There was a weird incident in class where a good amount of my classmates, including some who were POC, believed that black people were biologically more aggressive based on anecdotal experience.
I’m white but I was arguing against this because it made no sense. As a possible explanation I argued that black communities are typically poorer because of history (slavery, segregation, ect) and that poor and desperate communities are whats more likely to be violent.
It seemed to get them to pause for a moment. I’m sure I wasn’t as nuanced as I’d be now but I was a dumb reactionary teenager talking to dumb reactionary teenagers.
you were right, class solidification has been happening and has had an effect since long ago.
idk, it sounds like fun. I would do it.
Debating whether or not people should have human rights sounds like a fun one ngl.
The unfun part is when its your personal rights (personally) and you have to discuss them to defend yourself.
i would still fucks with it not gonna lie.
I think it would be funny to argue against my own humans rights just to make a point lol.
This is a dumb comment, to millions even being allowed in school is a privilege. source
Both tbh
Me to :/
I don’t get it, why would one debate human rights? Is it because it’s unfortunate to have dumb people in class or what are we talking about here?
because the entire field of philosophy is based on questioning existing systems, and existing beliefs, this is why things like nihilism and anti natalism exist.
The only way to keep learning is to keep asking questions. The more questions you ask, the more deeply you can delve. Simple as.
Not a topic settled globally, yet!
Star Trek, one day we hope
It’s easy to say everyone should have human rights. But what if one person goes against anothers human rights? What is a just punishment?
And that’s before even getting into what rights people should have. You can very easily have everyone be theoretically equal while still effectively disadvantaging some people (and getting rid of that entirely is not even possible, we can just minimize it). There’s a lot to debate.
What I don’t get is why there would ever be a debate about excluding some people from human rights without them first violating others’. The only argument for that is “if we oppress this group, this other group will have better lives”. Which is often true, sure, but that’s just being a selfish asshole.
I debated abortion in school a couple decades ago. I would consider that a human right but I had to debate the opposite at the time.
It’s worse because you aren’t debating human rights, you are debating what human is.
Comes up in politics or ethics discussions a lot. Or at least it used to when I was in school. Things like gay rights, women’s rights, right to die, etc etc
Honestly it’s fucked up how our school system treats children. We need to talk about racism but also about how children are not to be seen as some sort of human clay that we need to form into whatever we see fit.
It’s not entirely clear what you’re saying, but the sooner we acknowledge that children are inevitably formed by their environment and there’s no “natural” way to let them somehow form themselves the sooner we can start discussing what is good to teach them and the correct way to do it.
and can we please start to talk about how parents are not fit to raise children?
we need child care as a profession.Oh so you want to groom children? (this is sarcasm trying to point out why we can’t have nice things)
Unironically yes. I want to groom them to be a wonderful, compassionate member of society with the tools to manage their mental health and ask for help when they need it.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying either, but nature vs nurture wasn’t settled in nurture’s favor. It’s somewhere in between.
I’ll be honest, this doesn’t really make sense as a response to my post. It wouldn’t really matter where you or I fall on the nature vs nurture argument for my post to be relevant. (Unless one of us somehow believed it was entirely nature.)
I think there was an implicit premise (intentional or not) in your statement about there being no natural way to let kids develop, and that’s what they were commenting on.
Oh I see, I used the word natural and they made the connection to the the idea of nature vs nurture because it also uses nature. That makes sense.
children are clay. That’s the problem. The issue arises with how do we best raise them to be most equipped to tackle every day things.
Personally, i’m of the belief that we should teach them as much as possible, get them into more complex fields earlier, sociology and psychology especially. A good psych/socio class experience in HS can REALLY change someones life for the better.
Saying that children aren’t to be treated like clay is wrong. They are clay, we need to be conscious of that, and sculpt them into a properly functioning human, who can enjoy life, and respect others. Not just raise them to be a wage slave or whatever the fuck the current meta is now. We saw this exact problem with the “feral child” incident.
“Our school system”?
Dunno where you’re from, but different countries have different standards of education.
They’re from the racist country that isn’t allowed to talk about it. I get the US defaultism but cmon
Even in the US that’s not consistent. We definitely talked about unsavory parts of US history in my state.
