the other night, BMW came up with a really interesting question on the IRC chat and he asked me to post it for him.
Quote(00:44:23) B_M_W: Why is it that one person with intense psychological trauma survives and becomes stable, while another person becomes a bigot?
(00:45:07) B_M_W: And, if the general answer is environment,
(00:45:57) B_M_W: What environments generate stability, and what environments generate bigotry and similar afflictions?
(00:45:58) B_M_W: Also,
(00:46:05) _000: BMW are you sure "bigot" is the right word? acording to wikipedia it just means "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own." .. wouldn't "bad person" be more accurate?
(00:47:09) B_M_W: How can one propagate good environments and change bad ones?
i don't have a good answer for it yet but i'll think about it.
IMO, it's a really good question. one of those simple things you usually don't stop and question.
it kind of reminds me of a while back when LHX started on the "origin of the lie" stuff, and i asked those questions at parties and got the most wonderful discussions out of it?
i'm gonna try the same with this one. got a feeling that might just work. maybe get no answers, but getting some solid new thoughts from people is always good :)
(that was partly from a PM i sent BMW)
now
DISCUSS !!
my hunch is that bigotry eventually will lead to some intense psychological trauma which will force a person to learn how to overcome their prior psychological trauma properly
bigotry is not something that endures
sometimes it is not the 'good environment' which triggers the stability - sometimes it is the amplification of a bad environment
the phoenix is a pretty stable bird
a phoenix is a mythological bird.
i know and have known people whose bigotry is so deeply ingrained in their personalities that they cease to be much more than machines that say stupid bigoted shit all the time.
it may be true that bigotry doesn't always endure, but often for it to crack and fade away, the bigot has to be confronted with a situation where things more important than his bigotry (like survival) depend on giving up the bigotry. for most bigots, those moments never come.
more generally relating to the OP:
psychological trauma can't be expected to forge a personality any more reliably than any other factor. there are so many variables involved in what makes up a person's identity. if i were to make a blind generalization though, it would be along the lines that honesty in raising children plays a large part in it. it's one thing to protect your child from psychological abuse, while teaching them that it exists; it's another thing to blind them to it completely and give them no weapons to defend themselves with against it when it comes.
there have been a few such traumatic events in my life. i think i'm lucky because the worst one fractured the entire bullshit-bubble i was initially raised in, and taught me to look out for more of the same.
Quote from: vexati0n on July 24, 2007, 05:08:03 AM
a phoenix is a mythological bird.
i know and have known people whose bigotry is so deeply ingrained in their personalities that they cease to be much more than machines that say stupid bigoted shit all the time.
it may be true that bigotry doesn't always endure, but often for it to crack and fade away, the bigot has to be confronted with a situation where things more important than his bigotry (like survival) depend on giving up the bigotry. for most bigots, those moments never come.
more generally relating to the OP:
psychological trauma can't be expected to forge a personality any more reliably than any other factor. there are so many variables involved in what makes up a person's identity. if i were to make a blind generalization though, it would be along the lines that honesty in raising children plays a large part in it. it's one thing to protect your child from psychological abuse, while teaching them that it exists; it's another thing to blind them to it completely and give them no weapons to defend themselves with against it when it comes.
there have been a few such traumatic events in my life. i think i'm lucky because the worst one fractured the entire bullshit-bubble i was initially raised in, and taught me to look out for more of the same.
bigotry will not get anybody thru any gates (metaphorical or real) of any place that is good
bigotry does not endure
but when it is around - it sure is a attention grabber
a phoenix is a mythological bird
what i was referring to was the fact that sometimes when negativity is amplified - the result is something bigger and better than what could have otherwise been accomplished
of course, 'good' is relative. and bigotry, like any philosophy, is self-reinforcing that way. to a bigot, a KKK rally is a better place to be than the Million Man March. it takes a certain disconnection from reality and the flow of human events to see it that way, but that's what bigotry thrives on. it's as persistent as cancer, and it can jump from host to host like a virus.
people who become bigots as the result of psychological trauma are damaged goods anyway.
fuck those people and everybody like them.
Quote from: vexati0n on July 24, 2007, 05:08:03 AM
a phoenix is a mythological bird.
i know and have known people whose bigotry is so deeply ingrained in their personalities that they cease to be much more than machines that say stupid bigoted shit all the time.
it may be true that bigotry doesn't always endure, but often for it to crack and fade away, the bigot has to be confronted with a situation where things more important than his bigotry (like survival) depend on giving up the bigotry. for most bigots, those moments never come.
more generally relating to the OP:
psychological trauma can't be expected to forge a personality any more reliably than any other factor. there are so many variables involved in what makes up a person's identity. if i were to make a blind generalization though, it would be along the lines that honesty in raising children plays a large part in it. it's one thing to protect your child from psychological abuse, while teaching them that it exists; it's another thing to blind them to it completely and give them no weapons to defend themselves with against it when it comes.
there have been a few such traumatic events in my life. i think i'm lucky because the worst one fractured the entire bullshit-bubble i was initially raised in, and taught me to look out for more of the same.
This was the sort of answer that will help me with this question.
Quote from: vexati0n on July 24, 2007, 05:38:17 AM
people who become bigots as the result of psychological trauma are damaged goods anyway.
fuck those people and everybody like them.
This one is not.
the 2nd one was a joke anyway
Quote from: triple zero on July 24, 2007, 12:23:45 AM
the other night, BMW came up with a really interesting question on the IRC chat and he asked me to post it for him.
Quote(00:44:23) B_M_W: Why is it that one person with intense psychological trauma survives and becomes stable, while another person becomes a bigot?
(00:45:07) B_M_W: And, if the general answer is environment,
(00:45:57) B_M_W: What environments generate stability, and what environments generate bigotry and similar afflictions?
(00:45:58) B_M_W: Also,
(00:46:05) _000: BMW are you sure "bigot" is the right word? acording to wikipedia it just means "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own." .. wouldn't "bad person" be more accurate?
(00:47:09) B_M_W: How can one propagate good environments and change bad ones?
i don't have a good answer for it yet but i'll think about it.
IMO, it's a really good question. one of those simple things you usually don't stop and question.
it kind of reminds me of a while back when LHX started on the "origin of the lie" stuff, and i asked those questions at parties and got the most wonderful discussions out of it?
i'm gonna try the same with this one. got a feeling that might just work. maybe get no answers, but getting some solid new thoughts from people is always good :)
(that was partly from a PM i sent BMW)
now DISCUSS !!
I think that there are some basic psychological facets of a persons personality that can swing the balance one way or another, as regards bigotery.
My father is a bigot. I have often compared him to a Nazi, but this is not strictly true. He's an authoritarian racist, and always has been. His interest in Nazism extends only so far as historical curiosity. He is, however, an incredibly intelligent guy.
For as long as I can remember, he has made racist comments and remarks, that you would think would shape
MY opinions, if you follow the old adage about apples falling from trees. In reality though, I'm generally diametrically opposed to his philosophies, and have some pretty intense and heated debates with him in recent years.
The reason for this difference, I believe, is my own personality. I have a proclivity to depression, as many on both sides of my family do. I was bullied quite harshly at school, and despite my fathers hectoring I never 'fought back', physically, that is.
My strategy, for the most formative years, was to fade into the background and develop better diplomatic skills. I had no time to consider what I hate about an individuals culture, lifestyle or skin colour. I was concerned mostly with how well I could 'hide' behind them, how I could make someone else a more tempting target than me, or how I could sweet talk and manipulate people.
