Transgender Problem

[Wu Ming Jen]

There is no problem, those that have a problem is the source of all issues. Mind over matter if you do not mind it does not matter.

[cold]

My definition of respect includes avoiding a snarling barking dog, giving it space and distance (but discrete attention at a minimum ) it may be on guard, it may have been abused. Some discrimination is in order. 

 

No other action up to or until it directly threatens my or another's safety,at which point may I act.

 

As of course one rights end where the others begin.

 

But why add to anxiety if it can be avoided?

Edited May 7, 2016 by cold

[liminal_luke]

I haven´t done researched any studies or performed any statistical analysis, but, in the great Daobums tradition, I won´t let that stop me from putting forward some opinions.

 

(1) Most seriously religious people aren´t violent.

(2) Most violent people aren´t seriously religious.

(3) My-religion-made-me-do-it is a time-honored excuse.

Edited May 7, 2016 by liminal_luke

[Karl]

I hope we can try to worry less over precise definitions and get to what's really concerning us. The meanings, rather than the words themselves.

 

You object to racism. Cool, me too.

 

You have already said that a person should be free to send another person out of his place of business if he so chooses; that if we force people to accept everyone, not allowing them to choose who they allow in their shop, we are impinging on their liberty, right?

 

How do you reconcile these things?

 

If a black man sends a white man out of his shop based on the fact that he is white, do you object?

 

And if a 'Christian' man sends a transgender man out based on the fact that he is transgender, do you object?

 

I, for one, if I owned a shop, would like the legal right to be able to throw anyone out I so chose. If I decided that I hated brown people, or women, or carpenters, or simply didn't like the look of a particular individual, I would want the legal right to be able to say "Get out, you are not welcome."

 

But I would not expect this right. I do not expect that anyone be thrown out of a place of business, or anywhere else that is open to the public, on the whim of the owner, unless that person can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be a threat.

 

If the owner decides he doesn't want someone in there, there must be a reason. Unless he knows the other person, the reason is generally going to be based on some exterior marker. If it is 'race', we object. If it is transgenderism, why do we not object?

 

I don't object to anyone rejecting anyone else without any given reason. I wouldn't choose to give my custom to a shop that did so specifically because of gender, colour, sexual preferences, transvestism etc. Personally I would vote with my wallet. That's the best way of encouraging a shop owner that being a racist isn't profitable.

 

As long as it's a privately owned place it is the owner that must decide who he serves. That is his right and it's has been trampled on. However, that's the tip of the iceberg. Going back to the OP-this removal of rights is actually liberal racism.

 

I'm not racist, but I am unhappy with liberal racism that tramples on majority rights in favour of a minority. Racism doesn't go away by utilising reversed racism, in fact it makes more people begin to divide. It creates greater ill feeling amongst people that weren't racist to begin with and plays right into the hands of those that are. I sometimes wonder if this is a deliberate Government policy to cause friction.

[ralis]

I don't object to anyone rejecting anyone else without any given reason. I wouldn't choose to give my custom to a shop that did so specifically because of gender, colour, sexual preferences, transvestism etc. Personally I would vote with my wallet. That's the best way of encouraging a shop owner that being a racist isn't profitable. As long as it's a privately owned place it is the owner that must decide who he serves. That is his right and it's has been trampled on. However, that's the tip of the iceberg. Going back to the OP-this removal of rights is actually liberal racism. I'm not racist, but I am unhappy with liberal racism that tramples on majority rights in favour of a minority. Racism doesn't go away by utilising reversed racism, in fact it makes more people begin to divide. It creates greater ill feeling amongst people that weren't racist to begin with and plays right into the hands of those that are. I sometimes wonder if this is a deliberate Government policy to cause friction.

 

In our Constitution, there can be no tyranny of a majority over a minority and vice versa. The establishment of law in the 1960's to give voting rights and civil rights to African Americans was the right thing to do. Prior to that, African Americans were discriminated against, which has already been mentioned in a prior post. Moreover, I don't want the worn out libertarian argument presented here, that 'rights are inherent and no government can grant such rights'. If such rights are inherent, then why are many denied such rights by racist groups? BTW, I can cite myriad examples that have nothing to do with the government.

Edited May 8, 2016 by ralis

[dawei]

The law should prevent one person initiating force against another. As MLK made it clear, a law cannot end racism, it can only attempt to prevent the initiation of force. Justice should be blind and objective. If it forces one group to love another, then it is no longer objective or blind. It is therefore no longer just or lawful.

