Hello Philosophy Society!
I would first like to identify two mistakes that I made which are misrepresentations in my first newsletter to you. The first mistake was including Ryerson University as affiliated with the Philosophy Society. Ryerson, as its own entity, has not yet decided to be affiliated with the Philosophy Society. So, I would like to make it understood that this group is of my own doing and responsibility. I hold space and a platform for Ryerson University and any other organization for when they feel it is time to join our group. Until then, we are independent.
My second mistake was in how I communicated the participation of professors in our group. Several professors were present at the Imperial Pub on April 13th but only one of them was actually participating in the Philosophy Society. The other people were engaged in their own philosophical conversations but were not necessarily involved in our discussion. It was a mistake for me to use the word ‘some’ instead of ‘one.’
I apologize for these mistakes and I welcome future constructive criticism so that I can improve on my reporting, newsletter writing, philosophizing and facilitation skills. Every time we communicate how we feel with others, we all gain a greater understanding of each other and ourselves. Now, let us move on to the discussions from this week!
I have included my responses to certain criticisms here after my explanation. My in-text responses in the Whatsapp dialogue will be identified with italics or "WaT' above the text.
Topic 1: Being Philosophical
This week's discussion, or lack thereof, was predominantly focused within our Whatsapp group. The content of the discussion was a response to the first newsletter that was written about oppression in society. Before reviewing the argumentative trajectory of this discussion, it is important to review a social meta analysis of how we interact in the Philosophy Society.
After some unphilosophical exchanges in the Whatsapp discussion group, it became clear that it was necessary to outline guidelines for participation about how to engage with issues in a philosophical way. Philosophy means the love of wisdom, so our interactions can be judged based on what is wise and what is not. If there is some way of interacting that is unwise, it would also be unphilosophical. We are here to practice being philosophical and hence develop our wisdom.
There are many different kinds of factors that can inhibit our ability to be wise. For example, our emotions can take control over us and limit our ability to be understanding of what other people are communicating. Our self-control and self-awareness can become compromised due to intense emotions. In those highly triggered emotional states, we can be prone to misunderstand the intentions, actions and meaning of other people. Before we can truly engage philosophically, we would have to have a sense of understanding of our own emotions first before we can entertain a thoughtful discussion with others. This is especially true for beliefs we hold that are very meaningful. If we perceive those meaningful beliefs as being challenged, we can become triggered and lose a sense of ourselves due to a heightened emotional state.
This is not to say that we can never engage with others when emotions arise. It requires training and practice to maintain composure when under emotional pressure so that we are aware of our emotions, respectful towards the other, and have enough cognitive capacity to communicate thoughts that are contributing to the conversation and not distorted by our state.
An important method would be to have a sense of what our balanced state is, a baseline for our sound state of mind, so that if we deviate from it, we can communicate that we need space to process how we feel before we engage or take extra steps to maintain self-control. It is better to disengage from someone than become abusive towards them because of some distorted perception that was induced by our emotional state. Our emotions are important, but they are not always based on accurate perceptions of reality. It is best and wise for us to have a method to check our emotions against data from our environment, like simply rereading what someone has texted, to make sure that we have accurately understood what is going on.
When upset, we can skim through or assume we know what the other person is trying to say. This is a distorted view of the world because it is based on our internal perceptions and not data that we have gained from our environment. This is why it is important to take our time with information that is emotionally sensitive.
Each of us is fundamentally in control of our emotions. There may be times where we do not have control but it is up to us to develop mature habits, not for society to ‘walk on eggshells’ around us. We are independent, autonomous agents, as healthy-minded human beings and therefore responsible for our behaviour, which includes our emotions. If we allow our emotions to dictate how we act, then we are not really taking responsibility for ourselves and allowing a non-autonomous state of mind to take control over us.
It is wise, and philosophical, to have a sense of what our emotions mean and the best way to take those feelings and use them in some motivational capacity. It is unwise to allow our emotions to get the best of us and become abusive to ourselves or other people.