This has kind of led me to view EVERYONE as an abstract, not just one slice of humanity. And having someone else do the same thing to me has taught me that I'm no better.
Having thought about it a bit deeper, I think bigotery stems more from a supreme self confidance, where reliance on other people (in general) is replaced by a hatred of one particular group of people, to try and fit in with the people that attack you (in whatever form that 'attack' may take).
Environmental causes and effects are not as important as learned behaviour to circumstances. If one approach works once, then you are likely to repeat it, until you refine it into your 'philosophy'.
I hope this reads OK, I just woke up, and promised a reply to BMW and Trip in IRC last night... :D
i still haven't come up with my own good answer, but this is why i think the question is so interesting:
first, bigotry is a bad thing.
now, you have a normal semihealthy regular average human being. there is a reasonably BIG chance this person will encounter psychological trauma.
if this trauma has the possibility to turn an otherwise medium human being into a bigot, and bigotry is a bad thing, it would be a good thing to make this possibility as small as possible.
if the most important factor that turns this fork in the road one way or another, is environment, then it would be a very good thing to figure out how to cultivate environments that tend to have people recover in the non-bigot quadrant.
and, would in the end, result in less bigotry overall.
I don't think it's clear cut. I think environment surely is one factor. The environment is a factor in many aspects of human society. My work in substance abuse looks at different kind of strategies to address the behavior of substance abuse. There are environmental strategies that focus on family, law enforcement, school policies, promotions, advertising, etc. However, even though there is evidence to back up these kinds of strategies, it is also clear that you also need to look at Strength Based strategies that work on the personal level.
I think this is true with bigotry and people who turn out to be "bad people."
I grew up in a safe and healthy environment. No one in my family drank or did drugs. No one was violent or abusive verbally, physically, etc. I pretty much grew up in a Cleaver-esque household. [apologies to the young-uns who don't get the reference] However, I've known people my age who grew up in similar environments that turned out quite differently.
So, to shorten it up. I think fostering a good and healthy environment for children to grow up in will certainly have an impact and affect on the issues that BMW is talking about. And I think it is a worthwhile effort because it affects so many things. At the same time, attention must also be paid on the individual level, for those individuals who are just naturally wired, despite environment, to go down a less savory path.
It seems to me that bigotry is a form of territorialism gone awry. It's like an ossified us/them deliniation, applied with a wide brush, and never questioned.
I think the reason it happens in some people and not others is the little quirks and fissures deep in our personalities that, whne built upon, create chasms.
If we put the 8 Circuit model on this, let's say that Joe has at least 4 layers already down before a traumatic incident befalls him. He seeeks new things, is submissive, intelligent, and sexually moral. I think his reaction and subsequent thought processes would be radically different than Keith, who doesn't like new things, is agressive, not intelligent, and sexually repressed.
To get cliche, our prison cells don't just shape our perceptions, they reinforce themselves to become even more entrenched and solid.
To provide a plain and common answer, I'd say that traumatized people who are in a situation where they are communicating with people who are tolerant, compassionate, and bright, they will imprint these qualities, with any luck.
One of the things I was reminded of while thinking about this last night was the process of brainwashing. Essentially, brainwashing begins by inducing psychological trauma, and then afterward filling the void with new memes that are quickly grasped and held onto to fill the void and repair the damage. It seems to me that this "filling of the void" can easily occur after any psychological trauma, not just that induced by brainwashing, resulting in large psychological and personality changes. I'm reminded of people who are traumatized and "find religion" afterwards, often times becoming a fundamentalist.
The first thing that seems to me to be a part of an enviroment that promotes stability following trauma is by caution in introducing new ideas to the traumatized person. Because a traumatized person is very "sticky" when it comes to memes during this period, they should be monitored closely and the people who surround them should not introduce any strong memes to them without great caution.
I also am reminded of Reverse Brainwashing, something I wrote here about a year ago. The idea of that paper was to look at the beneficial possibilites of the brainwashing process in opening a persons mind to new ideas.
These are just the things I have right now. I'm trying to tie this in with Cram's meme thread in my head.
interesting point about the brainwashing thing.
(you forgot to point out btw that the reverse brainwashing guide can be found in your sig)
maybe a "good" environment then would be some sort of "good parental" environment? because having a void in your head, ready for imprinting is kind of like being a child.
Quote from: triple zero on July 24, 2007, 06:26:27 PM
interesting point about the brainwashing thing.
(you forgot to point out btw that the reverse brainwashing guide can be found in your sig)
maybe a "good" environment then would be some sort of "good parental" environment? because having a void in your head, ready for imprinting is kind of like being a child.
I forgot to add that too, that young children or children in general have this same sort of stickyness so the same care is needed.
Also, I thought the link in my sig was obvious. :p
It certainly is a key. I know I've found in some of my research a direct correlation between family factors and behavior. Of course, it's tough to totally isolate it from other environmental factors, but it is clear is plays a vital role.
A ton of useful clues can be found in any social psychology textbook, BMW, I recommend you check one out at your school and look up prejudice.
Here are some facts I've dug out of my old textbook for you to chew on:
,Ä¢ People more accurately recognize faces of their own race*.
,Ä¢ Outgroups are percieved as more similar to one another than ingroup members.
,Ä¢ Fundamental Attribution Error - the tendency for observers to underestimate situational influences and overestimate dispositional influences on other's behavior. This is like, the theme of Social Psychology.
,Ä¢ Group-Serving Bias - Outgroup members' positive behaviors are explained away; outgroup members' negative behaviors are attributed to their dispositions while excusing such behavior by one's own group.
,Ä¢ Just World Phenomenon - Tendency of people to believe the world is just and that people therefore get what they deserve and deserve what they get.
,Ä¢ Stereotypes color how we interpret events and recall memories.
,Ä¢ Subtyping - Accommodating groups of individuals who deviate from one's stereotype by thinking of them as a special category of people with different properties.
,Ä¢ Self-fulfilling prophecy - false beliefs that lead to their own fulfillment.
,Ä¢ People often evaluate individuals more positively than the groups they compose.
*Edit: though race is a social construct it still has unfortunate effects.
Thanks for the info Net. I need time to process this.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 25, 2007, 10:00:48 PM
Thanks for the info Net. I need time to process this.
Hey, no problem.
I know you are already aware of this, but it bears repeating: Psychology "facts" are much looser than the conclusions of hard science.
Please to remember in your processing.
Quote from: Netaungrot on July 25, 2007, 10:58:33 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 25, 2007, 10:00:48 PM
Thanks for the info Net. I need time to process this.
Hey, no problem.
I know you are already aware of this, but it bears repeating: Psychology "facts" are much looser than the conclusions of hard science.
Please to remember in your processing.
Uh-huh. Because of the difficulty of objectivity, amirite?
Yurite.
Psychology = gonzo science.
um, no
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on July 26, 2007, 04:18:30 AM
um, no
Bitch please. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)
hmm you always come up with "good" and "bad" environment.
Whats that anyway? you are all aware of the fact how much of a "chewinggum" word good and bad is, good is what you think is good.
So what you think is a "good" environment might be a "bad" for someone else.
Lets say a "good" environment is one, where you either not get traumatized at all, or be able to overcome it.
Then again, someone might need fex parents who give them a negative role model others need parents to show them "how its done" right.
If we assume this is correct, than its a matter of the individuals personality.
And how the fuck is personality build? How is it created?
I think its to difficult to tell, to many factors must be included and even if we knew all that stuff, how what influences whom etc there would still be one problem: whats the base?
Are you born with a set of charateristics, like the horoscop tells us? In that case it would be only a matter of time until we find out how humans (personality etc) evolve...
