racism and being 'WOKE"

[iambiguous]

Still haven't seen an argument. This site is pathetic.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever come upon a post on this site -- on any site -- that encompassed an argument rejecting your own political prejudices but still an argument you could respect? Or do you only "see" an argument when it is entirely in sync with your own "my way or the highway", "drop dead morons!" diatribes?

[iambiguous]

Those who are now opposing the introduction of sexual themes into pedagogy do so from a base in values. Or, if they are shaky about what their values are they have to quickly seek to define a value-base on which their values stand. And because Critical Theory is a type of dissolving acid it attacks structures of ideas when they are not strong enough to resist the critical attack.

No, seriously.



Well, okay, since Mr. Wonk is partial to probing these things "intellectually" let's go there: https://www.genderhq.org/trans-youth-ri ... desistance

Arguments pro and arguments con. And the fiercely fanatical moral objectivists among us who simply refuse to acknowledge that those who are "one of them" can possibly contribute anything rational to the discussion.

Me, I note that both sides, in starting from different sets of assumptions regarding the "human condition", make reasonable arguments and I find myself drawn and quartered...tugged ambivalently in opposite directions.

Mr. Wonk, on the other hand, is not. He may not go ape-shit as vegetariantaxidermy is wont to do here when confronting arguments opposed to her own, but he certainly seems [to me] no less adamant that his own rooted existentially in dasein moral and political prejudices regarding sexuality and gender and race and Jews are by default the starting point in any "discussion" here.

And above all, I suggest further, where he will not go is in exploring the arguments I make in the OPs here:

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

He just has too much invested in his own rendition of the "my way or the highway" Intrinsic Self.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Arguments pro and arguments con. And the fiercely fanatical moral objectivists among us who simply refuse to acknowledge that those who are "one of them" can possibly contribute anything rational to the discussion.

Well, I say that moral objectivism is the needed object because the opposite, when taken to its extreme, is obviously not, because it renders one, as you say, drawn & quartered. And though I do not assert that I have an objectivist's answer for all moral and ethical problems, I think we know enough about sexual deviancy in periods of cultural exhaustion and decadence, to see the recent fluorescence of sexual- and gender-dysphoria symptomatically and to recognize it as part of a general malady. In any case not as a sign of social health and well-being.

But I do agree with you that to take this stance does imply something objectivist in my outlook. I prefer to seek ways to strengthen that stance rather than to undermine and weaken it.

I recognize that sexual deviancy has been linked to civilizational decline (as the standard narrative about Roman civilization runs) and that this may be less true than supposed, but today there are really bizarre things going on. And then the collusion of capital interests (Big Pharma) that sees opportunities to produce the needed drugs for gender switches and can then influence social policy much as other power-centers influence the military-industrial sector. Social manipulation and social engineering also enter into the picture. It is a large topic and not easy to work one's way through.

If you wish to place these concerns in the convenient category of "fiercely fanatical moral objectivists" I cannot stop you. But your own assertion is based in an objectivist's stance, though you don't seem to see that.

What I can say, because this is the area I work in, is that there is a developing movement that seeks to stop the advance of what I term deviancy on many different fronts, but I am aware that the opposing faction lacks concrete arguments. It must mobilize itself, but it struggles to find footing.

So it seems that Hyper-Liberalism has taken culture to extremes but people are confused about how to reign it in. And this leads to far larger questions about what *anchors* we will observe and give energy to. I am interested, fundamentally and philosophically, in *anchors*.

Opposition to your *ambiguous* and *ambivalent* stances is simply my way of taking advantage of the opportunity you present me with. I see you as stuck but it is not that I do not see why. And your stuckness is a general condition. You cannot find your way through the maze.

Indeed you yourself are that maze!

Me, I note that both sides, in starting from different sets of assumptions regarding the "human condition", make reasonable arguments and I find myself drawn and quartered...tugged ambivalently in opposite directions.

Except that you operate from a moral nihilism position, which will, time and again, suck you into its swirling and absurd vortex in which you will not be able to make any decisions -- because moral nihilism is a no-base, a non-base. How could one possibly anchor oneself there? And how would you go about teaching moral nihilism to children?