WaT
It is important for us to be mindful of how we feel, but if we use our emotions to communicate without being in control of them, we hazard not communicating clearly. When we are upset, it is difficult for us to listen to others' views. It is important to exercise self control, take time to evaluate what other people are saying and make an effort to understand them. If we make assumptions or misrepresent what others are saying we are not being philosophical.
Criticism is only relevant if it is based on truth. If you are misrepresenting a person, your criticism is not valid because it's based on a distortion of the truth. I haven't avoided any criticism that was given to me. I discussed every point. Agreeing with someone is not handling criticism. The first step to handling criticism is understanding what they mean and determining if it makes sense. Does handling criticism mean you always agree with what people say? If so then others' perceptions of us could never be wrong. Handling criticism means you make an effort to understand what the other person is saying and make an effort to try to come to an understanding together. Am I obligated to accept misrepresentations to qualify as accepting criticism?.
People became aggressive towards me and very hypocritical. Disagreeing with each other is part of being Philosophical but becoming aggressive and engaging in mob mentality or groupthink is not.
Misinterpreting what I am saying and creating an argument based on a false understanding is not philosophical. Becoming angry and being abusive to someone you don't understand is not Philosophical.
Being philosophical is using your wisdom. How is it wise to become aggressive and lack self control when if you took the time to listen and understand you could have a peaceful discussion?
Being philosophical is to be reasonable about ideas. The only issue I have had was aggressive behavior, name calling, misrepresentation of my views to make me look like I am something I am not.
Part of being philosophical means being reasonable. Allowing our misperceptions and emotions as a reason to harm someone is not right.
On the topic of emotions, I follow this philosophy from CBT. If we take responsibility for others feelings, it's actually a distortion for we are all responsible for how we feel, not other people. That distortion is called personalization. When a person accumulates a distorted way of looking at the world, it can cause depression and other problems like anger or anxiety.
Feeling Good Summary (CBT):
https://www.achillesjustice.com/post/feeling-good?lang=en
Discussion 1: White Privilege
In the chat group, I was discussing conceptual problems with the term ‘privilege’ when used to describe systemic oppression towards non-white people. Privilege has the meaning of a socially acceptable right or act that one is allowed to do. For example, legally driving a car is a privilege in our society but that privilege can be taken away if someone is driving under the influence of alcohol. You would lose your driver’s license, which is a representation of that privilege to be allowed to drive. As long as you follow the rules of the road, you are allowed to drive.
WaT
The word 'privilege' has conceptual problems, the person can use it to justify their actions, which is the real issue at hand. You want people to stop acting that way. So any word that could contribute to the possibility of them doing so could be changed with something else that does not have the possibility of allowing the behaviour to persist.
Rethinking how we conceptualize the issue will take away certain modes of thought from people who act in the ways we do not like. I believe that the first step to help others is to make sure that our language is accurate to the solution.
The term privilege is what I believe is an issue. This applies to any usage of the term that does not account for the behaviour and act being something a person feels entitled to. There is a difference between privilege and power. Power can be circumstantial, something that is part of the situation and the person does not have a choice. Whereas privilege is a right given by society. Males may have power in certain contexts and some may choose to use it in oppressive ways. but to say that all men are necessarily oppressive because they are men is not reasonable. That is a circular argument.
For people who engage in oppressive behaviour, if they believe that they have the right to act that way, then what is there to stop them from doing so? Within the concept itself, they can justify their abusive behaviour because of a sense of self-entitlement. For example, "I am a purple alien and that means I am better than green aliens, therefore I will not give the green aliens any food. If they starve it doesn't matter because I am better than them.'