 

If you could see it, then you would know it. My wife isn't a philosopher, she has never read Rand, but she has her own philosophy and sense of justice. She says to treat and judge everyone as individuals, not by the colour of their skin, their race, creed, religion, sex or sexuality. It is neither right for a black majority to condemn a white minority, nor a white minority to condemn a black majority. This is two sides of the same racist tribalism.

 

 

The law should not speak to tribalism, it should only account for men's actions as unique individuals beyond any specific attributes-all men equal before the law and not the law to make all men equal.

 

 

For a daoist site, you're quite the legalist.    LZ would never espouse your ideas because he spoke to a best practice of dao arising... but he would not deny that when beautiful arises, so will ugly.  We must embrace the entire 10,000 or else we are the embodiment of racist... not law.

 

[Orion]

I read the article. The problem I have with the author's view is that he focuses too much on surgery vs. counseling, as if those are the only two options. I can't remember where I read it, so don't quote me, but less than 200 people in the U.S. had actual gender reassignment surgery last year. The number is small because the requirements to meet the qualifications are rigorous. Just because a person may want the surgery does not mean they get it.

 

And, news flash? Most pre-op trans people go through extensive psychotherapy before the therapists come to the conclusion that surgery really is the answer.

 

There's also the myriad of trans people who live as the opposite sex without surgery, they simply change clothing and appearance (most do this); there are some who do hormone replacement, which may or may not have temporary impacts, in order to get closer to living as the opposite sex. In fact, most pre-op trans people do hormone therapy before considering surgery so that they're 100% sure that surgery could be right.

 

I just find the article ignorant, and it presents a false dilemma. No surprise that it has connections to right-wing think tanks.

[Karl]

In our Constitution, there can be no tyranny of a majority over a minority and vice versa. The establishment of law in the 1960's to give voting rights and civil rights to African Americans was the right thing to do. Prior to that, African Americans were discriminated against, which has already been mentioned in a prior post. Moreover, I don't want the worn out libertarian argument presented here, that 'rights are inherent and no government can grant such rights'. If such rights are inherent, then why are many denied such rights by racist groups? BTW, I can cite myriad examples that have nothing to do with the government.

 

 

There will always be people denying others rights. Sometimes they do so without realising it and out of a sense of misplaced justice. I think most of what is done in the name of fairness isn't done maliciously, the problem is the philosophy is defunct and useless.

 

I'm reminded of the scene in idiocracy where the people are watering the soil with 'Brawndo' because 'it has what plants crave' and unfortunately it kills the plants. It's a funny scene and often used as a perjorative, but it's quite poignant-the people aren't putting the liquid on the plants because they believe they are doing harm, they are well intentioned. The girl who is horrified that toilet water might be used is voicing real concern in a very comedic way. We look on it as crazy, stupid people without necessarily holding a mirror up to our own beliefs which have, in the film, been exaggerated for comic effect. Some of what we do is just as crazy and we don't see it.

 

People aren't perfect, but that goes equally for governments, even the best intentioned will stoop to Brawdoising it's people out of a sense of 'doing the right thing'. Racists are unpleasant people. Racism is brutish, tribal thuggery with its feet firmly rooted in collectivist principles. All the socialist ideologues are participating in the same collectivism, most unknowingly-they cringe at 'toilet water' but can't see they are doing harm. They believe they are stamping out racism and creating equality, but they are doing the exact opposite. They are using small groups as weapons which will lead to the kind of outrages committed in other totalitarian regimes and they are completely blind to it.

[Karl]

For a daoist site, you're quite the legalist.    LZ would never espouse your ideas because he spoke to a best practice of dao arising... but he would not deny that when beautiful arises, so will ugly.  We must embrace the entire 10,000 or else we are the embodiment of racist... not law.

 

That's beyond me I'm afraid. It sounds like gobbledygook which I strongly suspect it is. No hear, no see, no speak and wait for God (or his equivalent) is the mental equivalent of putting your head in sand and praying for breath.

[Karl]

I only got through the first few pages of The Fountainhead, so I wouldn´t really know, though this explanation seems as good as any other. In case I sound like a spiteful free-speech killing politically-correct dolt, let me just say that I don´t think Karl is hateful. He´s just a champion of hater rights.