You've made absurd choices but wish to present them as reasoned and reasonable. They aren't and they fall apart with even a superficial examination.

Mr. Wonk, on the other hand, is not. He may not go ape-shit as vegetariantaxidermy is wont to do here when confronting arguments opposed to her own, but he certainly seems [to me] no less adamant that his own rooted existentially in dasein moral and political prejudices regarding sexuality and gender and race and Jews are by default the starting point in any "discussion" here.

If I am adamant about anything is that we have at our disposal the capacity to reason and to work our way through ethical and moral questions. I am also adamant (I suppose I would say) that when we reason responsibly we generally speaking arrive at similar answers.

[iambiguous]

Arguments pro and arguments con. And the fiercely fanatical moral objectivists among us who simply refuse to acknowledge that those who are "one of them" can possibly contribute anything rational to the discussion.

Well, I say that moral objectivism is the needed object because the opposite, when taken to its extreme, is obviously not, because it renders one, as you say, drawn & quartered. And though I do not assert that I have an objectivist's answer for all moral and ethical problems, I think we know enough about sexual deviancy in periods of cultural exhaustion and decadence, to see the recent fluorescence of sexual- and gender-dysphoria symptomatically and to recognize it as part of a general malady. In any case not as a sign of social health and well-being.

Again, existentially, you have acquired this particular political prejudice. And those on the other end of the political spectrum have acquired their own conflicting set of assumptions. Then the "scholars" weigh in: https://www.genderhq.org/trans-youth-ri ... desistance

Then my own take on how individuals acquire value judgments of this sort given the assumptions I make in my signature threads above.

Then around and around we go.

But I do agree with you that to take this stance does imply something objectivist in my outlook. I prefer to seek ways to strengthen that stance rather than to undermine and weaken it.

Right, like those on the other side aren't making much the same claim.

I recognize that sexual deviancy has been linked to civilizational decline (as the standard narrative about Roman civilization runs) and that this may be less true than supposed, but today there are really bizarre things going on. And then the collusion of capital interests (Big Pharma) that sees opportunities to produce the needed drugs for gender switches and can then influence social policy much as other power-centers influence the military-industrial sector. Social manipulation and social engineering also enter into the picture. It is a large topic and not easy to work one's way through.

Oh, I agree that capitalism is always going to be there to make a buck in regards to human sexuality. But then what to do with those "deviants", right? As with the Jews, and the racially inferior black folks, maybe the Nazis had the right idea in regard to them?

If you wish to place these concerns in the convenient category of "fiercely fanatical moral objectivists" I cannot stop you. But your own assertion is based in an objectivist's stance, though you don't seem to see that.

No, I don't see that at all. I still recognize that given particular contexts I am no less yanked in conflicting directions.

Then whatever this...

What I can say, because this is the area I work in, is that there is a developing movement that seeks to stop the advance of what I term deviancy on many different fronts, but I am aware that the opposing faction lacks concrete arguments. It must mobilize itself, but it struggles to find footing.

...means in regard to the behaviors that you choose pertaining to your own personal experiences with these alleged "deviants".

Just out of curiosity, "for all practical purposes", how far should they steer clear of you?

Opposition to your *ambiguous* and *ambivalent* stances is simply my way of taking advantage of the opportunity you present me with. I see you as stuck but it is not that I do not see why. And your stuckness is a general condition. You cannot find your way through the maze.

Indeed you yourself are that maze!

Again, my frame of mind is derived from the assumptions that "here and now" I make in my signature threads above. Always acknowledging that given new experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge, I might well change my mind. As I had done so many times in the past.

How about you? Has your mind changed over the years regarding human sexuality and gender roles and blacks and Jews? Because if it has been, you are acknowledging that you once thought that you were wrong about them. You changed your mind. And once you acknowledge that you recognize that you may well be wrong now as well. You'll change your mind again.

Me, I note that both sides, in starting from different sets of assumptions regarding the "human condition", make reasonable arguments and I find myself drawn and quartered...tugged ambivalently in opposite directions.

