tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2761528524448342216..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Plato predicted woke tyrannyEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64740446919065571312020-07-24T09:17:56.882-07:002020-07-24T09:17:56.882-07:00Regarding that twitter link:
"We will never ...Regarding that twitter link:<br /><br />"We will never know for sure whether black people commit more crime; the only fact we know for sure is that black people have more documented crimes, which speaks to the systemic and individual racism that is detrimentally rampant in our country."<br /><br />How about this sentence: We will never know for sure whether blacks earn less; the only fact we know for sure is that black people have less documented income.<br /><br />The guy's rhetoric is self-defeating. To believe it means he has to dismiss every other statistic that supports his ideology. But the mere presumption that statistics could be right in the case of crime is, of all random things, racist. That's the long and winding road to racism these days. It used to be racism manifested itself through lynchings or "whites only" signs. Today it's about epistemology and how to interpret data. It's a degeneration in the concept of racism. It's why I have a hard time taking their rhetoric seriously.<br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65193398771619112612020-07-24T06:47:23.565-07:002020-07-24T06:47:23.565-07:00AKG,
I never used the term "black pathology&q...AKG,<br />I never used the term "black pathology". That is a straw man, your words, not mine.<br /><br />The fact that you would attribute to me a term I did not use, and a belief I do not hold, indicates your bigotry.<br /><br />The Twitter thread, like every provided link, is littered with such straw men nonsense "arguments".<br /><br />You have said nothing to refute the logical arguments of Anonymous July 18, 2020 at 6:39 AM.<br /><br />All you can do is make the absurd assertion that you can "prove" what I did or did not open and look at.<br /><br />Your "reasoning" seems to be that the links provide arguments that are so strong that anybody who is exposed to them will be immediately convinced of their correctness, and since I am not convinced of their correctness, you draw the inane conclusion that I must not have looked at them.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56013601199703708892020-07-23T20:07:50.030-07:002020-07-23T20:07:50.030-07:00Once again you're proving you didn't even ...Once again you're proving you didn't even LOOK at the links. I mean the twitter thread alone refutes all your "points". You're just wilfully ignoring anything which refutes your belief in "black pathology".<br /><br />Also I love how you used the whole "you're bigoted for thinking I'm a bigot" talking point. You're a sophist.<br />AKGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14269580033007038839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81883465095052293512020-07-23T19:01:48.287-07:002020-07-23T19:01:48.287-07:00Anonymous July 23, 2020 at 12:13 PM
“@SP,Sigh, you...Anonymous July 23, 2020 at 12:13 PM<br />“@SP,Sigh, you didn't even look at the articles/videos did you?”<br />Of course I did, every single link, they are all garbage, I know because I opened them all.<br /><br />“The statistic itself has racist connotations.”<br />Your connotations are your problem. The statistic that black people commit murder at a per capita rate 6 times that of whites is a statistical fact. Period. Facts don’t care about your connotations.<br /><br />“if race were truly a factor in how likely someone is to commit crime, every country would have crime rates proportional to race.”<br />You are confusing nature with nurture, genetics with culture.<br /><br />The fact of the murder statistic is best explained by a large black American subculture that is extraordinarily violent. Some white American subcultures are also extremely violent such as the mob, biker gangs, and the KKK. But overall the size of the hyper violent black subculture is a much larger proportion of total black population compared to the case for whites.<br /><br />“The only reason you would even use this statistic is if you were trying to prove an inherently racist argument. This is self explanatory, I hope.”<br />Yes, the obvious explanation is that you have some extraordinarily bigoted, narrow, and limited views.<br /><br />“We will never know for sure whether black people commit more crime; the only fact we know for sure is that black people have more documented crimes”<br />The bodies are the bodies, just count them. Most murders leave a body to be found.<br /><br />The victim of an assault, robbery, carjacking, shooting, stabbing, or rape is very likely to be able to identify the race of the perpetrator. As Anon showed, victim racial identification tracks almost identically with arrests by race. This isn’t a mystery, except to the authors of your garbage articles and you with your garbage “arguments”.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8451020992274657082020-07-23T12:13:17.599-07:002020-07-23T12:13:17.599-07:00@SP,