You can imagine where that leads to.
We're back at the start point, why is it that some are able to overcvome the trauma and others not?
I say its mostly luck.
Be it the luck that a "good" environment is around, or a close friend / family / therapist ist around who understands you and can provide the information / experience / environment you need to get stable.
Okay. Psychology uses the scientific method and rigid experimental methodology to get results (unlike, say, Sociology or the other social sciences). Yeah the facts are less "firm", but that's because you can't exactly look into a microscope and see how humans operate.
and the Stanford Prison Experiment ruled. It was that, Stanley Milgram's work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment), and Solomon Asch's work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments) which made me into the mad scientist I am today.
Some examples of "overcoming bigotry" from my personal life. I grew up in southeast Ohio, where (in the words of a freind from New York) "they are still trying to figure out if the Civil War is over, and which side they were on". I recall being about 15 when the town I grew up removed a law which said that all black persons must be out of the town limits by dark. I can count on one hand the number of black families that lived in our little village. The first couple I remember, only lived there for a couple months, as the burning crosses etc were not to their licking (big surprise). So here are some examples of weird exits from Bigotry (at least in some sense).
1. My grandmother is an illiterate, poor and poorly educated person from Appalachia. She went to school (8th grade) but somehow never learned more than writing and reading her name. She has exhibited actions that could only be considered bigotry, or racism throughout most of her life. In one instance my mother,as a child went on a study date with a guy from a nearby town. He was black. My grandmother sent my two uncles to beat him up.
About ten years ago, I was talking to my grandmother and she said "You know, Mrs. Volcano's daughter married a black man and he treats her really good." I said, "Oh, really?" and she finished with "Yep, you know your Uncle Larry (a drunk, violent, coke headed excuse of a man) hurts your aunt and cousins". I admitted that I did know about the issues in that household and then, after a pause, my grandma looked at me and though her lip was pouched with tobacco (as always), though her comments were broken by pauses for the spittoon, I wasn't sure it was my grandma, for she said "Yep, that black feller is about as good as any white man. I think I would rather have had your aunt marry someone like him, than your Uncle Larry".
Though she had spent 70 years hating a race, the calcification had broken... not due to a shock particularly, just the experience of life, perhaps...
2. As Jehovah's Witnesses are not permitted to be bigoted (ROFL), I made some very interesting observations while living in that reality tunnel. One nice old lady was very clear that she was not a bigot and loved her "Darkie" brothers and sisters, just as much as everyone else.. and she meant it. I never saw her say a bad thing about anyone because of the color of their sklin, yet to hear her speak one might presume that she was a bigot... instead I am of the opinion that she was not a bigot, but instead simply had a bad set of semantic programs, which no one in Podunk Ohio bothered to correct her on... mostly because the environment saw nothing bigoted about it.
An older brother from the deep south moved to our congregation and also seemed to struggle with his early programming. He would never say anything derogatory toward people of other races, but he called them niggers... sometimes while shaking their hands.... sometimes in sentences like "I just love you brothers from Columbus, there's something refreshing when niggers speak about the Lord." Was he a bigot? I never figured it out.
Bigotry seems like a complex series of programs, some of which might calcify, some of which might be mutable and much of it may depend on environment, experiences and what the society around you considers acceptable.
Thoughts?
I dunno... Is it bigotry when you're too self-absorbed to understand when you're saying something offensive, even if you don't mean it that way?
I mean, I find it hard to believe that a person living in America doesn't know that black people don't like it when whites call them "nigger".
Quote from: LMNO on July 26, 2007, 05:04:52 PM
I dunno... Is it bigotry when you're too self-absorbed to understand when you're saying something offensive, even if you don't mean it that way?
I mean, I find it hard to believe that a person living in America doesn't know that black people don't like it when whites call them "nigger".
Ah, but that's because you didn't live in the town I lived in. In most cases, these people never had dealings with anyone other than random white hillbillies. Darkie, Blackfolks, Coloreds... all appear as common references to a group of people that they rarely see and when they do see them its in a religious context where those that may be offended, don't speak... for fear of hurting the old person's feelings.
The old man that used Nigger though... I am of the opinion that he was quite self-absorbed and while he was always publicly friendly and never said anything derogatory (with the exception of the N word) about other races... I often wonder what existed in his head on the subject. Even so, I never saw anyone express offense or outrage toward his smiling southern drawl. If no one showed outrage, how was he to know?
Remember, many of these people don't have television (or they just have an antenna and pick up the Zanesville TV station). Many of the people are either illiterate, functionally illiterate or have poor reading comprehension skills. Some of them still sleep in cornshuck beds and have dirt floors. My grandmother still uses an outhouse. I'm not sure if it is self-absorption or ignorance that caused these artifacts. It's certainly not common among the younger generations that my parents or I were in... but then most of them are literate, have running water and a floor.
Quote from: Discord on July 26, 2007, 01:45:07 PM
hmm you always come up with "good" and "bad" environment.
Whats that anyway? you are all aware of the fact how much of a "chewinggum" word good and bad is, good is what you think is good.
So what you think is a "good" environment might be a "bad" for someone else.
Lets say a "good" environment is one, where you either not get traumatized at all, or be able to overcome it.
Then again, someone might need fex parents who give them a negative role model others need parents to show them "how its done" right.
If we assume this is correct, than its a matter of the individuals personality.
And how the fuck is personality build? How is it created?
I think its to difficult to tell, to many factors must be included and even if we knew all that stuff, how what influences whom etc there would still be one problem: whats the base?
Are you born with a set of charateristics, like the horoscop tells us? In that case it would be only a matter of time until we find out how humans (personality etc) evolve...
You can imagine where that leads to.
We're back at the start point, why is it that some are able to overcvome the trauma and others not?
I say its mostly luck.
Be it the luck that a "good" environment is around, or a close friend / family / therapist ist around who understands you and can provide the information / experience / environment you need to get stable.
goddamn.
Can we get away from semantics for a moment and just fucking agree that bigotry is bad? And that finding ways to keep people from becoming bigots is a good thing? Because this semantic bullshit is just a returning loop and it seems that ever damn discussion around here gets down to "Oh, the universe is too complex and difficult to describe that we can't put any words on anything and so lets just sit here dumbfounded".
Maybe I should cross post the thread which all this came out of, for contex.
Bolded parts for emphasis
RE: Something that sounds waaaay too familiar. - Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe - 07-22-2007 04:10 PM
The Good Reverend Roger Wrote:
Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe Wrote:
Prolly some sort of recognition. I guess they think they can get it made a medical condition, they can remove the stigma. No matter how many people they hurt in the process.
Well, it's either a case of "pity me", or they are stating that their behavior is a sickness, or both.
Well, you know how we've talked about the way oppressed groups tend to oppress others? I think its one of those things. Inferiority complex and delusion joined with the possibility of "moving up in the world" seems to lead to oppressing other groups till that inferiority complex turns into a superiority complex, like what you just posted a while ago, or what the pagannazis do. Makes me think alot of these people are damaged goods, psychologically.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Something that sounds waaaay too familiar. - Cain - 07-22-2007 04:13 PM
Alot of people are damaged goods in one sense or another, full stop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Something that sounds waaaay too familiar. - Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe - 07-22-2007 04:16 PM
Cain Wrote:
Alot of people are damaged goods in one sense or another, full stop.