Except that you operate from a moral nihilism position, which will, time and again, suck you into its swirling and absurd vortex in which you will not be able to make any decisions -- because moral nihilism is a no-base, a non-base. How could one possibly anchor oneself there? And how would you go about teaching moral nihilism to children?

Yes, that is certainly "for all practical purposes" a consequence of becoming a moral nihilist. And, as well, I construe those who own and operate the "show me the money" amoral global economy to be moral nihilists. Not to mention any number of sociopaths.

Once you conclude that there is No God and that human moral values are rooted historically, culturally and experientially in dasein -- and thus beyond the reach objectively of scientists and philosophers and ethicists -- then, yeah you're confronted with this: that all behaviors can be rationalized.

Which is why objectivists of your ilk are everywhere:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Really, it almost doesn't even matter what you believe as long as you do believe in something that you are able to anchor your Self to. That's the part that comforts and consoles you. It's being able to think that how you differentiate "normal people" from the "deviants" here truly is the most rational and virtuous frame of mind.

You actually convince yourself that this...

You've made absurd choices but wish to present them as reasoned and reasonable. They aren't and they fall apart with even a superficial examination.

...is, if not the "God's honest truth", as close to it as a "serious philosopher" can come. You're like a caricature of Plato and Kant and Hitler combined.

Well, if I do say so myself.

Mr. Wonk, on the other hand, is not. He may not go ape-shit as vegetariantaxidermy is wont to do here when confronting arguments opposed to her own, but he certainly seems [to me] no less adamant that his own rooted existentially in dasein moral and political prejudices regarding sexuality and gender and race and Jews are by default the starting point in any "discussion" here.

If I am adamant about anything is that we have at our disposal the capacity to reason and to work our way through ethical and moral questions. I am also adamant (I suppose I would say) that when we reason responsibly we generally speaking arrive at similar answers.

In other words, others here have the capacity to reason and to work their way through ethical and moral questions by simply embracing your own.

As with most "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian", "my way or the highway" bigots, the "psychology of objectivism" is something that you dare not explore. With you not even up in the clouds.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Then around and around we go.

Correction: around and around you go.

[Alexis Jacobi]

How about you? Has your mind changed over the years regarding human sexuality and gender roles and blacks and Jews?

Why do you group these very different things together?

I don’t recall writing anything particularly about Blacks. What are you referring to?

Same with Jews. What are you referring to and why do you group these things together?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Still haven't seen an argument. This site is pathetic.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever come upon a post on this site -- on any site -- that encompassed an argument rejecting your own political prejudices but still an argument you could respect? Or do you only "see" an argument when it is entirely in sync with your own "my way or the highway", "drop dead morons!" diatribes?

Never. There is a good reason for this. It's because I don't argue from an ideological position. I don't have 'political prejudices'. I'm only interested in science and facts. Anyone who takes an opposing position to science and facts is going to be wrong by default.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In other words, others here have the capacity to reason and to work their way through ethical and moral questions by simply embracing your own.

As with most "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian", "my way or the highway" bigots, the "psychology of objectivism" is something that you dare not explore. With you not even up in the clouds.

You do not have that capability, that being my most central assertion.

Within our own Occidental traditions — the Liberal Arts so-called — people have worked with their mind and intelligence to arrive at sensible, arguable positions that can be explained and defended through thoughtful and careful exposition.

You see that process as autocracy and authoritarianism. It generally is non-autocratic because it is arrived at through shared reasoning processes. But it does lead to definitions of what is authority, and who has authority. We have a legal system that has been selected by reasonable and reasoning men. And their (legal) decisions are authoritative.

You have no means that I discern to validate any authority. In fact you undermine authority generally to the degree you are captured in the vortex I describe.

You have issues with authority’s exercise of its power. I am cautious or suspicious of power-concentrations (for sound reasons) but faithful in what results from honest and thorough examination of ethical and moral problems. And respectful of Authority in the conceptual or ideal sense. I do not assert that those processes are not problematic.