Sigh, you didn't even look at the articl...@SP,<br /><br />Sigh, you didn't even look at the articles/videos did you?<br /><br />Here's something more:<br /><br />https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/status/1268463768285188096<br /><br />gonna quote this as well:<br /><br />"It’s racist in three major ways: 1. The wording of the statistic itself has racist connotations, 2. The only reason you would even use this statistic is if you were trying to prove an inherently racist argument, and 3. This “statistic” itself is misrepresentative and inaccurate due to systemic and individual racism. Some may disagree with #2, but my opinion is that generalizing a whole entire RACE is morally wrong, prejudicial, and the textbook definition of racism. I know people are going to disagree with #1 and #3, so please listen to my explanation.<br /><br />The statistic itself has racist connotations. A statistic itself is an interpretation of data. Not the truth, but rather a small, biased slice of the world that is then interpreted with more bias. Not saying that numbers don’t lie, but it also doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the absolute truth. Saying “black people commit more crimes statistically” is linking only race with crime. By using race as the only factor in criminality and neglecting so many important factors (childhood trauma, education level, geographic location, personal ethics/beliefs, mental health, outside pressures, and income, just to name a few) is narrow-minded/ignorant at best and flat out racist at worst. Just some food for thought: if race were truly a factor in how likely someone is to commit crime, every country would have crime rates proportional to race. I promise that just because someone has white skin does not mean they’re inherently less likely to commit crime by virtue of their skin color. It has everything to do with their environment, which comprises of the factors I listed above. Not to mention many of the factors I listed exist in majority-black communities almost purely out of systemic racism, but I digress.<br />The only reason you would even use this statistic is if you were trying to prove an inherently racist argument. This is self explanatory, I hope.<br />The statistic that “black people commit more crime” is misrepresentative due to systemic and individual racism. We will never know for sure whether black people commit more crime; the only fact we know for sure is that black people have more documented crimes, which speaks to the systemic and individual racism that is detrimentally rampant in our country. Due to racial profiling (which is reinforced by the very statistic you posed) and a higher volume of police in low-income communities, which are predominantly black (again, due to systemic racism, one being redlining, and again I digress) black people are more likely to be caught for their crimes. One example I like to point to is marijuana usage. Studies suggest that by proportion, white and black people use marijuana around the same amount, but black people are 3.5x more likely to be charged for using marijuana. On top of that, black people almost always receive longer sentences compared to their white counterparts. But that’s not even the end: when they eventually leave prison, they’re sent into a society that is relentlessly unaccepting of ex-cons.<br />Instead of using the saying “Black people commit more crime” as a point against BLM, we should actually use it as a way to expose the racist, insular attitude of many Americans."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33141310349586108852020-07-22T21:00:37.322-07:002020-07-22T21:00:37.322-07:00Anonymous July 21, 2020 at 1:29 PM
Your videos and...Anonymous July 21, 2020 at 1:29 PM<br />Your videos and articles are garbage.<br /><br />Black people commit murder per capita 6 times more often than white people. That is just a fact of life in the USA.<br /><br />Black violent criminality is vastly greater per capita than it is for whites. If you don't understand that basic fact of life you do not have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.<br /><br />Of the sorts of crimes, street crimes, the kinds of crimes that typically lead to police contact, the actual per capita commission of those crimes is vastly higher for blacks than it is for whites.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40421099502231281552020-07-21T17:47:43.189-07:002020-07-21T17:47:43.189-07:00Hi Hypatia,
