I've heard that there are now unidentified federal officers in unmarked cars arresting protestors. — Michael

They're arresting the black mask crew.

And that's the thing about the black masks causing millions of dollars in property damage and embracing violence as a legitimate means to political ends: When the government starts using fascistic, violent tactics back against you is the public even going to care?

But if we only observe human behavior in this life, the sentences you have written above don't necessarily translate to better predictions of what action any given individual will take. — Adam's Off Ox

I know. I've said twice now that a nihilist may very well be a good person. We may live in a universe where nihilists are even, on average, better behaving than Christians. I don't care. I'm solely concerned here with the rational conclusions of one's beliefs. In other words, if we take the nihilist's beliefs to its logical conclusions.... I'm not interested either in digging into every possible iteration of Christianity. I'm not even a Christian. I'm solely concerned here with the rational conclusions drawn from nihilism vs. a belief in a God regarding moral behavior.

I don't see how the label of nihilist informs any discussion on good or evil, from an ethical or philosophical perspective. — Adam's Off Ox

If we're talking about rationality it should. The theist is always accountable for his behaviors according to a set, permanent standard while the nihilist does not acknowledge any standard and is basically free to pick whatever path he likes. Again, I'm not concerned with defending evil iterations of Christianity or how Christianity or Judaism or Islam may look "in practice." I'm concerned with ideas here.

At the end of the day the theistic moral realist has a God to answer to and believes he will be judged by actual, objective standards. He has skin in the game. Bad actions have consequences in the next life.

A moral nihilist may be a good person. Plenty of people just have naturally good dispositions or are responsive to positive social pressures, but others don't.

I agree with everything you wrote here. A nihilist could be a perfectly moral person. I just think that an intellectually honest nihilist should have very little if any resistance to engaging in depravity if social conditions were to make it advantageous or if the moral nihilist were just curious for any reason and he knew he could get away with it.

By the way, what reason does a nihilist have for complying to certain morals? If they are meaningless statements, then why care about ethics? — JacobPhilosophy

The nihilist has basically no real reasons for complying with morality in general since doesn't exist/have any real grounding. The nihilist might comply with conventional morality for social appearances or because it personally makes him feel good but outside of that there's no real backing to it.

You'll never hear this question being asked by a soldier on the front lines or a man struggling to feed his impoverished village. You won't hear this question being asked by a mother struggling to take care of her newborn child. This type of question arises out of a certain state of being so if you're looking for an answer maybe just look to the state that you're in.

Reading back in the thread, it looks like you're starting college soon so you're probably on the younger side. If you're only 18 it's natural to feel this sort of confusion because you're in this transitional phase into adulthood. Just go enjoy college assuming it's still on: make some friends, drink some beer, and meet a partner. You'll be alright. Life won't seem as pointless when you start a family or fall in love or start caring for a bigger cause.

As a chess player, the first thing that comes to mind when I hear "patterns" is to think of patterns in chess which are really just geometric truths that one either grasps or doesn't. A pattern doesn't not exist simply because no one sees it. In this sense, I see patterns as being objective. If these types of patterns were subjective it would imply that the first player to grasp them brought them into existence which seems strange to me. It makes more sense to me to say that the pattern already inheres within reality and minds can either grasp or not grasp them.

It's entirely reasonable to be confused about this word. It confuses a lot of people; myself included. A lot of times in the context of injury or disability or tragedy a professional might ask someone whether he "accepts" the fact of his injury/disability/tragedy and it's not entirely clear what this entails. Obviously on one hand everyone recognizes the reality, but the term acceptance implies more than factual acknowledgment; it implies a certain outlook towards things which isn't entirely negative or nihilistic. What that outlook exactly is isn't entirely clear to me.

The topic is complicated.

But there isn't a disconnect, is there? The name is perfectly in keeping with the aims of the movement, given that the tolerance of murder of black people by racists is a testimony that black lives don't actually matter compared to whites. — Kenosha Kid

If someone actually cared about protecting black lives they'd take 2 seconds to look at the numbers and see that if we're talking about violence many, many times more black men are killed by other black men than are killed by whites - even racist whites.