Your use of the word ‘bigot’ is as a term to attack or assault the legitimacy of cohesive structures and also of authoritative power. It is a hot word, like “racist” or “sexist” or “homophobe”. Those words are all suspect in my view.

The word in any case has an interesting history:

big·ot (bĭg′ət)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

[French, excessively religious person, religiously intolerant person, from Old French, Norman person, excessively religious person, of unknown origin.]

Word History: The ultimate origin of the word bigot is unknown. When bigot first appears in Old French, it is as an insulting term for a Norman. A colorful story is often told about the origin of the term with Rollo, the pagan Viking conqueror who received Normandy as a fief from Charles III of France in 911. Rollo converted to Christianity for the occasion, but it is said that he refused to complete his oath of fealty to the king by kissing the king's feet and said Ne se bi got, "Never, by God!" in a mishmash of Old French and a Germanic language. This bi got then became a term of abuse for the Normans. This story is certainly false, but some scholars have proposed that Old French bigot did indeed originate as a reference to be Gode!—the Old and early Middle English equivalent of Modern English by God!, perhaps as a phrase that some Normans picked up in their English possessions in England and then used back in France. Later, in the 1400s, the French word bigot appears as a term of abuse for a person who is excessively religious. It is not clear, however, that this word bigot, "excessively religious person," is in fact the direct descendant of the Old French slur that was applied to the Normans. Rather, this bigot may come directly from Middle English bi God, "by God," or an equivalent phrase in one of the Germanic relatives of English such as German bei Gott or Dutch bij God. But even this is uncertain. In any case, English borrowed bigot from French with the sense "religious hypocrite" in the early 17th century. In English, the term also came to be applied to persons who hold stubbornly to any system of beliefs, and by extension, persons who are intolerant of those that differ from them in any way.

[iambiguous]

Then around and around we go.

Correction: around and around you go.

No, you go around and around on post after post, an utterly arrogant "my way or the highway" objectivist wonk and I go around and around on post after post, as someone able to discern that those on both ends of the moral and political spectrum are able to make reasonable arguments regarding things like human sexuality that the other side can't make go away simply by insisting that it really is "my way or the highway".

Again, with you the main question is how much do those who refuse to toe your line have to fear from you if and when you are ever in a position of power...and can actually enforce your own declamatory dogmas.

Again, in that regard, going all the way out to those like Hitler himself.

[iambiguous]

How about you? Has your mind changed over the years regarding human sexuality and gender roles and blacks and Jews?

Why do you group these very different things together?

I don’t recall writing anything particularly about Blacks. What are you referring to?

Same with Jews. What are you referring to and why do you group these things together?

Well, not on this thread, perhaps, Mr. Northern European Aryan apologist.

[iambiguous]

Still haven't seen an argument. This site is pathetic.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever come upon a post on this site -- on any site -- that encompassed an argument rejecting your own political prejudices but still an argument you could respect? Or do you only "see" an argument when it is entirely in sync with your own "my way or the highway", "drop dead morons!" diatribes?

Never. There is a good reason for this. It's because I don't argue from an ideological position. I don't have 'political prejudices'. I'm only interested in science and facts. Anyone who takes an opposing position to science and facts is going to be wrong by default.

Right. Your scientific facts about trans. Your scientific facts about gender roles. Your scientific facts about men themselves? The only possible scientific facts that there can be. And what luck that the science here is entirely in sync with your own subjective prejudices.

Again, does the seething fury you employ here come from actual personal experiences that you have had with transgenders...or is it all just stuff that you come upon in the news media. Like Satyr's posts over at KT.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever come upon a post on this site -- on any site -- that encompassed an argument rejecting your own political prejudices but still an argument you could respect? Or do you only "see" an argument when it is entirely in sync with your own "my way or the highway", "drop dead morons!" diatribes?

Never. There is a good reason for this. It's because I don't argue from an ideological position. I don't have 'political prejudices'. I'm only interested in science and facts. Anyone who takes an opposing position to science and facts is going to be wrong by default.