Sorry for the delay. I’m having a di...Hi Hypatia,<br /><br />Sorry for the delay. I’m having a difficult time keeping up right now. <br /><br />Yes, the “subjugation of women to men was the result of the Fall and wholly unnatural”. “Love and Responsibility” (and TOB) is a phenomenological analysis of the meaning of the communion of persons (particularly the deepest form of personal communion: sex). <br /><br />According to JPII in “Love and Responsibility” (and TOB which followed), Adam and Eve’s original state was one of total self-gift to the other. That is why Genesis tells us that they were “naked and unashamed”—there is no need to be afraid or ashamed when you aren’t being used. But the original sin was a rift in this state of total self-donation: Adam figured out that he could get more for himself (pleasure, pride, etc) if he worried about “the good” of Eve a little less. But Eve figured this out too. Then we are told “they realized they were naked”. In other words, they realized that the other no longer sought only their good; now the other person could use them for selfish reasons. Now Adam and Eve (i.e. all men and women) can only trust each other with great effort; they must be guarded and suspicious of the other’s motives. <br /><br />Christ, of course, repairs the rift of Adam by his death. Mary—as “the woman” referred to throughout scripture—restores by her “yes” the self-donation that Eve negated. Mary is, therefore, the highest human being that could ever be, and worthy of hyperdulia. Read the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Litany of Loretto; higher praises you will never find.<br /><br />You said: “There is this tendency to identify femininity as the human default”. Yes. A male can only be a virgin in relation to the female; without the female, the male makes no sense.<br /><br />You said: “It's masculinity that has been recast as the ultimate Other.” Yes. Male terms are appropriate to signify that God is outside creation.<br /><br />I have more to say, but this is too long.<br />T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55315597101646249722020-07-21T13:29:48.643-07:002020-07-21T13:29:48.643-07:00@Anonymous:
Yeah, regarding your "black crim...@Anonymous:<br /><br />Yeah, regarding your "black criminality myth"<br /><br />https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/404674/enduring-myth-of-black-criminality/<br /><br />https://www.vox.com/2016/9/1/11805346/violent-crime-america-barry-latzer-book-review<br /><br />https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/the-black-family-in-the-age-of-mass-incarceration/403246/<br /><br />https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/other-peoples-pathologies/359841/<br /><br />https://www.salon.com/2017/10/31/how-millions-of-white-americans-bought-into-a-racist-myth/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2111398410194760912020-07-21T09:25:31.873-07:002020-07-21T09:25:31.873-07:00Plato's "archaeology" of tyranny doe...Plato's "archaeology" of tyranny doesn't accord with what is generally concluded about the history of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. <br /><br />" In the early period, down to about 400 B. C., tyranny was a response to aristocratic control of the city-states. Only through tyranny were the Greeks able to destroy the strangle-hold of the aristocracy on the middle and lower classes. Individual tyrants usurped power with "popular" support, sometimes but not always by force, and subordinated, or exiled, or executed the aristocrats of their city. Modern historians have generally believed that this period of tyranny was a necessary step in the evolution toward democracy." ~ Arthur Ferrill<br /><br />I.e. tyranny from aristocracy or oligarchy, not from democracy.ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54481409550110679122020-07-21T07:06:33.161-07:002020-07-21T07:06:33.161-07:00Hi TN,
Are you saying that Genesis 3:16 itself is...Hi TN,<br /><br />Are you saying that Genesis 3:16 itself is feminist? I read that whole passage as meaning that the subjugation of women to men was the result of the Fall and wholly unnatural. I'm not sure if you mean that or something different, though I do agree that Mary as the New Eve is pretty profoundly feminist, if under a very different analysis than the normal secular one.<br /><br />To be honest, I'm a lot more radicalized right now than I usually am. The left's totalitarian craziness has hit way too close to home this time, so I've been running on fumes and identity politics for a while now. My normal stance is that radical feminism gets quite a bit right, but like any secular philosophy, puts too strong an emphasis on personal autonomy.<br /><br />To switch from a radfem perspective into a Christian feminist one, I think the key is the overturning of all of our normal hierarchical understanding--"The last shall be first and the first last." I think this applies to gender too, since everything that is coded feminine, including service to others, is no longer secondary but the essence of what it means to be human. Mary obediently saying "yes" after so much rebellion is profoundly meaningful. Incidentally, something I always find interesting is how mystical language often uses sexual metaphors, with the soul being coded as feminine. There is this tendency to identify femininity as the human default--I think a lot of feminists overlook this, but it's one of the reasons I still prefer using masculine language to refer to God. It's masculinity that has been recast as the ultimate Other. <br /><br />So yes, I agree that what is associated with femininity is ultimately good. The problem, of course, is that there's still sin. Men *should* be oriented towards serving the other in the same way that women often are, but that's usually not the case. Mutual submission is something we're not very good at, so things quickly turn hierarchical and parasitic. Self-giving is the ideal, but there is only one relationship where that's perfectly safe. I'm currently applying this sort of gendered analysis to a political movement that seems intent upon sucking everyone dry while offering only the illusion of consent, but I think it's a much broader problem than that.