As a trial lawyer, I do love me a good jury, if for no other reason than you stick a bunch of disagreeable people in a small room and you tell them that that's where they'll sit until they reach a solution. So I'd put a representative of each in this room: a Republican, a Democrat, a police officer, a business owner, a minister, a teacher, a protester, and I don't know, but you get the picture. And their task will be to set up a march and to offer a speech, and they will need to figure out what they all need to say in unison. And if they can't figure out what they all agree upon and need to say, then they'll sit in that room until they get hungry enough, thirsty enough, and ornery enough to knock on the door and let us know they've reached a verdict. Surely there is something everyone wishes to say. — Hanover
This strikes me as far afield and an entirely useless discussion from a pragmatic perspective. If you are able to prove the illegitimacy of the US government from a moral perspective with absolute certainty, the police will still keep doing as they are doing as will the citizens. It's not like a good solid argument is going to change the world or even change a single interaction between the government and its citizens. — Hanover
Sounds like an excellent way of catering to the lowest common denominator and stick with the status quo. — Benkei
It is of critical importance whether this belief is true, and therefore should be brought to its logical terminus, or untrue, and therefore explained as a misguided notion and that better political means are available to achieve changes to state policy and essential state character. — boethius
Is anyone who is an object of some study thereby objectified? — Echarmion
I disagree with that definition of objectification. By this logic, trying to guess how a person might react to something I say is objectifying them. As is trying to figure out why an infant might be crying. — Echarmion
This post is the first time you ever actually provide an argument, your protestations that it's all so simple and obvious notwithstanding. — Echarmion
I think you can find your own evidence, but here's something to get you started. But the close connection of psychology to advertising goes back to Bernays, as you will have seen in my thread already, or not.And I suppose there is some sociological evidence to back this claim up? — Echarmion
My feeling is that African Americans are protesting what is happening in their communities by the police because they are subject to that violence and they want it to end. — Hanover
All of this is to say, even if I could objectively show that the US government was legitimate and that the current method of policing was the only effective and proper means of law enforcement, it's not like the African American community would be at all persuaded to accept their lot, put on a smile, and get back to work. — Hanover
Also for the discussion about psychiatriy, relevant quote: "One of the things neoliberalism does is take social and economic problems and turn them into emotional and individual problems". — fdrake
I'm guessing you meant to say psychotherapy or psychiatry right? — Isaac
No. I meant what I said, and it is a generalisation about mainstream psychology. — unenlightened
Yes, let's compromise on justice. Great idea. — Benkei
"Boohoo, the oppressed classes are revolting, it's not like providing an argument that I don't have is going to get them back to work. What I do have is the whip though, and therefore should use that whip to get things back to the way I like it." — boethius
I've not said they should just get back to work. I said they should find common ground. Apparently that's a controversial idea. Who'd have thunk? — Hanover
The way that people are brought together is, well, by bringing them together. Explaining the psychology of the situation, even if you're dead on, really isn't going to move the needle one way or the other in terms of resolution. — Hanover
social behaviour is heavily influenced by the prevalent psychological worldview. — unenlightened
That's supposed to be what politics and Parliament is for. It doesn't work to correct racial and socio economic injustice. This "play nice" has to go until such time as there's some assurances with regard to policies that work so that police brutality will stop. No sitting in a room until there's a genuine offer of good will from the rest of society. Until that time the rest of society can majorly fuck off. — Benkei
Did the American founding fathers get in a room and compromise with King George? Did FDR get in a room with Hirohito and Hittler and find "common ground"? Did president Bush get in a room and compromise with the Taliban, or Sadam, or Bin Laden for that matter?
When it is your class using violence to reach political objectives, it's "serious discussion", "just war theory", "tough love", "doing what it takes", "no bleeding heart liberal hippy bullshit".
