|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
8th June 2017, 11:52 AM | #241 |
Meandering fecklessly
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
|
No, no, I didn't take your posts to be demeaning to my experience; I only used it as to help distinguish the causes of PTSD and of the psychological concept of "learned helplessness."
Learned Helplessness is a thing, it seems to be legitimate and I believe more accurate description of what I think you're trying to say. PTSD has as one of the elements, a perception of extreme, life-threatening situations with a corresponding attempt at dealing with the helplessness of that situtation; these attempts may work at the moment, but over time, become maladaptive. If you're surrounded by people who display coping mechanisms that are presented as normal to you, though they may be somewhat disfunctional, you can easily pick up on those mechanisms (i.e., behaviors) and carry them with you and potentially pass that down to younger generations or to others who self-identify with your group (that shares these similar coping mechanisms/strategies/behaviors). For example: if you're walking along the sidewalk and someone from a higher caste walks past, you must step into the gutter to let them pass. It's not PTSD to take on the acts of stepping into the gutter when a higher caste person comes along; it's part of the social conditioning. You're doing what's expected or required of you, even if your dignity suffers or whatever. You may feel angry at having to do so ("they're no better than me! Why should I be the one to step aside?") but perhaps do it anyway. That could be thought more as learned helplessness (IMHO). I think with the college, there are many conflicting social mores and no real way to help people navigate through them in a more healthy manner. Perhaps not delusional, but mistaken. |
8th June 2017, 12:00 PM | #242 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
8th June 2017, 01:13 PM | #243 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
Steve Coffman
|
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
8th June 2017, 01:18 PM | #244 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,083
|
Admirable sentiments, but am I being too nit-picky to expect better grammar and composition from a college student? It wasn't horrible, but for something that you're putting out to the world I'd think you'd want it to positively shine. This read to me like a middling "B / B-" grade. Or maybe I'm biased against the lot of them after watching the Twitter vid of one of the protesters trying and failing to read a simple prepared statement (wish I could locate that again). But beyond all that, good show for people speaking up with the voice of reason at that place. Honestly wonder why anyone possessing a relatively logical bent to their thinking would enroll there. |
8th June 2017, 01:41 PM | #245 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,681
|
My family had generations of poverty. My grandfather survived Auschwitz and the bombing of Rotterdam. My wife's grandfather survived the battle of Stalingrad on the German side.
My children are probably hard to kill in an urban environment, but none of us has some kind of historical trauma. |
__________________
Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh! |
|
8th June 2017, 05:13 PM | #246 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
|
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
8th June 2017, 05:14 PM | #247 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
|
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
8th June 2017, 05:16 PM | #248 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
Interesting, there is at least one other option! It's not a dichotomous situation, imagine that!
You could... you know... start a new thread in the appropriate location, with a quote and a link from here to seed it. No need to be sad at all. See what can happen when you don't assume that feelings define reality? (Also consider the difference between that statement and your suggestion that somehow that means feelings aren't real... ) |
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
8th June 2017, 05:18 PM | #249 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
|
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
8th June 2017, 06:02 PM | #250 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Not all solipsist, just some. Are you really prepared to defend the thesis that we don't have feelings or that the actions we take cannot be predicated on those feelings? What a strange world that would be.
Here I thought I participated in the forum because the topics intrigued me, that I enjoyed discussing things with other people, and now I find out I'm just an emotionless bot? That makes me sad. We aren't just throwing out cultural anthropology (and ideas about "cultural PTSD) with this meme, but psychology as well. Apparently, the students at Evergreen only feel they are depressed or triggered, or whatever, but it's not really real. Except that's not at all satisfying as an answer. Maybe you can clear it up for me. |
8th June 2017, 06:35 PM | #251 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
Feelings define reality in a way that is trivially true: saying that you are sad is an objective statement about the state of your brain just like saying that a traffic light is red or green, and just like that traffic like that objective fact can influence other things about the world.
I think everyone understands this and it's not very interesting. What isn't true is anything more than that trivial fact. Someone else feeling oppressed doesn't mean that they are being oppressed, it means that they feel oppressed. And those are two separate statements about the world. They often overlap because the feeling of oppression is usually caused by oppression, but there are other possible causes for that feeling which are unrelated to whether or not that oppression actually exists. The same is true of offence. If I feel offended it's objectively true that I feel offended, but not necessarily that something offensive was done to me. A simple example is that I may have simply misheard something that was said to me. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov Last edited by Roboramma; 8th June 2017 at 06:39 PM. Reason: to add a "necessarily" so as not to be misunderstood |
|
8th June 2017, 06:57 PM | #252 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
That's why I was surprised anyone would suggest otherwise - it seems like the normal state of affairs to me.
Quote:
When you say "whether or not that oppression actually exists" and "but not that something offensive was done to me" you are trying to wedge an objective standard onto a subjective one. It doesn't work like that at all. How are you going to measure such a thing? |
8th June 2017, 07:45 PM | #253 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Here's a way to look at the issue (which conveniently puts us back on track for the thread).