<br /><br />I've read a popular level introduction to TOB, though I've been told it doesn't do justice to the real thing. I thought it was beautiful, and a helpful corrective to my radfem rage, haha. (I didn't 100% buy it as an argument against contraception, but I didn't hate it either, which I think is the best you're going to get, lol.) I've only been a theist at all for about 3.5 years, and I've spent most of that time dismantling naturalistic presuppositions. It's been a wild, very Augustinian style adventure (complete with a Neoplatonic detour), so I'm really all over the place with what I've read so far.Hypatiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06431790700424358279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30163932575045434812020-07-20T17:34:22.116-07:002020-07-20T17:34:22.116-07:00Hypatia,
I actually agree with feminism in its mo...Hypatia,<br /><br />I actually agree with feminism in its most basic premise. In fact, I think it’s not wrong to say that Judaism/Christianity was the original advocate for feminism: “your desire shall be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16); Mary as the “New Eve”; etc. I know it’s much more complicated than that, but that’s a difficult conversation over the internet.<br /><br />I have no doubt that being down with JPII is “atypical” for a radfem! (ha, ha). You are familiar with “The Theology of the Body” (TOB)? Any legitimate attempt to address the concerns of feminism must take place within a proper understanding of the meaning of the human person, otherwise nothing good will happen (as we see with 3rd wave feminists endorsing pornography, for example). What are your thoughts on the TOB? Have you read “Love and Responsibility”? (I find it very difficult)<br /><br />Three years ago, I took a course on Feminism for personal interests (I like to know my enemy! Ha!), and I read some stuff by MacKinnon (I think it was a polemic against pornography). In the same course we had to read a [serious] defense of pedophilia. I got yelled at . . . A LOT!<br /><br />I’m sure you’re not surprised that I would have strenuous objections against claims that gender (femininity in particular) is reducible to an instrument of oppression. Touching on what I said above, I would claim that the oppression part is real, but it can only truly made right by a proper understanding of the human person as made to be a gift to others, and to accept the gift of others (ala JPII and TOB). <br /><br />I agree about the problems brought into the question by our social presumptions. You wrote above that the sexual revolution was just a front to give males permission to use females, and I think that is totally correct: contraception and abortion absolve males of any responsibility toward females (thus Humanae Vitae and the unpopular Catholic position on contraception). <br /><br />I’ve been dealing with New Atheists for a very long time; I think I’m pretty good at it now. 😊<br />T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36676379966740205662020-07-20T14:38:35.189-07:002020-07-20T14:38:35.189-07:00Atno,
I'd like to provide a few explanations ...Atno,<br /><br />I'd like to provide a few explanations as for why things seemed to go crazy in 2012. There were really a confluence of factors behind "the Great Awokening," but I believe that they can be boiled down to just four.<br /><br />1. Barack Obama was re-elected on culture war issues. This showed that culture war issues were useful for Left-wing politicians (or, at least, didn't hurt them).<br /><br />2. The Democrats began to believe they could start winning based on demographics. Identity politics became a much, much larger factor within the Left.<br /><br />3. The Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation died/retired out of leadership positions, creating sea changes within various institutions.<br /><br />4. It became obvious that gay marriage was going to win; this, in turn, established that a) civil rights was a continuously moving target and b) once an issue was identified as a “civil rights” issue, it would win and anyone on the wrong side would be punished.<br /><br />I hope this helps!Mister Geoconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16399252824689527561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89490258867922868842020-07-20T11:39:48.318-07:002020-07-20T11:39:48.318-07:00Hi TN,
