Re: I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Telmo Menezes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
>>> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>


 On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Telmo Menezes 
 wrote:

>
>
> I'm not trying to provoke, just making easy jokes maybe.
>
>
>>
>> Psychiatry as a whole faces the problem: imperative to categorize but
>> don't want to discriminate after their abandoning the asylum model, which
>> leads to interesting twist in countries that can afford it! These would
>> never dream of unconditional basic income... But abandoning asylum for all
>> but most dangerous patient, leads them to models of autonomy (daily affairs
>> stuff, pursuit of some goal) with such basic income as necessary to not
>> have to permanently monitor them, switching to needs based "when rupture
>> episodes" call for it kind of model.
>>
>> Of course still controversial... as is the field. But what I read in
>> Europe shows some aversion to authoritarian approach to psychiatry.
>>
>
> I don't disagree, but I don't see the connection with what we were
> discussing...
>

Labeling people by disorder while being fully invested into not
discriminating against them on institutional level. This leads banana union
republic of €urope to start reasoning for unconditional basic income. Say
if somebody has depressive episodes.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>

 The emotional aspect is misleading perhaps; I can tolerate things I
 don't understand, i.e. some fancy astrology stuff or bizarre sexual fetish
 I don't share, because I do not know, even though on the surface, it
 appears to make no sense to me and people spend a lot of time and resources
 on them. Here my choice to decline is not in jeopardy.  But where other
 people's decision making power is curtailed/abused by some agenda beyond
 their view and ability to not be a part of it, like molesting, hurting,
 raping, "blanketizingly" being forced into outgroups, theft/killing without
 some tangible goal or evidence for betterment (like killing of some
 dictator say...) etc. just is mindless harm without direction.

>>>
>>> Right, but this is precisely the point. You easily forgive what doesn't
>>> offend you to begin with. I'm the same.
>>> So one could argue that "tolerance" is hypocrisy.
>>>
>>
>> Here you expose that I should forgive and judge with respect to
>> tolerance. That's a very Christian god's eye approach, if you don't mind me
>> saying
>>
>
> I think you misunderstand me. I am not preaching tolerance. I am claiming
> that tolerance preachers are hypocrites.
>

Hmm, don't you run by your own standards then the risk of preaching
yourself here?


> I see this in myself. For example, I am against racism and homophobia. I
> am against theses things because I think they are the refuge of mediocre
> people, that can find nothing to like about themselves except the color of
> their skin or their sexual orientation.
>

Racism, homophobia etc. are no go because somebody has to get to the bottom
of identity question, and then argue authoritatively or employ violence in
natural consequence to cover that up.


> I am also against positive discrimination, so I'm sure many of the
> tolerant will brand me as an intolerant.
>
>
>> + it's still off: a lot of musicians, given economic difficulties, are
>> charging hundreds of bucks for elite workshops of shamanic musical therapy.
>>
>> I have had students of mine stolen, because these hacks make people
>> believe that "just being with music" changes your energy in ways that they
>> can control, to the alleged benefit of the listeners... this instead of
>> learning and sharing music for ourselves.
>>
>> Offend? I don't know. Stolen? I'm almost sure of it, but since I'm not, I
>> tolerate it without bad mouthing it or marketing similarly. Jeez, it's of
>> course the guys with no profile on the performance circuits that sell this
>> stuff and have never seen a real shaman/mystical experience if it kicked
>> them in the face.
>>
>
> Sorry to read that.
> Notice the hypocrisy at play: by being con artists they make a profit. If
> they offered something close to the real shamanistic traditions, they would
> be arrested.
>
>
>>
>> I wouldn't overrate consistency, as you seem to either, though. You can't
>> tolerate that which won't tolerate. Again, you're idea that genuine
>> suffering must be somehow involved for one not to be hypocrite is
>> suspiciously Christian;
>>
>
> Genuine effort must be involved for one to be tolerant. By definition,
> tolerance is accepting what you dislike.
>

So if I drank a lot of Diet Coke, I would become more tolerant. Or I endure
a lot of sadistic games by someone who enjoys them? Nah, I see tolerance
more as benevolent attitude, rather tha

Re: I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

[Telmo Menezes]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
>> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Telmo Menezes 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
 multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>> I think this is a quite interesting read:
>>
>> http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
>>
>> It made me think of the everything list. We clearly have members of
>> the conventional tribes (red, blue and gray), with all the predictable
>> frictions.
>>
>
> There are thousands of social, psychological models that group people
> into categories. The difference between quality and mush here, is that I
> can see where an author is going ("what kind of people/world/proposition
> does this suggest; how would that look like with varying degrees of
> truth/implementation: relaxed to radical"), given that I put on his red,
> blue, grey glasses or whatever.
>

 I think the big question in this article is why do people criticise in
 blank statements groups that they conspicuously appear to belong to. I also
 observed an increase in this behaviour recently. E.g. men saying: "I'm a
 feminist, all men are pigs". Or white people saying that white people are
 to blame for everything, or americans saying that americans are dumb an so
 on. This is perplexing given what we know about human behaviour. I would
 say that the ontological status of such categories is beside the point.

 What I find convincing in the article is that implied categories are
 being sneaked into the discourse. So "americans" really means "the red
 tribe", gays really means "the blue tribe" and so on. Then I like the idea
 that real tolerance makes you sweat. If it doesn't cause you pain, it's
 fake tolerance.

>>>
>>> That's the basic working hypothesis of much discourse analysis in
>>> linguistics. For the last few decades, where the "blanketness" is
>>> significantly curtailed, due to what it is. You catch bigotry and elitism
>>> in NYtimes in concrete phrases or assumptions implied by them.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't look for elitism in the NYtimes a bit like looking for holy water
>> in the vatican?
>>
>
> You just want to provoke, but ok: Well, it's the quality stuff most
> discourse analysis is after. Not the easy "he's red and he's blue and their
> both hypocrites."
>

I'm not trying to provoke, just making easy jokes maybe.


>
> Psychiatry as a whole faces the problem: imperative to categorize but
> don't want to discriminate after their abandoning the asylum model, which
> leads to interesting twist in countries that can afford it! These would
> never dream of unconditional basic income... But abandoning asylum for all
> but most dangerous patient, leads them to models of autonomy (daily affairs
> stuff, pursuit of some goal) with such basic income as necessary to not
> have to permanently monitor them, switching to needs based "when rupture
> episodes" call for it kind of model.
>
> Of course still controversial... as is the field. But what I read in
> Europe shows some aversion to authoritarian approach to psychiatry.
>

I don't disagree, but I don't see the connection with what we were
discussing...


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The emotional aspect is misleading perhaps; I can tolerate things I
>>> don't understand, i.e. some fancy astrology stuff or bizarre sexual fetish
>>> I don't share, because I do not know, even though on the surface, it
>>> appears to make no sense to me and people spend a lot of time and resources
>>> on them. Here my choice to decline is not in jeopardy.  But where other
>>> people's decision making power is curtailed/abused by some agenda beyond
>>> their view and ability to not be a part of it, like molesting, hurting,
>>> raping, "blanketizingly" being forced into outgroups, theft/killing without
>>> some tangible goal or evidence for betterment (like killing of some
>>> dictator say...) etc. just is mindless harm without direction.
>>>
>>
>> Right, but this is precisely the point. You easily forgive what doesn't
>> offend you to begin with. I'm the same.
>> So one could argue that "tolerance" is hypocrisy.
>>
>
> Here you expose that I should forgive and judge with respect to tolerance.
> That's a very Christian god's eye approach, if you don't mind me saying
>

I think you misunderstand me. I am not preaching tolerance. I am claiming
that tolerance preachers are hypocrites. I see this in myself. For example,
I am against racism and homophobia. I am against theses things because I
think they are the refuge of mediocre people, that can 

Re: I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Telmo Menezes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
>>> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>


 On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes 
 wrote:

> I think this is a quite interesting read:
>
> http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
>
> It made me think of the everything list. We clearly have members of
> the conventional tribes (red, blue and gray), with all the predictable
> frictions.
>

 There are thousands of social, psychological models that group people
 into categories. The difference between quality and mush here, is that I
 can see where an author is going ("what kind of people/world/proposition
 does this suggest; how would that look like with varying degrees of
 truth/implementation: relaxed to radical"), given that I put on his red,
 blue, grey glasses or whatever.

>>>
>>> I think the big question in this article is why do people criticise in
>>> blank statements groups that they conspicuously appear to belong to. I also
>>> observed an increase in this behaviour recently. E.g. men saying: "I'm a
>>> feminist, all men are pigs". Or white people saying that white people are
>>> to blame for everything, or americans saying that americans are dumb an so
>>> on. This is perplexing given what we know about human behaviour. I would
>>> say that the ontological status of such categories is beside the point.
>>>
>>> What I find convincing in the article is that implied categories are
>>> being sneaked into the discourse. So "americans" really means "the red
>>> tribe", gays really means "the blue tribe" and so on. Then I like the idea
>>> that real tolerance makes you sweat. If it doesn't cause you pain, it's
>>> fake tolerance.
>>>
>>
>> That's the basic working hypothesis of much discourse analysis in
>> linguistics. For the last few decades, where the "blanketness" is
>> significantly curtailed, due to what it is. You catch bigotry and elitism
>> in NYtimes in concrete phrases or assumptions implied by them.
>>
>
> Isn't look for elitism in the NYtimes a bit like looking for holy water in
> the vatican?
>

You just want to provoke, but ok: Well, it's the quality stuff most
discourse analysis is after. Not the easy "he's red and he's blue and their
both hypocrites."

Psychiatry as a whole faces the problem: imperative to categorize but don't
want to discriminate after their abandoning the asylum model, which leads
to interesting twist in countries that can afford it! These would never
dream of unconditional basic income... But abandoning asylum for all but
most dangerous patient, leads them to models of autonomy (daily affairs
stuff, pursuit of some goal) with such basic income as necessary to not
have to permanently monitor them, switching to needs based "when rupture
episodes" call for it kind of model.

Of course still controversial... as is the field. But what I read in Europe
shows some aversion to authoritarian approach to psychiatry.


>
>
>>
>> The emotional aspect is misleading perhaps; I can tolerate things I don't
>> understand, i.e. some fancy astrology stuff or bizarre sexual fetish I
>> don't share, because I do not know, even though on the surface, it appears
>> to make no sense to me and people spend a lot of time and resources on
>> them. Here my choice to decline is not in jeopardy.  But where other
>> people's decision making power is curtailed/abused by some agenda beyond
>> their view and ability to not be a part of it, like molesting, hurting,
>> raping, "blanketizingly" being forced into outgroups, theft/killing without
>> some tangible goal or evidence for betterment (like killing of some
>> dictator say...) etc. just is mindless harm without direction.
>>
>
> Right, but this is precisely the point. You easily forgive what doesn't
> offend you to begin with. I'm the same.
> So one could argue that "tolerance" is hypocrisy.
>

Here you expose that I should forgive and judge with respect to tolerance.
That's a very Christian god's eye approach, if you don't mind me saying +
it's still off: a lot of musicians, given economic difficulties, are
charging hundreds of bucks for elite workshops of shamanic musical therapy.

I have had students of mine stolen, because these hacks make people believe
that "just being with music" changes your energy in ways that they can
control, to the alleged benefit of the listeners... this instead of
learning and sharing music for ourselves.

Offend? I don't know. Stolen? I'm almost sure of it, but since I'm not, I
tolerate it without bad mouthing it or marketing similarly. Jeez, it's of
course the guys with no profile on the performance circuits that sell this
stuff and have nev

Re: I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
>> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I think this is a quite interesting read:

 http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/

 It made me think of the everything list. We clearly have members of the
 conventional tribes (red, blue and gray), with all the predictable
 frictions.

>>>
>>> There are thousands of social, psychological models that group people
>>> into categories. The difference between quality and mush here, is that I
>>> can see where an author is going ("what kind of people/world/proposition
>>> does this suggest; how would that look like with varying degrees of
>>> truth/implementation: relaxed to radical"), given that I put on his red,
>>> blue, grey glasses or whatever.
>>>
>>
>> I think the big question in this article is why do people criticise in
>> blank statements groups that they conspicuously appear to belong to. I also
>> observed an increase in this behaviour recently. E.g. men saying: "I'm a
>> feminist, all men are pigs". Or white people saying that white people are
>> to blame for everything, or americans saying that americans are dumb an so
>> on. This is perplexing given what we know about human behaviour. I would
>> say that the ontological status of such categories is beside the point.
>>
>> What I find convincing in the article is that implied categories are
>> being sneaked into the discourse. So "americans" really means "the red
>> tribe", gays really means "the blue tribe" and so on. Then I like the idea
>> that real tolerance makes you sweat. If it doesn't cause you pain, it's
>> fake tolerance.
>>
>
> That's the basic working hypothesis of much discourse analysis in
> linguistics. For the last few decades, where the "blanketness" is
> significantly curtailed, due to what it is. You catch bigotry and elitism
> in NYtimes in concrete phrases or assumptions implied by them.
>

Isn't look for elitism in the NYtimes a bit like looking for holy water in
the vatican?


>
> The emotional aspect is misleading perhaps; I can tolerate things I don't
> understand, i.e. some fancy astrology stuff or bizarre sexual fetish I
> don't share, because I do not know, even though on the surface, it appears
> to make no sense to me and people spend a lot of time and resources on
> them. Here my choice to decline is not in jeopardy.  But where other
> people's decision making power is curtailed/abused by some agenda beyond
> their view and ability to not be a part of it, like molesting, hurting,
> raping, "blanketizingly" being forced into outgroups, theft/killing without
> some tangible goal or evidence for betterment (like killing of some
> dictator say...) etc. just is mindless harm without direction.
>

Right, but this is precisely the point. You easily forgive what doesn't
offend you to begin with. I'm the same.
So one could argue that "tolerance" is hypocrisy.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> A model has to refer to something. And even then, even when we do our
>>> best, I feel Gödel's incompleteness is such a double edged sword, it will
>>> devour (thankfully), any set of categories in some theory about "all kinds
>>> of people".
>>>
>>
>> But there is indeed a lot of empirical evidence for memeplexes in
>> political affiliation, so I do think the color tribes refer to something.
>> If you ask a random person their position on gay marriage, you can infer
>> with a lot of certainty their position on gun ownership and climate change,
>> even though these three topics are completely unrelated. Of course some
>> people analyse each issue separately by themselves, but that is quite rare.
>> Even more rare (perhaps with N=0) to be able to do it free of bias.
>>
>
> Free of bias towards what?
>

Free of bias from your upbringing, social environment and so on.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> At the base of things, I see therefore no in- or out-group, but people
>>> who cling to their categories radically (doesn't matter if they are
>>> moderate or freaks)
>>>
>>
>> But the entire point of clinging to a category is to be accepted in some
>> group,
>>
>
> I have no idea, which is why I find such models worth taking too huge
> grain of salt to entertain. It might boil down to some Freudian parent
> trauma, a desire and whatnot. How would they know?
>

You must have attended some unusually enlightened high schools. Were I come
from, people would go to great lengths to belong to the ingroups. Then
there's sports, political parties, fashions, music preferences, "I don't
understand how anyone could eat at McDonald's" and so on and so on. No need
too invoke Freud's dubious ideas...


>
>
>> and a group can only exist in relation to an out-group. The group
>> "

Re: I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think this is a quite interesting read:
>>>
>>> http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
>>>
>>> It made me think of the everything list. We clearly have members of the
>>> conventional tribes (red, blue and gray), with all the predictable
>>> frictions.
>>>
>>
>> There are thousands of social, psychological models that group people
>> into categories. The difference between quality and mush here, is that I
>> can see where an author is going ("what kind of people/world/proposition
>> does this suggest; how would that look like with varying degrees of
>> truth/implementation: relaxed to radical"), given that I put on his red,
>> blue, grey glasses or whatever.
>>
>
> I think the big question in this article is why do people criticise in
> blank statements groups that they conspicuously appear to belong to. I also
> observed an increase in this behaviour recently. E.g. men saying: "I'm a
> feminist, all men are pigs". Or white people saying that white people are
> to blame for everything, or americans saying that americans are dumb an so
> on. This is perplexing given what we know about human behaviour. I would
> say that the ontological status of such categories is beside the point.
>
> What I find convincing in the article is that implied categories are being
> sneaked into the discourse. So "americans" really means "the red tribe",
> gays really means "the blue tribe" and so on. Then I like the idea that
> real tolerance makes you sweat. If it doesn't cause you pain, it's fake
> tolerance.
>

That's the basic working hypothesis of much discourse analysis in
linguistics. For the last few decades, where the "blanketness" is
significantly curtailed, due to what it is. You catch bigotry and elitism
in NYtimes in concrete phrases or assumptions implied by them.

The emotional aspect is misleading perhaps; I can tolerate things I don't
understand, i.e. some fancy astrology stuff or bizarre sexual fetish I
don't share, because I do not know, even though on the surface, it appears
to make no sense to me and people spend a lot of time and resources on
them. Here my choice to decline is not in jeopardy.  But where other
people's decision making power is curtailed/abused by some agenda beyond
their view and ability to not be a part of it, like molesting, hurting,
raping, "blanketizingly" being forced into outgroups, theft/killing without
some tangible goal or evidence for betterment (like killing of some
dictator say...) etc. just is mindless harm without direction.


>
>
>>
>> A model has to refer to something. And even then, even when we do our
>> best, I feel Gödel's incompleteness is such a double edged sword, it will
>> devour (thankfully), any set of categories in some theory about "all kinds
>> of people".
>>
>
> But there is indeed a lot of empirical evidence for memeplexes in
> political affiliation, so I do think the color tribes refer to something.
> If you ask a random person their position on gay marriage, you can infer
> with a lot of certainty their position on gun ownership and climate change,
> even though these three topics are completely unrelated. Of course some
> people analyse each issue separately by themselves, but that is quite rare.
> Even more rare (perhaps with N=0) to be able to do it free of bias.
>

Free of bias towards what?


>
>
>>
>> At the base of things, I see therefore no in- or out-group, but people
>> who cling to their categories radically (doesn't matter if they are
>> moderate or freaks)
>>
>
> But the entire point of clinging to a category is to be accepted in some
> group,
>

I have no idea, which is why I find such models worth taking too huge grain
of salt to entertain. It might boil down to some Freudian parent trauma, a
desire and whatnot. How would they know?


> and a group can only exist in relation to an out-group. The group
> "atheists" exists because religious people exist. If everyone was an
> atheist, nobody would use such a label anymore. There is no "pro-breathing"
> group.
>
>
>> and people who at least aspire to and can point to histories where they
>> minimize harm + share joy doing so, intuiting Gödel a bit.
>>
>
> I suspect everyone thinks they are doing that...
>

Then you live in a joyous world without authoritatively forcing influence
and abuse, which people denounce right, left, and center. Good for you.


>
>
>>
>> The racism/religion bigot stuff are just tasteless, low examples of the
>> former.
>>
>
> True believers think they are sharing joy and reducing harm by spreading
> religious "truth".
>

That is falling into theological trap, because clearly a theology
approached by personal reflection/introspection, if it has to have a taste
of consistency, cannot negate others' person

Re: I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

[Telmo Menezes]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>> I think this is a quite interesting read:
>>
>> http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
>>
>> It made me think of the everything list. We clearly have members of the
>> conventional tribes (red, blue and gray), with all the predictable
>> frictions.
>>
>
> There are thousands of social, psychological models that group people into
> categories. The difference between quality and mush here, is that I can see
> where an author is going ("what kind of people/world/proposition does this
> suggest; how would that look like with varying degrees of
> truth/implementation: relaxed to radical"), given that I put on his red,
> blue, grey glasses or whatever.
>

I think the big question in this article is why do people criticise in
blank statements groups that they conspicuously appear to belong to. I also
observed an increase in this behaviour recently. E.g. men saying: "I'm a
feminist, all men are pigs". Or white people saying that white people are
to blame for everything, or americans saying that americans are dumb an so
on. This is perplexing given what we know about human behaviour. I would
say that the ontological status of such categories is beside the point.

What I find convincing in the article is that implied categories are being
sneaked into the discourse. So "americans" really means "the red tribe",
gays really means "the blue tribe" and so on. Then I like the idea that
real tolerance makes you sweat. If it doesn't cause you pain, it's fake
tolerance.


>
> A model has to refer to something. And even then, even when we do our
> best, I feel Gödel's incompleteness is such a double edged sword, it will
> devour (thankfully), any set of categories in some theory about "all kinds
> of people".
>

But there is indeed a lot of empirical evidence for memeplexes in political
affiliation, so I do think the color tribes refer to something. If you ask
a random person their position on gay marriage, you can infer with a lot of
certainty their position on gun ownership and climate change, even though
these three topics are completely unrelated. Of course some people analyse
each issue separately by themselves, but that is quite rare. Even more rare
(perhaps with N=0) to be able to do it free of bias.


>
> At the base of things, I see therefore no in- or out-group, but people who
> cling to their categories radically (doesn't matter if they are moderate or
> freaks)
>

But the entire point of clinging to a category is to be accepted in some
group, and a group can only exist in relation to an out-group. The group
"atheists" exists because religious people exist. If everyone was an
atheist, nobody would use such a label anymore. There is no "pro-breathing"
group.


