No no, it’s simply a human that has no experiences, no senses, suspended in air. A mind trapped in a body that has never experienced anything aside from it’s own mind.
Interestingly enough, I said it was a man and you made it into a woman, haha. But, if it was a woman, it would have no opportunity to give or bear children into the world, as it would not interact with the world to be able to do so.
While I disagree with much of what you’ve written, the broader point remains–many of the processes that have resulted in the diminution of bigotry are still active today. Further, none involve re-education camps, or policies that result in the slaughter of millions of people, or the rise to power of a despotic regime. Thus, just as there is far less bigotry today than there was 100 years ago, I see no reason to believe the trend won’t continue; ie, that there will be even less bigotry 100 years hence. All of this is in response to my interpretation of what @BrickHead has asserted, which is that 1) bigotry is hopelessly refractory, and 2) attempts at ameliorating bigotry necessarily involve totalitarian methods and/or outcomes.
Interact with the world–is that what you kids are calling it these days? 
Only did that in order to use the points made earlier where birth ect were shown to have effected the person involved. But turns out I misunderstood the hypothetical.
The way I see it now… No, the individual would have zero perception of being “male” and it would be moot to. It would serve no purpose so I don’t see how it would evolve.
Yeah, I keep running into the same mental road block on this one. I get as far as cogito ergo sum and then that’s about it. I am certain one could deduce that they exist, but beyond that, any other sort of identity becomes difficult to fathom.
such as?
I think the implication Brick is making is that this is an unintentional outcome for forced social acceptance. It doesn’t have to be government based (although it would eventually become one given the democratic election of representatives.)
Society itself can (and has) become that organically. I’m surprised anyone remotely involved in Gay Rights movements would not see that. (This isn’t a put down or attack.)
In the three instances you spoke about initially sure. What’s to prevent that bigotry from not refocusing on a different group. Say religious people, rich people or hippies?
Regarding point 1 here: why must or should people tolerate every idea, even if some ideas they don’t tolerate make sense! I can choose to not tolerate any idea I please. If I don’t mistreat anyone, what’s the problem?
There is no problem (you know this.)
People just can’t help but want to control others.
I believe the govt has played an enormously positive role in ameliorating bigotry, whereas you seem to think its useful contributions have been solely negative (eg, the ‘ending of codified racism’).
As I acknowledged previously, it’s not possible to legislate away bigotry. So if “forced social acceptance” refers to how people feel, to what they believe, this issue is a non-starter. OTOH, it is possible to legislate behavior–you can legislate away Whites Only restrooms, for example. But clearly, doing so does not lead inevitably to despotic regimes. (One might consider the current instantiation of the Federal govt intrusive and over-reaching, but it cannot credibly be considered tantamount to that of the USSR, the Khmer Rouge, Mao’s China, etc).
Again, I would argue that governmental action played an enormous role in the success of the gay-rights movement. Granted, much of that role came to fruition only after it (the govt) was prodded by the actions of self-organized private citizens who coalesced into a movement. Further, I would argue that the same is true of the civil-rights and women’s-rights movements.
You seem to be suggesting that bigotry is an inevitability–a motive force intrinsic to human nature that will always seek a target, like a heat-seeking missile. Is there a reason for this speculation? Is this something you’ve observed over the past 100 years? Are you arguing that people are just as bigoted now as they were 100 years ago–the only thing that’s changed is/are the groups at which their bigotry is targeted?
In every case? Wasn’t it you who asserted that Western society–which is composed largely of liberal democracies, most of which actively intercede on matters related to bigotry–is the apogee of human civilization? Are the countries composing Western society “monolithic and oppressive”?
There is no problem. I have no interest in compelling you to change your opinions. That said, the notion that bigotry typically sequesters itself in the bigot’s head is one not supported by the facts on the ground.
You are making my point for me at the end here. In my view, you are calling the chicken that has hatched, the egg.
The thing in common with all these movements were to REMOVE codified bigotry/oppression/lack of rights protections.
A literal interpretation of the BoR would make slavery illegal the instant it was ratified. That wasn’t an accident. A literal interpretation of the BoR would make the need to Civil, Gay & Women’s rights movement moot. It’s been the intentional selective application of government that has set up any and all legal set backs these groups have had, and by far the legal set backs have been the hardest to recover from.