I haven't read any official radical fe...Hi TN,<br /><br />I haven't read any official radical feminist literature since school, and I was less sympathetic to it at the time, but two of the biggest figures are Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon. A modern big name (if you can call someone who has been canceled a big name) is Julie Bindel.<br /><br />If you want a taste for it at the journalistic level, there are Feminist Current and 4W, infamous TERF hangouts extraordinaire. The second has a lot of stuff on "sex positivity" too, which is amusingly full of articles on how exploitative and awful modern culture is.<br /><br />https://www.feministcurrent.com/<br />https://4w.pub/<br /><br />Also at the more popular level, Marina Strinkovsky is a British radfem writer who has got a blog full of interesting things. Including one entry that specifically addressed the issue of whether or not gender essentialism was compatible with radical feminism. I tend to agree with her take on it: <br /><br />https://notazerosumgame.blogspot.com/2019/01/first-catch-your-hare-on-biological.htmlHypatiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06431790700424358279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76480838510647214002020-07-20T10:38:22.290-07:002020-07-20T10:38:22.290-07:00In the meantime, can you recommend a source to lea...In the meantime, can you recommend a source to learn more? T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50238652743329159562020-07-20T10:35:12.621-07:002020-07-20T10:35:12.621-07:00Hypatia,
Yes, very nuanced and complicated subjec...Hypatia,<br /><br />Yes, very nuanced and complicated subject. I have some things to say, but it'll have to be later today. Thanks for the reply.T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42190367836373760012020-07-20T09:40:13.906-07:002020-07-20T09:40:13.906-07:00Hi TN,
I'm very atypical for a radfem, since ...Hi TN,<br /><br />I'm very atypical for a radfem, since I'm in open dialogue with Catholicism and pretty comfortable with John Paul II's take. Being able to accept the possibility that the Catholic Church is right and I am wrong is a salvation issue for me.<br /><br />Generally speaking, radical feminism denies gender essentialism. It views gender as a hierarchical class system rather than something that is value neutral--femininity is imposed upon women in order to better control them. The goal of liberal feminism is equality within the system; the goal of radical feminism is revolution. Their blood feud with the transgender movement derives in large part from the fact that transgender ideology views gender as an egalitarian spectrum with no connection to biological sex, and claims that one ought to be free to be wherever one wishes on it, whereas the radfems see gender as a system of oppression with no connection to biological sex, and wish to do away with it entirely. Many of them are quite happy with gender non-conforming males dressing like women as long as they do not claim to literally be women, since the former option weakens gender norms, whereas the second option reinforces them. Which very much seems to be happening, since we've been moving from "boys can play with dolls" to "if you play with dolls, you might be a girl" over the past decade.<br /><br />Personally, no. I don't believe that men and women are identical and that our bodies are just wrappers--that reeks of dualism to me, and I lean more in a phenomenological direction. I do, however, believe that we're so deep into socialization, with millennia of baggage concerning what masculinity and femininity mean, that talking about gender essentialism is inherently dangerous. We can't really differentiate between where nature ends and nurture begins, and tend to immediately jump from a minimalistic form of gender essentialism to a more reified one that has all the bells and whistles of a class system. In certain circumstances, biological sex disappears entirely and all that remains is hierarchical gender. For an example that I'm sure everyone here is familiar with, Sam Harris has claimed that women are not drawn to New Atheism because it has a more aggressive, "masculine" argumentative style. This is true, but it's also true that every time I've engaged with that crowd, it's been a textbook example of toxic masculinity, if coded atheist/theist instead of male/female: "I am more rational than you because it is an essential part of my identity as an atheist," so let the gaslighting begin. They have actually managed to build a hierarchy that looks--and feels, if you're a woman on the receiving end of it--an awful lot like gender, since it's one of the same dichotomies: reason/emotion. There's nothing value neutral about how they look at that dichotomy, so they view themselves as the ruling class and use it as a justification for abuse. It's no accident that this happens; even they know that their movement is coded masculine. <br /><br />So to answer the question of how precisely I approach gender essentialism, I would probably say that unless we can properly deconstruct gendered structures of power and stop coding stuff as of higher or lower value depending on whether it is perceived