When we use the term 'white-privilege' or priviledge for any oppressive behaviour, the person who is doing the act can justify it to themselves which does not stop the problem. If, however, we change the discourse to simply abuse, corruption or oppression, irrelevant of the trait, then the person cannot think that the action or behaviour is self-referentially justified. The act will be associated as abuse and no one is justified in abusing others. The word can be used to justify one's actions. So if we change the word, I think that we change their ability to justify the action.
I believe the word matters because it designates what in the world we are trying to point to. The word also matters because people use words in their minds to justify their actions. So if you have a problem with someone's actions, we can look at the words they use to justify them.
Well this is a philosophy group. We are supposed to understand each other and not attempt to 'be right.' I believe a constructive conversation is making an effort to understand what the other person is saying. It is wise to understand, whereas if you only speak of what you believe and ignore other perspectives, that is not constructive. it would be just seeking people to agree with you. The purpose of being philosophical is to expand our understanding.
I never said that the phenomenon of oppression does not exist. That is a misrepresentation of what I am communicating. I am saying that there is a conceptual issue that can contribute to more oppression in the minds of the oppressor.
Well, before we can actually address any problem we have to understand what the problem is. I am identifying an issue and maybe we could discuss what I see as an issue. Dismissing the problem I am identifying or labeling me as insensitive, violent or oppressive is not constructive.
I am philosophizing, this is what it means to do that. If you feel that something is wrong, it is up to you to reasonably and respectfully explain that to the person you disagree with. If you create an argument that does not actually address what I am talking about, then you simply missed the point. We are here to learn from each other, assuming that we will all see things a little differently.
The issue with ‘white-privilege’ is in a fallacy of equivocation and ambiguity with the term privilege. A white supremacist could reason to themselves that they have a right to engage in systemic oppression of non-whites. This seems absurd, for we would not want to say that anyone has a license or is allowed to oppress any group of people. Even if one makes an effort to stipulate that the term privilege is meant to be understood only in a certain way, systemic oppression, there still exists the fallacy of equivocation.
The fallacy of equivocation simply means that a term has two different meanings like ‘he read the book’ or ‘the book is red.’ When we see the word red/read in text form, we know the meaning, but when spoken, only context would let us know which form of the term is meant. The drastic importance of establishing an egalitarian society necessitates that no confusion of meanings exist. To correct this logical fallacy, we would simply have to replace the term privilege with something else, so that no one could conceive of oppression as something they have a right to.
Social psychology describes this phenomena using the cognitive bias of ingroup/ outgroup bias meaning that we give favouritism to perceived members of our own group and disadvantage to members of perceived outgroups. Group membership can be based on many factors other than the colour of one’s skin like sex, economic status, roles within a workplace, sports teams, geographical areas, etc. To avoid the bias, we would have to identify each other as members of a higher order group, like we are all human first, rather than the segregation of smaller group units.
WaT
The word privilege in its use has the connotation of a license, acceptance or right. My issue is not to enable that conceptual ambiguity. Finding a different term to identify the same phenomena could be constructive in that we can discuss advantages of certain groups without giving that group a necessary ideological reason to do it.
In my view no one has a right to oppress others so I get uncomfortable with that word because white supremacists can interpret it as their right to do so. If we take the word away, they cannot conceptualize it in that way. It's important to discuss systemic racism and make efforts through things like diversity to create an egalitarian society.
When we say white supremacy I think it's important not to generalize all Caucasians as engaging in racism or forms of discrimination. When we communicate in clusters of categories like patriarchy and white privilege, we may be fueling the problem we are trying to talk about because we are generalizing to all members of that group and attributing blame to them. But is it true that all men abuse women or discriminate against them? No it's not. Is it true that all people discriminate against people of different ethnicities? No it's not. (excluding systemic, unintentional oppression)
These social phenomena, gender bias and abuse, racism, discrimination, stereotyping exist and can be discussed but we have to be precise in our identification of them to be effective.
If there is a problem in the world, we want to be precise in our methods to solve it. This comes down to how we use our language and making sure that our concepts are coherent. This is why we philosophize, to sort out and bring clarity to what we think and say.