Of course we can campaign against those racist, evil whites - it's fine! No one should support Derek Chauvin. My concern comes when out of this campaigning emerges a certain unbalanced worldview that implies that white people are the biggest threat to black men and that the way to solve this is more black nationalism.

Which just returns us to the idea that a campaign can not be specific and therefore effective: — Kenosha Kid

I never really faulted BLM for this. I believe if you look on their website or atleast somewhere floating around on the internet is a list of goals for BLM. I find the movement in its most basic form to be actually really good and easy to support.

This is why the change of subject is so racist: you lay the responsibility of black gang culture on a group of people legitimately campaigning against a very real threat from their own law enforcers on the basis of what? — Kenosha Kid

I never mentioned "who is to blame" for black gangs. I'm solely concerned here with what is actually killing black men if we're talking about violence. I'm just looking at the numbers; it's not hard to see.

I support the basic aims of BLM: Police reforms and ending unjust state violence (obviously towards everyone would be ideal, but if we just want to focus on black people that's fine too.) That could be the end of the discussion; there ya go, I support BLM.

If we start prodding a little further we're now in an environment where everyone can name many black victims of police violence and essentially no white victims of police violence. The movement describes its nature/outlook as "unapologetically black" so where do non-blacks even fit in in the movement? It just seems strange to me that some black victims get basically deified while others are simply ignored from an organization which is fundamentally about black unity & black communities. Additionally, on the BLM website if you look at the aims of the movement ("What we believe") section I do think there's Marxist undertones (the co-founder admits to Marxism.)

So it's like whatever. Does everyone support the basic premises? Yes, because they're obvious beyond obvious. It's only when you start digging a little deeper...

No, it's not. A part of the problem is just the name: Black Lives Matter. If you want to call it blacks against state violence that's fine, but there's a disconnect with the name BLM when you have many black victims being ignored and others deified.

Er, yeah, nvm about that, what I meant was that BLM is focusing on state-related offences, you made no mention of any "all lives matter" and idk what made me think you did. Crime is obviously a problem but it doesn't need to be the only problem that gets addressed... why frame it like we need to pick one or the other? — Judaka

BLM doesn't even address crime right now. It is focused only on certain forms of violence towards black folks - namely, state violence and vigilante groups. If you read the BLM "what we believe" statement there are 0 mentions of crime or gang violence which claim far more black lives than cops or George Zimmerman or the KKK.

I wouldn't think it's super bizarre. In fact, the Netherlands has (or had) a group solely focused on rape of men by women because it's totally unrepresented and not taken seriously. — Benkei

The reason here is important. The devil is in the details. If you were to come up to me and be like "hey, you want to take part in this protest against women raping men due to how underrepresented this is in society I would say sure.

Contrast this with me coming up to you and being like "Hey Benkei, I'd like you to join the Men's Bodies Matter movement! Don't you believe that men's bodies matter? You do? Great! So, when it comes to protecting men's bodies our struggle is concerned solely with the epidemic of women on man sexual violence! Trust me, we're huge advocates for men here and it's important that we succeed with our mission!"

And if you were to bring up the (entirely reasonable) objection "well what about male on male aggression which claims many more victims?" I would just tell you to go away because that's not our cause. It's all about how the issue is framed.

It's interesting and I'm still trying to clarify my thoughts on this issue, but I think we'd both agree that just because a problem exists does not mean we need to form a movement explicitly concerned with its resolution. For instance, while black on white homicide is a problem (because all homicide is a problem) a movement to address this problem really doesn't do a lot of good. It's like of all the problems... why choose that one? Is this really a fair representation of the bigger issue (and it's not because something like 85% of homicides towards whites are committed by other whites.)

I never used the "all lives matter" line of argumentation... maybe quote me where I said it before applying the position to me?

Let's take it as a given that crime and poverty are strongly correlated then black on black violence isn't an issue of race but a consequence of it, or at least I consider poverty of blacks a direct consequence of systemic racism and black on black violence a secondary consequence. — Benkei

Are you saying that black on black violence is a result of poverty? This doesn't entirely bear out because we don't see the same homicide rates in other parts of the country with similar poverty rates.

