Attribution to Identity

Name
Email
Subject
Comment( ;[⛧J8K^!\*-Q2/0@I)rz%wVyE,t9&l☴Lx3H⚕g'#B+uph♩<\|RU7Ddeb♜cP.a>F:O=?XA{Z$G⛚fmiq4☀~Tj
Ponymotes
File
Flags	Spoiler Image NSFW Image
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

Attribution to Identity Affectionate Goose 04/01/23 (Sat) 04:50:08 No.11947

File: 1680324608650.jpg (64.5 KB, 1041x1024, 1041:1024, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I guess I'll do this with a controversial topic. I could easily be something mundane, as the question is philosophical.

Quote from a news story:
---

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/after-school-shooting-some-trans-tennesseans-face-backlash-2023-03-31/:

'After the service, Bennett, who has a trans son, said one of her congregants had been confronted and "told they were the cause, that this was God's repudiation of gay people, and that 'you and your people are going to hell for eternity,'" she said. "The trans community is going to pay dearly for this."'
---
My perception is that there are identities that we consider, by definition, to be from banal to positive. Never negative.

So we decide a priori that nothing can be blamed on these identities.

This quote is relevant to both sides of politics, as I understand, because it is begging connections between religious identities or transgender identities and blame, depending on your view of transgenderism. And in both cases, this is wrong, whether you are saying religious folks are transphobic or transgender identities are evil.

Others might say that forbidding one from even thinking about connecting negative association with certain social identities is acting as thought police. I guess you may carefully argue this case, although given the topic and environment, I have not made it easy for you.

And another question I've been pushing around: are political identities (as in, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc.) to be seen as protected in the same way.

Or maybe, more generally, who decides which identities are blameless by definition?

Wonderful Parrot 04/01/23 (Sat) 05:01:07 No.11948

Well, the one deciding would be the individual who has some reason to apply blame. Which, honestly, most people don't have any particular need. Perhaps a judge of some kind.

If the question is "How should a judge determine which identities are blameless?", then the easy answer, I imagine, is all identities are blameless and you have to judge blame on individual actions. There are very few identities that are actually defined so solidly that there would be no deviance. Definitely in the case of religious or gender identities in the US, every kind of each has a wide range of people within them, and often even some contention about what the identity is meant to be.

Affectionate Goose 04/01/23 (Sat) 06:05:39 No.11949

>>11948
>Which, honestly, most people don't have any particular need.
Perhaps you start from a different point, but end up in the same place. If we consider blame only apples to individuals as individuals, we are unable to apply blame anywhere else, including to the transgender community or a religious congregation.

Adorable Hippogriff 04/01/23 (Sat) 06:30:27 No.11950

>>11949
>>11948
Well, in the broad sense, it is a question to how far you can place the blame on these things.

Like, for Christians and LGBTQ it is far too wide in my opinion to place blame.

However, maybe a certain pastor has its flock of people who are extremely hateful towards a certain community and they do deserve blame.

Then you get to that discussion around Nazis or Pedophiles.
Can you say it is wrong to hate pedophiles? Well, the argument comes up that people should support pedophiles who don't rape kids.
Can you be a nazi and not be super bigoted against minorities / Jews?

And then, if you think it's okay to put rapists in jail, does that make you a hateful and dangerous person who needs to be condemned?

Affectionate Goose 04/01/23 (Sat) 07:14:56 No.11951

>>11950
>However, maybe a certain pastor has its flock of people who are extremely hateful towards a certain community and they do deserve blame.
To a degree, we already have a distinction between religion and extremism. We say people who veer outside proper religion are engaging in extremism, but don't blame it on religion itself. If the pastor connects religion and hate he is misinformed or delusional. Eg. ISIS has no legitimate connection to Islam.

>Can you say it is wrong to hate pedophiles?

I don't know how people become pedophiles, but if it is similar to how people become gay, you would want the same protection against hate since they are "born that way." Conventionally, this is not the way things are viewed, so perhaps people become pedophiles -- in a clinical sense -- through some personal failing that does not apply to every other adult-focused sexuality.

>Can you be a nazi and not be super bigoted against minorities / Jews?

If Nazi is a political identity, and we respect the freedom of people to hold political identities, that would follow. But both suppositions are debatable. You could also classify Nazi as extremism, which goes back to -- who makes these choices?

Robust Duck 04/01/23 (Sat) 21:29:09 No.11955

If a society operates based on 'an eye for an eye' as a collectivist principle, where say the death of two white victims at the hands of a black criminal justifies murdering two black innocent bystanders as penance and so on, then ultimately that culture will be a horrible place to live full of pain, hatred, and misery.

A society that inherently rejects collectivism and instead holds up universal morality such that individuals are judged as such will be a far better place to live, given that you have the freedom to be yourself instead of a faceless drone who's a cog in a larger machine of mass populaces.

It's honestly that simple. Individualism is better than collectivism. Higher ethics are better than tribalism. That's that.

Affectionate Goose 04/03/23 (Mon) 03:38:18 No.11961

>>11955
It's probably one of those things. "Individualizing" people seems a bit willful ignorance of how people function as social animals with culture. But maybe it's like they say of democracy -- the worse government, except for all the others -- individualization is the least bad way to attribute blame.

Charming Flamingo 04/03/23 (Mon) 05:02:52 No.11962

>>11947
>And another question I've been pushing around: are political identities (as in, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc.) to be seen as protected in the same way.
Personally, I don't see much difference between politics and religion.
So I would certainly say if one's going to be protected, the other should as well.

But I'm interested in an even application of the rules and their logic which, frankly, doesn't tend to happen in states by large.
Tends to displease voters, after all.

Affectionate Goose 04/03/23 (Mon) 06:41:56 No.11963

>>11962
>But I'm interested in an even application of the rules and their logic which, frankly, doesn't tend to happen in states by large.
Tends to displease voters, after all.

I don't think I follow. States are amoral and don't owe anyone protection. We are talking about society in general.

Charming Flamingo 04/03/23 (Mon) 07:09:14 No.11965

>>11963
Ultimately the reason religions have rights is because the state says so.
These are, after all, organizations, not people.

Affectionate Goose 04/03/23 (Mon) 07:35:22 No.11966

>>11965
I see. The freedoms of religious organizations within a state is the topic of your previous response. Application of rules and logic to different religious organizations by the state does not generally please voters?