For a philosopher, “I don’t know,” is a spur to INQUIRE.
For the atheist … it’s arrogance: "Why would I go any further if I don't know? That's arrogance."
The projection is large, since the SCIENTIFIC TRADITION grew out of Christian Europe.
The pre-Christian pagans tended to punish those who sought knowledge, as with Socrates, for the “arrogance” of inquiring into “things man was not meant to know.”
I wish I was surprised to see an atheist in 2021 saying “It is bad to inquire when you do not know. It is arrogance” but I’m really not, sadly.
Atheists have been forced to make ignorance a virtue since they abandoned the reality of atheism (but not the name) for agnosticism.
Once you abandon the atheist position “There is no God,” because it isn’t a rationally defensible position, you are left with the merely psychological state of “I’m not convinced.” To maintain this state requires not arguments, but ignorance. So ignorance becomes virtue.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This seems correct. It requires a modification of your definition of Wokeness, however, since that incorporates the idea of “justice.” “Social Justice” is just what you get by collapsing justice into care/harm.
The oppressor/oppressed dichotomy is fundamental. It defines friend and enemy and Wokeness holds the view that “the enemy” deserves no moral consideration, neither care nor fairness.
These are two questions:
1 what is moral goodness?
2 who deserves moral consideration?
The second one can significantly distort the first one. We post-Christian peoples think the answer “everyone” is obvious, but it isn’t.
@nypost The ruling by the court is NOT that homosexuality IS a mental disorder, but that HOLDING THAT IT IS A MENTAL DISORDER is not a crazy position that you can sue to have removed from texts on the grounds that it is “false.”
@nypost In other words, the Chinese court ruled that what was pretty much the universal understanding of homosexuality up until 20 minutes ago, isn’t actually insane or unreasonable.
RULE: If you are going to judge a historical figure by CONTEMPORARY standards, you HAVE TO pose the question as HOW WOULD HE HAVE ACTED IF HE HAD LIVED IN OUR TIME?
Does ANYONE think George Washington, who freed his slaves, would have been PRO-SLAVERY if he’d lived in our time?
No, but all the people today, 99.99% of them, who THINK they are so much better than George Washington, because they are anti-slavery (like everyone else) — if they’d lived in the 1700s, the odds that THEY would have been against slavery are negligible.
After all, we *know* this cancel culture idiots who want to blame people of the past are HERD ANIMALS without any capacity to think for themselves.
They’d have been Nazis in 1930s Germany. They’d have owned slaves in the 1700s and never thought to question it. THEM.
Dr. Seuss was drawing since the 1920s. Some of his earliest work contains (1) some race stereotypes and (2) art that would by today’s standards be perceived as racist caricature.
BUT
The real story is that Dr. Seuss morally improved himself about this over his life.
Almost NO ONE in 1920 was not a racist to some degree. The fact that people learned to get over it is the story of the 20th century. Is everyone over it? No, obviously not.
But we mostly are, to the extent we’re HYPERSENSITIVE to the slightest HINT of maybe sort of racism.
"In 1928, in the first ever artwork that he signed as “Dr. Seuss,” he drew a racist cartoon of a Japanese woman and children. The caption spells the word “children” as “childlen,” which reflects the stereotype that Japanese people can’t say their “R’s”.”
But this is true. Native speakers of Japanese who learn English later in life can’t hear the difference between L’s and R’s.
This isn’t racism. It’s a fact. I cannot hear (or say) the German ö sound (according to my German teachers).
My friend Yoshiko would sound her L’s and R’s the same all the time. She called a guy named “Rusty,” “Lusty.” In D&D, (playing an elf) she wanted to cast “Flames of Fear” — which sounded awesome, but we’d never heard of it. Turned out she was saying “Flaming sphere.” 🤷🏻♀️
This is why we need the USE vs MENTION distinction.
It is not wrong or racist to MENTION a racial slur. It is offensive to USE one.
Let me illustrate the distinction:
“Jessica Valenti is a despicable person.”
“The word ‘despicable’ in an adjective.”
1st = USE
2nd = MENTION.
It’s 100% clear that McNiel only MENTIONED the word that we have to call “the n-word” (because even MENTIONING it might get me suspended from Twitter). He has “Did she call someone an '[n-word]’, or was she doing something like singing along to rap?”
CLEARLY MENTION, NOT USE.
Remember that Netflix manager who got fired for saying [the n-word] during an orientation for new employees about words you aren’t allowed to say?
How utterly idiotic.
Company policies should be about words you shouldn’t USE. It may be appropriate to MENTION them sometimes.