Second, how about white on white crime? People tend to kill people in their own communities. It's not a black pathology of increased violence amongst blacks. — Benkei

Yes, when whites murder they disproportionately choose to murder other whites. When homicide is done it's overwhelmingly within that same ethnic group. The reason I bring up black on black crime is because you would think an organization that is concerned with black lives should be a little more tuned into a phenomenon which is killing black men at a much greater rate than police violence.

There's also a rather important difference between being murdered by a criminal and being murdered by a cop; the latter isn't supposed to do it, has qualified immunity and for some weird reason is believed in court more readily than regular citizens. — Benkei

There are some instances where cops are perfectly within their rights to kill. If we look at instances where cops did kill in 2019 you'll see in the vast majority of those instances the subject was armed.

I acknowledge it's still a problem though, but if we had to devote our time and resources towards either eliminating black on black crime or police violence towards blacks I would honestly choose the former. Make no mistake about it, it is a discussion in the black community and it has been a discussion for decades. Why BLM pays seemingly no attention to it is beyond me.

There's more but it's just diversionary and distracting. If victimised men start a "no more rape by women" group, why demand they should protest against rape of women as well, because it's more prevalent? In fact, why do you feel the need to tell people what they should be worrying about? — Benkei

Alright, lets go with this example. Lets imagine a group called "Men's Bodies Matter" started a nationwide movement that solely concerned itself with women-on-male rape. I mean we're all against rape, right? But what about male on male rape, which happens more to men than women on male? Obviously women on male rape is wrong, but I think we'd both agree the explicit and sole focus only on female perpetrator/male victim would be super bizarre. I'd be tempted to call it an anti-woman movement and I'm not even much of a feminist.

Make no mistake about it, the explicit focus on some aggressors but not others is very political.

I know that the issues are different, but you'd think a movement dedicated to the welfare of black people would be concerned with a category of homicides which kill 4-5x more lives a year than police do. We're fundamentally talking about homicides here.

It does seem a little strange to me how BLM focuses exclusively on violence committed towards black people by the state, but their statement neglects to mention black-on-black violence which accounts for many more victims. It's honestly not even close. In 2019 you had 336 unarmed black men killed by police - even if we include armed black men we're getting 1609 total. If we're talking about the black on black homicide rate I think we're getting around 8-9,000 yearly black homicide victims with the vast majority killed by other blacks.

Alright, I was just reading through this paper.

"[The BLM organization/movement] disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Earlier they say this:

"We see ourselves as part of the global Black family..."

It seems to me that while they're not seeking to immediately eliminate the nuclear family, they are seeking to expand it - and arguably weaken it. This last part about "weakening" is controversial, it's gonna depend where you stand politically, but they themselves use the term "disrupt." Previously, socialist or communist regimes have sought to destroy the nuclear family through rhetoric involving its expansion (e.g. the village raises the kid.)

But isn't that a bit arbitrary? I mean, the Netherlands is tiny with a relatively homogenous culture compared to the USA. Most things are international for us because our neighbours are just a stone's throw away. Moreoever, the right of self determination often stems from a cultural or ethnic group inside national borders; so not very international. — Benkei

I feel like we might be talking past each other here. When I say I support self-determination I'm saying that, in general I support the right of "a people" to freely choose their own government (implying statehood) and to have that statehood be free from external interference. So, I would support the creation, of, say, a Kurdistan. It comes down to protecting ethnic minorities and the idea that we can't just rely on our neighbors to keep us safe.

I think both approaches should be reconciled with each other. I'm not going to deny individual autonomy but there's a point for me where collective pressure is such that I don't think punishing individuals makes sense unless they actually had power to influence events. So we sentenced Nazi leaders but not Nazi soldiers. It's not as if the BLM movement is actively encouraging riots; compare that to a President who was actively encouraging shooting US civilians. — Benkei

Punishment/judicial procedures and moral responsibility are two different things. There are plenty of shitty, terrible people who we would never put on trial or punish in any type of formal way. There are also decent people who commit crimes who we need to punish. I support reconciling the two approaches as well. Any reasonable approach should. We did punish German soldiers who committed actual war crimes (then again plenty of those who did commit war crimes got off scot-free) but in the post-war period the West had an interest in a strong West Germany and we weren't about the lynch the country for its past crimes and punish everyone with even a trace of connection to the Nazi party. Hell, even Israel established ties with West Germany in the mid 50s.