In that (as morally reprehensible as it is) so many people get their cues of what is just and unjust from what government says, I’ll agree they have aided in the improvement, it’s just normally when they were fixing their own fuckups in the first place…
Buy yeah, the changes, at least in my observation, have significantly come from cultural shifts rather than government mandate. I mean shit, look at DOMA. A whole lot of people in government applauding the ruling to overturn, were applauding Clinton when he signed it. Those politicians changed because the electorate changed, not the other way around. Both Clinton and Obama “believed in traditional marriage” according to stump speeches in 2008. Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt that they were lying THEN, it was still the broader acceptance of the electorate, which is organic social change, that gave them the political latitude to publically support it.
In areas like including homosexuals in anti discrimination legislation, yes, you’re on point there. But that isn’t actual acceptance or tolerance from the community at large, that is government doing it’s job of protecting the rights of the people. Not just the cherry picked rights the majority want at the time.
tl;dr
I don’t think we’ll disagree much in the micro, but in the macro you seem to be saying it was government first, people second that brought about the change, and I’m saying, no it was the people who changed and the government followed suit.
Human nature is a nasty, nasty mistress…
The ever increasing rise in identity politics amongst the population who happen to be generally speaking, voting for the majority party is a pretty big indicator IMO.
Sander’s popularity recently is also frightening, and he is no different than Trump, just that his evil boogie men are “wall st.” “big money” the “1%” and too many choices in deodorant.
Yes (I reserve the right to walk this back later though).
I think you’re getting stuck on the government aspect of things.
Take the pizza parlor that got destroyed on social media because they were conned into saying the wouldn’t cater a same sex marriage. (lmao, as if anyone would have a pizzeria do that…)
We live in a world were we’re forced to bake the cake. Fine. We could argue the virtue and absurdity of that all day, but that isn’t the point. It isn’t the point Brick is making (again I dont’ think) that the government will start this despotic regime. It will be society destroying the lives of anyone that doesn’t comply, this will turn into people “complying” out of fear of having their lives destroyed for having an opinion. This is just as great an evil as an evil government. And any gay person alive before my time can attest to the rough go that type of life is.
What’s the point of forcing the baker to bake the same sex wedding cake anyway? Just to say “fuck you I won”? Or is it to turn around and become what you’ve fought against all these decades?
I can respect the former, and do respect the former. I’ve done that myself many times in life. The latter is a shame…
Wait–isn’t that an example of the “organic” (I think that’s the word you used), bottom-up, people-centered change you lauded earlier?
No. They are not being ‘destroyed’ for having an opinion; it’s their actions related to their opinion that has them in hot water.
I think some people feel strongly about standing on their principles, and up for their rights. This is especially true of members of groups that have a long history of been marginalized and/or persecuted (like gay people). Although personally, I wouldn’t eat even a single bite of a cake made for me under duress, by someone who deeply disapproved of my lifestyle, and who undoubtedly resented the hassle and expense I had put them through (if you catch my drift).
Sure. Not all organic bottom-up change is good. Just like not all government legislation is good.
The pizza example was being destroyed for having an opinion.
Wasn’t the head of Modzilla forced to resign because he donated to prop (whatever the number was) in like 2008 when even Obama was anti-SSM? Not for actions of the last week, but back when he voted the same way the POTUS that community voted for did.
I’m not trying to say this is a wide spread problem, so don’t take it that way. I’m trying to give examples to show what I think brick was saying which boils down to: if you push a positive too far it will become a negative.
Right?
That’s what I’m saying lol. Like I said, if it was purely to say “fuck you” and you were going to toss the cake away anyway, I get that. And don’t even have an issue with it honestly. Only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner, and I’m worse than a sore loser.
That said, after the initial FU, just let the people who don’t want to bake alone. Life is too short. It’s just a cake.
This reminded me of the Mozilla CEO, Brendan Eich. If you guys remember, he supported CA Prop 8 back in 2008, when support of traditional marriage was the most popular view in CA. Remember for a moment what Dem presidential candidates were saying about marriage in 2008. Obama himself was using pro-traditional marriage rhetoric. BUT in 2014 Eich had to step down from Mozilla for having those opinions and giving $1000 - back in 2008.