Yet, as soon as other classes express their power for violence to reach political objectives, it's "woe, woe, peaceful protest! peaceful protest! Violence isn't the answer bro! This isn't the non-violence of Martin Luther King! For the love of God, listen to MLK, just listen! Partake with me in the sacred compromise in the arms of the Holy Goddess!" — boethius
Again, I suggest the tool of reading to participate in text base discussion: — boethius
The same can only be said of all academic scientists: the primary roll of mathematics, physics and engineering becomes the arms industry, the primary roll of "political science" becomes apologetics for the state, the primary roll of creative pursuits becomes entertainment and distraction, the primary roll of psychology becomes manipulative marketing, the primary roll of philosophy becomes the denial of moral courage as a component of "the good life", if not the denial of any moral truth as such. — boethius
I am using the term "academics" to refer to the group of people in academics, not as synonymous with knowledge.
So, if you're trying to say the academic is a tool of state authority, I agree. If you are trying to say that knowledge is a tool in the hands of the academic to service state authority, I agree. — boethius
If you are trying to say the process of selection of who gets to be an academic is independent of state policy, then I disagree. — boethius
Again, what's with the not reading things? — boethius
We morally condemn the serial killer of legitimate state agents, we morally condemn illegitimate states and their killings and their state agents who kill.
When a illegitimate state kills a lot of people we say it is "mass murder" (i.e. serial killing, just with a difference in scale).
The nuances you might like to get into I am aware of and refer to as "with varying degrees of apologetics we can engage in depending on the Nazi". I agree each individual Nazi may not have the state of mind of a serial killer, but it is only because they are fully convinced they are engaging in just warfare on behalf of a legitimate state. Who we are not so morally lenient with are those orchestrating the serial killing and have the intellectual capacity to evaluate their actions and the system they are promoting as a whole.
However, you said specifically: — boethius
You are not referring to individuals soldiers who may not know better (and have been selected by the organization for this quality), but you are referring to the organization as a whole and its process of selecting and killing victims.
This process of the organization as a whole is no different in it's essential quality than that of the individual serial killer: They do it because they can and it brings them immense fascination and satisfaction. — boethius
Trying to understand an individual is an I-thou relationship Very very different to trying to measure an abstracted average five-yr-old, or whoever. — unenlightened
I quoted my own thread where I discuss this in some detail and with further references, I also linked to a book that makes part of the argument by a well respected author and with his wiki page. Nobody has mentioned any of this either to discuss, or dispute at any point. — unenlightened
I think you can find your own evidence, but here's something to get you started. But the close connection of psychology to advertising goes back to Bernays, as you will have seen in my thread already, or not. — unenlightened
You can find that in my recent post history actually. But yes, you are asking obedience in the guise of rationality. You love order above justice whereas I think civil disobedience is a duty where society perpetuates injustice where fundamental rights are infringed by state actors. Depending on the circumstances that may include violence. — Benkei
Stop assaulting peaceful protesters. How hard is that? How hard is to train police to restrict themselves to a reasonable level of force appropriate to the situation? — Baden
American police are mean as shit. — Hanover
I quoted my own thread where I discuss this in some detail and with further references — unenlightened
psychology as an industry is largely in the business of undermining any class consciousness, and supporting, in the first place the individualising and fragmenting of society, whereby poverty and unemployment is an internal psychological failure of ambition, and from there a reintegration along race and national lines and the projection of the internalised resentment onto the 'other'. — unenlightened
I think you can find your own evidence, but here's something to get you started. — unenlightened
Psychology graduates go into advertising, into human resources (there's an objectifying phrase for you) into health, social work, education, and they bring and promote the values and views they have been taught. — unenlightened
The lesson of political history. (e.g. Hobbes & Marx) :point:History teaches us something else:
Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, but must be violently taken by the oppressed.
— boethius
That was the message you derived from MLK? — Hanover
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. — Frederick Douglass
Much more good stuff going on between police and protesters, all very welcome, as are @Wolfman's comments, which give us an insight into things from the police's perspective. — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.