a Reagan-era racist gaffe which he likened my hastily prepared examples of unproductive social policy to. I posted this in response to such implications:
Mandark replied with this:
No explanatory text, nothing. Just the link.
Now, given that the quote of mine that he was responding to spoke specifically of "racist posts", and not "posts that could possibly be construed as racist" (big difference due to the audience factors I mentioned; the statements themselves were in no way racist in their formulation), it would have to be concluded that Mandark felt my post to be an instance of "a racist post"; that is, racist. Not "could potentially be interpreted by sensitive individuals as racism", but just plain 'ole "racism". Had he included an explanation that he "didn't think I was racist, but that the statement could have been phrased more tactfully" (as you have done above), then that would be different. But he included no such commentary; based upon the quote of mine he was responding to, the link to my post that he posted, as well as the lack of any clarifying content, it can only be concluded that he was, in fact, calling me racist (or at least that I exhibited an instance of racism, which, to my mind, only a racist person can do). This is why I laced into him-- because I am in no way racist, and have made numerous posts in numerous topics to that effect; to assert that I made a racist post (and consequently am a racist by implication, however slightly/latently) is just utter absurdity, not to mention intellectually bankrupt. My defense of the actual wording of my supposedly (according to Mandark) "racist post" (as well as the reason why I used those examples in particular) is found on the previous page, and I will not rehash it here.
So you're right and you're wrong. You're correct in that it could and should have been phrased more tactfully given that this is a public forum, the same way I wouldn't say that in mixed company in public (again, not because I feel that it's a racist statement, but because it could possibly be misconstrued that way due to listener bias; the words and phraseology used are in no way racist-- check my previous post on the matter). For that, I apologize; usually I'm quite tactful (if I do say so), but we all have our moments-- the nature of forum discussion lowered my vigilance a bit in that regard.
You're wrong in two ways: one, if you at all feel that the particular words used were in any way racist (not "might be interpreted as racist"), which is something I adamantly insist they weren't; two, in stating that "there was no such reasoning" (i.e., that nobody was calling me a racist on the basis of that post, either explicitly or implicitly, which Mandark was, as demonstrated). Further, I wrote out that lengthy diatribe in response to your post (chapter 1), because you posted Chapter 1, seen here:
...in response to my response to Mandark (who did either explicitly or implicitly-- as has been demonstrated-- call my post racist). As such, it was reasonable to assume that you were likewise stating that it was racist; in fact, your very words:
"...if you say something even remotely like 'well it's true so it's not racism' again then I'll run out of my room screaming."
...seem to imply not that you feel that my phrasing of the matter could have been more considerate/tasteful (which I admitted), but rather that the phrasing/wording itself was inherently racist (i.e., that the post was racist)...which it wasn't. Saying that "here in Brooklyn, Russians abuse our social programs" is a statement of fact and observation. Would it have been more tactful to use the generic "people" instead of "Russians"? Yes, I've admitted that. But the fact that my statement was more specific (in mentioning a particular group, who happen to be the only people I've personally seen do this, which is why it came to mind most readily as an example), does not mean that the statement is "racist". Just so we're clear as to what racism is:
(Courtesy of Merriam-Webster)
Clearly definition 1 does not apply to my words, as I never stated that all Russians abuse social programs, nor that, of the ones who do, their "Russian-ness" is what compelled them to do so. Nor did I ever state or imply that Russians were somehow an inferior class of people as a whole (though lawbreakers-- no matter how that lawlessness is manifested or who manifests it-- are an inferior class of people, though not intrinsically so). So definition 1 is out.
Definition 2 deals with prejudice and discrimination. Let's see what "prejudice" means:
First off, definition 1 is out, being concerned with legal claims; seeing as how I am in no position of power to grant or refuse claims on the basis of my beliefs, it cannot apply. Further, even if I was in a position of power, such beliefs as I've expressed would in no way influence any decisions I made as to legal claims or the allocation of resources. In other words, if I was head of the local welfare or food stamp office, I would never deny or overly scrutinize Russians applying for said programs just because they are Russians (no more so than the routine scrutiny you give all applicants for social programs; I believe in stricter standards and penalties across the board so that all instances of rule-breaking will be reduced, whether it be done by Russians or Italians or Swedes; understood? The rule of law is my criterion, and those who deviate from it will justifiably be excoriated).