I swear to fucking god the next white dude who tries to play Devil’s Advocate with me is getting throwen out the window.
But did you know that the devil wears cool skirts you can buy?
throwen?
The more aggressive form of thrown
TMYK
No, that’s defenestration. You’re thinking of a seat used by a monarch, denoting power and authority over a country.
You’re right, but I choose to go with moldy brain logic
Yummy
No that’s a throne, you’re thinking of a dwarven son of thrain,
Thorin, son of Thrain, son of Thror
No that’s Thorin, your thinking of a sharp growth on the stem of some plants.
You lure them in a false sense of safety and superiority by giving them a nice chair and then meet them out
Thrown with intenten
getting throwen out the window.
Dude! You had the perfect opportunity to use the magnificent word “defenestrated”!
Wdym? They got to use throwen
just to play devils advocate here. Lets say there’s a window behind you, and i’m not currently playing devils advocate. And then i throw you out of the window first…
I’m so privileged that when I was born I owed taxes to the government for my future earnings.
I teach - I have to debate my basic human rights every day (sleep and time spent not working are apparently not rights I hold according to our more entitled students/managers).
I have personally been called slurs in my school and been forced to explain why I don’t deserve death for “invoking gods wrath which will cause the death of humanity” (the great sin is being Asexual).
How dare you not think people are hot.
The one debate I had in high school was whether or not humans should incorporate artificial (bionic) parts into their bodies. I had to argue against so much stupid bullshit that I lost plenty of respect for most of them - I do not even want to imagine how I would have felt if the matter of debate had been whether or not I should have equal rights. The following day everyone agreed that I won the debate though.
Have you?
Yeah I had to debate my right to marry in high school
Why do you want to marry in a high school anyway
Not the age to marry, the age I argued. My right to marriage was in question before I’m gay.
Unfortunately my state does not and at no point in my life has it considered prohibiting straight teenagers from getting married. In fact my girlfriend married a man in high school.
It was supposed to be a joke 😔
It happened to me because we were discussing the Nazi’s views on racial hierarchy in sophomore honors history class and I’m ethnically Jewish. It was a surreal experience.
Not in high school. I was privileged and lived in a wonder-bread suburb. But a lot of people then (fewer now) believed those with mental illness should be treated like Jason Voorhees and gunned down like a rabid animal or locked in an institution and kept tranquilized my the nurses.
I did believe in the late '80s I could negotiate with law enforcement and was able to navigate though some troubling encounters. If I wasn’t Scandinavian white, those could well have gone differently.
You do know that Jason Voorhees murders people, right?
I say this because it’s not like he’s a misunderstood crazy person…
You do understand that treating a “misunderstood crazy person” like a psychopathic undead killing-machine is bad, right?
You realize a “psychopathic undead killing-machine” isn’t going to be reasoned with? Self defense is a basic right.
uriel238 made the equivalence, I made the distinction. Jason Voorhees isn’t mentally ill, he’s a literal “psychopathic undead killing-machine”.
you aren’t very good at reading comprehension if you think that’s what he said.
But a lot of people then (fewer now) believed those with mental illness should be treated like Jason Voorhees and gunned down like a rabid animal or locked in an institution and kept tranquilized my the nurses.
you should read this again. And then again, and maybe one more one time just to be sure.
They said that others were treating mentally ill people like psychopaths, not comparing mentally ill people to Jason themselves.
He didn’t compare mentally ill people to Jason; he said they were treated like Jason. IE someone who isn’t a psychotic killer is being treated as if they were.
Yes, in the 1980s, it was presumed by the ignorant public that all crazy people were a danger to themselves or others. It was the era of serial killers, psychopaths and sociopaths.
A serial killer is a specific kind of killing pattern identified by law enforcement investigators (contrast spree killers and rampage killers.) Serial killers are extremely rare, and don’t have a corellation to mental illness or any specific diagnosis. Despite reports in the 70s that asserted (without evidence) serial killers are responsible for 5000 homicides a year in the US (they are not), in fact, you’re more likely to get killed by lightning (less than 50 per year in the US) than by an active serial killer.