No, not really. It's more about recognition. I see the monkeys killing themselves and their solution is to install a gorilla as leader. First it's necessary to realise the nature of the human animal and that it is capable of reason and that it is only capable of that if it's mind/body are free to engage in it. It can reach the right reasoned conclusion without indulging in violence.

 

If you begin from the premise that humans are incapable of reason, then the solution will always be force, as force is the destroyer of reason then it becomes its own self fulfilling prophecy. You cannot stop violence until you stop violence. Therefore you must allow people to reason-even if that initial reasoning is faulty. As long as law provides objective justice, then we can avoid the typical damage resulting from irrationality in order that a degree of self correction happens. Think of it like little parenting children. They have to be allowed to make mistakes and occasionally they must be disciplined-well disciplining adults doesn't work, so we have a justice system to give balance.

 

We currently have a philosophy "that might makes right" but many on this forum believe that love makes right. They realise that violence begets violence. I believe something different. I believe that the ONLY thing man has going for him is his mind and his power to reason, that, no matter how fallible man is, he isn't incapable of being correct. I believe violence removes the power to reason by denying mans mind it's primacy- saying in effect, "you are incapable of reason and only act out of violence, therefore we will bash in your head until you act civilly".

 

Though I dispute 'love' is any kind of answer (emotion is currently the chosen method of state propaganda) I certainly don't accept violence as a solution. I don't see many here applying any principles of love to the issue we are discussing here. I see no Dao either. I submit that the answer is to promote reason, from reason peace will blossom and love along with it.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

I'm going to channel Rand again - that was pretty funny by the way Ralis made me laugh anyway. Well, it's not so much channel as to cut and paste. Worth reading I think.

 

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

 

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

 

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

 

 

A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race—and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin.

 

Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge—for an automatic evaluation of men’s characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment—and, above all, a quest for an automatic self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem).

 

Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary if demonstrated by a majority—but retrogression to a Balkan village, to an Indian tepee or to the jungle is hailed if demonstrated by a minority."

 

I mean here to apply 'racism' to any group be it LGBT or KKK.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Karl

[dust]

As long as it's a privately owned place it is the owner that must decide who he serves. That is his right and it's has been trampled on.

 

So you do think someone should be free to throw anyone out of their place of business, including on the basis of 'race' or any other perceived group trait? Not just transgender, but white/black/brown, male/female, left/right.

 

Well, I kind of agree. If a man owns a shop, and doesn't want white people in his shop, he shouldn't be forced to accept them. We shouldn't be forcing legislation in essentially private places like that. And in such a case, the person is only hurting their own business anyway by denying custom, so... fuck 'em. Such a business is unlikely to ever become widespread enough to make much difference.

 

Not to mention that the denied party should probably not be upset that they can't buy ice cream from a racist, and that anyone who disagrees with the policy can also deny the racist business custom.

 

 

I don't want the worn out libertarian argument presented here, that 'rights are inherent and no government can grant such rights'. If such rights are inherent, then why are many denied such rights by racist groups?

 

Not just groups of people. If the 'right to life' is inherent, we should be arresting the planet. The universe!

 

Earthquakes, floods, forest fires, ice ages... Nature has no respect for our right to life!

Edited May 8, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Karl]

The 'liberal racism' is what the OP was really about. It's about the liberals trying to promote small group agenda, much as any other kind of racism, but it masquerades as 'small is beautiful'.

 

As you say, if someone feels it necessary to act in a racist way in their business the fuck 'em. I certainly don't agree that sort of thinking, even if I accept the right to hold that view.

 

Good we got an agreement.

[dust]

Yeah I realized what you meant by "liberal racism" after reading the Rand quote above (and then I edited my comment). Not that I'm sure about calling it that (liberal racism)...but the general sense of the quote, I agree.

[ralis]

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/loretta-lynch-destroys-north-carolina-for-state-sponsored-discrimination-against-trans-people/

 

 

 

Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Monday accused the state of North Carolina of “state-sponsored discrimination against transgender individuals.”

Lynch said during a press conference the controversial “bathroom” law targeted transgender people who sought “to engage in the most private of functions in a place of safety and security, a right taken for granted by most of us.”

She also warned that the federal government could curtail federal funding for North Carolina if the state continued to enforce the law.