Definition 2a (both sense 1 and 2) is out; 2a(1), because it deals with "preconceived judgment or opinion". My "opinion" and "judgment" is only of those Russians whom I have seen engaging in illegality. Therefore, it is a judgment formed after observation, and it is a judgment concerned only with those people whom I have witnessed doing so, not with the entire group. Definition 2a(2) is tossed out because my opinion (again, specific to those people whom I witness flouting the law, not the entire group) is not formed "without just grounds or sufficient knowledge", it is formed only after sufficient grounds have been established (i.e., witnessing the illegality).
Definition 2b is inapplicable for the same reasons as above. Definition 2c states that prejudice is "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics". First, recall that it has been established that I am speaking of individuals, not "Russians" as a group; the only "group" it can properly be said I am speaking of are "those Russians who abuse the system". Similarly, an individual in this group would be "a Russian who abuses the system" (not simply "a Russian"). In light of the nature of this group (Russian lawbreakers, not all Russians), yes, there is hostility there on my part (as there would have to be if one is concerned with justice), but that hostility is not irrational, being grounded, as it is, in verifiable observations specific to that law-breaking individual or group. It is not a hostility or a "judgment" that I then magically extrapolate to encompass all Russians. That may be what someone might read in to it, but as has been demonstrated in as clear language as possible, that is not the case.
If you'll recall, we were working our way through the definition of "racism", the second definition of which stated that racism is "racial prejudice and discrimination"; I just defined prejudice and discounted its application to my post or my reasoning, so let us continue onward to "discrimination", which is defined like so:
Definition 1a can be put off for now, being too broad to parse. It can mean "discriminating" in the sense of "a discriminating consumer", or in the sense we most often associate it with, which has negative connotations; I feel this latter sense is sufficiently spoken to by the remaining definitions, so let us proceed. 1b is concerned with things such as visual or audial discrimination (i.e., physical phenomena), and is thus inapplicable.
Definition 2 has positive connotations (or at the very least is irrelevant to the situation we are discussing), and so is not the one you'd be looking at if you wanted to impugn my character.
Definition 3a states that discrimination is "the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually"-- this, it would seem, could at least be applied (however tenuously) to our situation. However, all that needs to be pointed out is that I am not discriminating "categorically" (speaking of the broad category "all Russians"), but rather individually, with those people deemed to possess similar characteristics (i.e., being lawbreakers, being Russian) by way of direct observation then being grouped into a separate, specific category (i.e., "lawbreaking Russians", not "Russians" in general). Therefore, this definition is not relevant to my post or my feelings on the matter as expressed.
3b reads like so: "prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment"; as is obvious, this assumes that the above criteria as to what constitutes a "prejudiced/prejudicial" outlook, action, or treatment has been met, which it has not been. My "actions" towards, "outlook" on, or "treatment" of Russian people in general is in no way affected by my feelings regarding Russian scofflaws-- they (the scofflaws) are a distinct class whose membership in the group can only be determined by direct observation of their activities rather than grouping them solely on the basis of ethnicity (which would lead to one thinking/expressing that all Russians are lawbreakers who abuse our social service programs, which would be an instance of racism, unlike here).
As we can see by the above reasoning, my post was in no way racist, as my words cannot be fitted to any of the definitions of racism or its related components. I apologize for going through it so painstakingly, but I want it to be absolutely clear that my post and my words have in no way, shape, or form contained racist sentiment or undercurrent. So Mandark's (either explicitly or implicitly, depending on how he eventually spins it; the evidence is shown above in his post) supposition that the post was an instance of racism is an unsubstantiated assertion that in no way comports with fact. As such, I took great exception to it, and let him know about it; you don't just toss around a word like "racist" or "racism" whenever the fancy strikes you, despite the fact that-- as has been conceded-- my words were a bit tactless given the public nature of the forum. However, I also maintain that, so long as the content of my words was not explicitly or implicitly racist (which has been demonstrated to be true), then the responsibility for construing my words in such a manner lies in large part with the listener (the other, lesser, part lying with my admitted tactlessness, for which I apologized) due to listener bias, ethnic allegiance, or other preconceptions which color their interpretation of the very neutral and unassailable words on the page.
So yes, I shouldn't have used the word "Russian" in a public forum, the same as I wouldn't use it in polite conversation when discussing such matters (unless the ethnicity of the audience was known, in which case one can largely rule out such "listener effects" as I've noted, and is consequently less guarded in one's speech-- though apparently not even then, since yourself and Mandark-- two non-Russians-- attacked me for my phrasing, with Mandark going one step further and baselessly calling it "racist"). I'll be more careful in the future, I can assure you, if only because I'm not about to take the time to defend myself again when I really should need no defending in light of my posting history as well as the fact that if other people care as much as they'd seem to about such things, they should perform an analysis just as I did above before attempting to label me as a "racist"-- this goes for Mandark, yourself (if in fact you were saying that the post was racist), as well as anybody else who would rush to judgment due to preconceptions or mere ethnic allegiances.