There are ingroup and outgroup biases amongst many ethnicities. We can communicate about these biases that we each suffer no matter which ethnicity we belong to. Having an attitude of inclusion and an effort towards understanding, we can use our empathy to communicate what others experience that we do not.
I think we need to define the term privilege for there seems to be a sense that I am conceptualizing it differently than you are. I am stipulating this term in a specific way to remove any sense of allowance for abuses of power or corruption. Sometimes our language itself can be a cause of problems. If we can philosophize about that language and match terms in a certain way, we can create clarity in how we think and communicate.
I am not saying that these phenomena of abuse do not exist. I simply describe them differently using social psychology. Ingroup outgroup bias is a form of treating others of our own perceived group better than those who are not. It can produce discrimination based on race, gender, economic status, and other categories.
In my understanding, privilege is a right that can be given and taken away, like a drivers license. Being white, brown or purple isn't, in my view, a privilege because it cannot be taken away. If some favoritism comes with those properties of your human condition, based on others with similar conditions, I again appeal to ingroup outgroup bias.
I feel we need to not weigh certain abuse more valid than others but hear each other when abuse occurs so we can understand. If certain groups speak more, we will listen more and attend to those issues. But it's not fair to deem one person's suffering of more value than others. Our suffering sucks for all of us and blaming entire groups by overgeneralizing doesn't seem like it's doing much. It may be widening the ingroup outgroup gap, which I believe is at the root of many of these problems.
If you live in a country or place that has a majority of people with a certain trait, there will always be a tendency for ingroup outgroup bias. This is a fault of all humans and only through practicing empathy and understanding via communicating can we bridge that gap.
Humans are herd-like animals. We feel safe with what we are familiar with and have a tendency to push away what is different. This provided us a survival advantage in the past, but in our multi-ethnic society, it leads to problems. Knowing these biases exist, I believe that some group like this 'Philosophy Society' I am putting effort into, can give us awareness of the biases of our human condition. The first step to a better world is awareness. But we need the correct concepts, ways of looking at things, so our awareness is not distorted.
So we talk. We are philosophers without judgment because we all agreed to put effort into understanding each other. If we can do that, then we can work together to take actions, like practicing empathy, to dissolve these social issues.
Not all positions of power are a privilege. Some positions of power are contingent on circumstances and we can create conditions as a society to balance and limit abuses of those circumstances.
Colour is only skin deep. There is something deeper which we must be aware of in us. These forces are what lead us to hurt our brothers and sisters. We are all human, and unless we learn to love each other deeply, these problems will persist.
I do not see ‘colour,’ I see the person. Your person-ness is determined by you, your actions, your responsibility and how you perceive the world. When we see ‘colour,’ we are participating in the problem. Only by looking beyond surface level appearances can we understand the nature of things. This nature we speak of, is fundamentally behavior. Therefore, psychology has the power to teach us to overcome the deep problems that exist in all of us.
Only through practicing together, through training ourselves to counteract the horrible and incoherent parts of our human nature, do we, as a group, have a chance for a harmonious existence together. This is the purpose of the Philosophy Society.
The use of the term doesn't make sense. I feel these are examples of circumstantial power and not privilege. Privilege in the way I understand is the allowance of an act or behavior that can be taken away. Circumstantial power is power one has because of situational position. It doesn't come through choice so the only way to correct it is through some social mechanism.
The use of privilege in this way is too broad because it includes a sense of justification to those groups for their acts. If we label it in this way, it can conceptually enable the unjust act. Whereas if we narrow the definition by only using it in a way where it includes that which is given and can be taken away, then circumstantial power, like your sex or the pigment of your skin, cannot be conceptualized as a right. We dont want the perpetrators of social abuses to think that they have the privilege, the right, to do so.
