• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Race, Gender and Identity

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Rome, both the Republic and the Empire, were based on institutional slavery.

So a Roman could legally kill their own slaves, or legally torture their own slaves, or legally break up slave families, or legally rape their own slaves, men, women and children, and they could legally work their slaves to death.

Jesus lived under the Roman Slave Empire and said not a word against institutional slavery. And Christianity supported institutional slavery right up to 1833 when the House of Commons abolished institutional slavery for the first time in history and sent the Royal Navy out into the Atlantic with orders to sink American slave ships.

Actually Christianity was a huge motivator for the abolition of slavery, Victor.

And you always talk about the superiority of Western logic in culture, and I'm pointing out that even Western logic has had its moral failures, and Rome and the United States are prime examples of that, as I was contrasting them to your Eastern examples.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Actually Christianity was a huge motivator for the abolition of slavery, Victor.

Actually everyone in Britain was a Christian from the Sovereign on down. And Christianity had supported slavery for 1,833 years. No, it was the Enlightenment and liberal democracy that led to the first abolition of institutional slavery.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
I don't think I've SERIOUSLY attempted to diagnose ANYONE on the forum with anything [...].
If that is true, then neither has anyone in this thread.

[...] however I may have attributed malicious motives to people when there were none in certain incidents.
You have indeed, even today (see: TheStarchDefenders).

I said the sanest people I know are some of my yoga instructors, and that's because of their level of enlightenment mentally and spiritually that they have relatively lower neurosis (although all people are neurotic) than many other people.

That doesn't mean they're the only sane people I know.
Then I must have misinterpreted this exchange:
Do you know any sane people, Marm?
Mostly just my yoga teachers.
I admit, I remembered it as one teacher, not in the plural. Mea culpa.

I'm not actually arguing anything strange at all. I think I'm one of the few people not spewing their moral bias all over this and translating it into "omgz you're insane."
It is strange because of all the situations in which it would make sense to raise the generally sensible points you have, this one is certainly among the least appropriate.

I've noticed that people don't like for others to change or grow, either. I've noticed it a lot on this forum, like if you didn't know something last year, how could you know it now.

People grow. The only thing that stays the same is that things change.
There is truth to it. I do appreciate it when people grow, however. I even noticed, as he then confirmed in somewhat different words, that Valiant had gone from delusional to fanatic since he last ran away.

So you guys trolling now or what?

Or would you like to be alone together?
Yes, I presume you're trolling because your first post in the thread is in direct response to Nico saying something about me which is completely off topic.

And your tone in this post indicates further trolling.

I also know you both hang out in Vent.

Try harder next time. :coffee:
My post was no more off topic than the post it was in response to, yours. Also, the bulk of the whole thread is off topic.

No trolling, very little Vent time in the last couple of months, even his love is just platonic.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
If that is true, then neither has anyone in this thread.


You have indeed, even today (see: TheStarchDefenders).


Then I must have misinterpreted this exchange:


I admit, I remembered it as one teacher, not in the plural. Mea culpa.


It is strange because of all the situations in which it would make sense to raise the generally sensible points you have, this one is certainly among the least appropriate.


There is truth to it. I do appreciate it when people grow, however. I even noticed, as he then confirmed in somewhat different words, that Valiant had gone from delusional to fanatic since he last ran away.



My post was no more off topic than the post it was in response to, yours. Also, the bulk of the whole thread is off topic.

No trolling, very little Vent time in the last couple of months, even his love is just platonic.


Nico all of your troll-y words don't erase the thoughtful validity of my point, and that is that white nationalism is not a form of psychosis, and I'm not sure why you would even drag a clearly facetious comment about my yoga instructors being the only sane people I know over here, I mean that obviously was a joke, where as in this thread people just kept jumping up and down and saying YLJ was mentally ill.

I do want to point out yet again, though, that seeing traits of personality disorder or relationship-oriented neuroticism is quite different than calling a person psychotic.

If you guys were saying he has a touch of meglomania, I might agree with you; but saying he's psychotic is just absurd.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be putting you back on ignore.
 

1487610420

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
6,431
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Actually everyone in Britain was a Christian from the Sovereign on down. And Christianity had supported slavery for 1,833 years. No, it was the Enlightenment and liberal democracy that led to the first abolition of institutional slavery.