She noted that the Justice Department had sent a letter to North Carolina governor Pat McCrory, warning that the law violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. But “instead of replying, North Carolina and its governor chose to respond by suing, thus we are filing civil rights lawsuit against North Carolina,” Lynch said......

[Spotless]

Regarding political correctness - lets remember that it was "political correctness" that had everybody robotically following Bush Jr. into another completely unnecessary war. It was political correctness that had the media completely bow to the politically correct assumption that we should all get behind a nut case in our hour of turmoil (9/11) and completely disregard journalism. 

 

It was political correctness to regard anyone "not for our cause is against us (unpatriotic)" and so anyone with an eye for seeing was put asunder as joining with "the EVIL DOERS".

 

The large loud touchy dogs in the room have for a very long time now been the New Right - which is so far to the right of the old right as to make the old right look progressive and forward thinking.

 

Transitionary steps like it becoming uncool to use the N word and about a dozen other race related words against our southern brothers, Italian's, Irish and many others come and go. This is "good" political correctness - like we don't constantly refer to women as being "all a bit confused" or needing a bit of "backhanded motivation". Some parts of the USA are actually adopting these views again and openly tout them and use these terms and others that we have not see for about a century - they are in the Red States and primarily in the ruralish areas.

 

But the real touchy subjects involving political correctness have to do with the Gun Lobby and those great fans of Reagan that would like to / (and have) rewrite history - as though he was not a big spending mouthpiece of oil and military and up to his time the biggest spender in our history having outspent all previous presidents combined. As governor of California he was a big spender. An he was wishy washy - once a Democrat and then a Republican - married a "home wrecker" - yet the  New Right love those who never change - steadfast as dead wood - and sqeaky clean - unless of course it is actually one they have picked and then he / she can be all over the board - so odd that so many convicted criminals come out of Republican Presidencies.

 

I do not think John Clease in his interview regarding Political Correctness was referring to transitory political correctness - i think it was more along the lines of the Political Correctness of towing the line on the Right To Bare Arms, the political correctness of jumping on petty dictators like Saddam Huisien or for that matter putting them in charge and installing them as Reagan did - in fact it is Politically incorrect to walk all over Reagan - yet his presidency was one of the most disgusting and yet one of the most hidden and falsely enjoyed presidencies in a century. He set the precedence for massive spending and then pointing at the other guy. 

 

We have the political correctness of "the war on drugs" - thank god that wasted "effort" is finally ebbing a small bit - the political correctness of "Church is Gods House" and allowing child molesters safe haven for CENTURIES - thank god that has ebbed a bit though not enough, the political correctness that has allowed corporations to be viewed as People, and the political correctness that has allowed sales tax of nearly 10% in most states and gas tax that is about half the cost of gas - to the point that taxes have been shifted to the common person and the corporate "humans" now have nearly no burden. 

 

Not many of us are shy in and around progressives - they are often way to much in their heads to worry about them. The big mean bullies are those that have managed once again to control the airwaves and policy - we are at this time in the USA a fully owned Corporate Interest - but that is still politically incorrect - it is just too much for us American's to hear - because we think we own our minds and our mind loops - yet look at these very pages - some pretty sharp minds who are wholly owned and bottled.

[ralis]

Regarding political correctness - lets remember that it was "political correctness" that had everybody robotically following Bush Jr. into another completely unnecessary war. It was political correctness that had the media completely bow to the politically correct assumption that we should all get behind a nut case in our hour of turmoil (9/11) and completely disregard journalism. 

 

It was political correctness to regard anyone "not for our cause is against us (unpatriotic)" and so anyone with an eye for seeing was put asunder as joining with "the EVIL DOERS".

 

The large loud touchy dogs in the room have for a very long time now been the New Right - which is so far to the right of the old right as to make the old right look progressive and forward thinking.

 

Transitionary steps like it becoming uncool to use the N word and about a dozen other race related words against our southern brothers, Italian's, Irish and many others come and go. This is "good" political correctness - like we don't constantly refer to women as being "all a bit confused" or needing a bit of "backhanded motivation". Some parts of the USA are actually adopting these views again and openly tout them and use these terms and others that we have not see for about a century - they are in the Red States and primarily in the ruralish areas.