Therefore, taking the concept and the term away from them abolishes any internal justification for them. Once the term is limited in definition, they cannot use it as a means to act. This gives us the power to identify it as abuse and not a right which means it's necessarily wrong. But the ambiguity of the term gives a sense that they, the abuser, can justify it as a right through dehumanization.
I am not saying that the phenomena you are referring to does not exist. Racism, abuse, discrimination, stereotyping, etc all exist. The problem I am communicating is that how we conceptualize the term 'privilege' has issues. I feel that we can discuss the phenomena differently so that the issues I identified do not emerge. I am not delegitimizing the phenomena, what I have said is that there is a problem in the conceptualization of the term privilege. The same phenomena can be explained via social psychology that does not have the same conceptual issues.
When I say I don't see ‘colour,’ I am speaking metaphorically. I choose to see beyond the pigment of someone's skin as a person who does not judge people based on their ethnicity or the pigment of their skin. Me viewing people via that which is in their control has nothing to do with people who do judge others based on circumstances that are not in their control.
I am communicating that the way we conceptualize our perceptions is inherently important. We can observe the behaviour of people who are racist or discriminatory and call that abuse. There is nothing in what I am saying that legitimizes corruption or abuse. I am actually arguing that our conceptualizations can legitimize abuse in the individual who is racist. If we use the term 'right' associated with privilege, then the racist person can justify to themselves that they are correct. They can say, 'I have the privilege to be racist'. but if we change the conceptualization of privilege as something that is not circumstantial, something that is given to people from society, we can take away the justification in the mind of the abuser.
I have experienced racism. It was just a different kind. There are many different kinds of racism. I may not know what it is like to be blind or to be a woman, but if a blind person or a woman explains it to me, I can empathize and understand. I am not saying the phenomena does not exist, that is a misunderstanding of what I am communicating. I am communicating, philosophizing, that the term privilege used in this way has conceptual issues. If we use a different mode of talking about the phenomena, I believe that we can avoid these conceptual issues.
I have, I believe, accurately summarized your perspective. I am simply disagreeing and I am explaining that disagreement. I am open to discussing my disagreement but no one, as far as I have read, has actually discussed the problem I have identified.
The purpose of discussing this topic is to understand what it is and the perspectives of each other. Some misrepresentations occurred where this discussion was framed as White Fragility which is the case where progressive white people feel uncomfortable or become aggressive when told that participating in a system of systemic oppression is a form of racism. It is not true that discussing the notion of privilege conceptually and making an effort to find a different term without the conceptual issues identified is an example of white fragility. The act of discussion displays comfort and an intention to understand the nature of the phenomena does not mean its denial. The words we use are important so that we are clear in what they mean and that they accurately describe the phenomena we are referencing. This is a philosophical practice.
We may not know the experiences of other people but through empathy we can understand them. Experiencing something is not necessary for understanding. A doctor may have never had Alzheimer's so they would not know what it is like to have it, but they can understand.
Dr. Robin DiAngelo discusses 'White Fragility'
WaT
White fragility is defined as "discomfort and defensiveness on the part of a white person when confronted by information about racial inequality and injustice." I am not uncomfortable, I believe that there is a misconception on the term privilege. No one gives people the right to be racist or oppressive. It is something that people do from a position of power and it is wrong.
I do not feel that you are actually understanding where I am coming from because I keep repeating myself, which is fine. This is good practice for all of us, but it could be more constructive if we both try to understand each other. If you look at the first principle of this group, it is "have respect, compassion, empathy and understanding." Neither of you are showing empathy or understanding of what I am attempting to communicate.
What I am saying is that the term privilege can actually increase white fragility, whereas advantage would not because it doesn't have the same ambiguity of the term 'right.'
Another inaccurate claim that was made was that the act of discussing the concept of privilege was an example of violent communication. Violent communication is a form of abusive or coercive communication that is manipulative and destructive in nature. If we become upset or uncomfortable with a specific subject, that does not mean that the speaker is necessarily engaged in violent communication. Ironically, many of the people were engaged in this practice by misrepresenting my views, name calling and acting very aggressively in how they were communicating.