Victor Christian abolitionists were paramount to the end of slavery, and it's easy to read the New Testament and see when Jesus came, that there was no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, all are equal in the eyes of God. I'm not sure how you missed that part of the Bible, though yes of course there is historic accounts of slavery in the Bible, because it was a cultural norm.

This sermon was pre-Enlightenment: "John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), archbishop of Constantinople, preaching on Acts 4:32-4:33 in a sermon entitled, "Should we not make it a heaven on earth?", stated, "I will not speak of slaves, since at that time there was no such thing, but doubtless such as were slaves they set at liberty..."

I mean if someone was saying this and using Christianity as a basis in the 300s and 400s (not the 18th century) then perhaps the problem is that human culture changes slowly, even when high ideas are introduced.

I personally think the purest interpretations of the teachings of Jesus have led to the most inclusive and equalizing churches, rather than some of the more severe and hierarchical institutions.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
Nico all of your troll-y words don't erase the thoughtful validity of my point, and that is that white nationalism is not a form of psychosis, and I'm not sure why you would even drag a clearly facetious comment about my yoga instructors being the only sane people I know over here, I mean that obviously was a joke, where as in this thread people just kept jumping up and down and saying YLJ was mentally ill.
You made your complaint before anyone suggested he was psychotic, because, yes, you misunderstood Magic Poriferan's analogy about the homeless man. Saying that white nationalism is mentally sane, therefore Valient must be also, does not disprove anything either. He is not a movement, he is not the average of whoever believes this nonsense, but an individual person with individual mental qualities. Not all white supremacists are the same. And this one seems crazy.

Whatever the degree of facetiousness in the quoted statement, it is not obviously a joke. In any case, given your many posts on the forum about fucked-up people, I did not see it as a clear joke.

And, for the love of whatever you hold sacred, stop with the insinuation of trolling.

I do want to point out yet again, though, that seeing traits of personality disorder or relationship-oriented neuroticism is quite different than calling a person psychotic.

If you guys were saying he has a touch of meglomania, I might agree with you; but saying he's psychotic is just absurd.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be putting you back on ignore.
No one has said that he is psychotic. Magic Poriferan has merely said that he thinks he is psychotic, and not before you came in already claiming the opposite.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Nico, if you really think that I would seriously say my yoga instructors are the only sane people I know, you should probably stop reading my posts. Your license to drive on the Internet should possibly be revoked. I'm in my early 30s and have lived all over the United States, attended university, leave the house on a regular basis, have friends, and date. YOU SERIOUSLY THINK MY YOGA INSTRUCTORS ARE THE ONLY SANE PEOPLE I KNOW, OR THAT I BELIEVE THAT?

That's why I have you on ignore. This conversation is ridiculous. I'm not interested in your amateur psychoanalysis of a person you probably have never even spoken with privately one-on-one on line.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
YOU SERIOUSLY THINK MY YOGA INSTRUCTORS ARE THE ONLY SANE PEOPLE I KNOW, OR THAT I BELIEVE THAT?
I seriously considered and went with the latter. You know why? Because of what I have read you say over the years. With most other people, it would be an obvious joke.

I'm not interested in your amateur psychoanalysis of a person you probably have never even spoken with privately one-on-one on line.
And no one is interested in yours. I have not even offered mine.
 
R

Riva

Guest
Though I disagree with [MENTION=18064]Valiant[/MENTION] 's point of view and was offended by his racist comments and was annoyed by the inaccuracies of his statement I do feel for him. Why? Because his culture/beliefs are truly threatened. When one's beliefs/culture is threatened one tend act quite defensive. Nationalism is a result of this feeling. Where I disagree with him and is 'opposed' to him was his unreasonable sense superiority complex and his insults directed/hinted at other races (there is a better word than unreasonable which I can't recall). His culture/beliefs which are progressive, tolerant, non-sexist, safe, etc truly is threatened, his country/countries are exploited by certain people those whom do not respect his culture and his people's rights to identify to their own race is considered racist but have to be tolerant to those others whom strongly identify to their own respective races. So I do understand his nationalism but isn't tolerant to his racism.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
His culture/beliefs which are progressive, tolerant, non-sexist, safe, etc truly is threatened [...]
Yet if what he hopes for happens, what he claims to protect will vanish. A nation of soldiers has a culture of soldiers.
 
