Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:39 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:34 pm Rather pointless to continually use a word that has been used and abused to the point of extinction without defining what you mean when you use it.
I do realise that yanks believe word meanings are entirely subjective and change to accommodate political leaning

Any time you treat people differently because of their X you are an X-ist.

If X is "sex" then you are a sexist.
If X is "age" then you are an ageist.
If X is "race" then you are a racist.
If X is "class" then you are a classist.

You don't hire older people? Ageist!
You don't do business with poor people? Classist!
You don't respect women with authority? Sexist!
You don't date black people? Racist!

Some of the above "isms" are harmful when they become widely-accepted social norms.

Oh my. So in other words every human being in existence is a 'bigot'. Well that certainly explains a lot....

And everyone has to 'date' black people, just to show they aren't 'racist'? Or date white people? Chinese? Indian?
Gee. What if you just aren't attracted to them?

Ps. By claiming that there is such an entity as 'black people' shows what a low-down, bigoted, colourphobic racist you are.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:43 pm Oh my. So in other words every human being in existence is a 'racist'. Well that certainly explains a lot....

Your choices can harm other human beings in non-obvious ways. Imagine that!

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:43 pm Ps. By claiming that there is such an entity as 'black people' shows what a low-down, bigoted, colourphobic racist you are.

Well, I'd totally deny my wife's skin colour, but she'd fucking divorce me if I pulled the "I don't see color" stunt on her.

She's black. I am white. It's obvious - you can't miss it. If you "don't see color" you should get your eyes checked.

>Oh my. So in other words every human being in existence is a 'bigot'. Well that certainly explains a lot....

Technically, yes. Bigotry is lack of acceptance of ideas other than your own. Everyone doesn't accept something. It's part of having a mind. The real question is whether your particular bigotry is more reasonable than mine. The common usage means "bigotry I believe is unreasonable".

>And everyone has to 'date' black people, just to show they aren't 'racist'? Or date white people? Chinese? Indian?
Gee. What if you just aren't attracted to them?

I think the idea is that you have to have reasons to do things. If you're doing it based on feelings, you're being an animal and you're dehumanizing them as well. It's regressive. We need to be civilized already. "Because it makes me feel good/right." is the root of all evil. We need to use our higher brains. Our intellect is the pointy end of the spear of evolution. But then again, to call something racist is the same as the word bigotry, it's different in every circumstance, according to the feels of the participants. If you happen to like the look of race x and incidentally, believe their culture is subservient, are you racist because you enjoy sterotypical subservience? or racistly respectful because they're your favourite race? What a mess!

>Ps. By claiming that there is such an entity as 'black people' shows what a low-down, bigoted, colourphobic racist you are.

That's the root of a lot of social problems about race, conflating racial with racist. I got banned from both FB and Twitter, and censored in this very sentence, for talking about the word n*****, applied to no-one, even hypothetically.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:43 pm And everyone has to 'date' black people, just to show they aren't 'racist'? Or date white people? Chinese? Indian?
Gee. What if you just aren't attracted to them?

Then you aren't attracted to them. The goal isn't to force you to like things you don't like, or teach you how to virtue-signal non-racism.

The goal is to get you to compartmentalise your mind-space so that your various biases don't skew your judgments in more formal/professional/social contexts where you are expected to remain as objective as possible.

The goal is to learn to recognise those thoughts before you act them out. Disengage System I. Engage System II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:12 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:43 pm And everyone has to 'date' black people, just to show they aren't 'racist'? Or date white people? Chinese? Indian?
Gee. What if you just aren't attracted to them?

Then you aren't attracted to them. The goal isn't to force you to like things you don't like, or teach you how to virtue-signal non-racism.

The goal is to get you to compartmentalise your mind-space so that your various biases don't skew your judgments in more formal/professional/social contexts where you are expected to remain as objective as possible.

The goal is to learn to recognise those thoughts before you act them out. Disengage System I. Engage System II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

Who are you to 'get' anyone to 'do' anything (even if it is meaningless gobbledygook) with their own mind?
I do see the need for someone with very limited intellect to resort to meaningless buzzwords and phrases, but why hide the fact that you have nothing to say? After all, you are the righteous of the species, the moral standard-bearers for the rest of us poor, lowly creatures who are so full of demons that need exorcising by the chosen enlightened few....

It's strange, but even in writing you can 'see' the condesceding and self-righteous little smirk on their faces...

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:25 pm Who are you to 'get' anyone to 'do' anything (even if it is meaningless gobbledygook) with their own mind?

