GENIUS FORUMS

There is an interesting article in our local paper today. It’s about “toxic certainty”, which I take to mean our imbedded discriminations about people. The article began talking about an African-American dancer, Bill T Jones, whose work confronts issues like AIDS, taboo, death etc, which some people perceive as “victim art”.

The article raises the issue of whether we’re too judgemental with toxic certainty. (It’s Kathleen Noonan’s article in ETC in The Courier Mail if any Australians are interested in reading it.) We recently had a case of a (presumedly young) mother abandoning her baby outside a hospital. I remember one of our papers had the headline “How Could She?”. Most people would probably condemn the mother straight away, because in all truth, the baby could easily have died. But other people would probably prefer to suspend judgement until they were aware of all the facts.

Racism is probably the biggest issue in toxic certainty. I admit I’m a racist. I’m fearful of Muslims, and hold little hope for our indigenous Aborigines. On the other hand, I’m fond of Scots and Canadians. I didn’t deliberately set out to be biased for or against one person or another. To a large extent, I can’t help how I perceive things. I base my judgements on what actually happens, and if certain behaviour recurs time and time again, I can’t help my personal response to that. Calling someone a racist doesn’t address the central issue of whether their bias may be warranted in the first place.

On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to be born an Aborigine, for example, because I know the odds would be stacked against me straight away. So in my toxic certainty, I have to try to be fair-handed.

How much are we responsible for our own level of toxic certainty? Is toxic certainty necessarily a bad thing? Aren’t our value judgements important too? If our value judgements are at odds with discrimination, which should give way to the other?

Bilby wrote:I admit I’m a racist. I’m fearful of Muslims,...

I'm from the Muslim race.

BOO!

I used to not be able to tell the difference between Middle Easterners and other white people - then I was raped by someone who said he was doing it in retaliation against America because he was tired of being teased at work for being from the Middle East. I developed a fear and disgust for Middle Eastern men, but I did not realize that there were some Middle Easterners who looked like they were of a different race than the one who raped me. I had a great deal of difficulty treating patients who looked anything like the guy who raped me the same as I treated any other person. I still delivered quality medical care, but my bedside manner was a bit on the cold side. Years later I developed a friendship with someone who I later learned was from Iran. I still consider him like a brother, even though i have not spoken with him in years - and after I learned where he was from, my prejudice against Middle Eastern men dissolved. It only takes getting to know and like one person of the race that you are prejudiced against to have the whole false perception dissolve - and in its place the recognition that there are people of every race who behave badly, stupidly, or with compassion and generosity.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Bilby wrote:I admit I’m a racist. I’m fearful of Muslims,...

I'm from the Muslim race.

BOO!

Islam isn't a race.

Elizabeth, I'm so sorry to hear what happened to you.

You show a lot of courage and generosity of spirit. If you can recover from something like that, there's hope for all of us.

Faust13 wrote:Islam isn't a race.

And why on Earth shouldn’t it be? I mean, the Jewish people (setting such a wonderful benchmark) get to call themselves a race. Even their atheists are still “Jews from Israel.” Israel is the promised land, don’t you know? Promised by Yahweh to the Jewish people, not the Jewish religion, despite man-made treaties. The Jews even got to claim the Holy Land as their country -- complete with its own borders and walls -- and then call that country’s government a democracy to appease their lesser intelligent, secular members whilst bulldozing neighbouring homes belonging to the Muslim people out of their way and usurping water resources as they spread out, out, out…. Oh, those scary little Muslims throwing rocks from their little stone houses with less water to live on than is humanly acceptable!

Since Yahweh, true to his word, made sure the Jewish race got back their land, then I think its only a matter of time before Muslims get to take over the world and convert everybody. It’s all one God, in the end. Thing is, nobody’s really quite sure precisely what move he’s going to make next because, well, he's God. How can you not believe in God and think you know anything! So, actually, what you cannot have is a race of atheists. That would just be silly because, unlike religionists, they think they know something -- they think they can make fairly well educated guesses. They think that DNA tells them more about themselves than the holy books. Stupid atheists. Don't they know they can't possibly exist because there is no atheist genealogy in the holy books? Just disobedience to God, and their consequent punishment.

It’s only right, then, that the Earth’s population should be reduced to three races -- Jew, Muslim and Christian; that the time must come when every man, woman and child will have to chose their poison. And, in this light, amongst the many mind-carved geographical borders, we can all see who the Christians are, can’t we…

Leyla Shen wrote:So, actually, what you cannot have is a race of atheists. That would just be silly because, unlike religionists, they think they know something -- they think they can make fairly well educated guesses. They think that DNA tells them more about themselves than the holy books. Stupid atheists. Don't they know they can't possibly exist because there is no atheist genealogy in the holy books? Just disobedience to God, and their consequent punishment.