R

Riva

Guest
Yet if what he hopes for happens, what he claims to protect will vanish. A nation of soldiers has a culture of soldiers.
Yes the tolerance aspect will be lost. The rest would only slightly. (It is uneducated to believe things wouldn't change even slightly even if a massive cultural change doesn't take place.) A society of soldiers created to protect what they desire/like/admire. Will it affect the above? Yes it would. Will it destroy? No it wouldn't. At one point one has to ask oneself - which i'm asking you right now - what would one choose to do when one's beliefs/culture is threatened? Resort to nationalism or embrace obvious destruction? Or do you have a different idea altogether?
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
Yes the tolerance aspect will be lost. The rest would only slightly. (It is uneducated to believe things wouldn't change even slightly even if a massive cultural change doesn't take place.) A society of soldiers created to protect what they desire/like/admire. Will it affect the above? Yes it would. Will it destroy? No it wouldn't. At one point one has to ask oneself - which i'm asking you right now - what would one choose to do when one's beliefs/culture is threatened? Resort to nationalism or embrace obvious destruction? Or do you have a different idea altogether?
Just consider how much has changed in Europe since the end of the war. A pan-European racist civil war could last decades. The consequences would be most spectacular. There would still be culture afterwards, but only one of brutes, because they would win.

I favor assimilation. It changes all participants of the process, but I am not so fond of 'my culture' that I think it should remain as it is, much less reverse to what it was 70 years ago. I think we should uphold tolerance and the rule of law on pain of their undoing.

Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus!
 
R

Riva

Guest
Just consider how much has changed in Europe since the end of the war. A pan-European racist civil war could last decades. The consequences would be most spectacular. There would still be culture afterwards, but only one of brutes, because they would win.I favor assimilation. It changes all participants of the process, but I am not so fond of 'my culture' that I think it should remain as it is, much less reverse to what it was 70 years ago. I think we should uphold tolerance and the rule of law on pain of their undoing.Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus!
(1) I wasn't implying war. (2) You favour assimilation, so do I. (But it's for europeans to decide, not me.) (3) Could there be assimilation without resistance? Is mass scale armed resistance not civil war? So your solution isn't strugle free, unless a new culture is created, marketed, convince which is acceptable/accepted by all/most different ethnicities. (4) you are not a fan of your culture but I have hunch that most europeans are. (5) The best culture is a culture which upholds law and order. But whose law? The law of the lawless/barbaric/racist/sexist or the law of the prevelant? Is the law which is prevelant not lawful? Will it survive any further if the native culture is destroyed by those who have no respect to it? (6) for most immigrants who come to europe, it is the law and order that is desired the most along with its riches. I hope I don't have to point out the corelation between the two. So for you a culture which is lawful is the most desired but/and for immigrants this is what europe gives/what they seek.
 

Pseudo

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,051
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Just consider how much has changed in Europe since the end of the war. A pan-European racist civil war could last decades. The consequences would be most spectacular. There would still be culture afterwards, but only one of brutes, because they would win.

I favor assimilation. It changes all participants of the process, but I am not so fond of 'my culture' that I think it should remain as it is, much less reverse to what it was 70 years ago. I think we should uphold tolerance and the rule of law on pain of their undoing.

Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus!


There is a bad conflation of race and culture here. Mainly because beilieves in inherent values within white genetics that I don't think are inherent in the people of an particular race. For instance where immigrants to completely 100% assimilate, would nationalists be happy? I don't think so because really the just want a scape goat for their personal dissatisfactions. I'm not completely familiar with swedes situation so I'll use the example of the U.S. people wanting to "protect our culture" really are saying that they don't want to have to put the effort in to understand or accommodate other cultures. They want everyone to be like them or it's culture destruction.

I guess I would like an example of how certain cultures are being actively destroyed?


I believe in preserving cultural traditions but I don't think racially segregated nations is the way to do it (or that there is even a plausible way to create race based nations. I think it would degrade into an obscene number of factions and disposed people who aren't quite x enough).
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
He may be delusional, but calling him delusional seems to be pointless as a persuasive measure. It seems to me that it's mostly an effort for people to comfort themselves with the idea that as long they are rational then they won't believe or do anything horrible. I think that's quite the error and just a continuation of the modernist lie that rationality can save humanity.
I think you are bring disingenuous in this thread because your over-identification with "minority" groups who see themselves as persecuted is making you irrational, or at least, inconsistent. Your objections have shifted from complaining about calling a (now ex-) member crazy, to an (ironic to anyone who knows your views) advocacy of tolerance, to this new dismissal of rationality.