Agreed. But what is it about one person who has psychological trauma and survives and becomes a stable person, and another becomes a bigot? Their environment? The people who they surround themselves with?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Something that sounds waaaay too familiar. - The Good Reverend Roger - 07-22-2007 04:16 PM
Cain Wrote:
Alot
You just made the Queen cry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Something that sounds waaaay too familiar. - Cain - 07-22-2007 04:27 PM
The Good Reverend Roger Wrote:
Cain Wrote:
Alot
You just made the Queen cry.
Bitch deserves it for storming off a photo shoot.
And BMW, if I knew that, I wouldn't be here right now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Something that sounds waaaay too familiar. - Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe - 07-22-2007 04:30 PM
Cain Wrote:
The Good Reverend Roger Wrote:
Cain Wrote:
Alot
You just made the Queen cry.
Bitch deserves it for storming off a photo shoot.
And BMW, if I knew that, I wouldn't be here right now.
Seems that it would be grounds for some good discussion then.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 26, 2007, 06:12:25 PM
goddamn.
Can we get away from semantics for a moment and just fucking agree that bigotry is bad? And that finding ways to keep people from becoming bigots is a good thing? Because this semantic bullshit is just a returning loop and it seems that ever damn discussion around here gets down to "Oh, the universe is too complex and difficult to describe that we can't put any words on anything and so lets just sit here dumbfounded".
I think that we all probably agree that bigotry is a "bad thing" (in the sense that its probably unhealthy, its not friendly, its based on stupid assumptions and uneducated beliefs). However, I'm not sure about "finding ways to keep people from becoming bigots". Surely education may help, but unless we're ready to rip children away from their parents and program them the way we think best... getting rid of bigotry seems a bit of a Fnordian task. Psychology, programming, tribal beliefs, inferiority complexes, superiority complexes, trauma may cause bigotry, but most examples I've seen of bigoted individuals that I've interacted with appear to have had the bad program in there from childhood... either directly influenced by parents or indirectly by their tribe.
Perhaps we could focus on combating bigotry? Maybe concepts of how we could influence the ideas that are common among bigots? We may not be able to kill the programming, but maybe we could change it...
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on July 26, 2007, 01:49:52 PM
Okay. Psychology uses the scientific method and rigid experimental methodology to get results (unlike, say, Sociology or the other social sciences). Yeah the facts are less "firm", but that's because you can't exactly look into a microscope and see how humans operate.
and the Stanford Prison Experiment ruled. It was that, Stanley Milgram's work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment), and Solomon Asch's work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments) which made me into the mad scientist I am today.
Okay, you're taking my comment and your insecurities about being a soft scientist entirely too seriously. I love Psychology too, but I'm not going to put it on a fucking pedestal that's exempt from mockery. Or put up with pedantic drivel.
Drawing conclusions from the Standford Prison Experiment are extremely sketchy at best. If your scientific rigor could maintain an erection you'd know that you can't just go putting yourself DIRECTLY INTO your experiments IN A BIG WAY without making your results softer than your mom's anal canal.
Thank you sir, for blasting me with praise of bad science:
(http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/6883/hansstarckwindblowngm7.png)
IT'S SO REFRESHING!
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/forum/illneverwalkagain.jpg)
QuoteOkay, you're taking my comment and your insecurities about being a soft scientist entirely too seriously. I love Psychology too, but I'm not going to put it on a fucking pedestal that's exempt from mockery. Or put up with pedantic drivel.
easy there kemosabe
I think
you're taking
me too seriously. You made a pretty sweeping statement based on one example and when I contradicted you, you're calling it pedantic drivel? lawl!
QuoteDrawing conclusions from the Standford Prison Experiment are extremely sketchy at best. If your scientific rigor could maintain an erection you'd know that you can't just go putting yourself DIRECTLY INTO your experiments IN A BIG WAY without making your results softer than your mom's anal canal.
Back when the
Stanford Prison experiment took place, it was common for the experimenter to put him or herself in the experiment. This was not unique to psychology. It seems sketchy by today's standards, but even medical experimentation didn't recognize experimenter bias until the late 60s. YOUR MOM!
And social psychology is just one branch of psych. You're judging a very large field based on your opinions about one experiment - I'm just trying to clarify for you so next time you're talking out your ass you don't sound so uninformed. SHNAPAPAPAPP
:lulz:
all in good fun,
Prof Cram
Zimbardo's Prison Experiment took place in '71 though. Dude was still riding the wrong motorcycle well after experimenter bias was accepted as science herpes. And of all the people to know, a Psychologist should have been one of the first to wear protection.
Also, I was making a flippant comment. I know you guys do some good work. (http://blueballaction.ytmnd.com/)
Avast ye got me there - you're right, it was '71. :p
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 26, 2007, 06:12:25 PM
goddamn.
Can we get away from semantics for a moment and just fucking agree that bigotry is bad?
Theres more than black and white, just saying.
its bad? for whom? i dont mind bigots, they are fun, and if they are not, leave them alone, or try to "help" them.
And bigotry is NOT a bad thing if you are the bigot. You can lead a happy life in lies (maybe even happier than a life in truths) and there is no bad thing about it. The bad thing is if a wannabe help-everyone-cause-what-i-believe-in-is-the-truth comes around and confronts you with "the truth".
'nough said
Quote from: Discord on August 02, 2007, 02:00:44 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 26, 2007, 06:12:25 PM
goddamn.
Can we get away from semantics for a moment and just fucking agree that bigotry is bad?
Theres more than black and white, just saying.
its bad? for whom? i dont mind bigots, they are fun, and if they are not, leave them alone, or try to "help" them.
And bigotry is NOT a bad thing if you are the bigot. You can lead a happy life in lies (maybe even happier than a life in truths) and there is no bad thing about it. The bad thing is if a wannabe help-everyone-cause-what-i-believe-in-is-the-truth comes around and confronts you with "the truth".
'nough said
And this is the semantic bullshit I'm talking about. I'm all for shades of grey, but sometimes you just gotta lay those walls to make sense of anything.
I hear where you're coming from here, I really do.
And I'll agree that individuals often need their "good" and "bad" to be in definite places. But I won't agree that these are universal truths or anything.
Even when we all agree on something (old men loving little boys is badwrong), the exact location of black and white is fuzzy around the edges. (like what about an ancient greek painting depicting the love between a man and a young boy?)
Most of our values are transient things which are related mostly to culture and in part to survival. The cultural stuff will slowly change. Kids in the year 9000 may realize that bigotry is necessary to preserve their dying culture because everyone else is a psycho mutant.
There are also things (like murder) which sound badwrong to everyone, but there may be situations where they are right.
I think you were originally trying to dodge a semantic argument about this stuff, but if you're trying to prevent Behavior X, I think it's necessary to make sure Behavior X is actually something you want to prevent. 95% of the time we'll all agree that it's good to prevent bigotry, but you are talking to Discordians here - many of whom are excellent devil's advocates.
Yes, I was trying to dogde a semantic arguement. Because I'm fucking tired of arguing about semantics. Semantics is all we argue about here, and thats why we seldom do anything practical.
Depends on how you define practical. j/k :wink:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 02, 2007, 09:36:28 PM
Depends on how you define practical. j/k :wink:
Yeah, because as fun as BIP, GSP, and the shrapnel projects are, really it all just turns out as mental masturbation for me. And I can do that on my own, without interaction with other people. As corny as it may sound, I want to do stuff to help the people who are close to me. If I can do that, maybe I can help other people, but for right now, I'm just trying to figure this out. And I thought that maybe other people here could help with that.
Could you reframe this discussion? I'm having trouble following what we're even discussing.
Yes you want to help them, but did you ever think if they WANT your help?
All your writing sounds to me as if you trample in the lifes of other person and try to teach them "wrong" and "right" (or at least what you think is wrong or right).
Bigotry or most mental "diseases" do not actually harm the person (in most cases) so why help them, if they dont ASK for it?
If they are happy with their BiP leave them alone.
:argh!: :argh!: :argh!:
Fine, I'll restate the premise.
There are many people on this planet that have some sort of psychological trauma in their pasts. For some reason, a large precentage of these people have some sort of bigotry, be it relism, racism, homophobia, or some other discrimination. I was reminded of some of the people at MW, and from these Harry Benjamin Syndrome people, and this seemed to be very true. Furthermore it was apparent that many people with trauma who were oppressed go on to oppress others.
I was also confronted with the fact that there are many people who do not follow this path post trauma. This indicates to me that there is something about what happened post trauma which was different between the two.
Thus I asked the first question.
For the moment, lets assume that bigotry is a "bad thing". Okay, can we do that? For just a moment at least?
If such is a bad thing, and the first question is posed, what answers can you give me that would be possible?
One of the general answers I recieved was the environment of the person post-trauma. Okay then,
I posed the second questions.
is that good enough of a summary? Or shall I ask that this thread be locked, because I am not semantically inclined enough?
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on August 02, 2007, 09:32:47 PM
Yes, I was trying to dogde a semantic arguement. Because I'm fucking tired of arguing about semantics. Semantics is all we argue about here, and thats why we seldom do anything practical.
If you aren't willing to discuss semantics in graphic detail, you're missing out on a rich world of understanding. You may think you have made your message clear but the meaning of your language resides in the response you receive from it, regardless of your intent.
As a student of science I'd think you would understand the importance of specificity, operational terms, and debate in getting closer to the truth of a matter.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on August 03, 2007, 01:35:21 AM
:argh!: :argh!: :argh!:
Fine, I'll restate the premise.
There are many people on this planet that have some sort of psychological trauma in their pasts. For some reason, a large precentage of these people have some sort of bigotry, be it relism, racism, homophobia, or some other discrimination. I was reminded of some of the people at MW, and from these Harry Benjamin Syndrome people, and this seemed to be very true. Furthermore it was apparent that many people with trauma who were oppressed go on to oppress others.
I was also confronted with the fact that there are many people who do not follow this path post trauma. This indicates to me that there is something about what happened post trauma which was different between the two.
Thus I asked the first question.
For the moment, lets assume that bigotry is a "bad thing". Okay, can we do that? For just a moment at least?
If such is a bad thing, and the first question is posed, what answers can you give me that would be possible?
One of the general answers I recieved was the environment of the person post-trauma. Okay then,
I posed the second questions.
is that good enough of a summary? Or shall I ask that this thread be locked, because I am not semantically inclined enough?
Because a psychological trauma preceded discriminatory beliefs does not establish a connection,Äîthis is the post hoc fallacy.
Could assuming bigotry to be simply a bad thing prevent you from understanding ways to prevent it? Shouldn't bigotry confer some benefits to the bigot if they are to continue with their beliefs and behaviors?
Fine, whatever. You're right, I'm shit, whatever.
This thread can die for all I care.
hey hey hey chill out
ok i will try as well, cause i started the thread, and i think i have an idea where BMW is trying to go with this.
Net said:
> Because a psychological trauma preceded discriminatory beliefs does not establish a
> connection—this is the post hoc fallacy.
yes this is true. not always does trauma cause bigotry.
IMO there is a connection, however. some correlation, at least, i assume this to be, because it seems to me more plausible than not.
and if you want to argue about whether this is actually the case or not, that's fine but it's also kinda threadjacking because that way we'll never get to the thing we set out to discuss.
i would call it myself not bigotry (also because i'm not really familiar with the term) but more a certain amount of anti-social fucked-up-ness, kind of thing.
basically, i would call it "psychological trauma", because that's what it is.
but the healing process can roughly go in two ways, you can heal and have a few dents but be a reasonable person, or you can heal and end up with still some sort of twist in your head, something that causes an irrational hate towards certain people, situations or behaviour.
let's compare it to having a bunch of tangled up rope, you pull both ends and you can end up with a straight piece of rope, or it will have one or more knots in it.
ok then comes the question of what is a reasonable person cause that's a very vague term, and what is good and what is bad.
well, to be honest i'm not really interested in discussing that, so let's leave the "what is reasonable" question apart for a while, because in my opinion, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to simply assume that "having a twist in your head causing irrational hate" is an undesirable thing? i'll stress the word "irrational" just to be sure that nobody tries to have a go at it from the "but hate is a good thing" angle (which is bullshit IMO but that's for another thread).
ok so far yes?
cause that leaves us with this:
person gets psychological trauma, which changes their personality somehow, and this change has a fair chance of ending up with a certain type of undesirable quality.
and now we come to the real question
(hey BMW, btw i'm kinda starting to understand this is pretty much of a long stretch of assumptions and premises we're asking people on a discordian board to simply agree with, before getting to the question)
the question: what aspects of the healing process can we identify that cause or prevent (within certain margins of error) these undesirable changes in personality?
and if the answer to that is "environment", then the follow-up question is: what aspects and qualities does an environment need in order to promote healthy healing in this context?
well i hope i wrote it down clearly this time.
otherwise i give up as well.
Yeah, you said it right, you got it right. But theres no use in trying to talk about it here.
stop with the negativity!
go to the happy environment
OR ELSE
you might turn into a bigot.
and that, yeah, that would really complicate things. (think of the children!)
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on August 03, 2007, 05:59:51 PM
Yeah, you said it right, you got it right. But theres no use in trying to talk about it here.
This thread seemed pretty interesting to me... not because of solving bigotry, but because I love to watch Discordians struggle between seriousness, silliness, Isness and maybes.
As to your original theme, I am not yet convinced that trauma causes bigotry. I would love to see more discussion of this concept. As far as I've been able to tell, Trauma can break existing programs and leave the person vulnerable to new programs. For example, a number of completely sane individuals (pre 9/11) voted Bush into office (post 9/11) because they had imprinted Muslim = Bad. Maybe this example fits your OP.
The down side (if it does fit), is that I'm not sure how we would work against this or stop it. Obviously it would be nice if our brains accepted e' and we imprinted "Some Muslims fly planes into buildings", but as you and so many other point out... e' is not a natural form of communication.
However, I don't think that this method is the source of most of our Bigoted brethren. The town I grew up in was full of bigots, because they were born and raised around bigots, not because of any sort of trauma. On the other hand, lots of people go through trauma (even if we use the 9/11 example) and never have issue with bigotry. This may indicate that the individuals past programming may have a heavy influence on their post-trauma imprint. Any concept of bigotry was beaten out of my head at an early age... that probably explains why 9/11 didn't affect me in the same way that it affected a close friend of mine (ick).
So, perhaps bigotry is a possible imprint based on multiple forms of causal feedback. Feedback from existing programs/memes, feedback from our social/tribal group, feedback from our environment and maybe more.
ok, so there's my start of contribution to the thread... let's discuss :)
yeah that's basically the thing.
psychological trauma creates a new opening/void (perhaps kind of childlike?) at least an opportunity for new imprints.
and even if these imprints would be random, one of the possibilities would be bigotry.
(some sort of) enlightenment could also happen. (in fact there are also numerous stories supporting that)
the question is, what kind of factors steer someone into one direction or the other?
Quote from: triple zero on August 03, 2007, 08:51:04 PM
yeah that's basically the thing.
psychological trauma creates a new opening/void (perhaps kind of childlike?) at least an opportunity for new imprints.
and even if these imprints would be random, one of the possibilities would be bigotry.
(some sort of) enlightenment could also happen. (in fact there are also numerous stories supporting that)
the question is, what kind of factors steer someone into one direction or the other?
Thank you. Thats the real question. Thank you for putting it in a way I couldn't articulate.
As I said before, this whole thing reminded me of brainwashing, because the process is very similar. When trauma occurs it opens a void which can be filled. How this space fills up and what memes it grabs onto seems to be a nature of the persons environment. Thus, what environments will steer a person in one direction or another, as Zero said, and what sorts of things can we do to aid this happening.
and yes, Rastock, that 9/11 example is perfect. And one that I have witnessed.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on August 03, 2007, 09:35:40 PM
Quote from: triple zero on August 03, 2007, 08:51:04 PM
yeah that's basically the thing.
psychological trauma creates a new opening/void (perhaps kind of childlike?) at least an opportunity for new imprints.
and even if these imprints would be random, one of the possibilities would be bigotry.
(some sort of) enlightenment could also happen. (in fact there are also numerous stories supporting that)
the question is, what kind of factors steer someone into one direction or the other?
Thank you. Thats the real question. Thank you for putting it in a way I couldn't articulate.
As I said before, this whole thing reminded me of brainwashing, because the process is very similar. When trauma occurs it opens a void which can be filled. How this space fills up and what memes it grabs onto seems to be a nature of the persons environment. Thus, what environments will steer a person in one direction or another, as Zero said, and what sorts of things can we do to aid this happening.
and yes, Rastock, that 9/11 example is perfect. And one that I have witnessed.
Have you read Prometheus Rising? Bob goes into some serious detail on this topic. While it does seem that many of these concepts work in brainwashing (and hell, we brainwash every child to fit our society) with some degree of control and success... Trauma seems a much less controllable event. One example Bob used in PR was that of a construction worker that was almost hit by a falling steel girder. It hit the ground just inches from him and immediately after, he walked away forgetting his job, his family... all of it gone. Not because he grabbed on to a new meme, just that his programming was FUBAR. In other instances, one I think was goose pate which caused several people to go to the hospital, the resulting program directly correlated with the event (those people could no longer eat goose pate without getting ill).
In the 9/11 example, for some it may have been a single news report, or a single sound byte, or their friends at the bar, or their coworkers comments (any of whom could have been bigots through old fashioned tribal programming).
Maybe there is something that could be done to stop bigotry from being an option, but right now, from my perspective, that seems rather difficult to even consider without monumental social changes (and even then there would be no guarantee).
Do you have any ideas that you think would help?
You have to remember, I'm thinking about this on a very localized level. As in one person, or a small group of people. I don't think there is any far reaching answer. The only area I think such things are possible are the people close to you.
well, i think you can effect "monumental social changes" on a very localized level with a littlebit of effort :)
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on August 03, 2007, 09:49:50 PM
You have to remember, I'm thinking about this on a very localized level. As in one person, or a small group of people. I don't think there is any far reaching answer. The only area I think such things are possible are the people close to you.
Ah, I follow.
Not sure what ideas may poke out at me, but let me grind it a bit ;-)
If you fill the void of the same people with the same meme, they still would act differently, based on their personality, experiences and so on.
If the guys you want to "help" are close friends of yours you might have a good chance, because you know them, personality, past etc
If not i think its absolutly necesseray to get to know that. If you know WHY they became the way they are now (fex why they started to hate blacks) then you're half way.
But keep in mind "helping" them is nohting other than mindfucking and brainwashing them back to be a "good member of society".
Meh. I got an answer from Cain last night. Turns out any answers to these questions are banal and obvious, which is why no one asks.
Actually, I said all the ones we could figure out would be banal and onvious. For example "a loving and supportive family". However, in what sense is a loving and supprotive family a help? What is the "essence" of that support which can help the trauma be a neutral or better life changing experience?
I don't know. Does anyone else know
Perhaps the nature of the support being led by an intrinsic value for the member rather than an extrinsic one (intrinsic being support for who you are and want to be, rather that extrinsic, support for who they think you are and who they want you to be)?
Quote from: Discord on August 02, 2007, 10:41:57 PM
Yes you want to help them, but did you ever think if they WANT your help?
All your writing sounds to me as if you trample in the lifes of other person and try to teach them "wrong" and "right" (or at least what you think is wrong or right).
Bigotry or most mental "diseases" do not actually harm the person (in most cases) so why help them, if they dont ASK for it?
If they are happy with their BiP leave them alone.
You seem to be happy with yours.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on August 03, 2007, 12:56:54 PM
Fine, whatever. You're right, I'm shit, whatever.
This thread can die for all I care.
Stop letting Discord get under your skin. He's just mad because we make fun of him for being a furry.
I one knew a girl who was openly racist and when confronted about it would say plainly that she was once raped by a couple of "darkies" and that caused her racism. I've no idea if this story was really true (there was a lot of evidence that she wasn't a very reliable person, to say the least) and even if it was, somehow it seems strange that she was able to coldly point out this cause to her bigotry. I find it more believable that she had her racist views before this event (assuming it happened) and she was just using the trauma as an excuse, since she knew it would incite sympathy for her. And of course it somehow works as an argument for her views, if you're sufficiently narrow-minded.
Just trying to complicate the question, is all. You don't have to thank me.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 05, 2007, 10:49:14 PM
Quote from: Discord on August 02, 2007, 10:41:57 PM
Yes you want to help them, but did you ever think if they WANT your help?
All your writing sounds to me as if you trample in the lifes of other person and try to teach them "wrong" and "right" (or at least what you think is wrong or right).
Bigotry or most mental "diseases" do not actually harm the person (in most cases) so why help them, if they dont ASK for it?
If they are happy with their BiP leave them alone.
You seem to be happy with yours.
kind of yes.
as long as i can see the bars im happy. Simply because if i can see the bars i know where to work on.
And of course, i need a girl with cat ears and a tail, maybe some claws too.
Quote from: Discord on August 06, 2007, 01:16:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 05, 2007, 10:49:14 PM
Quote from: Discord on August 02, 2007, 10:41:57 PM
Yes you want to help them, but did you ever think if they WANT your help?
All your writing sounds to me as if you trample in the lifes of other person and try to teach them "wrong" and "right" (or at least what you think is wrong or right).
Bigotry or most mental "diseases" do not actually harm the person (in most cases) so why help them, if they dont ASK for it?
If they are happy with their BiP leave them alone.
You seem to be happy with yours.
kind of yes.
as long as i can see the bars im happy. Simply because if i can see the bars i know where to work on.
And of course, i need a girl with cat ears and a tail, maybe some claws too.
Yeah, because obviously nothing matters, even being an asshole to lots of other people, as long as YOU are happy.
Right...
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on August 06, 2007, 06:14:14 PM
Yeah, because obviously nothing matters, even being an asshole to lots of other people, as long as YOU are happy.
Right...
Maybe.
It seems to me that we don't know if anything exists beyond our life right now. We may have a soul that continues on and gets promoted, punished, recycled or whatever. We may not have a soul and when we die, that might be it; Dead, dirt and disintegration. It seems a safe bet to assume that we get to go around once, and if (by happy coincidence) there's more... well goody.
So then, when we live this one life that (by all appearances) we have, must we live it altruistically? Must we live it as a martyr? Must we sacrifice our drive for happiness so that we can help others? Or is that just one option? So much of our thought process in this day and age seems to be around "doing for others". Yet, I haven't seen any proof that this lifestyle does much for the person living it (except make them feel good, if they're programmed to feel good when being altruistic).
