Gotta love that one! — creativesoul

You should. It's a compliment that's mostly undeserved.

Leaves are a cause of us raking them. They're just not a sufficient cause, they are a necessary one. — Isaac


You are conflating condition with cause; a common mistake. — Janus

Really? How? — Isaac

Isn't it obvious? Leaves do not cause us to rake them; our desire to rake them does. Unless you understand causation in some kind of weird Aristotelian way, saying that leaves cause us to rake them makes no sense.

Leaves are a necessary condition of our raking them, though; because if they weren't there we couldn't rake them.

If we're unable to define a human right we shouldn't insist there is one. — counterpunch

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as rights afforded to any and all individuals simply because they are human?

Leaves are elemental constituents of the process of raking leaves. A link of existential necessity. Where there have never been leaves, there could have never been leaf-raking.

Leaves are to leaf-raking as some speech is to certain individual action taken.

OK I think I pretty much already said what your first paragraph says, and I don't actually understand the second, it feels like looking through an extremely darkened window, or through a very small hole from a distance. Explicate if you care to.

Aristotle would have probably classed leaves as material causes of the act of raking. Personally I think it's better to reserve the notion of causation for efficient or proximate causation, and I think of the existence of leaves merely as being one of a set of conditions necessary for the existence of the activity of raking. A rake would be another. But neither leaves or rake cause you to rake leaves, to my way of thinking.

Isn't it obvious? Leaves do not cause us to rake them; our desire to rake them does. — Janus

Ah, the old "isn't it obvious", argument.

Tell me, how is it, do you think, that it is both "obvious" and "a common mistake"?

So leaves are not a cause of us raking them...because it's obvious that they're not?

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as rights afforded to any and all individuals simply because they are human? — creativesoul

Ask Ciceronius. He said it on page 4. It may have been misattributed by the quote button, but that's definitely not my claim.

Karma for being white apparently, I have no idea. I hear the same crap all the time, and it's garbage. I guess poor white people don't feel hunger or cold or loneliness or anything else that would demoralize anyone. We also don't bleed or feel pain because....white privilege I guess.

Did either of you have a look at the earlier link provided?

Since I've been called a racist here, do I not get my speech protected? You know... the speech that led you to believe I'm racist?

I did not call you racist. I said white privilege, as it is used 95% of the time, is bullshit. I stand by that. No idea if you are racist, I don't know you well enough to make any claim of the sort.

Yes, it was another who charged me with being racist. Have you looked at the link I provided? It's about privilege, and much of it is about the notion of white privilege in particular.

I have not looked over the link provided. I did not see the link as I read through, likely just missed it. If it is a new perspective on it I may look it over, if it is the same tired rhetoric, I will pass. People seem to have forgotten about all the horrible stuff that has happened to poor white people, usually done by other white people, so the concept of white privilege rings hollow to me. The horror of Church run residential schools have gotten lots of press in recent years, rightly so, however very little has been said about the equally horribly Church run orphanages. The only appreciable difference in the residents of both is race, so I find it disturbing that no one wants to discuss the orphanages. I guess those didn't happen. I am a product of one, and not the other, so between me and the kid beside me, one of us doesn't matter in the current climate, which I consider fundamentally wrong. If it's wrong for Bob then it's wrong for me. One set of rules for everyone. Not race or gender (or whatever flavour of the week may be) dependent treatment or laws, THAT is the definition of discrimination. Free speech for everyone, listening is optional. Disagree with me if you will, be don't silence me because of it.

Ah, the old "isn't it obvious", argument.

Tell me, how is it, do you think, that it is both "obvious" and "a common mistake"?

So leaves are not a cause of us raking them...because it's obvious that they're not? — Isaac

I notice you like to attempt to dismiss your interlocutor's arguments by trying to frame them as some cliched, unargued response.

The distinction between cause and condition is obvious to those who think about, their conflation is a common mistake of those who don't. No contradiction there except for the simple-minded.

It is obvious to me that leaves don't cause me to rake them, because I don't rake them unless I feel like it, have some reason to and so on. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to just how leaves cause you to take them.

The content of your link - where you seem to agree with me that the term white privilege is a misnomer, doesn't change the fact that you rolled your eyes and condescended to me, that I don't know what white privilege means, when I said:

The idea of "white privilege" is one of those contorted politically correct concepts, confected to cause offence, to divide people and incite the very racist sentiment it is purportedly intended to address. The white working class majority who struggle to make ends meet - cannot but be offended by such a concept, but that's precisely the purpose. — counterpunch

You said:

Oh dear, yet another white person that does not know what white privilege is — creativesoul

Why? If you agree that the term is a misnomer - that it doesn't describe the phenomenon, why did you suggest that I don't know what it means? Why did you deliberately misunderstand my argument - to suggest I'm ignorant of this basic idea? And also, it was synthesis that called you racist - so why bring it up with me and book273?

If you agree that the term is a misnomer... — counterpunch

I do not.

it was synthesis that called you racist - so why bring it up with me and book273? — counterpunch

Yes. My apologies.