I guess if you are going to dismiss rational argument, there is no point trying to make one, but for the benefit of those who enjoy such things, here is Karl Popper on the paradox (and logical limits) of tolerance:-

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
...
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.


The whole detour into Valiant's psychiatric health is a macguffin. You know very well that people say "that's crazy!" as a verbal expression of disbelief without anticipating that their words will be taken as a psychiatric diagnosis. The things he has been saying are insane - in the sense that they represent views utterly divorced from reality as normally understood. They exhibit a kind of paranoia and militantism that we do not associate with a balanced state of mind. Of course, much of this is context-dependent - what is considered insane in one period of history is considered the norm in others. So we must take into account the fact that he lives in a liberal democracy where those ideas are very far from the norm. Whether he has acquired such views through some personal mental deficiency, cult brain-washing, PTSD, psychotic break or none of those things is really moot to the discussion. The ideas in themselves are insane and poisonous and ought to be treated in that light and not legitimised by according them an attitude of respectful tolerance. Ideas cannot claim the privileges of individuals and individuals cannot claim the right to tolerance without first extending it their fellows. This is part of the social contract that allows us to live side by side without killing each other.

Of course it's entirely possible that Holocaust deniers are sane: the perpetrators and supporters of the Holocaust were, on the whole, sane, after all. It's possible to be clinically sane and to believe or even do crazy things. You are correct that we sometimes suppose sane people to be crazy when they do insane things but this is less because we doubt ourselves (we ought to doubt ourselves more, in fact) and more because we find it impossible to empathise with people who commit or endorse evil acts. Empathy carries within it the same paradox as tolerance, embedded as it is in the same basic psychology of the social animal that is man. Its universality can only extend so far - we cannot empathise with the unempathic, and evil requires the suspension of empathy. Whether someone is "evil" or "crazy" is just a matter of the labels we use to distance ourselves from toxicity. They also carry notions of moral responsibility and reprehensibility but even those are questionable since empathy deficit can legitimately be considered a mental disorder. Fundamentally, all we are doing is defining acceptable norms of behaviour for our species, and drawing lines around / excluding those things which are too poisonous to be allowed to persist.

Though I disagree with [MENTION=18064]Valiant[/MENTION] 's point of view and was offended by his racist comments and was annoyed by the inaccuracies of his statement I do feel for him. Why? Because his culture/beliefs are truly threatened. When one's beliefs/culture is threatened one tend act quite defensive. Nationalism is a result of this feeling.
What are "his culture/beliefs" and who is threatening them? Jews? Muslims? Blacks? Sane people?

Groups such as the one he identifies with represent at least as great a threat to the culture and beliefs of the average Swede as any other. Let's not forget Anders Behring-Breivik. People claimed he was sane too.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
...
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

While I don't disagree, I think there is a logical alternative: finding everything outside of humanity intolerable on the basis that it threatens our existence; but for the sake practicality and the perpetuation of justice, this alternative is a bit silly and comes around full circle into what is essentially the same paradox Popper is describing. Just a different perspective about the rational, but ultimately absurd "solution" of unlimited tolerance and how it fails as a reasonable outcome of the human condition - another demonstration of the curative function of rationality: it tends to lead us to paradoxes, which allow us to appreciate both its weaknesses and strengths, giving us solace in that problems are primarily matters of perspective.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Marm, you seem hung up on the idea that if I think Valiant is mentally ill, it must automatically mean I'm not informed enough about the situation. Consider the possibility that you know no more about it than I do, but have simply come to a different conclusion anyway.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about paradigms and such, but it sounds like you're suggesting something too relativistic to allow for critical thought.

And for the record, I actually didn't call Valiant psychotic. I said he seemed delusional and paranoid, and those things don't mean someone is psychotic.

