Thoughts on Collective Guilt

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
As for this example, this raises the mereological question of whether a group is merely the sum of its parts. This question is difficult to answer, and assuming it one way or another is dangerous.

Also, how do you know i value that action for a different reason then you? motives for something like curing cancer are surely complex. while of course we might hold some different reasons for wanting to cure cancer, surely its reasonable to think that there are at least some common motives between us. (you of course could just argue that some groups, like the group of people who want to cure cancer, are so large that there could not possibly be a motive common to all members. this isn’t a problem though, because then we just need to use a wittgensteinian sort of theory on family resemblance to produce a sort of “common motive” that is constituted by the family resemblance.)

could we not then posit that it is these common motives between us that constitute the “group reason”? if not, why not?
[/quote]
Could we not then just simplify the study of social interaction as group will? We could then simplify conflict as the result of the “clash of differing wills”. Case closed. You can look for this argument to be published in the European Journal of Social Theory.

Having a common motive is not enough to argue for the existence of a group reason. Reason is purely subjective (at least to Kant whom I tend to agree with). Reason is the means by which concepts arise in the logical structure of our brain which is a requirement for all action. Even if I had some common motive there is no reason to believe that it was rationalized in the same manner. The best we could call any group action is cooperation. Everyone has their own “reason” for cooperating even if it is a “common reason”.

Allow me one more example that I feel fits the notion of cooperation v. group reason. I served one enlistment in the USMC and one of the “common” reasons given for enlisting was to “defend my country.” Though this reason is common we must evaluate what it means to the individual. What is each person’s evaluation of the ideas to defend and my country? I think after evaluating a few individual’s reasons we would soon come to the conclusion that they aren’t so common. But yet soldiers and Marines must cooperate in order to be successful.

22

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Here are some random thoughts I put together, feel free to ignore. I ramble.

And this is why Plato said that cities should be homogeneous, and why Hobbes after him ascribed the greatest evil to factions. And all of this seems to me to ask, how may we eliminate, rather than increase, our differences? Because the intangibles are attached to all those sorts of ways in which we differ, and the minimization of those differences seems to indicate a minimization of the intangible benefits. [/quote]

I’ve never seen one of your posts that should be ignored.

The dynamic of society should revolve around our differences. Trying to eliminate them results in totalitarianism. An ideal society (unlike the Republic) should try to find a fine balance between differences, to keep the society growing w/o letting it become so divisive as to cause chaos.

It may well be that the Chinese have solved this problem, in light of human differences: a totalitarian government with overwhelming force (to maintain order) but that allows a capitalist economy to underpin the society. This is the direction the United States is heading and will have eventually, IMHO.

23

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The dynamic of society should revolve around our differences. Trying to eliminate them results in totalitarianism. An ideal society (unlike the Republic) should try to find a fine balance between differences, to keep the society growing w/o letting it become so divisive as to cause chaos.
[/quote]

Is this not what the proponents of diversity argue?

I feel this could all be addresses with a firm understanding of the concept of “live and let live”. We do not need to like or even value others’ opinions, etc. We need only care others do not infringe on our rights and vice-versa.

It just seems so simple to me…

24

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The dynamic of society should revolve around our differences. Trying to eliminate them results in totalitarianism. An ideal society (unlike the Republic) should try to find a fine balance between differences, to keep the society growing w/o letting it become so divisive as to cause chaos.
[/quote]

I think, in our modern institutions of government, that homogenization is outside the purview of our legislators; therefore it must occur through social means as permitted by law. I don’t intend to attack pluralism per se, but to point out that what I called the intangible benefits of group membership are essential to the included group, and the detriments to those excluded accidental. This would be true also if we were talking about political factions or religion, if we were not talking about race. I do not reject Madison’s idea that opposition and faction may be used to better a republic; but to the extent that these differences are incidental or trivial, yet manifest themselves as though they were vested with great importance, shouldn’t we seek to minimize them?

25

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Here are some random thoughts I put together, feel free to ignore. I ramble.

And this is why Plato said that cities should be homogeneous, and why Hobbes after him ascribed the greatest evil to factions. And all of this seems to me to ask, how may we eliminate, rather than increase, our differences? Because the intangibles are attached to all those sorts of ways in which we differ, and the minimization of those differences seems to indicate a minimization of the intangible benefits.