As an analogy, if a black poster (i.e., a person who is not a member of the group in question) said something like this in a thread about corporate malfeasance:
"Man, these white people are always embezzling millions of dollars from these companies."
I wouldn't jump on them and call them a racist, though I'd think it a mite distasteful in mixed company (to the same exact extent that I feel, and have admitted that, my phrasing was distasteful, which it is, but it's not something to chastise me over-- you could've just said "hey Loki, you could stand to be a bit more tactful with that
", and I likely would have conceded that very fact and edited it; instead, I got viciously attacked, my character called into question, and spurious allegations of racism made both explicitly and implicitly both in this topic as well as the original one; this obviously would make anyone bristle). The fact of the matter is that it's highly probable that the only instances of the embezzling of millions of dollars that our hypothetical poster had heard about involved white males (being overrepresented at the top of corporations, as they are). By merely making a statement of fact based on observation, it cannot rightly be concluded that he is lumping all whites together as criminals, or that he necessarily has a poor view of whites in general on the basis of the actions of these few people (both of which would be racist). If he had a history of racially-charged rhetoric, then such an interpretation might be understandable (if not provable based on the words in the particular embezzling incident above), but, at the time that I made those comments, I had no such history, and yet still was attacked as if I was a David Duke-in-waiting striking out against minorities and immigrants. This is a foolish and unproductive way to approach things, the same way that my phrasing might have been a bit foolish (but not incorrect in terms of content, and certainly not "racist"). In short, you don't punish or speak to an instance of honest indecorousness by attacking one's character in such a harsh manner as you did, nor by claiming "racism" (which requires a burden of proof to be met that entirely hasn't been met, as shown above) and hoping it sticks, as Mandark (and possibly yourself-- I'm not sure) did herein. It is unacceptable, and unacceptable, imo, to a much greater degree than any violation of good taste that I committed (which I did).
In short (yeah, haha
), there was nothing at all racist about any of my comments, nor about any of my reasoning in elaborating upon those comments. Mandark was totally in error, and totally at fault; in making the post he did responding to the quote of mine he did (with no clarifying text), as shown above, the only reasonable conclusion a person can draw is that he was charging me with racism on the basis of that post (i.e., that the post was racist). I take great exception to that both because it is factually inaccurate and unsupportable as well as because of the effect racism has had on my own life, and the lengths I go to in my own life to try to build bridges between people rather than burn them, as self-important as that might sound. I really shouldn't have had to defend myself in such a manner, either here or particularly in the original topic where I made that post, which is where you jumped on me for it rather than gently chiding me, which would have been a more proper (read: commensurate) and productive course of action (and would've likely led to me editing the post rather than adopting a defensive posture against spurious implications of racism) than attacking me as savagely as you did then and (possibly) now.Mandark, for his own part, was totally out of line. Jury's still out on you, Azih.
But if you believe that my post was in any way racist (not "could be construed as racist", which is largely due to listener effects), then I'll have to send you to join Mandark in the dank, cold cell in the corner. Don't worry-- if you roll doubles three times, you can get out (or if you have a "get out of jail free" card). I wanted to speak to this as soon as possible, because the charges (both real and implied) are serious and merited examination. As for me supposedly "not being able to detect any nuance of thought" in others' posts, well, I certainly can. Like I said, your "Chapter 1" post was made in response to my post which was made specifically in response to Mandark's post, which-- as has been demonstrated-- can only reasonably be construed as either explicitly or implicitly calling the post (and thus me to one degree or another) "racist", seeing as how it contained no clarifying text and he was responding to a quote of mine asking for a "racist post of mine". Had he merely meant something more along the lines of what you've (I think) brought up, in terms of the tactlessness of the phrasing given the forum, he should have stated as much, no? Because the following cannot properly be understood any other way:
Poster 1: "yeah, find me a single racist post I've made"
Poster 2: "Sure, here you go <insert post with poorly phrased yet totally non-racist content>"
Further, it seemed that your "Chapter 1" (seen above), coming on the heels of my condemnation of Mandark, was, in effect, backing up his take on my post, which was necessarily that he thought it was racist. Your comment about me supposedly saying something like "...well it's true, so it's not racism" bolstered that analysis, since the "it's not racism" part can legitimately be taken (given the context) as that you believed that it was racist. In other words, attacking the generic statement "it's B, so it's not racism", means that "B" and the criteria determining racist content are totally unrelated (i.e., one does not determine the other and is independent of the existence of the other), so you are attacking the relatedness of the two things ("B" and racism). And this is true-- the truth of a statement has no bearing on whether it is racist (though, in an absolute sense, I'd have a hard time seeing how something that is objectively true can be given a negative connotation, but that's neither here nor there). The only criteria that can determine whether or not a statement is racist are the very definitions I've elaborated upon above; as has been shown, my statements were in no way racist.