I notice you like to attempt to dismiss your interlocutor's arguments by trying to frame them as some cliched, unargued response. — Janus

It's not a frame. You literally presented a cliched and un-argued response.

The distinction between cause and condition is obvious to those who think about, their conflation is a common mistake of those who don't. No contradiction there except for the simple-minded. — Janus

Wow. So now we've moved on to "anyone who doesn't reach the same conclusion as me simply hasn't thought hard enough"

It is obvious to me that leaves don't cause me to rake them, because I don't rake them unless I feel like it, have some reason to and so on. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to just how leaves cause you to take them. — Janus

What causes you to 'feel like' raking them? What causes there to be a 'reason' to rake them in your mind? In both cases - the leaves.

The leaves (their particular molecular properties) reflect light, sound etc which triggers a long and complex chain of neural reactions which, together with signals from other unrelated neural chains, ends up starting the long complex chain of signals which move your body in the manner of 'raking the leaves'

The leaves are therefore a necessary cause (you cannot be 'raking the leaves' without leaves to rake), but they are not a sufficient cause (you also need many other such neural chains to fire, such as knowing how to rake leaves, predicting what might happen if you don't, experiencing a negative affect in response to that prediction...etc).

So the problem is, if none of these are 'causes' simply because they are not sufficient, then raking the leaves has no cause, it is an uncaused event. Not a conclusion I think any of us want to come to. So we have to let non-sufficient causes into the definition of 'cause'

Now we have a list of non-sufficient causes. You want to give primacy to one in that list. Not (as you claim) the most proximate one - that would be the release of acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junctions in your arms and legs. No, you've picked one group of non-sufficient causes, somewhere in the long chain of events leading to raking the leaves and decided that it requires, not just an identifying label, but a label so unique that all other stages in this long chain of events must be relegated out of 'causes' and into some other term.

Why?

If you agree that the term is a misnomer...
— counterpunch

I do not. — creativesoul

Well, there you are then. I did try to warn you against vaguely waving in the direction of some other thread - when you could easily have copy and pasted the passage, you think is apt. I read that you think the term white privilege is bollocks. Now you don't. What fun you're having with me!

White privilege is what white people do not have to deal with on a daily basis that non whites do. It is injury suffered because one is non white that white people avoid suffering because they are not. It is the exemption from the liability of being non white. It's not a misnomer at all. Some folk misuse it, but some folk run stop signs and misuse free speech as well. The former president's team of attorneys has recently done precisely that, which is hypocritical on it's face given the former president's own speech and actions taken against peaceful demonstrations and Critical Theory.


As white privilege pertains to matters of free speech in academia...

Do you find anything at all wrong with universities teaching extensive in depth classes about the plight of Black people in America, with a particular focus upon the civil war era and afterwards? Dred Scott? Black Code in the south? Redlining? Segregation? Frederick Douglass? The lack of a path to American citizenship for black people(even those born here)? The sustained demonization of public assistance policies? The creation of mythical creatures like 'welfare queens'? The continued demonization of black men?

People seem to have forgotten about all the horrible stuff that has happened to poor white people, usually done by other white people, so the concept of white privilege rings hollow to me. — Book273

It is quite possible to do both, talk about the injustices/plight of poor whites while noting that even poor whites do not have to worry about being shot and killed because they are black, unless that is, they are mistaken as such, which does happen. Poor whites do not get stopped and harrassed for walking black at night, do not get immediately overlooked for a job because their name is unusual, etc.

There's an intersection here of being treated unfairly. Discussion of white privilege does not require ignoring the plight of poor working class whites. It's actually quite sad that so many poor white take immediate offense to the notion as well as Black Lives Matter.

The idea of "white privilege" is one of those contorted politically correct concepts, confected to cause offence, to divide people and incite the very racist sentiment it is purportedly intended to address. The white working class majority who struggle to make ends meet - cannot but be offended by such a concept, but that's precisely the purpose. — counterpunch

That's not what white privilege is. It's not an idea. It does not require being named. The name "white privilege" is used to pick out something that existed in it's entirety prior to being picked out by the name. Whites do not typically think about the fact that they are not treated unfairly because they are non white, because they are not... treated unfairly as a result of being non white. Whites are exempt from the liability of being non white in America. Being exempt from that liability is white privilege. There's no intent to cause offense. There's no intent to divide people. There's no purpose to offend poor whites.

The intent, the purpose, is to shed some much needed light upon the ongoing mistreatment of non whites in America that stems from the racist foundations that America was built upon.

White privilege is something that requires being discussed because it is something that is ingrained in American culture and needs to be corrected. Such discussions will enlighten those who do not realize the historical extent of the suffering that non whites have been forced to bear simply because they are not white. It brings to light the fact that racism still plays a pervasive role. It forces us to decide whether or not we will look the other way, or at the very least, take a stand against the unfair treatment of others. Make the conversation happen on all the levels that will effect/affect the necessary change.

Trump tried to cancel such free speech, such academic teachings, by executive order nonetheless. It's an American history lesson that needs to be taught to each and every American, not just at the university level.