If offense/oppression is going to have an objective standard we can point to, then why not simply point out the error the students are making? Case closed, problem solved. Surely they would agree just as soon as they saw where they went wrong... Or not. |
8th June 2017, 07:52 PM | #254 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
Yeah, I find that odd as well, though I think they were responding to what seemed to be the spirit rather than the letter of your words. If you were only saying that it's objectively true that people have feelings that wouldn't be very interesting so they read your posts as actually saying something interesting. The problem being that the only interesting reading is also wrong.
Quote:
Quote:
Of course I haven't completely defined oppression yet, I've given a necessary but not sufficient stipulation: that an individual or group has limitations imposed on their actions by others. There are plenty of ways in which such limitations can be imposed which would not be oppression, but certainly oppression can't exist without such impositions. And yet it's entirely possible to feel oppressed when such impositions are absent. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
8th June 2017, 07:57 PM | #255 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
Because all people are both reasonable and well informed?
If climate change is going to have an objective standard we can point to, then why not simply point out the error climate change denialists are making? Case closed, problem solved. Surely they would agree just as soon as they saw where they went wrong... If evolution is going have an objective standard we can point to, then why not simply point out the error creationists are making? ... That people disagree about something doesn't show that disagreement is reasonable. The earth really is round, regardless of how many people choose to believe otherwise. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
8th June 2017, 08:04 PM | #256 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
It doesn't work like that?
But it MUST work like that, or there is no hope for any of us. Actual oppression can be remedied, and society should marshal resources to do so. That is fair and just. Imagined oppression cannot be remedied, and to marshal society's resources to tilt at those windmills is not fair or just, but disastrous and perverse. |
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
8th June 2017, 08:06 PM | #257 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
8th June 2017, 08:27 PM | #258 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Because, at some level of complexity we rely on shame and ridicule to do the job for us. We impose our standards of belief on the minority, exclude them where we can and disallow arguments to the contrary.
(Please note: the above is not about who is right, just about how we manage the trick of consensus.) |
8th June 2017, 08:47 PM | #259 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
My point is that evolution is actually a correct description of real things. That some people disagree doesn't show that it's subjective. Do you disagree with that?
If so, you agree that some people disagreeing about something doesn't demonstrate that it's subjective. In which case your argument which states that the students at Evergreen don't agree with me therefore the truth is subjective is also not valid. ETA to reply to what you wrote above: I don't think that's true at all. Yes, we humans do use emotional reasoning. We do attempt to shame and ridicule our opponents in ways that are unrelated to the truth value of their statements. I think that's something to be avoided and certainly isn't how we came to determine that certain groups were being oppressed. I also think it's one of the major problems that we face today and not generally "how we manage the trick of consensus". |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
8th June 2017, 08:48 PM | #260 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
What about situational oppression - perhaps by way of culture. In 1955 the first handicapped parking spaces appeared by way of legislation (in Delaware). In 1968 the feds passed the Architectural Barriers Act, which gave us spaces, signage and curb cuts. Were the disabled oppressed before that? Did it matter if they didn't feel oppressed?
Quote:
|
8th June 2017, 08:55 PM | #261 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
People in wheelchairs were not oppressed before that. They were not accommodated, which they should be, and they were at severe disadvantages as a result, but it wasn't oppression.
Some people with mental handicaps were seriously oppressed, though. But that's really a different issue. |
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
8th June 2017, 09:02 PM | #262 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
I don't think that the disabled were oppressed, but I do think that it's good to do what we can to help them, and as a society making laws that enforce certain actions whose cost is not too high so that life for the disabled will be easier is very reasonable and good thing. It works very well in my generally utilitarian ethical framework.
Quote:
For instance a legal framework (like segregation) that is oppressive can be removed and yet an oppressive cultural framework still remain, in the form of the racism of individuals who might choose not to hire people for a job based not on their ability but instead on their membership of a group (like the colour of their skin). Oppression doesn't have to be overt to be objective. And it can certainly exist to varying degrees. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
8th June 2017, 09:12 PM | #263 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Why are the proffered examples always taken from a consensus belief system; one that we both share? A better way to ask the question would be: "What would it take for me to believe evolution to be false?"
Quote:
Quote:
|
8th June 2017, 09:24 PM | #264 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
I was trying to work with Roboramma's definition above.
To my mind this fit "the limitations on their actions imposed by outside actors." The example also had the element of "suddenly realizing I have been oppressed" when the culture changes around me. MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: "Well, what do you know about that! These forty years now I’ve been speaking in prose without knowing it!" |
8th June 2017, 09:55 PM | #265 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
Is it a consensus? Certainly among scientists, but I don't believe that evolution is a valid description because scientists agree about it, I believe it because I've reviewed the evidence for it and found it to be convincing. It's a little funny to use an authority to challenge the validity of authority but I like Feynman's "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts".