I have lived the altruistic/martyr lifestyle and in retrospect, it reminds me of the fable of the man, his boy and their donkey. In trying to do for others, in trying to make others happy, the man ended up making no one happy and losing his donkey in the process. So, currently, I'm not living an altruistic lifestyle. I still do altruistic things, when I find it appropriate/useful or what I want to do... but well... I'm not sure that anything other than individual happiness, including being a jerk to others (or letting others be jerks to each other) really matters.
Maybe the world would be better off without bigots. I think that's probably a good assumption. However, that does not necessarily make it a requirement for me (or anyone else on this or any other forum) to care or to try to stop people from acting stupid.
As far as I can tell, what matters is living life now, in a way that seems most useful to the person living that life. If that means altruism, then fine, if it means personal focus, then O.K., if it means bouncing between different positions, based on which side of the bed you woke up on, or which number you got when you rolled a dice... then that seems no more or less valid than the other options to me.
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 06, 2007, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on August 06, 2007, 06:14:14 PM
Yeah, because obviously nothing matters, even being an asshole to lots of other people, as long as YOU are happy.
Right...
Maybe.
It seems to me that we don't know if anything exists beyond our life right now. We may have a soul that continues on and gets promoted, punished, recycled or whatever. We may not have a soul and when we die, that might be it; Dead, dirt and disintegration. It seems a safe bet to assume that we get to go around once, and if (by happy coincidence) there's more... well goody.
So then, when we live this one life that (by all appearances) we have, must we live it altruistically? Must we live it as a martyr? Must we sacrifice our drive for happiness so that we can help others? Or is that just one option? So much of our thought process in this day and age seems to be around "doing for others". Yet, I haven't seen any proof that this lifestyle does much for the person living it (except make them feel good, if they're programmed to feel good when being altruistic).
I have lived the altruistic/martyr lifestyle and in retrospect, it reminds me of the fable of the man, his boy and their donkey. In trying to do for others, in trying to make others happy, the man ended up making no one happy and losing his donkey in the process. So, currently, I'm not living an altruistic lifestyle. I still do altruistic things, when I find it appropriate/useful or what I want to do... but well... I'm not sure that anything other than individual happiness, including being a jerk to others (or letting others be jerks to each other) really matters.
Maybe the world would be better off without bigots. I think that's probably a good assumption. However, that does not necessarily make it a requirement for me (or anyone else on this or any other forum) to care or to try to stop people from acting stupid.
As far as I can tell, what matters is living life now, in a way that seems most useful to the person living that life. If that means altruism, then fine, if it means personal focus, then O.K., if it means bouncing between different positions, based on which side of the bed you woke up on, or which number you got when you rolled a dice... then that seems no more or less valid than the other options to me.
Bigots are people who are assholes to other people just because the other people are different than their stupid ideas of what is acceptable.
Are you telling me that you think thats okay? If you are, then your just another fucking solipsistic asshole.
I am so fucking tired of the "nothing is true, everything is permittable" schtick.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on August 06, 2007, 09:48:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 06, 2007, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on August 06, 2007, 06:14:14 PM
Yeah, because obviously nothing matters, even being an asshole to lots of other people, as long as YOU are happy.
Right...
Maybe.
It seems to me that we don't know if anything exists beyond our life right now. We may have a soul that continues on and gets promoted, punished, recycled or whatever. We may not have a soul and when we die, that might be it; Dead, dirt and disintegration. It seems a safe bet to assume that we get to go around once, and if (by happy coincidence) there's more... well goody.
So then, when we live this one life that (by all appearances) we have, must we live it altruistically? Must we live it as a martyr? Must we sacrifice our drive for happiness so that we can help others? Or is that just one option? So much of our thought process in this day and age seems to be around "doing for others". Yet, I haven't seen any proof that this lifestyle does much for the person living it (except make them feel good, if they're programmed to feel good when being altruistic).
I have lived the altruistic/martyr lifestyle and in retrospect, it reminds me of the fable of the man, his boy and their donkey. In trying to do for others, in trying to make others happy, the man ended up making no one happy and losing his donkey in the process. So, currently, I'm not living an altruistic lifestyle. I still do altruistic things, when I find it appropriate/useful or what I want to do... but well... I'm not sure that anything other than individual happiness, including being a jerk to others (or letting others be jerks to each other) really matters.
Maybe the world would be better off without bigots. I think that's probably a good assumption. However, that does not necessarily make it a requirement for me (or anyone else on this or any other forum) to care or to try to stop people from acting stupid.
As far as I can tell, what matters is living life now, in a way that seems most useful to the person living that life. If that means altruism, then fine, if it means personal focus, then O.K., if it means bouncing between different positions, based on which side of the bed you woke up on, or which number you got when you rolled a dice... then that seems no more or less valid than the other options to me.
Bigots are people who are assholes to other people just because the other people are different than their stupid ideas of what is acceptable.
Are you telling me that you think thats okay? If you are, then your just another fucking solipsistic asshole.
I am so fucking tired of the "nothing is true, everything is permittable" schtick.
Read what I wrote, not what you read ;-)
<i>Bigots are people who are assholes to other people just because the other people are different than their stupid ideas of what is acceptable.</i>
Agreed.
<i>Are you telling me that you think thats okay?</i>
No, I'm not saying that I think its ok. Nowhere did I say "It's OK to be a bigot." Discord didn't say "Yay bigotry is fun". He said that it wasn't necessarily his job to fix it. He seems to be happy to focus on his own BiP, not someone elses. Based on your response, you seem to think that there's some requirement to life beyond being happy:
Yeah, because obviously nothing matters, even being an asshole to lots of other people, as long as YOU are happy. Right...Maybe there is, but I have yet to see evidence that such a position is true in any sense.
My point is not that I think its OK to be a bigot... my point is that I don't care if some asshole is a bigot. He isn't my problem, he isn't my responsibility, he isn't my job, nor is he my burden. If Discord prefers to spend his life focused on himself and getting out of his BiP, good for him, if he's happy on top of that then Double Bully, he's doing better than most of the monkeys on this goddess forsaken rock. If you choose to spend your life combating bigots and their BiP, then good for you, if that makes you happy on top of that then Double Bully, you're doing better than most of the monkeys on this goddess forsaken rock.
And if I prefer to enjoy myself, my life (whatever may be left of it), my friends and poking at the minds I choose to poke at then good for me and if it makes me happy, well I'll assume I'm doing ok. You see the sins of the other monkeys aren't my sins. The flaws of the other monkeys aren't my flaws... if I choose to involve myself, then I shall and if not... well who are you to say that personal happiness is somehow less of a life?
Okay, you wanna play that game? Just wait until the bigots come after YOU.
And by The Good Reverend's herecies, I don't see it being too long before that happens.
Me, I'm gonna try to be a little less reactionary. Perhaps you think my ideas are total altruism, that may be so. But I do see a trend in the past, that when people don't speak up, soon enough they are pursued themselves, and then they don't have a voice to speak with.
I'm also 'bout tired of this BIP metaphore.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on August 07, 2007, 01:49:56 AM
Okay, you wanna play that game? Just wait until the bigots come after YOU.
Not to be cliche' but the bigots were after me for most of my life. I've been chased away from farmyards with corn cutters, pushed down stairs and I have scars on my face from a dobermen that apparently didn't appreciate the Word of the Lord... particularly not after his owner cut him loose on me and another teenager. I've been spit on, called names, beat up and once had a gun fired at me.