I’ve never seen one of your posts that should be ignored.

The dynamic of society should revolve around our differences. Trying to eliminate them results in totalitarianism. An ideal society (unlike the Republic) should try to find a fine balance between differences, to keep the society growing w/o letting it become so divisive as to cause chaos.

It may well be that the Chinese have solved this problem, in light of human differences: a totalitarian government with overwhelming force (to maintain order) but that allows a capitalist economy to underpin the society. This is the direction the United States is heading and will have eventually, IMHO.

[/quote]

Very interesting that you think differences should be accepted in society while also claiming that those with a different style of clothing than your own deserve to be considered criminals.

26

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Here are some random thoughts I put together, feel free to ignore. I ramble.

And this is why Plato said that cities should be homogeneous, and why Hobbes after him ascribed the greatest evil to factions. And all of this seems to me to ask, how may we eliminate, rather than increase, our differences? Because the intangibles are attached to all those sorts of ways in which we differ, and the minimization of those differences seems to indicate a minimization of the intangible benefits.

I’ve never seen one of your posts that should be ignored.

The dynamic of society should revolve around our differences. Trying to eliminate them results in totalitarianism. An ideal society (unlike the Republic) should try to find a fine balance between differences, to keep the society growing w/o letting it become so divisive as to cause chaos.

It may well be that the Chinese have solved this problem, in light of human differences: a totalitarian government with overwhelming force (to maintain order) but that allows a capitalist economy to underpin the society. This is the direction the United States is heading and will have eventually, IMHO.

Very interesting that you think differences should be accepted in society while also claiming that those with a different style of clothing than your own deserve to be considered criminals.
[/quote]

There is a big difference who does the accepting.

I might be against government enforcing clothing standards and yet discriminate the hell out of anyone having a nose piercing and trying to sell my financial products.

27

[quote]orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Here are some random thoughts I put together, feel free to ignore. I ramble.

And this is why Plato said that cities should be homogeneous, and why Hobbes after him ascribed the greatest evil to factions. And all of this seems to me to ask, how may we eliminate, rather than increase, our differences? Because the intangibles are attached to all those sorts of ways in which we differ, and the minimization of those differences seems to indicate a minimization of the intangible benefits.

I’ve never seen one of your posts that should be ignored.

The dynamic of society should revolve around our differences. Trying to eliminate them results in totalitarianism. An ideal society (unlike the Republic) should try to find a fine balance between differences, to keep the society growing w/o letting it become so divisive as to cause chaos.

It may well be that the Chinese have solved this problem, in light of human differences: a totalitarian government with overwhelming force (to maintain order) but that allows a capitalist economy to underpin the society. This is the direction the United States is heading and will have eventually, IMHO.

Very interesting that you think differences should be accepted in society while also claiming that those with a different style of clothing than your own deserve to be considered criminals.

There is a big difference who does the accepting.

I might be against government enforcing clothing standards and yet discriminate the hell out of anyone having a nose piercing and trying to sell my financial products.

[/quote]

That’s your personal right. However, if that is taken to an extreme to the point that your own personal bias is now hindering the progress of others (as in housing discrimination), then you are at fault.

28

[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Here are some random thoughts I put together, feel free to ignore. I ramble.

And this is why Plato said that cities should be homogeneous, and why Hobbes after him ascribed the greatest evil to factions. And all of this seems to me to ask, how may we eliminate, rather than increase, our differences? Because the intangibles are attached to all those sorts of ways in which we differ, and the minimization of those differences seems to indicate a minimization of the intangible benefits.

I’ve never seen one of your posts that should be ignored.

The dynamic of society should revolve around our differences. Trying to eliminate them results in totalitarianism. An ideal society (unlike the Republic) should try to find a fine balance between differences, to keep the society growing w/o letting it become so divisive as to cause chaos.

It may well be that the Chinese have solved this problem, in light of human differences: a totalitarian government with overwhelming force (to maintain order) but that allows a capitalist economy to underpin the society. This is the direction the United States is heading and will have eventually, IMHO.

Very interesting that you think differences should be accepted in society while also claiming that those with a different style of clothing than your own deserve to be considered criminals.

There is a big difference who does the accepting.

I might be against government enforcing clothing standards and yet discriminate the hell out of anyone having a nose piercing and trying to sell my financial products.