Nobody. It's a polite request that often falls on deaf or indifferent ears.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:25 pm I do see the need for someone with very limited intellect to resort to meaningless buzzwords and phrases, but why hide the fact that you have nothing to say? After all, you are the righteous of the species, the moral standard-bearers for the rest of us poor, lowly creatures who are so full of demons that need exorcising by the chose enlightened few....

I am not "righteous". I am a human asking another human for common decency and self-reflection. This behaviour harms other people.
In an ideal world you'd recognise this and choose to make better choices. In an ideal world, this is how social norms ought to be negotiated.

Either you care or you don't. If you don't care - then here's literally no argument to convince you to.

For the people who don't care there's various forms of sanctions all the way up to laws.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:28 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:25 pm Who are you to 'get' anyone to 'do' anything (even if it is meaningless gobbledygook) with their own mind?

Nobody. It's a polite request that often falls on deaf or indifferent ears.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:25 pm I do see the need for someone with very limited intellect to resort to meaningless buzzwords and phrases, but why hide the fact that you have nothing to say? After all, you are the righteous of the species, the moral standard-bearers for the rest of us poor, lowly creatures who are so full of demons that need exorcising by the chose enlightened few....

I am not "righteous". I am a human asking another human for common decency and self-reflection. This behaviour harms other people.
In an ideal world you'd recognise this and choose to make better choices. In an ideal world, this is how social norms ought to be negotiated.

Either you care or you don't. If you don't care - then here's literally no argument to convince you to.

For the people who don't care there's various forms of sanctions all the way up to laws.

Yes, you are a smug, self-righteous arsehole. I certainly don't need an intellectual featherweight like you to police my thoughts.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 12:23 am You are right. I don't care what others think. I care about equal rights under the law--colour blind rights. Whether or not people like each other is their business.

Sure. Everybody has a "right to work" under law. There's just no law which forces employers to hire women.

Y'all too emotional for the environment. We need logical rational, emotionless, PMS-free men...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 12:33 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 12:23 am You are right. I don't care what others think. I care about equal rights under the law--colour blind rights. Whether or not people like each other is their business.

Sure. Everybody has a "right to work" under law. There's just no law which forces employers to hire women.

Y'all too emotional for the environment. We need logical rational, emotionless, PMS-free men...

Perhaps you should now get 'offended-on-behalf-of' me, because I don't feel particularly offended

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 12:43 am Perhaps you should now get 'offended-on-behalf-of' me, because I don't feel particularly offended

It's not meant to offend you?

It's only meant to deny women their rights without breaking any laws.

Economic exclusion is nothing to be offended about.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 12:44 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 12:43 am Perhaps you should now get 'offended-on-behalf-of' me, because I don't feel particularly offended

It's not meant to offend you?

It's only meant to deny women their rights without breaking any laws.

Economic exclusion is nothing to be offended about.

As I said, feel free to be offended on my behalf...
Btw, do you ever run out of meaningless buzz-phrases?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2020 1:02 am Btw, do you ever run out of meaningless buzz-phrases?

What? Like "offended" ?

Your choices can harm other human beings in non-obvious ways.

how so?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:39 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:34 pm Rather pointless to continually use a word that has been used and abused to the point of extinction without defining what you mean when you use it.
I do realise that yanks believe word meanings are entirely subjective and change to accommodate political leaning

Any time you treat people differently because of their X you are an X-ist.

If X is "sex" then you are a sexist.
If X is "age" then you are an ageist.
If X is "race" then you are a racist.
If X is "class" then you are a classist.

You don't hire old people? Ageist!
You don't do business with poor people? Classist!
You don't respect women with authority? Sexist!
You don't date black people? Racist!

This may be true, but what is also true, and contrary to popular BELIEF, is that there is NO such thing as "old", "poor", "women", and "black people".

Some might NEED more CLARIFYING than others do.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:39 pm Some of the above "isms" are harmful when they become widely-accepted social or cultural norms to the detriment of a particular group.

ALL 'isms' are completely unnecessary and rarely, if ever, speak of Truth. If not ALL, then just about ALL 'isms', could fall under the banner "separatism", which, itself, is REALLY just an absurd, illogical, and ridiculous way of thinking, looking, and SEEING.

Although 'separate labeling' WAS a necessary part in order to discover and see what thee One Universe, Itself, IS and WAS necessary to understand how this One Universe actually works, 'separatism', itself, as though there is some actual separated thing is a misnomer, redundant, and just a form of self-deceiving.

'isms' are harmful and a detriment to that particular group known as 'human being'. This is because 'isms' are a form of lying and self-deception, which has effected, and is affecting, ALL adult human beings in the days of when this is being written.