Right. Your scientific facts about trans. Your scientific facts about gender roles. Your scientific facts about men themselves? The only possible scientific facts that there can be. And what luck that the science here is entirely in sync with your own subjective prejudices.

Again, does the seething fury you employ here come from actual personal experiences that you have had with transgenders...or is it all just stuff that you come upon in the news media. Like Satyr's posts over at KT.

I'm only being honest. Wasn't Satyr permanently banned from here years ago? What is KT? As I recall he had no interest in facts or science whatsoever--or philosophy for that matter. You seem to be obsessed with that person.

[iambiguous]

Opposition to your *ambiguous* and *ambivalent* stances is simply my way of taking advantage of the opportunity you present me with. I see you as stuck but it is not that I do not see why. And your stuckness is a general condition. You cannot find your way through the maze.

Indeed you yourself are that maze![/b]

Again, my frame of mind is derived from the assumptions that "here and now" I make in my signature threads above. Always acknowledging that given new experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge, I might well change my mind. As I had done so many times in the past.

How about you? Has your mind changed over the years regarding human sexuality and gender roles and blacks and Jews? Because if it has been, you are acknowledging that you once thought that you were wrong about them. You changed your mind. And once you acknowledge that you recognize that you may well be wrong now as well. You'll change your mind again.

Me, I note that both sides, in starting from different sets of assumptions regarding the "human condition", make reasonable arguments and I find myself drawn and quartered...tugged ambivalently in opposite directions.

Except that you operate from a moral nihilism position, which will, time and again, suck you into its swirling and absurd vortex in which you will not be able to make any decisions -- because moral nihilism is a no-base, a non-base. How could one possibly anchor oneself there? And how would you go about teaching moral nihilism to children?

Yes, that is certainly "for all practical purposes" a consequence of becoming a moral nihilist. And, as well, I construe those who own and operate the "show me the money" amoral global economy to be moral nihilists. Not to mention any number of sociopaths.

Once you conclude that there is No God and that human moral values are rooted historically, culturally and experientially in dasein -- and thus beyond the reach objectively of scientists and philosophers and ethicists -- then, yeah you're confronted with this: that all behaviors can be rationalized.

Which is why objectivists of your ilk are everywhere:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Really, it almost doesn't even matter what you believe as long as you do believe in something that you are able to anchor your Self to. That's the part that comforts and consoles you. It's being able to think that how you differentiate "normal people" from the "deviants" here truly is the most rational and virtuous frame of mind.

You actually convince yourself that this...

You've made absurd choices but wish to present them as reasoned and reasonable. They aren't and they fall apart with even a superficial examination.

...is, if not the "God's honest truth", as close to it as a "serious philosopher" can come. You're like a caricature of Plato and Kant and Hitler combined.

Well, if I do say so myself.

Mr. Wonk, on the other hand, is not. He may not go ape-shit as vegetariantaxidermy is wont to do here when confronting arguments opposed to her own, but he certainly seems [to me] no less adamant that his own rooted existentially in dasein moral and political prejudices regarding sexuality and gender and race and Jews are by default the starting point in any "discussion" here.

If I am adamant about anything is that we have at our disposal the capacity to reason and to work our way through ethical and moral questions. I am also adamant (I suppose I would say) that when we reason responsibly we generally speaking arrive at similar answers.

In other words, others here have the capacity to reason and to work their way through ethical and moral questions by simply embracing your own.

As with most "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian", "my way or the highway" bigots, the "psychology of objectivism" is something that you dare not explore. With you not even up in the clouds.

You do not have that capability, that being my most central assertion.

Within our own Occidental traditions — the Liberal Arts so-called — people have worked with their mind and intelligence to arrive at sensible, arguable positions that can be explained and defended through thoughtful and careful exposition.

You see that process as autocracy and authoritarianism. It generally is non-autocratic because it is arrived at through shared reasoning processes. But it does lead to definitions of what is authority, and who has authority. We have a legal system that has been selected by reasonable and reasoning men. And their (legal) decisions are authoritative.