That’s your personal right. However, if that is taken to an extreme to the point that your own personal bias is now hindering the progress of others (as in housing discrimination), then you are at fault.[/quote]

If you mean it would be somehow wrong of me not to rent to people with nose piercings I disagree.

First of all it is my property with which I can do whatever I please and secondly if I discriminated against nose piercing wearers I´d only hurt myself.

29

[quote]orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Here are some random thoughts I put together, feel free to ignore. I ramble.

And this is why Plato said that cities should be homogeneous, and why Hobbes after him ascribed the greatest evil to factions. And all of this seems to me to ask, how may we eliminate, rather than increase, our differences? Because the intangibles are attached to all those sorts of ways in which we differ, and the minimization of those differences seems to indicate a minimization of the intangible benefits.

I’ve never seen one of your posts that should be ignored.

The dynamic of society should revolve around our differences. Trying to eliminate them results in totalitarianism. An ideal society (unlike the Republic) should try to find a fine balance between differences, to keep the society growing w/o letting it become so divisive as to cause chaos.

It may well be that the Chinese have solved this problem, in light of human differences: a totalitarian government with overwhelming force (to maintain order) but that allows a capitalist economy to underpin the society. This is the direction the United States is heading and will have eventually, IMHO.

Very interesting that you think differences should be accepted in society while also claiming that those with a different style of clothing than your own deserve to be considered criminals.

There is a big difference who does the accepting.

I might be against government enforcing clothing standards and yet discriminate the hell out of anyone having a nose piercing and trying to sell my financial products.

That’s your personal right. However, if that is taken to an extreme to the point that your own personal bias is now hindering the progress of others (as in housing discrimination), then you are at fault.

If you mean it would be somehow wrong of me not to rent to people with nose piercings I disagree.

First of all it is my property with which I can do whatever I please and secondly if I discriminated against nose piercing wearers I´d only hurt myself.
[/quote]

If you were in America, you could be rightly sued as the emphasis is not on “people with nose rings” but on putting an end to minorities being discriminated against when it comes to available housing.

If a white guy with a typical white name calls and hears an apartment is available but when some guy named Julio Rodriguez calls he gets told nothing is available, it is against the law.

30

[quote]Professor X wrote:
If a white guy with a typical white name calls and hears an apartment is available but when some guy named Julio Rodriguez calls he gets told nothing is available, it is against the law.[/quote]

These laws are a clear violation of property rights.

31

[quote]orion wrote:

If you mean it would be somehow wrong of me not to rent to people with nose piercings I disagree.

First of all it is my property with which I can do whatever I please and secondly if I discriminated against nose piercing wearers I´d only hurt myself.
[/quote]

You’ll find this book interesting:

Particularly Chapters 7 and 10. Bernstein is a libertarian 1st Amendment professor at George Mason University.

32

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Here are some random thoughts I put together, feel free to ignore. I ramble.

And this is why Plato said that cities should be homogeneous, and why Hobbes after him ascribed the greatest evil to factions. And all of this seems to me to ask, how may we eliminate, rather than increase, our differences? Because the intangibles are attached to all those sorts of ways in which we differ, and the minimization of those differences seems to indicate a minimization of the intangible benefits.

I’ve never seen one of your posts that should be ignored.

The dynamic of society should revolve around our differences. Trying to eliminate them results in totalitarianism. An ideal society (unlike the Republic) should try to find a fine balance between differences, to keep the society growing w/o letting it become so divisive as to cause chaos.

It may well be that the Chinese have solved this problem, in light of human differences: a totalitarian government with overwhelming force (to maintain order) but that allows a capitalist economy to underpin the society. This is the direction the United States is heading and will have eventually, IMHO.

Very interesting that you think differences should be accepted in society while also claiming that those with a different style of clothing than your own deserve to be considered criminals.
[/quote]

If I had a swastika tattoed on my forearm, I should not be surprised if others react accordingly. In the same way, if someone dresses in a manner that I would consider associated with violence or crime, they should expect me to react accordingly. If I am supposed to be understanding of their culture, then I have every right to expect them to understand mine.

33

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Here are some random thoughts I put together, feel free to ignore. I ramble.

And this is why Plato said that cities should be homogeneous, and why Hobbes after him ascribed the greatest evil to factions. And all of this seems to me to ask, how may we eliminate, rather than increase, our differences? Because the intangibles are attached to all those sorts of ways in which we differ, and the minimization of those differences seems to indicate a minimization of the intangible benefits.