as masculine or feminine, gender essentialism itself is irrelevant, since it will always be weaponized and lead to error. Is it possible to combat gender as a class structure with a non-hierarchical form of complementarianism? I don't know. I think it's a more promising approach than the direction the left has chosen to take, though I'm still coming to terms with how horribly we've screwed up and don't have much of a take on what in particular went wrong, besides "everything."Hypatiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06431790700424358279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59711612382974190062020-07-20T07:22:12.205-07:002020-07-20T07:22:12.205-07:00What the I'm-so-objective-about-how-you're...What the I'm-so-objective-about-how-you're-so-subjective losers don't realize is that the conversation is over.<br /><br />While the gun control movement was histrionically screeching about guns guns guns for decades, the right wing was quietly [censored] (Example: 10,000-lot reinforced-cardboard Stinger missile tubes at 25 cents each, all of which were of course empty). Ted Turner's next-door neighbor was reported by mainstream media in the early 80s to have built 3 complete attack helicopters from parts bought in such "salvage" sales.<br /><br />The left has no idea what's going on---much less what's coming. They're not just lost. They're light years from the next exit.<br /><br />The bonus is that it will all be blamed on them due to their current actions.<br /><br />And people say comedy's dead.<br />machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36119712898489117062020-07-20T07:05:58.271-07:002020-07-20T07:05:58.271-07:00Everything is conventional except what conventiona...Everything is conventional except what conventionalists say about everything.<br /><br />Unargued arbitrary conventionalist claims (like solipsism, relativism, and all other flavors of reductionistic demonizing) get a pass in order to pass judgment on everyone else.<br /><br />Notice, for example, the lengths people will go to objectivistically ape Ayn Rand in that very process of opposing her views.<br />machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41041332177442731322020-07-20T05:26:18.343-07:002020-07-20T05:26:18.343-07:00Folks, please don't feed the StardustyPsyche t...Folks, please don't feed the StardustyPsyche troll.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49190570237905132542020-07-20T03:43:11.397-07:002020-07-20T03:43:11.397-07:00Hypatia,
Sorry if this seems redundant. Such a n...Hypatia,<br /><br />Sorry if this seems redundant. Such a nuanced topic is difficult via an electronic medium.<br /><br />By rejecting “gender essentialism”, I wonder if what you mean is that you reject a sort of raw material determinism rather than what an Aristotelian means by “essence” of femininity/masculinity. We certainly don’t want a world absent all “aggression” where nothing moves forward. But we also don’t want a world absent cooperation where males are trying to burn everything down every 5 minutes. These, of course, aren’t hard categories—women can be aggressive, and men can be passive—but they must be essential; the radfems are fighting against something.<br /><br />To what extent do you subscribe to the idea that men and women are identical/interchangeable, and their bodies are just accidental “wrappers”? <br /><br />What is the essence of the “radfem” complaint? Is it centered around access to social power structures? Is any philosophy of gender that doesn’t center around access to power immediately dismissed as bourgeoisie?<br />T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76076191672813905902020-07-19T21:26:26.554-07:002020-07-19T21:26:26.554-07:00LetsGoFishing
"As for the rest of you, you do...LetsGoFishing<br />"As for the rest of you, you don't think I've heard all these right-wing talking points a million times before?"<br />Yet you provide no specific refutations for the fine work of statistical analysis done by Anonymous July 18, 2020 at 6:39 AM.<br /><br />Although, there are a number of reforms and adjustments I think we should pursue in the criminal justice system.<br />1.Increased training and equipment of police in non-lethal conflict resolution techniques. <br />2.Increased opportunity for diversionary programs where appropriate, especially for drug possession charges.<br />3.Better standards of evidence the recognize the weaknesses of eyewitness accounts and other sorts of evidence that is actually very weak and can lead to a wrongful conviction.<br />4.Reinstatement of probation in the federal system to allow for old aged prisoners who have been in prison for decades to be released under supervision if they earn that privilege with positive behavior in prison.<br />5.Legalize weed and treat low level possession of other drugs primarily as a health and medical issue in the context of a criminal diversionary program.<br />6.Increased mental health services for the many prisoners with genuine mental health problems.<br /><br />As far as systemic racism as a motivation for unjustified police violence? The rate is below the margin of error of available statistics. <br /><br />Jessie Jackson Syndrome indicates that it stands to reason that some white cops will be more prone to over-react with a black man as opposed to a white man. Cops sometimes get trigger happy or panic with white guys too, but black men are in general more feared than white men, so we cannot rule out race as a factor in some number of unjustified police shootings, but the charge of widespread systemic racially motivated police violence against black people is not supported by the statistical facts, as Anon described well.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63502902989714254452020-07-19T21:08:07.958-07:002020-07-19T21:08:07.958-07:00Hi Cantus,