It’s only right, then, that the Earth’s population should be reduced to three races -- Jew, Muslim and Christian; that the time must come when every man, woman and child will have to chose their poison. And, in this light, amongst the many mind-carved geographical borders, we can all see who the Christians are, can’t we…

You are right, and at the same time, you are so, so wrong to think the Unchosen People are not a race. Surely we must have much in common, that no god will reveal himself unto us. It must be a sign of our strength, that no god has the courage to do so. And by that strength will we prevail!

Having been chosen to no side of our own, all we can do is support the most reasonable side, which is of course the Unitarian Jihad.

--
Sibling Dagger of Reasoned Discussion

How much are we responsible for our own level of toxic certainty?

We think what we are caused to think. If newspapers and TV continuously put forth negative images of say Muslims then we will automatically think of Muslims negatively, unless we have in place some sort of previously learnt higher order mental meme that diminishes overrides such negative values. For example the Christian "care for others" or the mob-based "everyone is equal" memes often overrides the accumulative storing of increasingly negative values seen on TV in realtion to this example.

Is toxic certainty necessarily a bad thing?

No. We live in a competitive world, and part of being able to compete with the "best" is to be able to react quickly and consistently. Government use toxic certainly for defence of their country - all soldiers have at least some degree of toxic certainty in relation to nationalism. Having a degree of certainty allows one to move on to other things.

Toxic certainly is generally useful if you are on the side that is more dominant than the other, as it allows you to go with the "winning flow" to some degree.

In an ideal world of course, one we presently are a long way off (it requires a rational world-level government) toxic certainty would necessarilly be a bad thing.

Aren’t our value judgements important too? If our value judgements are at odds with discrimination, which should give way to the other?

Value judgements are discrimination, or in the case of discrimination against other types of people, the precursor. Nothing wrong with discrimination, if it is rational, and rational just means what is best for your life. If one does not discriminate then their culture will become less dominant - and become the losing side - than those that do discriminate. We detest Muslims as a group because of the massive degree they discriminate against those not like them, whereas we are completely tolerant of Buddhists because the bulk of them discriminate even less than us.

Media bias can’t be blamed for putting forth negative images of Muslims if all they’re doing is reporting the news. I mean, a negative image doesn’t happen by itself, there has to be an underlying story there. There was a recent poll where one quarter of American Muslims believed that suicide bombings can be at least be partially justified. So it’s not just a case of mindless racism if Australians, for instance, distrust Muslims. I’d say we had good reason to. The extreme Muslim minority wouldn’t be as powerful without this significant tacit support from mainstream Muslims.

When I said value judgements, I meant things like not believing that religion can ever justify violence, or that man shouldn’t devalue women and make light of rape. So I was asking, if our value judgements are challenged, say by someone like Sheik Taj Aldin, should we question our own value judgements rather than allow ourselves to become biased against people like him and all that they stand for?

I think it makes more sense to hold to our value judgements, especially if they’re universally accepted, and basically the hallmarks of any decent society. If this means that we become racist, say against Muslims generally, is this necessarily a bad thing?

Some people just don’t get it, Dave! Watch their eyes gloss over…

Bilby wrote:When I said value judgements, I meant things like not believing that religion can ever justify violence,…

Actually, I agree with this -- but it is obvious that you actually don't know what you mean in general by value judgements and, in particular, integrity. You see, fear and integrity do not cohabitate. So, I shall ask you this: what do you think of Israel? Do you believe that its existence as the state of Israel, based solely on religion and in contravention of treaties (name the ones you disagree with as well as the grounds upon which you do so), justifies its violence against the Muslim race? Should the Muslim race not object to this belief that religion justifies violence?

Bilby wrote:If this means that we become racist, say against Muslims generally, is this necessarily a bad thing?

Only if you value clarity of thought, reason and discrimination. You could start by disclosing what kind of discrimination you think you are exercising when confusing race with religion and geopolitics. Why do you think those are less valid and valuable discriminations than your desire to blur them into one and then call that rational discrimination? Do you even know what they are? Or do you merely have faith in the idea that you are on the morally right team? Where does such a faith come from?

"Not listenin'. I'm not listenin...'"

We told him to go away--and away he goes, Precious!

To be honest, Leyla, I just don't know enough about the state of Israel to make a comment here. I’m just not that politically astute. It isn't the Jewish people committing acts of terrorism in the western world, so I don't understand the point you are raising here. Because I fear someone doesn't mean I'm lacking in integrity. I don't see how you arrived at this. I think my value judgements are sound, and they're fairly universal. My discrimination of Muslims is also based on their attitudes to women and rape, as well as their belief that terrorism in western countries is a legitimate part of the ongoing war with Israel. Most of “collateral damage” wouldn’t have a clue about the Israeli/Arab conflicts. They’re just innocent civilians.