Further, I was not saying anything like "it's true, therefore it's not racism"-- what I was saying (separately) was that:
A) it's not racism (see this entire post for proof), and...
B) these statements are based on my direct observations; this point was only brought up to explain why those examples sprang most readily to mind when I originally made that post, not as a defense against the charge of racism as you state. In fact, if someone had made the same observations as me, and yet said something along the lines of "all Russians abuse our services; I hate them all", then their comments would indeed be racist, despite the "truth" of their particular visual observations (here, their clear error lies in extrapolation to the entire group, which I did none of, and would do none of).
Again, the argument about "observation" (and the frequency of that observation) was only invoked to account for why that particular example ("Russians" instead of "people") came to mind more quickly, which is why I said it. This is a common psychological phenomenon related to exposure (obviously), and it holds across many areas and for all people-- it's not just something I'm "making up" to wiggle out of things. When I post, I tend not to think much about what I'm saying (believe it or not given the length of my posts
), and so usually just say whatever comes to mind; usually I don't have to worry much about "filtering" anything because, like I said, I know myself, and I have not one sentiment or thought that I wouldn't be entirely comfortable explaining in a public forum-- I have nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about. So I usually just start typing. However, as is clear from this case, none of us is perfectly tactful at all times, and I admittedly made a faux pas in how I phrased something given that this is a public forum. For that, I apologize. But further than that I will not go: I will not apologize for the content of my statements because, quite honestly, there's nothing to apologize about (as explained in this post). There was no racism; moreover, whatever racism might be read into my post is largely the responsibility of the listener, not myself (in the same way that I have an obligation to be tactful, they have an obligation to examine things critically before casting aspersions; the critical examination of the supposed "racist" content of my post, as seen above, proves that there was no such racism exhibited).The rest of my thoughts on this whole "racism" nonsense can be found in posts #124 and 137, which contain some elaboration on these points. And if you guys are not using any of the (numerous) official definitions of "racism" that I have debunked above, but are instead using some magical floating standard (e.g., "I know it when I see it"), then you are engaging in the worst sort of reasoning, and committing logical fallacies that far outweigh whatever ones you feel I've made herein (you seem to be particularly fond of the word "strawman", for instance; this was be addressed in an upcoming post).
As I said this needed to be addressed with all due haste, as I take attacks (implicit or otherwise) on my character very seriously, as I would expect any sensible, decent person to. Sometime within the next several days (most likely friday or saturday) I will get around to addressing the meat of your post, which is concerned with the main topic (or what became the main topic
) of this thread. I would like to just say, however, that if you're so concerned about "strawmen", you'd do well to reread in particular my statements concerning personal freedoms/liberty under my "system", as well as the role and control of the media, and how gradualism will ultimately affect the sort of product put out by it (the key: the profit motive remains intact). Please don't respond to this point now, however, as it'll just make my job take all the longer. As I said, I'll respond in full to your post later on in the week; I hope that this thread will remain open in the meantime, as I feel that-- aside from the racism crap-- it is an interesting and vital discussion, with valid and persuasive arguments on all sides (yes Azih, even you ;P). I'll try my best to get around to your stuff too, Divus, though I can make no guarantees-- you do raise some interesting points, however.
Anyway, toodles for now.
AND DON'T CALL ME A FARKING RACIST (whoever did, and there was at least one such person).
Holy fuck. That response was two pizza ads short of a phone book.Loki said:
I hate to do this, but I'm going to lock this thread for EVERYONE'S good...especially Loki, since he can't seem to let this one drop and I'm sincerely worried about him flunking out of college because he's defending his honor on GAF at all hours of day and night. My apologies if I'm spoiling anyone's chance for a last word.
Mike Works
Member
Fucking racist.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll