Boethius

Who said the purpose of affirmative action, in the first place, is to improve the "condition" of the Black community? I'm not convinced that companies, politicians, or academics are thinking that affirmative action is going to "equalize" the Black community with the dominant white community, let's say. Most of the decision-makers involved are white people, after all, who probably don't have a refined understanding of the needs of the Black community. Instead, it seems to me that most institutions are primarily interested in increasing the representation of people who have been historically marginalized and oppressed, not least of all because it makes these institutions look progressive, equitable, and inclusive. Following this goal, it makes sense that institutions would elevate Black women into positions of power over Black men since Black women suffer a larger number of intersecting oppressions. I will say that it would be very interesting to see whether Black Americans generally feel that affirmative action has helped their community. It could be that your criticism (as I am reading it) of affirmative action is more widely shared.

Well, I suppose narratives do serve some purpose, even if they are never fully true. I'm just not sure what to do with this fact. To bring it to the personal level, don't most people, in their own personal lives, get tired of telling stories about themselves? Doesn't it get tiring always painting oneself as a victim of every interaction, or the hero, the suffering saint, the perpetually misunderstood, etc? Can a person really live their entire life consistently exagerrating and misrepresenting the interactions they have with others? That is what strikes me as a rather boring way to live.

I think this is the last thing Orthodox priests would recommend anyone do -- they seem pretty protective of this form of prayer and fearful of the consequences of people taking it up willy nilly. As far as your comments on God, don't you think he wants people to come into the light instead of just rotting in the dark in the basement?

@Opo Isn't killing someone a sin? I'm not using the word *sin* to refer to things like consuming caffeine or watching R-rated movies (activities that went against the Church of Latter Day Saints, for example), though I do recognize that probably many people hear the word in those ways. Instead, I would say that the word *sin* in Christianity plays much the same role as does *suffering* in Buddhism -- it is an essential aspect of how a believer experiences the world, and it is something to be struggled with, either by avoiding sin as in Christianity or by transforming suffering as in Buddhism.

@Opo Well, lol, I hadn't thought of it that way, so yeah, fair point! But still, the joker is what a person runs the risk of becoming when they "exempt themselves" from the moral system, which is what comes to mind by the comment about "realize that there is no such thing as sin".

@Opo Of course. My point (similar to SgtPepper's comment) is that to deny the reality of sin is to risk becoming a nihilist, just like the joker.

Like this guy did?

The biggest problem with the metaverse is that it is a fundamentally disembodied existence. I would have thought that spiritual forums, like the ones here at actualized.org, would be more attuned to this issue, given the amount of importance paid to issues of embodiment in spiritual practices like yoga, meditation, mindfulness, Buddhism, etc. I also think we would be better off working out why we find our current reality to be so unhappy that we are eager to build some sort of "alternative" reality like the metaverse to which we can escape. Of course escape is only an illusion, as we will inevitable recreate in the metaverse the same problems we have left unaddressed here in the physical universe.

What is the point of this?

Powerful straight white men have been the ones in control of our society for long enough! It's time to create a space at the table for women, POC, and the LGBTQIA+ community. None of the groups of people I just listed benefit from selling men a message that they need to be tough and go beat the sh** out of their competitors. If straight men can't sort themselves out, then that's on them.

It seems to me that a lot of "conservatives" think they are owed some sort of social respect or deference even as they stake out anti-social positions like refusing to comply with mask mandates or get vaccinated rejecting Black Americans' demand for police accountability respecting a woman's right to bodily autonomy not using a trans person's proper pronouns, etc. But the fact is that no one owes you anything. You get what you give, and if your interest is in "owning the libs" then you can expect people to think very little of you.

I too am an American (living in New York) who is deeply disturbed by what is happening to my country. My own approach as a private citizen -- for whatever it is worth -- is to be kind, to be gentle, to speak truth to power when necessary, but to generally listen before speaking, and to seek consensus in whatever modest form it can take. I believe our country is on the verge of a very difficult cultural transformation (from Orange to Green, in the language of Spiral Dynamics), and we are as like gardeners tending to a plant that is ailing. This task requires a great amount of sensitivity and skillfulness. So aside from voting responsibly and supporting political changes that open the door to greater democratic representation, I think the key is to be present as fully as possible.

For whatever reason Youtube suggested this link to me from Jordan Peterson, where he says we must be cruel monsters who tame our monstrosity in order to survive in a world of even crueler monsters: I haven't listened to much Jordan Peterson over the years, though he has been on my radar of culturally significant voices. I thought his main message was about the importance of learning self-discipline (clean your room!), self help, and emotional control. I found useful his rhetorical question "how can a person hope to contribute to the management of a society if they cannot even manage their own lives?" But this message about cruelty and monstrosity seems a lot weirder and nastier, quite frankly. I agree, of course, that people shouldn't allow themselves to be bullied or be pushovers, and that a certain go-getter attitude (a healthily integrated Red sense of agency) is essential in a labor market where we are now generally expected to "sell ourselves". But I think the message that our young people should tap into their sense of cruelty and become monsters is poisonous to society at large. I mean, like begets like, and if people are pre-emptively cruel to one another it just leads to more cruelty overall. I guess I can see how this could make some sense from an individual's perspective, but from a collective perspective it is grotesque. So is this just an odd piece of advice from Jordan Peterson -- something that maybe he hasn't thought about as thoroughly as other pieces of advice -- or is this in fact representative of Jordan Peterson's program for personal development?