Regarding "what would it take for me to believe evolution to be false?", that's a difficult question because there is already so much supporting it. Whatever new evidence arose to challenge it would have to also be consistent with the overwhelming evidence supporting it. That said, the old "rabbits in the precambrian" idea is a valid one. If someone found those fossils I'd probably think that they'd made a mistake at first, but if that evidence was reviewed by others, held up to scrutiny, and was even reproduced in other finds, I'd find it convincing and strong reason to think that there is something else going on. I think any of my beliefs could be challenged by new evidence though some would require more than others.
Quote:
With respect to the question of whether or not the students of Evergreen are experiencing trauma passed on from their ancestors, I think that's certainly an empirical question that could be answered. The further question of if that trauma exists what the best way to deal with it is is also a valid empirical question. I suppose I'll have to think more about what sort of results could potentially change my mind about both of those questions. IF you had a different question in my (like whether or not it's a good idea to enforce a day of absence for white students) then I can try to consider that as well. Again though, not knowing exactly what arguments or evidence would change my mind is different from my mind not being susceptible to change. Whatever would change my mind I don't think that a consensus would do it.
Quote:
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
8th June 2017, 09:57 PM | #266 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
9th June 2017, 03:54 AM | #267 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
9th June 2017, 03:15 PM | #268 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
What's really strange is that nobody has suggest that.
Reality is not dependent on feelings. Reality isn't defined by feelings. You can't "feel" that gravity is wrong and suddenly start floating away. You can't "feel" that you're being oppressed and thereby turn everyone else into oppressors. That doesn't imply in any way at all that feelings don't exist. It implies only that reality is independent of your feelings about it. |
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
9th June 2017, 03:24 PM | #269 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
|
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian |
|
9th June 2017, 05:12 PM | #270 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
That's some confused thinking. Here, I'll break it down for you:
1) Reality is that which exists 2) Feelings exist 3) Feelings are just a part of reality like any other - same as that ham sandwich over there. Also, I hope no one finds this offensive. Even if offensive isn't real. |
9th June 2017, 06:14 PM | #271 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
9th June 2017, 09:57 PM | #272 |
Poisoned Waffles
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
|
|
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
10th June 2017, 05:50 PM | #273 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
No. No, no, no, no, no. A thousand times no.
Nobody is responsible for anyone's happiness other than their own. Trying to make people responsible for someone's happiness never works. You cannot make people happy. Trying to is basically rewarding them for being unhappy. And when you reward people for being unhappy, what exactly do you expect will happen? It's a perverse incentive, and it will create perverse results.
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
10th June 2017, 08:52 PM | #274 |
Poisoned Waffles
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
|
Yes, yes, yes, a billion times yes. What is the point of even existing if we can't be happy? Society exists so that the individuals within it can exist and be happy. If society only preserved our lives but made us miserable we'd be better off without society--or life itself.
Quote:
As for the rest of that drivel, you have a peculiarly disgusting mind and a terrible view of humanity. I advise you to seek spiritual help.
Quote:
It seems a disease among self-proclaimed sceptics that they want to pretend to be above having feelings. Well, guess what? You're not. Feelings are the reason we do pretty much everything, ever. And no, they don't make rational sense. Guess what else doesn't make rational sense? Existence. We are irrational beings. Get over it! |
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
10th June 2017, 10:24 PM | #275 |
Trigger Warning
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,110
|
I think the whole Evergreen saga is a great preview of how first world nations are going to increasingly slip into disorder, chaos and bickering (then increasingly violence) between distinct groups within them as an inevitable result of having made the choice to embrace multiracialism, multiculturalism and egalitarianism.
It will all fall apart. Clown world. |
__________________
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
11th June 2017, 02:00 AM | #276 |
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
|
|
11th June 2017, 06:14 AM | #277 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,697
|
I am begging to wonder if Evergreen College used this course featured in this video by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EbQfmVoOfM If you think that is too long, they have a shorter video covering five incidents (2 Left wing victims / 3 Right wing victims). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS6IA93o79s |
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!" 'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail Everybody gets it wrong sometimes... |
|
11th June 2017, 08:28 AM | #278 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,819
|
|
11th June 2017, 11:54 AM | #279 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
Well, I'd say that government can indeed be used to try to bring about a level playing field for people to choose their own path to success and happiness. However, that's not like protecting someone's feelings.
It's more like the difference between: - I'm afraid! - There, there. If you're afraid, then the thing you're afraid of is scary and should be stopped! And: - I'm afraid! - There, there. There is no reason to be afraid, and here's why. I'd think a reasonable government would do the latter, not the former. |
11th June 2017, 11:58 AM | #280 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
Setting aside that this doesn't address Ziggurat's point and is irrelevant to it, I can think of a few points to existing besides being happy. Reproduction, for instance. That might not be your cup of tea, or mine, but it can be a point. In fact it's the point for almost every living thing on earth, bar ourselves.
Quote:
Although a specific society could be created with happiness in mind, it is by no means inherent to the idea of society. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|