What causes you to 'feel like' raking them? What causes there to be a 'reason' to rake them in your mind? In both cases - the leaves. — Isaac

No, not the leaves. I am not compelled to rake leaves everywhere I see them, or even most places. What causes me to rake particular leaves is the thought that they look untidy, or that they will rot down and contaminate a hard surface with organic material. or that they will stain the driveway or verandah if I leave them there.

It seems to me that people generally use the term 'cause' in expressions of the form "X caused Y" when Y must happen when X obtains. 'He pointed a gun to my head, and ordered me to rake the leaves': in that case I would probably say that having a gun pointed at my head and being commanded to rake the leaves caused me to rake the leaves (or alternatively, I might deny this claiming that I still had a choice).

Or, other examples where choice does not come into it like 'falling from the roof, and landing badly on my left leg caused it to break', or 'being hit by a car caused her death' and so on. The point is, it seems to me that most people say they or someone or something else were caused to do something or to change in some way, when they think there was no choice involved.

You accuse me of appealing merely to how things seem to me, but in the practice of philosophy that applies to all. What authority do you imagine you are appealing to when you say 'leaves cause me to rake them' beyond how it seems to you?

do not get stopped and harrassed for walking black at night, do not get immediately overlooked for a job because their name is unusual — creativesoul

They get harassed for being white in the wrong area of town, at the wrong time. And they don't get over looked because their name is unusual, they get over looked because of the distinctly white name, and not allowed into certain programs as they are immediately disqualified due to being white.

All lives matter, each as much, or as little, as the next. Anything else demonstrates discrimination.

All lives matter... — Book273

Not if black lives don't.

They get harassed for being white in the wrong area of town, at the wrong time. And they don't get over looked because their name is unusual, they get over looked because of the distinctly white name, and not allowed into certain programs as they are immediately disqualified due to being white. — Book273

Are you denying that what I've said is true, or are you just wanting to change the subject?

They get harassed for being white in the wrong area of town, at the wrong time.

That, of course, is different than being harassed by police or turned down for a job or followed around in the store or the other innumerable racist things that happen to POC's in this country by the white ruling class.

And they don't get over looked because their name is unusual, they get over looked because of the distinctly white name, and not allowed into certain programs as they are immediately disqualified due to being white.

Yes, programs that benefit a historically oppressed minority are going to displace/not benefit some members of the dominant culture, who will rail about the injustice of it all. I agree with you, it's not fair that some poor white kid has points taken away on a college application for being white, but I know of no other way to help a group try to get back on its feet after centuries of de jure racial discrimination that people still remember. People seem to forget a salient point: it was OK for the state to treat blacks as second class citizens all the way up to the 1950's (the era, by the way, a lot of white Americans are nostalgic for, but America's not a racist country, not at all).

All lives matter, each as much, or as little, as the next. Anything else demonstrates discrimination.

When someone says "Black Lives Matter" and someone responds "All Lives Matter", what they're saying is "your concerns are equal to mine". They're not. The average black person has much more to fear from the cops than the average white person.

I have no interest in furthering this false narrative. I'm not going to be used as a sounding board for a virtue signalling intellectual midget to parrot their PC dogma. I've explained why the concept of white privilege is false. Now I'm done.

Your statement implying that they are somehow special because they are discriminated against suggests that others are not experiencing discrimination. This is simply inaccurate.

Also, all lives matter means ALL lives, EQUALLY. Any further distinction applied suggests those doing the application are also doing the discrimination.

I cannot speak to the US. I am not from there. I can speak only to my experiences. I have not seen the discrimination you speak of. I have seen, heard, and felt, anti-white discrimination. I have seen the effects of affirmative action programs, some good, mostly bad, and all seem to promote animosity.

Consider the message "Anti-violence against women and children day". I do not support violence, domestic or otherwise, except in special circumstances. However, having a day specifically identified as being against violence against women and children suggests that, as they are specifically NOT mentioned, violence against men is ok. I guess men don't matter that much eh, so hurting them is, not really suggested, but meh, who really cares? Kinda like rolling through a stop sign at 2 am, sure it's illegal, but really, how many people actually come to a complete stop and wait the allotted 3 seconds before proceeding?

The ridiculous part is that, by saying, "Hey, violence against men isn't cool either eh!" I am apparently demeaning the previous message about violence against women and kids, suggesting that violence MUST be done to someone, and must discrimination, we can't seem to say, maybe it's not right to do to ANYONE, so let's not do that eh.

That is seriously flawed.

"I guess men don't matter that much eh, so hurting them is, not really suggested, but meh, who really cares?"

Since men are the ones doing 80+% of the violence and killing against other men, I think complaining that we carve out a day to recognize victims of our own violence is really pathetic. Especially the one for children. How can you possibly have an objection over an anti-violence day for children???

I suggest you re-read the post. Clearly you did not understand it. You did however nicely demonstrate exactly what I was addressing in the last paragraph. Lastly, exactly where did I suggest, even remotely, that I wanted an anti-violence against men day? I think all those special recognition days are stupid. They suggest the other 364 days are good to go.


Also, WAY off topic! Campus free speech remember?