Also, while you were criticizing me for doing online psycho-analysis, you were dissecting my thinking using cognitive processes. Come now.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
(1) I wasn't implying war. (2) You favour assimilation, so do I. (But it's for europeans to decide, not me.) (3) Could there be assimilation without resistance? Is mass scale armed resistance not civil war? So your solution isn't strugle free, unless a new culture is created, marketed, convince which is acceptable/accepted by all/most different ethnicities. (4) you are not a fan of your culture but I have hunch that most europeans are. (5) The best culture is a culture which upholds law and order. But whose law? The law of the lawless/barbaric/racist/sexist or the law of the prevelant? Is the law which is prevelant not lawful? Will it survive any further if the native culture is destroyed by those who have no respect to it? (6) for most immigrants who come to europe, it is the law and order that is desired the most along with its riches. I hope I don't have to point out the corelation between the two. So for you a culture which is lawful is the most desired but/and for immigrants this is what europe gives/what they seek.
  1. He is preparing for it, valiantly.
  2. Aha.
  3. Yes, there is assimilation without resistance every day. Assimilation is not a special program; it happens naturally when people coexist and interact. I don't see people with darker skin as people of a different race. Ethnicity, too, is quite problematic. Obviously, there are people whose family history started in other regions of the world than mine, but that does not make them 'the others' unless I choose so. Reality is far too complex for any we-they dichotomy.
  4. There are constants I value, but culture is not a thing; it is the vapor of beliefs, thoughts, and actions of people living in a definite space of land. As such, it is always changing. When people complain about cultural change, I think it is not really about the phenomenon itself but about the loss of very specific things they valued. So, as long as we keep what most value most, we can change around quite a bit without significant uproar.
  5. The law we have, obviously. It is the result of thousands of years of civil and not-so-civil practice, discussion, and modification. It is not perfect, but it is better than Sharia law. And it should rule, meaning that I am against Sharia courts in this country.
  6. Alle meine Entchen schwimmen auf dem See, schwimmen auf dem See, Köpfchen in das Wasser, Schwänzchen in die Höh'.

There is a bad conflation of race and culture here. Mainly because beilieves in inherent values within white genetics that I don't think are inherent in the people of an particular race. For instance where immigrants to completely 100% assimilate, would nationalists be happy? I don't think so because really the just want a scape goat for their personal dissatisfactions. I'm not completely familiar with swedes situation so I'll use the example of the U.S. people wanting to "protect our culture" really are saying that they don't want to have to put the effort in to understand or accommodate other cultures. They want everyone to be like them or it's culture destruction.
There is indeed a bad conflation of race and culture. In fact, there are so many bad conflations that it seems more sensible to throw the whole ideological construct away than to clean it up.

I guess I would like an example of how certain cultures are being actively destroyed?
I am afraid you will have to wait six months for an answer from the expert. The obvious example, of course, is the Holocaust. Fortunately, it was not entirely successful.

I believe in preserving cultural traditions but I don't think racially segregated nations is the way to do it (or that there is even a plausible way to create race based nations. I think it would degrade into an obscene number of factions and disposed people who aren't quite x enough).
Yes, it would be quite the hell on earth.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
While I don't disagree, I think there is a logical alternative: finding everything outside of humanity intolerable on the basis that it threatens our existence; but for the sake practicality and the perpetuation of justice, this alternative is a bit silly and comes around full circle into what is essentially the same paradox Popper is describing. Just a different perspective about the rational, but ultimately absurd "solution" of unlimited tolerance and how it fails as a reasonable outcome of the human condition - another demonstration of the curative function of rationality: it tends to lead us to paradoxes, which allow us to appreciate both its weaknesses and strengths, giving us solace in that problems are primarily matters of perspective.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

Your "logical alternative" is neither of those things. Not everything outside of humanity threatens humanity's existence. Far from it. In fact the only thing that threatens humanity's existence at this point is...humanity.

Paradox exposes the weakness of self-referential systems, like logic and language and law.
A rational response to the tolerance paradox would be to declare the concept of tolerance invalid, since it is self-inconsistent. In fact, it is only paradoxical when viewed as a problem through the lens of logic. Pure rationality often arrives at highly impractical, even nonsensical outcomes.
One has to step outside the system to resolve such problems. To employ the spirit, rather than letter of the law.
To tolerate intolerance in the way Beorn advocates, is to "strain at the gnat but gulp down the camel" - to observe the letter of the "law" of tolerance, but neglect its spirit, thereby nurturing an intolerant society. And to neglect the spirit is not really to be tolerant at all, since at root, tolerance is about respect for life, liberty and individual differences. The spirit involves promoting tolerance of those differences, and so anything that negates or violates that spirit can rightly be prohibited without any inherent contradiction. Indeed, the only contradiction would be to tolerate such attitudes.
 
Top