If BLM isn't encouraging violence/rioting then I'm fine with BLM if that's truly what they stand for. I haven't looked into the BLM movement that much... it seems like there are a ton of different perspectives on it and I'm just not interested in digging too much into the weeds here. If it's just about non-violent resistance/protests and police reforms then that's fine in my book. I definitely support some police reforms.

So how we deal with it also becomes a tactical issue. — Benkei

On a philosophy forum we should be able to call a spade a spade. I get that there's a tactical/rhetorical/political element to it.

Those that were betrayed and are discriminated against. Enough that in anger they might burn or loot buildings, or even in desperation? Apparently. — Benkei

I just don't buy this. On one hand many of the businesses they destroy are minority-owned businesses and businesses in poor areas. I think many of them are opportunists who see disorder/free stuff and think they can cash in. In any case even if you are legitimately angry you're still shooting your own community in the foot.

I think ontology is a branch of metaphysics. Join the metaphysics club.

Interesting. Do you mind explaining? — 83nt0n

In some religious traditions God is all knowing and all powerful, so you and I might see things one way but unless it matches God's view it can't be validated. I'm not saying I agree with this view I'm putting it out there as one way the existence of a God impacts truth.

So we don't have hope against defeating skepticism? — 83nt0n

I didn't say that, I just said that I personally don't believe the existence (or non existence) of a God can be derived purely through the use of reason. That's just my own view.

We won't know if we have the correct answers - this is philosophy, after all. I believe the nature of truth itself depends on whether we adopt a theistic/pantheistic/atheistic framework.

Metaphysics. The question of whether there is a God - and if so, what is his nature - or not, and one's views on ontology (the nature of being) and our relationship to the universe I think is most fundamental. I place primary on one's fundamental attitude towards being (i.e. our relationship to it), then we can start with the thinking (epistemology, logic, and ethics is much dependent on epistemology.)

All right, cool, as long as you're being consistent.

In your analogy you imply that a local business - say, like a sporting good store or a shoe store - is part of the opponent (you liken it to the face of the opponent.) So just to be clear you're saying that these stores are the enemy, or at least a part of the enemy.

Start responding yourself. When is violence justified? — unenlightened

If the problem is with the state/the system why not go after them as opposed to random private businesses?

It's a bit of a tangent but since you're coming now from the individualist side on these topics I'm wondering about how some things works in your moral framework. What do you make of the right to self determination? — Benkei

I support it. If, by virtue of the discussion, we're just talking about groups I'll deal with groups but it's not my ideal method. I deal with individuals whenever possible. If we're talking about macro-level issues like international relations we do need to shift lenses.

Yeah, I engaged Streetlight because I was bored yesterday. I usually don't engage him, but when I did originally engage him yesterday it was just to try to flush out his own position as opposed to actually arguing with him. I wouldn't waste my time with that.

I had fun though. He's a quick responder and he's not stupid. It was kind of like talking with an antifa member; as long as you manage your expectations when it comes to an actual, productive conversation and don't get too hostile with him it should be kind of fun. He's not a dumb guy he's just an extremist.

I've also somehow been having productive conversations with Benkei lately.

Why is it impossible to judge someone as an individual? Some % of the rioters are white, and some % of them are from decent economic backgrounds. There's literally video of Logan Paul, a multi-millionaire youtube personality, going through a mall in Phoenix with other rioters. It would be a pitfall to lump everyone together.

You must separately justify the degree to which you absolve, or even just sympathise with, people due to those mitigating circumstances.

Exactly - it needs to be judged on an individual, case-by-case basis. I do feel bad for someone who never had a father due being arrested for pot or something stupid.