If we really want free dialogue, and we think it helps to be able to talk openly, if we really value free speech, we have to ask ourselves how much we are justified in punishing people for their opinions. Can you ruin someone? Can someone be forced to resign from a private company, loose their livelihood, for holding certain political views? YES, but just because you CAN do it, doesn’t mean you SHOULD.
Should we protest Condi Rice speaking on a college campus? Should we shout down people we disagree with and barricade the entrance to the venue? Should we decide that their critical speech is “hateful.” Hate speech can become a fairly subjective concept.
Remember the guy in the UK who got arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting” in a pub? Apparently we’ve become a people who gets outraged at lyrics like “funky China man, from funky Chinatown.”
Yeah, this is what I think Brick was talking about, and I certainly took his words to mean.
Nah… Not really. I will bet $1,000 you could sing about ass raping a republican and win an award.
But that the Stones would get arrest for writing Brown Sugar today.
Brick, just wanted to say that I think a lot of what you wrote is the reality. We like to think that we humans are mostly making these really educated and scientific moral decisions, but the way we act shows that we’re often motivated by much lower level things like a survival instinct, or kinship bonds (concern for our kids, concern for safety). How to get people to function on some higher level, particularly when those lower level concerns seem more fundamental. Things like “Hey, I think I’ll put my kid in that low performing public school, where he’ll be the only white kid there, because it’s for the greater good of society.”
Queens, NY is sort of a miracle, right? Not that there isn’t violence or racial tension there, but for the most part I’m assuming it’s not a war zone.
Honestly, I think the way that things get better happens in small ways where people befriend someone of a different ethnic group at the gym, or at work. You start to see lots of commonality.
Humans mostly have concern for the people we’re related to. Then we start to branch out to “our tribe” which is often people who we share bonds with like common language, common religion, common feeling of pride and protectiveness for our little corner of the world. Anything broader than that becomes a real miracle. Not that it doesn’t happen. An article I posted earlier in this thread talked about how the US military has been fairly effective at integrating people of different race, religion, ethnicity, and now even sexual orientation.
Or course, many liberal people seem to really take issue with the kinds of things that tend to BIND us together. As Haidt says, morality both BINDS and BLINDS. Immigration good, but assimilation not important. We should all hang on to our unique cultures. Great, but some things in common bind us together. That’s a fact. Common religion? Religion is the source of violence in the world, and orthodoxy often becomes the enemy of science. We gotta get past that religion mumbo jumbo. Pride of place? All your flag waving and patriotism are embarrassing. That stuff starts wars. Putting an American flag on your car makes it look like you think you’re superior. Unfortunately, our human brains have a hard time transfering the fond feelings we have for our hometown, to something like the UN. Those coexist bumper stickers are a nice thought, but the reality is that humans have a pretty tough time when there’s nothing about the neighbors that makes you think, “They are like me, in some really fundamental way that fosters mutual trust.”
I’m just going to chime in and say, Fuck the UN and the horse they rode in on.
They can all kiss my ass.
You rang?
This reminds me of the famous Obama quote talking about small town people in PA who were hurt by the economy. “… it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion…” HRC used it in her campaign against him. We all know how that went.
Were you intentionally paraphrasing him?
Yes, because Obama is the prime example of an overeducated dipshit that thinks that he can drag Society towards a shining City on the hill at gunpoint.
What he does not get is that those gun and bible clutching Rubes have a few thousand years of tradition to back them up , whereas all he has are the ganja induced fantasies of some academics who never Held a real Job in their whole life.
If you do believe that human beings are all made out of crooked Wood, a message at least the Catholic Church Hammers home for a few millenia now, but blank slates, that only Need to be taught the Errors of their ways, what do you do if they simply refuse?
You are Building paradise on earth after all.
Usually, the answer are concentration camps, death marches, firing squads.
With the exception of the Jesuits, once, those who believe in the constrained Vision of human behavior instead of the unconstrained one usually do not Resort to death camps and mass Terror.
The unconstrained visioners, they started with state Terror and they never stopped.
edited