 

But the real touchy subjects involving political correctness have to do with the Gun Lobby and those great fans of Reagan that would like to / (and have) rewrite history - as though he was not a big spending mouthpiece of oil and military and up to his time the biggest spender in our history having outspent all previous presidents combined. As governor of California he was a big spender. An he was wishy washy - once a Democrat and then a Republican - married a "home wrecker" - yet the  New Right love those who never change - steadfast as dead wood - and sqeaky clean - unless of course it is actually one they have picked and then he / she can be all over the board - so odd that so many convicted criminals come out of Republican Presidencies.

 

I do not think John Clease in his interview regarding Political Correctness was referring to transitory political correctness - i think it was more along the lines of the Political Correctness of towing the line on the Right To Bare Arms, the political correctness of jumping on petty dictators like Saddam Huisien or for that matter putting them in charge and installing them as Reagan did - in fact it is Politically incorrect to walk all over Reagan - yet his presidency was one of the most disgusting and yet one of the most hidden and falsely enjoyed presidencies in a century. He set the precedence for massive spending and then pointing at the other guy. 

 

We have the political correctness of "the war on drugs" - thank god that wasted "effort" is finally ebbing a small bit - the political correctness of "Church is Gods House" and allowing child molesters safe haven for CENTURIES - thank god that has ebbed a bit though not enough, the political correctness that has allowed corporations to be viewed as People, and the political correctness that has allowed sales tax of nearly 10% in most states and gas tax that is about half the cost of gas - to the point that taxes have been shifted to the common person and the corporate "humans" now have nearly no burden. 

 

Not many of us are shy in and around progressives - they are often way to much in their heads to worry about them. The big mean bullies are those that have managed once again to control the airwaves and policy - we are at this time in the USA a fully owned Corporate Interest - but that is still politically incorrect - it is just too much for us American's to hear - because we think we own our minds and our mind loops - yet look at these very pages - some pretty sharp minds who are wholly owned and bottled.

 

Very well said!

[liminal_luke]

Well, I kind of agree. If a man owns a shop, and doesn't want white people in his shop, he shouldn't be forced to accept them. We shouldn't be forcing legislation in essentially private places like that. And in such a case, the person is only hurting their own business anyway by denying custom, so... fuck 'em. Such a business is unlikely to ever become widespread enough to make much differenc

 

Oh boy.  It´s relatively easy to get behind your example because white people are not systematically discriminated against.  Just one shop, right?  Fuck em.  They are only harming their own business.  But now imagine you´re a black person and it´s not just a single mom-and-pop business, it´s Denny´s all across the country.  Imagine that everywhere you go in your town you can´t order breakfast?

[Karl]

Oh boy. It´s relatively easy to get behind your example because white people are not systematically discriminated against. Just one shop, right? Fuck em. They are only harming their own business. But now imagine you´re a black person and it´s not just a single mom-and-pop business, it´s Denny´s all across the country. Imagine that everywhere you go in your town you can´t order breakfast?

Yes, you can 'imagine', but 'imagining' isn't reality and isn't an excuse for bringing in anti-Liberty laws on the rest of the population, taking away their right to choose who they freely associate with.

 

Remember who it was that promoted and protected slavery and who brought in the Jim Crow laws. If you object to those laws, then you must, by any kind of logic, reject any laws which enforce anti-discriminatory affirmative action. The key is life, liberty, Justice, property rights and the pursuit of happiness. If any one of those rights are being abused then you must object or be branded a hypocrite.

 

Slavery and negative discrimination laws were abolished, just as positive discrimination laws should be abolished. To pretend otherwise is evasion and immoral.

 

However let's look at what is being advocated by whom and for whom. It is automatically accepted that 'minorities' are those we need to protect by law against the majority. Yet, what is the very smallest unit of the minority-the individual. It's the individual who's rights must be protected and anyone trying to negate those rights is acting as an oppresser, a racist and a bigot.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Karl

[liminal_luke]

Yes, you can 'imagine', but 'imagining' isn't reality 

 

Karl,

 

If you prefer reality to imagination, here ya go.  

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/25/us/denny-s-restaurants-to-pay-54-million-in-race-bias-suits.html?pagewanted=all

 

Denny´s paying out $54,000,000 in damages for refusing service to blacks in 1994.  I asked Dustybeijing to imagine but if you prefer to examine the historical record, be my guest.  In 1994 I was a white dude living in relatively liberal Portland, Oregon.  I wasn´t particularly attuned or sensitive to racism, and things didn´t seem so bad to me.  But for a black family in Mississippi in the 50´s?  Different story.

