Difficult Choices!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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...

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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, and Solomon Asch's work 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:


IT'S SO REFRESHING!

[Cramulus]

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.

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!

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.

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


all in good fun,


Prof Cram

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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.

[Cramulus]

Avast ye got me there - you're right, it was '71. 

[Discord]

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

[B_M_W]

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.

[Cramulus]

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.

[B_M_W]

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.

[AFK]

Depends on how you define practical.  j/k 

[B_M_W]

Depends on how you define practical.  j/k 

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.

[Cramulus]

Could you reframe this discussion? I'm having trouble following what we're even discussing.

[Discord]

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.

[B_M_W]

 

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?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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.

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?