Being upset never gives us the right to become abusive towards others. If we find a topic difficult for us to communicate about, it may be best to disengage so that we do not engage in violent communication. Being philosophical, as discussed in the organizational mandate, is not violent communication.
WaT
"Violent communication is often the result of using manipulative or coercive language that induces fear, guilt, shame, praise, blame, duty, obligation, punishment, and/or reward." I am using reason. I am not deceiving, being manipulative, coercive or inducing any of the states listed. I am trying to 'philosophize' the meaning of the definition of 'privilege' and understand if the use of the term is enabling oppressors to be more oppressive because they have the possibility of believing they are justified in doing so. This would be a misrepresentation of what I am communicating.
You being offended that I do not agree with you is not violent. You have not made an effort to understand me so far but I have made an effort to understand you. I have not stated that racism, oppression, or any other problematic social phenomena does not exist. I am communicating that a specific word doesn't make sense to me.
Oppressive means, "unjustly inflicting hardship and constraint, especially on a minority or other subordinate group." I am communicating a conceptual issue with the term privilege. How would discussing a concept be inflicting undue hardship on a minority?
There are many groups who experience the same phenomena but it depends on context. Minority means that you are not in the group that represents traits of most of the population. Depending on specific traits, pigment of your skin, gender, education, income, you can suffer discrimination.
No where did I say that the phenomena does not exist. What I am communicating is that I observe a conceptual issue. Discussing concepts is not oppression, it is philosophy. Unwillingness to discuss ideas that are different than your own is not being philosophical. The purpose of this group is not to 'be right' but to understand. Can either of you summarize what I am trying to say?
I believe what you are trying to say is that disagreeing with the concept of 'white privilege' necessarily means the person thinks that the phenomena does not exist and that kind of conversation is oppressive. But is this true?
Some questioned my legitimacy in even thinking of discussing ‘white-privilege’ as a white man. Some believe that I do not have the right to talk about the subject because I am a white man and that any discussion coming from me was necessarily disrespectful to those who have been systematically oppressed by white advantage in our society.
Let us reflect on the irony of this way of thinking. To say that one is not allowed to speak about a topic because of the colour of their skin is an example of discrimination based on race or racism. Every person, of every colour, has the right to free speech. Free speech and being philosophical is starkly distinguished from hate speech. Hate speech is when we are singling out a group and intentionally expressing abusive or threatening meaning. The nature of discussion in a philosophical context is not hate speech.
Some terms or phrases may automatically invoke visceral negative emotions, like the n-word. In these contexts, some groups have a sense of entitled usage over the word, like the black community in this case. All other usages can most likely be considered hate speech when it is being used by non-blacks. A very sensitive area would be comedians' usage of the n-word in their practice and whether it would be deemed hate speech. As long as a comedian makes fun of everyone equally and is not singling out a particular group with threats or the intention to be abusive, it could be considered comedy and not hate speech. Whether it is good comedy, would be up to the audience of the comedian, not the comedian’s personal judgment of their own jokes.
The context of our communication matters. The context of our group, the Philosophy Society, is to discuss sensitive topics with the goal of understanding. If a term designates a specific group, that group is at least entitled to discuss the nature of concept that is being used to refer to them. To say that all white people cannot ever discuss the conceptual basis of white-privilege does not seem fair. Abolishing an entire group from speaking not only violates their right to free speech, but can actually create greater issues. In Florida 54, math textbooks were recently revoked because of the mentioning of a person of colour because of aversion towards critical race theory. A lack of practicing discussion from all groups about the social issues we have can create more segregation and a form of reactionary oppression.