I’ve never seen one of your posts that should be ignored.

The dynamic of society should revolve around our differences. Trying to eliminate them results in totalitarianism. An ideal society (unlike the Republic) should try to find a fine balance between differences, to keep the society growing w/o letting it become so divisive as to cause chaos.

It may well be that the Chinese have solved this problem, in light of human differences: a totalitarian government with overwhelming force (to maintain order) but that allows a capitalist economy to underpin the society. This is the direction the United States is heading and will have eventually, IMHO.

Very interesting that you think differences should be accepted in society while also claiming that those with a different style of clothing than your own deserve to be considered criminals.

If I had a swastika tattoed on my forearm, I should not be surprised if others react accordingly. In the same way, if someone dresses in a manner that I would consider associated with violence or crime, they should expect me to react accordingly. If I am supposed to be understanding of their culture, then I have every right to expect them to understand mine.

[/quote]

I swear failed logic is a disease here. Can’t believe you’re so simple minded. I’ve booked-in plenty of people…and there is no “standard dress” for a criminal. That same logic has made victims of plenty and led to statements like “He didn’t look like he had a gun.” Can’t believe you’re so simple minded.

34

Back in 1999, I read an article in Harpers by an author that, prior to reading the article, was unknown to me. The article made sense to me then, and still does now. The author was Shelby Steele. The article was titled “The age of white guilt: and the disappearance of the black individual”. As the title suggests, it discussed the idea of collective guilt. He has since turned the essay into a book. A link to the article is below.

[EDIT: Actually, the article that I read in Harpers was about a decade earlier in 1988. It was called “I’m black, you’re white, who’s innocent? Race and power in an era of blame”.

http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/ccp/gis/courses/08a106/app/article4.pdf

35

[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:

If you were in America, you could be rightly sued as the emphasis is not on “people with nose rings” but on putting an end to minorities being discriminated against when it comes to available housing.

If a white guy with a typical white name calls and hears an apartment is available but when some guy named Julio Rodriguez calls he gets told nothing is available, it is against the law.[/quote]

I know, and such laws are the laughingstock of any economist worth his salt. It is a classic, like price controls.

Not only do they not work, they are also deeply unfair and set a dangerous precedent.

Plus, they actually stand on the way of letting the market do its magic and punish those who discriminate for bullshit reasons.

36

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Here are some random thoughts I put together, feel free to ignore. I ramble.

And this is why Plato said that cities should be homogeneous, and why Hobbes after him ascribed the greatest evil to factions. And all of this seems to me to ask, how may we eliminate, rather than increase, our differences? Because the intangibles are attached to all those sorts of ways in which we differ, and the minimization of those differences seems to indicate a minimization of the intangible benefits.

I’ve never seen one of your posts that should be ignored.

The dynamic of society should revolve around our differences. Trying to eliminate them results in totalitarianism. An ideal society (unlike the Republic) should try to find a fine balance between differences, to keep the society growing w/o letting it become so divisive as to cause chaos.

It may well be that the Chinese have solved this problem, in light of human differences: a totalitarian government with overwhelming force (to maintain order) but that allows a capitalist economy to underpin the society. This is the direction the United States is heading and will have eventually, IMHO.

Very interesting that you think differences should be accepted in society while also claiming that those with a different style of clothing than your own deserve to be considered criminals.

If I had a swastika tattoed on my forearm, I should not be surprised if others react accordingly. In the same way, if someone dresses in a manner that I would consider associated with violence or crime, they should expect me to react accordingly. If I am supposed to be understanding of their culture, then I have every right to expect them to understand mine.

I swear failed logic is a disease here. Can’t believe you’re so simple minded. I’ve booked-in plenty of people…and there is no “standard dress” for a criminal. That same logic has made victims of plenty and led to statements like “He didn’t look like he had a gun.” Can’t believe you’re so simple minded.[/quote]

He is like one of those parents of Columbine students, “I can’t believe this happened here!!”. Well, some of us weren’t that surprised. Evil doesn’t have a dress code. When will some people figure this out?

The same guy many here would ignore is the one who has bodies buried under his house.

But hey, look out for that 23 year old wearing a gold chain with a hat turned backwards!!