We noticed it too, to be honest. Or at...Hi Cantus,<br /><br />We noticed it too, to be honest. Or at least some of us did. It's hard not to notice how the media downplays violence against women whenever the attacker is viewed as more oppressed.<br /><br />This one I didn't see coming, though. I suppose I just wasn't paying attention, since we usually just assume that there aren't bad actors in our various movements. I had no idea people were trying to eliminate sex-based protections, had reduced the notion of gender identity entirely to feelings (no hormones required), were putting men who hadn't even bothered to transition into women's prisons and shelters, were pushing the people they were supposed to be protecting into prostitution, were inciting violence against feminists, and so forth and so on. It's like a conservative conspiracy theory come to life. Every situation we were promised would never happen has in fact happened, and people either don't know or don't care. What happens to sex discrimination laws if there is no longer any meaningful way to talk about sex? There's no answer except to not think too deeply about it.<br /><br />I feel like a cult victim. Complete with the "you are evil if you question our dogmatic statements that make not one lick of sense" subtext. So I guess I'm a fascist now, haha.Hypatiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06431790700424358279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46228505815545569502020-07-19T21:03:30.094-07:002020-07-19T21:03:30.094-07:00OP
"For instance, when you understand that a ...OP<br />"For instance, when you understand that a triangle is a closed plane figure with three straight sides, you grasp its nature or Form, and the study of geometry deepens your understanding of that nature. You learn, for example, that the sum of the internal angles of a Euclidean triangle is equal to two right angles, that the length of one of its sides is always shorter than the sum of the other two, and so on.<br /><br />These are objective facts rather than artifacts of human convention. "<br /><br />Triangles do not exist independent of a mind,<br />Triangles are abstractions.<br />There are no examples of real existent triangles in the universe.<br />The language used to communicate about triangles is a human convention.<br />The properties of the abstractions we call triangles are such as they are only by human convention (potential alien intelligent beings notwithstanding).<br /><br />Since Dr. Feser has made such a fundamental error so early in his article it is no surprise that the rest of the article makes so many erroneous assertions.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74229560539303712552020-07-19T20:45:08.412-07:002020-07-19T20:45:08.412-07:00Hi TN,
No worries, you can ask questions.
Yes, i...Hi TN,<br /><br />No worries, you can ask questions.<br /><br />Yes, if estrogen makes a person naturally less confrontational, I would consider that gender essentialism. I was trying to say that I wasn't sure whether my innate discomfort with confrontation was due to socialization or gender essentialism, since it's certainly possible that hormones play a role there. I'm not sure to what extent they do, though, especially since confrontation is a bit more complex than animal aggression.<br /><br />It's also unclear to me just how robust a form of gender essentialism you would need to actually get complementarianism off the ground, since hormones making a person more or less likely to be aggressive doesn't easily map onto specific characteristics or gender roles.Hypatiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06431790700424358279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40544121521839939632020-07-19T18:25:14.302-07:002020-07-19T18:25:14.302-07:00Hypatia,
This is precisely the sort of behaviour ...Hypatia,<br /><br />This is precisely the sort of behaviour conservatives have been noting for years. The famous "diversity totem pole", wherein whether or not the concerns of a vulnerable group matter depends on whether they're higher or lower than others in the "hierarchy". I genuinely feel for you - the people you thought were on your side have turned out to be traitors. It's a real pity.Cantushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09423694187264830935noreply@blogger.com