Yes, and some have reached conclusions derived from the left end of the moral and political spectrum and others from the right end. Some from a God world perspective, others from a No God world perspective. Some emphasizing "I", others emphasizing "We". Some embracing capitalisim, others embracing socialism. Some being idealists, others being pragmatists or realists. Some going back to genes, others going back to memes. And there are arrogant "my way or the highway" objectivists in both the liberal and the conservative camps. I merely note the extent to which this is rooted as much in dasein existentially as in political ideology and in deontological philosophical assessments.

[You have no means that I discern to validate any authority. In fact you undermine authority generally to the degree you are captured in the vortex I describe.

Yes, I noted my thinking on this above. I note the manner in which I am "fractured and fragmented" morality and I note the reasons for this in my signature theads.

All I can then do is to assess the arguments of those like you. Those who actually insist that despite all of the other One True Paths to Enlightenment that there are...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...their own really, really, really is the most rational and virtuous manner in which to encompass the "human condition"

Then [of course] back up into the clouds you go..

You have issues with authority’s exercise of its power. I am cautious or suspicious of power-concentrations (for sound reasons) but faithful in what results from honest and thorough examination of ethical and moral problems. And respectful of Authority in the conceptual or ideal sense. I do not assert that those processes are not problematic.

We'll need an actual context of course.

Your use of the word ‘bigot’ is as a term to attack or assault the legitimacy of cohesive structures and also of authoritative power. It is a hot word, like “racist” or “sexist” or “homophobe”. Those words are all suspect in my view.

Over and again on other threads, I have asked you to come down out of the clouds and to note how in a community that you sustained a position of power in, those of other races, other genders, other sexual orientations etc., would fare.

With those like Satyr, for example, I sometimes find it hard to distinguish his own point of view from that of someone like Hitler.

Well, how about you? In regard to transgenders, homosexuals and other "deviants" what would be permitted and what would be prohibited if you were in a position of power and could enforce your own "rules of behavior".

[iambiguous]

Never. There is a good reason for this. It's because I don't argue from an ideological position. I don't have 'political prejudices'. I'm only interested in science and facts. Anyone who takes an opposing position to science and facts is going to be wrong by default.

Right. Your scientific facts about trans. Your scientific facts about gender roles. Your scientific facts about men themselves? The only possible scientific facts that there can be. And what luck that the science here is entirely in sync with your own subjective prejudices.

Again, does the seething fury you employ here come from actual personal experiences that you have had with transgenders...or is it all just stuff that you come upon in the news media. Like Satyr's posts over at KT.

I'm only being honest.

Well, with the scientific community backing you in regard to transgenders -- https://www.google.com/search?q=science ... s-wiz-serp -- being honest is the only option, right?

Wasn't Satyr permanently banned from here years ago? What is KT? As I recall he had no interest in facts or science whatsoever--or philosophy for that matter. You seem to be obsessed with that person.

Yeah, he does get banned from time to time. Why? Because he is often prone to viciously attacking those who refuse to think exactly as he does about, well, among other things, everything under the sun.


And, no, not obsessed. We just go way back.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Right. Your scientific facts about trans. Your scientific facts about gender roles. Your scientific facts about men themselves? The only possible scientific facts that there can be. And what luck that the science here is entirely in sync with your own subjective prejudices.

Again, does the seething fury you employ here come from actual personal experiences that you have had with transgenders...or is it all just stuff that you come upon in the news media. Like Satyr's posts over at KT.

I'm only being honest.

Well, with the scientific community backing you in regard to transgenders -- https://www.google.com/search?q=science ... s-wiz-serp -- being honest is the only option, right?

Wasn't Satyr permanently banned from here years ago? What is KT? As I recall he had no interest in facts or science whatsoever--or philosophy for that matter. You seem to be obsessed with that person.

Yeah, he does get banned from time to time. Why? Because he is often prone to viciously attacking those who refuse to think exactly as he does about, well, among other things, everything under the sun.


And, no, not obsessed. We just go way back.

Just try to stay out of women's toilets and changing rooms. Shouldn't be that diffucult for you. Right?