So yes, I think I’m on the morally right team. The murder of innocent people is wrong, in anyone’s language. Rape is wrong. The subjugation of women is wrong. I’m not interested in whether Muslims are a nationality or a race. I just wish they weren’t over here.

This is the Islamic group that we need to have major concerns about.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:This is the Islamic group that we need to have major concerns about.

Is the Nation of Islam those guys I've occasionally seen preaching on the streets in Manhattan and Philadelphia, dressed up in some strange costumes (like a 14th century warrior, with studded leather or something), and yelling about the white devil? Or is that some other bizarro group?

White devil sounds like NOI, but I'm not sure about the 14th century warrior thing. Usually they dress very formally or females in brightly colored, patterned floor length dresses and hair wrapped in similar material, and males in brightly colored, patterned long shirts and a brimless hat.

DHodges wrote:Is the Nation of Islam those guys I've occasionally seen preaching on the streets in Manhattan and Philadelphia, dressed up in some strange costumes (like a 14th century warrior, with studded leather or something), and yelling about the white devil? Or is that some other bizarro group?

This might be them. The interviewer is Louis Theroux, he did/does a series of interesting shows called "Weird Weekends".

There is still discrimination against blacks, which is just as silly as discrimination against whites.

Bilby, you (and a few others) need a therapist not a philosophy forum.

There are plenty of therapists out there for women.

Leyla,

I think Bilby was very brave to publically admit his prejudice. Most people have prejudice, most will not admit it, and some do not even realize it. In order to correct a problem, one must first acknowledge it, as he has done. I find your intolerance of imperfection contrary to growth.

I say Bilby belongs here. Perhaps you, Leyla, should seek therapy for your short temper?

Of course, I disagree entirely.

I recommend you and her take it to PM and see what happens.

Elizabeth, I have a question for you (three, actually).

For most of my life, people have often, and entirely unsolicited by me, confided in me for reasons that are still a mystery to me. They have divulged in an instant things they have “never told anyone else.”

If I were to ask you, as a therapist, why, what would you say to me?

And, if asked as a philosopher, what would you say?

If there is no distinction between the two responses, why not?

Leyla, being rude to me instead of a reasoned response further supports the notion of irrationality in Muslim people.

I’m afraid that what’s being demonstrated in this thread is your own irrationality.

By my definition of rude, the socially appropriate behaviour is to have those requiring therapy, attend therapy.

That you cannot differentiate between such things, as socially acceptable as they currently may be, is no measure of sanity unless your definition of sanity is that which is sanctified by herd mentality.

I do not share this definition, obviously.

It's time this thread was dumped to Worldy Matters.

Leyla Shen wrote:For most of my life, people have often, and entirely unsolicited by me, confided in me for reasons that are still a mystery to me. They have divulged in an instant things they have “never told anyone else.”

If I were to ask you, as a therapist, why, what would you say to me?

And, if asked as a philosopher, what would you say?

As a mental health counselor, professional ethics would dictate that my response be "Well, why do you think that might be?"

As an applied behavioral scientist, I would evaluate the context of the question (and if I did not know you even as well as I do, I would have to evaluate you for what direction to take) to determine whether to ask you for your supposition or to give you some usual answers for most people, and evaluate for the most effective way to present those ideas to you.

As a philosopher, I would just give you my opinion, which would include some wild guesses that might not be so appropriate as an ABS. The response as a philosopher who has only met you online would be that I can not imagine people doing this based on the behavior that you have displayed on the forum, but you do seem to be a much kinder, more approachable person via pm. I suspect that in person, you give the impression of being kind, accepting, and somehow familiar to people, which will lower their defenses and allow them to say things that they normally do not say to others. You probably also either consciously or subconsciously mirror vocal tones, demeanor, and posture of the person you are speaking to. These techniques commonly allow others to feel more comfortable, and feel like they have known you all their lives. You mentioned the abusive nature of your ex, and it is usual (although not universal) that one who suffers from child abuse will go into an abusive relationship. I moreso suspect child abuse in your case because a common defense mechanism of victims of child abuse is to make the person they are speaking with feel very comfortable and relaxed, especially in person. It is something that abused children often have to figure out literally in order to survive. This becomes a double edged sword though in that although this is a valuable skill in many situations, it can help disguise an abusive potential mate or friend. Abusive people often have difficulty getting along with most people, but one who has developed these skills can become the person they have gotten along best with their entire lives, and especially fall in love with this person for that. Unfortunately the ability to soothe these beasts diminishes with familiarity, leaving the person with the naturally developed skill with a WTF? response.

It's probably more the case that people intuitively realize that Leyla has a good deal of control over her own mind and not easily given to pettiness. There is an element of loftiness there, which people would subconsciously associate with a parental figure.

That's certainly what I pick up, even in her most zany writings.

-