A psychopath is a designation by an expert witness in a courtroom, often by a psychiatric professional who has not actually assessed the suspect, but is guessing based on publicly known facts regarding his behavior, the way an armchair psychiatrist might guess that Trump suffers from NPD. In the 1980s, designating a suspect as a psychopath was to suggest he doesn’t need a motive. Psychosis is the category of diagnosis, but isn’t related.
Sociopathy was a personality disorder (Personality disorders are actually, less abnormal than what I have, a psychosis called Major Depression, though their dysfunction can be more evident) Sociopathy was retired in the DSM V, and replaced with antisocial personality disorder. While dangerous APD subjects exist, their rate of violent crime per capita is less than the general population. Though their rate of being victims of violent crime is higher than the general mean. Sociopath is also used as a forensic term to convince juries that a suspect is too dangerous for society.
These days, while we have more awareness of mental illness, there still remain some stereotypes and biases. The public doesn’t want me to have access to guns, for example, on the single basis I have a diagnosis. (It’s a difficult sell, since the US has a lot of veterans with diagnoses and guns, and could not be easily disarmed without creating a big bloody mess. They also go on and off suicide watch, and some counties have a delicate let your friend hold your gun for you program so as to not endanger law enforcement by forcing them to disarm trained soldiers with combat PTSD and justifiable grounds for paranoia)
Then there’s the matter that the institutions in the United States intended to secure inpatients are closely tied to its institutions for securing inmates (for whom we have no love and are glad to leave in squalor). Inpatients get about the same degree of abuse as inmates by their alleged caretakers (violence or sexual assault by orderlies, or abuse of pharmaceuticals by the nurses, who are fond of over-administering tranquilizers to keep the kooks quiet). Our public has about the same empathy for the crazies as they do the convicts, even when the inpatients didn’t necessarily do anything wrong to be denied their civil liberties.
So yeah, the likes of Voorhees and Kruger and Dolarhyde and Lecter have affected sentiments about us lunatics the way Peter Benchley’s Jaws affected attitudes about sharks, the effects of which are seen to this day, say when police routinely gun down subjects of mental health crises (which are disproportionately counted among officer involved homicide.)
Reagan defunding mental health has had a long game of preventing a lot of people from getting the help and meds they need. Unfortunately, the right also think that everyone deserves guns so red flag laws can’t get passed. And there is no perfect solution. There are various “neurodivergent” personality traits, and since I don’t know you personally, how do we pass a law that both protects you, and protects me. Stigmas mean a bunch of people never get properly diagnosed, and pop psychology misinforms the masses. Reagan’s legacy prevents my wife’s sister-in-law from being committed against her will. Her suicidal tendencies and attempts to harm my brother-in-law’s finances should be enough, but the state isn’t allowed anymore without physical harm to others.
I don’t worry about getting murdered statistically. Yet everyone is worried about another 9/11 and laws get passed. Columbine, Las Vegas, Charleston, and January 6th are the real harbingers of mental illness not being addressed. Sorry if you don’t fit this pattern. No offense was intended.
Ok, so my boring take on this: I think the word privilege is overused. In my mind there is a basic level of human decency everyone should be treated with. If you are treated above and beyond that, you have some privilege. Situations like the one mentioned in this post (to my mind) don’t speak to a lack of privilege, but to the presence of oppression.
I see your point, but I do think that “privilege” is normally used in a way that includes freedom from oppression.
I’d agree with that, but calling it privilege is a bad name. Because how do you implement equality when dealing with privilege? You take from the privileged to level the playing field. So when you apply that to being privileged because you aren’t being discriminated against, the solution is to remove that privilege? So… do more discrimination so everyone is equal?
When you instead identify those that are oppressed and those that are not, the solution to equality is to remove the oppression. So when applied to our situation, remove the discrimination so everyone is equally not discriminated against.
Privilege comes from “private law”, so would mean the ability to be judged in a different way to other people and therefore to perhaps avoid punishment for things others would suffer.
Shouldnt be and being are two different concepts. Lack of discrimination shouldnt be a privilege, but it is. I dont think hiding it is a part of the solution