Quote
Me, I'm gonna try to be a little less reactionary. Perhaps you think my ideas are total altruism, that may be so. But I do see a trend in the past, that when people don't speak up, soon enough they are pursued themselves, and then they don't have a voice to speak with.
Everyone has a voice to speak with, you should use your voice if that's what you want to do. I'm not trying to judge your altruism or reaction or views. I'm only questioning the wisdom of judging the lack of altruism, reaction or views of other people.
Quote
I'm also 'bout tired of this BIP metaphore.
Every metaphor is a prison... in some sense :wink:
Quote<i>Bigots are people who are assholes to other people just because the other people are different than their stupid ideas of what is acceptable.</i>
Agreed.
<i>Are you telling me that you think thats okay?</i>
No, I'm not saying that I think its ok. Nowhere did I say "It's OK to be a bigot." Discord didn't say "Yay bigotry is fun". He said that it wasn't necessarily his job to fix it. He seems to be happy to focus on his own BiP, not someone elses. Based on your response, you seem to think that there's some requirement to life beyond being happy: Yeah, because obviously nothing matters, even being an asshole to lots of other people, as long as YOU are happy. Right...
Maybe there is, but I have yet to see evidence that such a position is true in any sense.
My point is not that I think its OK to be a bigot... my point is that I don't care if some asshole is a bigot. He isn't my problem, he isn't my responsibility, he isn't my job, nor is he my burden. If Discord prefers to spend his life focused on himself and getting out of his BiP, good for him, if he's happy on top of that then Double Bully, he's doing better than most of the monkeys on this goddess forsaken rock. If you choose to spend your life combating bigots and their BiP, then good for you, if that makes you happy on top of that then Double Bully, you're doing better than most of the monkeys on this goddess forsaken rock.
And if I prefer to enjoy myself, my life (whatever may be left of it), my friends and poking at the minds I choose to poke at then good for me and if it makes me happy, well I'll assume I'm doing ok. You see the sins of the other monkeys aren't my sins. The flaws of the other monkeys aren't my flaws... if I choose to involve myself, then I shall and if not... well who are you to say that personal happiness is somehow less of a life?
I can agree on most of that, and i simply thought of your approach kind of wrong. Even if we agree that bigotry is bad, you can't just trample in someones life trying to make him happy or healthy in the way the words exist in your BiP.
If I understood you correctly, you want to HELP, meaning, to bring more positivity in someones life. If thats true, see above.
If you simply want to change people its fine, but you should keepp in mind that you might destroy their lifes if you take away their bigotry.
Best example are Goths. No Goth would appreciate it if you dance into their life trying to make them "happy". Although "happy" is for most people very positiv.
Whether it's Right or Wrong or Whatever to "help" a bigot out of bigotry is an ethical question and therefore a bit irrelevant to the initial question, I'd say...
Anyway, it seems pretty one-sided to say that "helping" a bigot is all about bringing happiness into their life. A bigot might be a very happy person, if he's in an environment where that works. E.g. he lives in a stable society where his brand of bigotry is the norm. But if a bigoted person is likely to hurt others, there's at least one reason to try to cure him. Being an asshole unto others is not a human right.
Also, bigotry is, by definition, a distortion of your view of your surroundings, which probably means that you're less likely to make good choices based on your perception. That should be a handicap when it comes to looking for "happiness". In general, that is.
Quote from: nurbldoff on August 10, 2007, 10:52:30 PM
Also, bigotry is, by definition, a distortion of your view of your surroundings
What?
Who says that?
Who tells you that YOUR view of the surroundings is right and not theirs? Will an elephant be red just beacuse the majority of people claim he's red?
I call Bullshit.
Quote from: Discord on August 11, 2007, 08:49:19 AM
Quote from: nurbldoff on August 10, 2007, 10:52:30 PM
Also, bigotry is, by definition, a distortion of your view of your surroundings
What?
Who says that?
Who tells you that YOUR view of the surroundings is right and not theirs? Will an elephant be red just beacuse the majority of people claim he's red?
I call Bullshit.
Your analogy doesn't hold up.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+bigot&meta=
I call bullshit. Learn how to structure an argument based on agreed terms and what someone says, instead of what you think they should have said.
And who do you think made up that definition?
Someone who thought exactly this:
QuoteWho tells you that YOUR view of the surroundings is right and not theirs? Will an elephant be red just beacuse the majority of people claim he's red?
O noes because some piece of paper says bigots are distorted I have to agree with it?
What about the think for yourself thing than?
Quote from: Cain on August 11, 2007, 02:46:40 PM
I call bullshit. Learn how to structure an argument based on agreed terms and what someone says, instead of what you think they should have said.
That definitly is right, im taking this to far.
The definition comes from its usage. That's the way language works, but since you seem incapable of using language along with the rest of us, I see no reason for anyone to bother continuing to discuss this with you.
Quote from: Cain on August 11, 2007, 03:21:03 PM
The definition comes from its usage. That's the way language works, but since you seem incapable of using language along with the rest of us, I see no reason for anyone to bother continuing to discuss this with you.
Meh. I dropped this thread because of this kind of thing. Some people here seem to be incapable of going beyond the PD's destruction of reality to actually talk about something. They get stuck at semantics for semantics sake.
Welcome to the decline of western philosophy.
Quote from: Cain on August 12, 2007, 03:36:08 PM
Welcome to the decline of western philosophy.
There are still people out there which are willing. Here was not such a place though.
You'd be surprised. Since postmodernism, 90% of philosophy has been semantics. It is really quite depressing.
Quote from: Cain on August 12, 2007, 10:26:48 PM
You'd be surprised. Since postmodernism, 90% of philosophy has been semantics. It is really quite depressing.
Thats sad.
I think ranting is the new philosophical dissertation though.
Cain, I always felt that philosophy was almost always about semantic, just not explicitly.
I can remember several "pre-postmordern" philosophy texts that begin with chapters dedicated to their terms. "When I say 'mind' I mean the Thinker who Thinks about Thinking", and all that.
After they define their terms, then then have a simple statement, like, "The mind is a social construct". But it took most of the text to define what they meant by "mind", "social", and "construct".
Then you've been reading the wrong philosophy texts. Clarifying your terms is not the same as a circle jerk over the meaning of words. I never remember Hume descending into a muddled pile of piss over the meaning of the word "God", for example. Still made the Church saints look like idiots though.
Quote from: Cain on August 13, 2007, 11:04:40 PM
Then you've been reading the wrong philosophy texts. Clarifying your terms is not the same as a circle jerk over the meaning of words. I never remember Hume descending into a muddled pile of piss over the meaning of the word "God", for example. Still made the Church saints look like idiots though.
Any philosophy can be considered as a circle jerk of words. The real difference appears, at least in part, in how good they are at the jerking, and how much their audience likes their style of jerking.
Visual aid please
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on August 13, 2007, 11:26:01 PM
Visual aid please
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=13435.0
well, i guess that'll be the last time for a while before i'm gonna try and start up some discussion again.
assholes.
Quote from: triple zero on August 22, 2007, 10:34:07 AM
well, i guess that'll be the last time for a while before i'm gonna try and start up some discussion again.
assholes.
Agreed.
Quote from: triple zero on August 22, 2007, 10:34:07 AM
well, i guess that'll be the last time for a while before i'm gonna try and start up some discussion again.
assholes.
I'm still not sure where anyone expected this discussion to go...
Especially with a title like "Difficult Choices!".
Asshole :lulz:
Dumbass.
and a furry.