Keep in mind this extends far beyond systemic racism - white people or asians have problems too. Maybe they're ugly or short or have a weird voice or their mother never paid enough attention to them etc. These are all unique, individual things to that person.

Why the fuck are we talking about Ted Bundy? @BitconnectCarlos The topic is "Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?" I hope that at some point you get around to answering that. Thank you.

If we're going back to this topic and I've stated this before but I do support police reforms - better training, body cams, independent agencies going over police reports - those are all fine. I've also opposed the war on drugs for years now. End the war on drugs now.

Are you suggesting that we have absolutely no means at our disposal to assess the degree to which someone's actions are constrained by their circumstances? That, when faced with the starving child stealing a loaf of bread and the bored celebrity shoplifting a pair of sunglasses, we have nothing to tell the difference in responsibility between the two? — Isaac

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm happy to acknowledge mitigating circumstances. Not everyone who commits a crime is a monster, and the case of the starving child is completely different from the celebrity.

In order for someone to retain their humanity we need to regard them as an independent, moral agent capable of making their own decisions and being held responsible for them. Otherwise you're just denying something that's core to them.

EDIT: In the case of low IQ individuals we often do strip them of their agency and this is controversial, but it does make sense to me. It's still sad though.

Again, it's not a fantasy it's a hypothetical. I can't fantasize about you because I have no idea who you are. I'm just taking your ideas to a logical conclusion.

There's an asymmetry here which you've acknowledged. Violence conducted by cops or whites towards blacks matters, but violence conducted by minorities towards business-owners or whatnot - is just a distraction. I'm just demonstrating that premise with a hypothetical.

All I want to hear is "it matters."

Ok, it's nice to know that you'd consider that if you or a family member were assaulted by an angry minority who was angry about racial injustice that it would just be a distraction. Thank you.

Why the fuck are we talking about Ted Bundy? @BitconnectCarlos The topic is "Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?" I hope that at some point you get around to answering that. Thank you.

Isaac claimed that the grounds for judging someone, in, say, a court of law should just be compassion so I was responding to that. There were plenty of Bundy fangirls out there who had plenty of compassion for him.

It's not my fantasy. I don't have anything against you personally. I don't even know what you look like so I don't know how I would fantasize about that.

I'm asking you consider a hypothetical because hypotheticals can be helpful. It's not a crazy hypothetical either. It illustrates my point.

Really? So your argument for why you think it should be that way is "that's the way it is". Conservative philosophy in a nutshell. — Isaac

No, my point is that it rationally grounds western civilization. You need to work on your reading comprehension, no offense.

You can disregard self-responsibility, I don't care, but you end up, rationally speaking, in a very different place. We are on a philosophy forum after all.

Oh, ...I don't, know...with an iota of compassion maybe? — Isaac

Are you compassionate towards Jeffrey Dahmer? Bundy? There are people who had compassion towards them - young women, mostly. They understood these men.

It's good that it's not about you. It's not even about individuals, either. It's about groups. If an angry black man mugged you and left you lying in the street it's nice that you can at least acknowledge that this is all just a "distraction" and that it doesn't really matter. Individuals don't matter, group dynamics do.

Why, apart from the fact that it conveniently fits your neoliberal mythology, have you then given primacy to just one of those factors? — Isaac

Because it's what grounds western civilization - it grounds our legal system and the entire notion of the individual in society. I don't know Isaac, for all I know responsibility rests entirely with random neurons firing in our brain. In that case, there's really no such thing as good or bad people. Nobody is to blame here - not poor black rioters nor rich white supremacists who spend every minute of their existence plotting how to screw over minorities.

How are we suppose to judge someone if we don't believe in self-responsibility? If people are just the sum of their influences and environment, why even allow them to vote? What's the point?

It's all meaningless "distraction" violence until someone throws a brick through your business or house or you get mugged.

If there's injustice I'm happy to speak out about it. But I also realize the world's not black and white and that injustice/unjust violence should be condemned where ever it is whether it's from police, black-on-white crime, black on black crime, white on white, white on black, from ANTIFA, from the far right.

You don't get it. Police violence doesn't shatter my worldview. I've already condemned instances of police violence but you don't condemn violence coming from "your" side."