37

[quote]orion wrote:
…

Plus, they actually stand on the way of letting the market do its magic and punish those who discriminate for bullshit reasons.

[/quote]

Too true:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/e321/lab7.htm

38

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

I swear failed logic is a disease here. Can’t believe you’re so simple minded. I’ve booked-in plenty of people…and there is no “standard dress” for a criminal. That same logic has made victims of plenty and led to statements like “He didn’t look like he had a gun.” Can’t believe you’re so simple minded.[/quote]

While HH takes it too far in furtherance of his admitted trolling, what HH is getting at isn’t “failed logic”, it is something called heuristics.

It is irrelevant that criminals dress all kinds of different ways as a matter of fact - intuitive judgments are based on heuristic “rules of thumb” that aid decisionmakers in coming to conclusions quickly with a minimum amount of homework.

This is not to say that heuristics are always nice or even always correct - but they exist, and they exist for a reason.

Perfect example - a pasty, short white guy shows up at an inner city playground to get in on a hoops game. He has short shorts, tube socks, wrist bands, and glasses strapped to his head with a strap. Is he going to be objectively interviewed for his actual basketball skills, knowing full well that he might be a very good player? Or will he dismissed out of hand?

Heuristics. Hell, I probably wouldn’t pick him.

Moreover, this discussion about “criminal clothing” is, as usual, incomplete - many wearers of “thug clothing”, however you define it, thoroughly enjoy positive attention* such dress generates when people think it “hardcore” and “different” - i.e., they are deliberately trying not to dress in the mainstream for the psychic benefits such fashion choices create - but suddenly are beside themselves with teary indignation when their choice of dress generates negative attention from the mainstream they are deliberately trying to reject. That’s a problem.

But maybe even more important - real oppression exists in the world, and how many times are we going to rehearse how “unfair” life is because someone looked askance at the way a person dressed when it wasn’t in the mainstream of fashion?

Perhaps next we can have a major discussion on the evils and inherent unfairness of parents enforcing curfews. Fascists!

It might be a matter of getting some perspective.

I am not singling you out, Big Boss - I just think the issue is a bit overstated generally.

*EDIT: typo

39

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Here are some random thoughts I put together, feel free to ignore. I ramble.

And this is why Plato said that cities should be homogeneous, and why Hobbes after him ascribed the greatest evil to factions. And all of this seems to me to ask, how may we eliminate, rather than increase, our differences? Because the intangibles are attached to all those sorts of ways in which we differ, and the minimization of those differences seems to indicate a minimization of the intangible benefits.

I’ve never seen one of your posts that should be ignored.

The dynamic of society should revolve around our differences. Trying to eliminate them results in totalitarianism. An ideal society (unlike the Republic) should try to find a fine balance between differences, to keep the society growing w/o letting it become so divisive as to cause chaos.

It may well be that the Chinese have solved this problem, in light of human differences: a totalitarian government with overwhelming force (to maintain order) but that allows a capitalist economy to underpin the society. This is the direction the United States is heading and will have eventually, IMHO.

Very interesting that you think differences should be accepted in society while also claiming that those with a different style of clothing than your own deserve to be considered criminals.

If I had a swastika tattoed on my forearm, I should not be surprised if others react accordingly. In the same way, if someone dresses in a manner that I would consider associated with violence or crime, they should expect me to react accordingly. If I am supposed to be understanding of their culture, then I have every right to expect them to understand mine.

I swear failed logic is a disease here. Can’t believe you’re so simple minded. I’ve booked-in plenty of people…and there is no “standard dress” for a criminal. That same logic has made victims of plenty and led to statements like “He didn’t look like he had a gun.” Can’t believe you’re so simple minded.[/quote]

Sorry Big, but I don’t buy it. Not for violent crimes, at least.

40

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Sorry Big, but I don’t buy it. Not for violent crimes, at least.[/quote]

I doubt anyone cares whether you “buy it”. 9 times out of 10, the guy wearing 300 bucks worth of Sean Jean and Air Jordans is NOT the guy you need to be worried about. You should be worried about the guy who can’t afford that shit and wants what you have as a result.

The way some of you talk, I am doubting you have ever even walked through what some consider a “bad neighborhood”. That must be why you have such a skewed view on reality and clutch your wallet anytime you see a guy wearing clothes that frighten you.