The answer to oppression from Group A is not Group A becoming oppressive to all non-Group A’s. Making white people feel guilty for the society they live in, for being white, is not the answer because now governments in the west are removing the history of racism from educational curricula. It is more constructive to teach the history of racism, as it occurred, and empower all people towards a society that does not engage in oppressive practices. Shaming people for what they are is not the answer. Being accountable to the history of humanity and understanding where we went wrong with slavery, the residential school systems, cultural genocide and colonialism is fundamental for us not to repeat mistakes of a similar kind. We will not do this through methods of segregation or concepts that facilitate segregation. Only by identifying with a higher category of being human, can we transcend surface levels of our appearances.
It is important for us to discuss our social problems but not engage in oppressing people that we perceive are oppressing us for then we are committing the same mistake that we have an issue with. Developing a more inclusive, empathetic understanding of ethnicity, is fundamental to transcend the problems of racism, oppression and discrimination.
WaT
To expect me to simply agree because you want me to is unfair. That would be asking me to conform which is a bias. I asked people to join me here to actively learn to be aware of our biases and learn to reason about them. We're not getting anywhere if we simply gang up on someone who disagrees and attempt to bully them into agreement. The purpose of this group is to practice a set of skills so that we don't have to do that.
This specific subject has been a lesson in general for the people who have been participating to engage in a way that is reasonable and fair. But what has occurred, mostly, is people becoming angry because I am asking questions and demonizing me for asking those questions. To say I cannot talk about a word or concept is not fair. You are discriminating me based on my ethnicity. We all have a right to talk about ideas no matter what color we are.
To say that some experiences can only be understood by a particular group is not true. I have a sister and a mother, if some discrimination based on gender occurs to them, I can know that exists through them telling me or me observing it myself. I may not experience certain things but I can understand them if someone communicates it to me.
This is the power of language, it can be used for good or bad. We can use our words to bridge our experiences and create a greater understanding amongst each other.
I allowed everyone to observe that even when people are being aggressive, misinterpreting your argument, attacking your character via name calling, bullying, and not being reasonable, you do not have to reciprocate in the same manner.
Everytime someone acts this way towards you, it is important to learn to maintain your respectful, reasonable approach. If you allow yourself to become defensive and reciprocate aggression or unreasonableness in response, you will only make the situation worse. You will give people legitimate reasons to be used against you.
It is not fair to take responsibility for others' misguided emotions that they are imposing on themselves. If you legitimately harm someone, it is important to recognize how your behavior caused that, be remorseful and work towards better habits.
In terms of behavior in this chat group or any event I am hosting, if people engage in manipulative, aggressive or demeaning behavior as was done for over 48 hours earlier this week towards me, they will be warned of suspension and if they cannot control themselves, removed temporarily. They will then have to review the mandate and conduct of this group before being readmitted.
This is not a place to bully other people into your beliefs or perspectives. There is a method of information exchange that I have explained in the mandate. I will remove people from now on if they abuse the privilege of being here. Soon, if I see there are other responsible, reasonable and trustworthy people I will grant them moderator status in case I am not present. There will be a fair review process.
If you follow the instructions on how to philosophize you will be fine. If you accept your mistakes or emotional outbursts you will be fine. Emotions are part of human nature but they are not a justification of truth in themselves. We would not justify a physical assault because someone 'felt' like it. Emotions have to be understood. They are also susceptible to being unrealistic due to a distorted perception. Cognitive distortions are in large part the cause of mood disorders. See the summary on feeling good in the practical philosophy section of the website.
Bullying anyone of this group and misrepresenting anyones views as a means to justify abusive behaviour is unacceptable.
American Anthropological Association - Excerpts on Race
“Ultimately "race" as an ideology about human differences was subsequently spread to other areas of the world. It became a strategy for dividing, ranking, and controlling colonized people used by colonial powers everywhere. But it was not limited to the colonial situation.”
"Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories…Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior.”
“human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture."
“The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth.”
“we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.”
https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
Philosophy Society Organizational Mandate
https://www.achillesjustice.com/organizational-mandate
© Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com, 2018-22. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.