People are bewildering others with communal knowledge,
information that is public and respected,
then shoehorning their corrupt ideas within them,
such that one’s respect for the communal knowledge
is falsely given the impression of weight to shoehorned corruption.
They do not demonstrate the connection between the communal knowledge and their corrupt ideas.
They hope to impress you with communal knowledge, such that you take it as evidence for corrupt ideas.
But the communal knowledge does not support the corruption, it is used to mask it.
‘Here’s a cup of 9 parts water, to 1 part poison. How can you argue with that refreshing taste?’
They know if they presented their corrupt ideas at face value,
without being masked and finessed into your consideration,
that you’d immediately recognize the corruption -
so they develop strategies of beguilement.
But how else would racists get by?
Ignorant beings,
concocting their poisons in the shadows,
and seeking to spread their hate.
What else to do with hate,
than throw it in the faces of the public?
They surely couldn’t bear directing it inwardly.
They’re the superior beings, remember?
If they’re filled with anger,
surely it can’t be their own fault.
The issue with conventional minds is that they have en so thoroughly indoctrinated to the prevailing ethos and the particular Pavlovian imagery, emotions, triggered by words, that they cannot break out of this mental handicap.
Once ‘race’ is mentioned imagery of lynching, slavery, hate are brought to mind.
In fact, race is a biological necessity - and evolution would not work without these stages in species development - part of speciation itself.
In brief, population isolation, over a sufficient period of time, will produce a splintering off…the outcome is visible since environmental conditions affects mind and body; environment determining the severity and which traits will be naturally selected to be cultivated and which one to atrophy.
This means race is real…as are breeds, types, witnessed in other species that ave experienced such circumstances:
the grizzly and the polar bear can still produce offspring, since the environments isolations they experienced were of sufficiently long to cause a total split…yet they sufficed to manifest different physical and mental attributes - behaviours.
This splintering, among humans, has not produced a total division…the time was insufficient…yet, it was sufficient enough to produce physical and mental differences - different inherited potentials.
If we disregard this, indoctrinated into some idealistic, romantic, humanitarian dogma, we cannot explain the difference in athletic and academic performances… We will then fall into an error, based on our original error, of accusing some kind of nefarious agency - the State - as being the cause. This will make us inclined to support interventions against one race, such as affirmative action, attempting to correct this “social injustice” which is really a “natural injustice” using modern ethics.
Having made two errors in judgment what will follow is failure that will increase interventions, striving to finally correct what is not social in origin - diminishing social cohesion and intellectual potentials, leading to collapse.
I know you are a well-meaning soul, but your emotions are convincing you that what is being proposed is slavery, or abuse, or violence…
Philosophy deals with truth.
How this truth is applied, is another matter.
This is possibly so, but to what degree?
Each community I’ve seen has demonstrated their capacity to hold their own intellectually,
given an environment that nurtures intellectual growth and aptitude.
Just as you can take any member of a race at birth, and stunt their capacity to utilise intellect in a non-nurturing environment.
There are many ways to increase the quality of our species that doesn’t entail calling any race a lost cause.
That one would put so much emphasis on this particular idea, as opposed to any other approach, is deeply concerning.
Yeah, and we can question the motives of why an individual may hark on a particular idea considered truth.
i.e. why are they dedicating so much energy to highlighting perceived deficiencies between communities?
But, the above is neither here nor there, with respect to the topic at hand.
Race issues was given as an example as to why an individual may be incentivised to shoehorn ignorance,
but the topic isn’t about race - it’s about a strategy of beguilement and falsely propping up bad ideas.
I do not want to have a discussion on race with you. I do not want to dedicate energy to that end.
Even if you were to hypothetically make a case for racism, it wouldn’t change the primary subject of this topic.
Usually it is because of a need to be viewed as superior and entitled.
The world of the narcissist is all about good-bad, superior-inferior, and right-wrong. …
Exaggerated need for attention and validation. …
Not all racism is pure evil.
Racial pride feels positive.
Hate for groups / types, is common.
It’s not just about race, it can be about almost anything.
But you already knew that.
Virtue signallers, people who publicly accuse others of racism (or any other -ism), particularly on social media platforms.
‘Can’ is a modal verb that means ‘to be able to’. Hence, I didn’t claim that you did describe them the same way, only that the possibility exists. If accusing others of racism is also the result of the narcissistic tendencies you describe, i.e., need to feel superior, exaggerated need for attention and validation, existing in a black and white world of right/wrong, then how do you tell them apart?
"Virtue signalling can be easy – but why does that make it seem bad?
To answer this question, and understand virtue signalling in general, we need to take a couple of steps back. In everyday discourse, the people who accuse others of virtue signalling are often not interested in doing real moral analysis – mostly, they want to discredit their political opponents".
Leave aside the term ‘virtue signalling’ as it’s confusing the issue. What’s your response to my question:
If accusing others of racism is also the result of the narcissistic tendencies you describe, i.e., need to feel superior, exaggerated need for attention and validation, existing in a black and white world of right/wrong, then how do you tell them apart? (the racist and the anti-racist, that is).
Racism can also mean prejudice, discrimination or antagonism directed against other people simply because they are of a different race or ethnicity.
Major contemporary anti-racism efforts include Black Lives Matter organising.
But all this is superfluous to you as I know where you are going with this…
The sociologist Bradley Campbell suggested that we have transitioned from a culture centred around dignity to one based on victimhood. The victims (perhaps for example, Black Lives Matter) organize themselves around exclusionary identity politics and intersectionality and this orientation results in grandiosity and entitlement, in other words, in growing narcissism and narcissists gravitate to such movements.
What can be done to combat these behaviours connected to social movements?
As the grievances of these movements are addressed, they become a part of the establishment. This is when the hard work begins, the labours of writing laws, regulatory oversight, politics, negotiations and compromise, and the tedium of perseverance and routine.
These newfangled demands on the psychological and logistical resources of the movement and its adherents drive narcissists away, they are unaccustomed to and reject the hard slog.