[Karl]

Karl,

 

If you prefer reality to imagination, here ya go.  

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/25/us/denny-s-restaurants-to-pay-54-million-in-race-bias-suits.html?pagewanted=all

 

Denny´s paying out $54,000,000 in damages for refusing service to blacks in 1994.  I asked Dustybeijing to imagine but if you prefer to examine the historical record, be my guest.  In 1994 I was a white dude living in relatively liberal Portland, Oregon.  I wasn´t particularly attuned or sensitive to racism, and things didn´t seem so bad to me.  But for a black family in Mississippi in the 50´s?  Different story.

 

not 'everywhere' then ?

 

You have fallen back on the minority rights bandwagon as the answer to racism. I'm not denying racism exists, I'm saying the solution isn't to deny private individuals their individual rights as the smallest possible minority. All you are advocating is mob rule. Violence never solved social problems, only education does that.

 

 

[ralis]

not 'everywhere' then ? You have fallen back on the minority rights bandwagon as the answer to racism. I'm not denying racism exists, I'm saying the solution isn't to deny private individuals their individual rights as the smallest possible minority. All you are advocating is mob rule. Violence never solved social problems, only education does that.

 

I guess you have no idea as to what human nature is about. Who or what institution will educate the ignorant masses that you feel are beneath you? Will the curriculum be based on Ayn Randism?

 

How do you think University of Mississippi African American students feel about these white students chanting " the south will rise again" which took place at a University of Mississippi football game.

 

[Karl]

I guess you have no idea as to what human nature is about. Who or what institution will educate the ignorant masses that you feel are beneath you? Will the curriculum be based on Ayn Randism?

 

How do you think University of Mississippi African American students feel about these white students chanting " the south will rise again" which took place at a University of Mississippi football game.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf7CkJluU3k

 

Depends what you mean by human nature ? I would need your definition of human nature before I could comment.

 

The problem we have is not in schools but in universities from which the tutors are derived. The intellectuals within these universities are a product of a Kantian philosophy which is collectivist and therefore are pragmatic collectivists. This ideology inhabits the media, publishing, politics, films, education, educational books and economics. It's here that the philosoph needs to be changed from collectivist to individual and pragmatism to reason.

 

Unless people begin to see the idividual instead of the group then racism will continue unabated. It is primitive altruistic tribalism and it has become embedded in modern man by a philosophy that refuses to accept that man is a moral being, but is being prevented from that achievement by the use of statist violence and an education that preaches pragmatic collectivism. If you deny men their identity, rationality and freedom then don't expect them to act rationality.

 

I don't think anyone is beneath me Ralis. I see the potentiality in each and every person and the incredible potential for the human race-I'm a John Taylor Gatto in that regard. So far statism, pragmatism, mysticism have created horrendous conflict which shows no sign of abating. Time for something new and only the philosophers can provide that insight-they cannot create policy, only a better understanding.

 

Schools need to teach the basics of grammar, calculation and broad science subjects plus geography, history then, for those with the aptitude higher grammar plus logic and rhetoric. Students learn to learn and then choose what they want to learn for a higher academic level.

[liminal_luke]

not 'everywhere' then ? You have fallen back on the minority rights bandwagon as the answer to racism. I'm not denying racism exists, I'm saying the solution isn't to deny private individuals their individual rights as the smallest possible minority. All you are advocating is mob rule. Violence never solved social problems, only education does that.

 

Not everywhere in 1994, no.  But historically, in some places in the South, yes.  Everywhere or close enough to everywhere to have a traumatizing effect on a generation.  You might not be denying racisim exists, but you seem to want to minimize it, and I am not sure why.

 

What use is philosophy and so-called reason if all that thinking leads us to look the other way when a fellow human being is made to feel like a worthless animal?  

[Karl]

Not everywhere in 1994, no.  But historically, in some places in the South, yes.  Everywhere or close enough to everywhere to have a traumatizing effect on a generation.  You might not be denying racisim exists, but you seem to want to minimize it, and I am not sure why.

 

What use is philosophy and so-called reason if all that thinking leads us to look the other way when a fellow human being is made to feel like a worthless animal?  

 

How have I minimised it ? Alternatively you are evading by demanding minority rights, without accepting that the smallest minority is a single individual person.

 

Philosophy and reason would answer your question, if you would only let the light in.