> and people who at least aspire to and can point to histories where they
> minimize harm + share joy doing so, intuiting Gödel a bit.
>

I suspect everyone thinks they are doing that...


>
> The racism/religion bigot stuff are just tasteless, low examples of the
> former.
>

True believers think they are sharing joy and reducing harm by spreading
religious "truth". Even the true believers in racism think that everything
would be better with more racial segregation. I would even say that, by
showing some belief in the fundamental evilness of these people, you are
already betraying who your out-group is. :)


> Of course there is truth to such assertions, nobody doubts this. But where
> such reasoning leads, the self-fulfilling prophecy scenarios that it sets
> whole cultures into (Terror as a global threat, when it was just isolated
> gangsters years ago; the West brought in the modern weapons to fertilize
> tensions centuries old, that had been suppressed by violent dictatorship
> recently) is brainwashing ourselves into truth of increasingly violent
> spirals of politics.
>
> Cui bono, and what are proposed solutions?
>

I see this more as an effort toward clarity about what is really going on
more than an attempt at solving any social issue. But I do think that
clarity tends to entail the solution.


>
> Spud said "nothing", which is consistent with the rhetoric that since we
> can't achieve cultural, economic advances, we should invest more into
> military action. As if this will solve it.
>

And this is the crux of the mystery to me. Spud is in your out-group (and
mine). Yet, this list doesn't collapse.


>
> Sure you have to put out fires, but without more freedom to search for
> solutions + dumb media sensational feedback loop, that security gained by
> temporary military measure will not provide the durable stability to move
> forward towards common goals of higher living standard attainment etc., the
> implementation of which should be at least as clear, convincing and
> accurate as the weapons/people we send to fight. Otherwise, what are they
> fighti

Re: I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Mine is the idea of making human existence better, materially. One of the primo 
ways, (not all) are the notions of uploading, conscious, (material or 
immaterial) improved medicine, improved energy, improved resources, etc. One 
way that humans will psychologically benefit, is with the conceptualization of 
a good?afterlife, be it technological, spiritual, or whatever.



-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Oct 7, 2014 10:44 am
Subject: I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

  I think this is a quite interesting 
read:http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/



It made me think of the everything list. We clearly have members of the 
conventional tribes (red, blue and gray), with all the predictable frictions.


But we have a fairly stable social group, at the same time. Do we have an 
outgroup that binds us all together? What's going on here?


Cheers
Telmo.

  
  -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

> I think this is a quite interesting read:
>
> http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
>
> It made me think of the everything list. We clearly have members of the
> conventional tribes (red, blue and gray), with all the predictable
> frictions.
>

There are thousands of social, psychological models that group people into
categories. The difference between quality and mush here, is that I can see
where an author is going ("what kind of people/world/proposition does this
suggest; how would that look like with varying degrees of
truth/implementation: relaxed to radical"), given that I put on his red,
blue, grey glasses or whatever.

A model has to refer to something. And even then, even when we do our best,
I feel Gödel's incompleteness is such a double edged sword, it will devour
(thankfully), any set of categories in some theory about "all kinds of
people".

At the base of things, I see therefore no in- or out-group, but people who
cling to their categories radically (doesn't matter if they are moderate or
freaks) and people who at least aspire to and can point to histories where
they minimize harm + share joy doing so, intuiting Gödel a bit.

The racism/religion bigot stuff are just tasteless, low examples of the
former. Of course there is truth to such assertions, nobody doubts this.
But where such reasoning leads, the self-fulfilling prophecy scenarios that
it sets whole cultures into (Terror as a global threat, when it was just
isolated gangsters years ago; the West brought in the modern weapons to
fertilize tensions centuries old, that had been suppressed by violent
dictatorship recently) is brainwashing ourselves into truth of increasingly
violent spirals of politics.

Cui bono, and what are proposed solutions?

Spud said "nothing", which is consistent with the rhetoric that since we
can't achieve cultural, economic advances, we should invest more into
military action. As if this will solve it.

Sure you have to put out fires, but without more freedom to search for
solutions + dumb media sensational feedback loop, that security gained by
temporary military measure will not provide the durable stability to move
forward towards common goals of higher living standard attainment etc., the
implementation of which should be at least as clear, convincing and
accurate as the weapons/people we send to fight. Otherwise, what are they
fighting for, other than downward infinite spiral?

So am I red, blue, grey, or pink or what now? PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.