I'm looking the definition of "cruel" on dictionary.com: (1) willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others. (2) enjoying the pain or distress of others (3) causing or marked by great pain or distress (4) rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe I don't see the positivity in this. I mean, yes, young people need to learn to toughen up, grow a thick skin, become resilient, stand up for themselves, and fight against injustice, but it seems to me that Jordan Peterson is suggesting something more: that we should view the world as being filled with a bunch of assholes, basically, that we own our own ability/propensity to be assholes, and that we are willing to "stand down" if other people stand down, but we are quick to "stand up" for ourselves if others do not stand down. I would not recommend that almost any young person adopt this view of the world (unless they're growing up in a neighborhood that has a lot of violence, in which case I would be humble in providing any advice to such a person). It seems to me that a person who adopts JP's view of the world as being populated with cruel monsters is (a) at best, going to end being very prickly and defensive and sensitive to the slights of others, or (b) at worst, enjoys being an asshole themselves since "everyone else" is an asshole already. This just doesn't seem to be a healthy, balanced, mature view of the world. But I don't know, maybe some other people would say that I'm being naive.

I agree. The expectations of polite society have shifted from personal achievement to empathy for others, even if we still aren't clear on how best to embody these "new" values.

Club soda with lemon/lime and soda are my go-to drinks when out with friends who are drinking alcohol.

Here's a relatively obscure political issues: boys are poorly served by our contemporary education system. By this I mean that they are more likely than girls to be diagnosed with attention deficit disorders and put on medication, less likely to be able to happily sit still than girls are in elementary school, more likely to be punished for misbehavior, and less likely to graduate high school or attend college. This is an issue that gets attention here and there (The Atlantic has written some articles on it) but it's kind of viewed as uncouth to talk about since the official Social Justice view of American society involves women overcoming the system of oppression known as Patriarchy. In other words, we "should" be focused on seeing women catching up to men and so we "shouldn't" worry about boys falling behind girls. The exceptions to this rule occurs when female journalists write articles for mainstream publications decrying the paucity of dateable men (by which they mean college-educated men) or anti-racism articles come out condemning the rates at which Black male youths are being disproportionately punished in school. In those contexts it's apparently acceptable to talk about the education problems facing males. This is an issue that I find important in itself, and also as a "canary in the coal mine" in terms of how much the Social Justice framework holds sway over what gets printed in mainstream media sites.

So I'm just too stupid to understand the racist dog whistling of some alt-right troll. OK.

Derek Chauvin was arrested and charged with third degree murder on May 29, 2020 -- back when Donald J. Trump was still president. So how does this trial have much of anything to do with Joe Biden?

I agree that conspiracies often help give voice to concerns that have been socially marginalized. For example, politicians who seem disingenuous and slick can be described as lizard people in human disguise. And one cannot "argue" with a conspiracy theorist who believes politicians are lizard people until one addresses their underlying concerns about politicians being deceptive liars. The problem, for me, is when conspiracy theories are used to provide cover for things like anti-semitism. Not only can you not argue with an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist about whatever fantasy they've latched onto (a cabal of Jewish bankers who are secretly pulling the levers of power, for example) but you also can't address their underlying concerns without engaging in anti-semitism yourself.

I've only ever done a bit of marijuana here and there but I've had some pretty intense experiences both with marijuana and sober. I'm thinking about a time, for example, when I was on campus on my way to hold office hours for my students as they were about to take a Calculus exam the next day. I was thinking about the problems I was having in my relationship with my partner and how I felt he was dismissing my emotions. Accepting that I have emotions that are not dependent on whether he does or doesn't find them to be "reasonable" was a huge thing for me, and in accepting that everything radically shifted/opened up. My perception of colors became super intense, everything felt connected, and as each student came and sat down at my desk across from me I felt about them "Wow, you are a giant!" It was the first time in my career I felt honored to be in the presence of my students (almost intimidated, even). Then eventually the experience faded, though I did learn a lot from it. I figure this is both a blessing and a curse: I am more open to these sorts of experiences, but also more prone to experiencing them at inconvenient times and without always knowing how to "get out" of them.

What communities do you see that really embody and embrace the New Age ethos or New Age values?

@Forestluv It seems to me that there are two ways a professor can conceive of course design (especially when it comes to the development of assessments like quizzes/exams and the assignment of grades): (A) the course exists to provide an arena of competition for students to demonstrate academic excellence, in which case exams should be "rigorous" and an A should signify that the student has out-competed their peers (B) the course exists to get students to meet a certain set of pre-specified learning objectives, in which case exams should be closely tied to those learning objectives and it would be "ideal" for all students to get A's I've come to believe that (B) is a more appropriate vision for college courses (and certainly for first year courses), not least of all because it makes it easier to implement the anti-racist institutional values with regards to curricular choices, classroom policies, the construction of assessments, and the assignment of grades. Presumably the vision of (A) still has a place, perhaps with higher level courses, but it seems like implementing the anti-racist values in a course that takes (A) as its vision would be much harder. Does what I'm saying here sound like it's in alignment with the sort of conversations your university has been having on these issues? I ask because I suspect a lot of older professors would chafe at (B) versus (A). It seems to me a lot of older professors have as part of their own personal identity the fact that they were the ones who excelled at school back in the day (so much so that they became professors!) And I would hesitate to share with them that my goal is to help as many students as possible get A's, lest they accuse me of simply "lowering standards".

I don't think we're going to get a more exhaustive analysis than the one John McWhorter has provided: https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/so-there-was-a-law-professor-at-georgetown Speaking as a college professor myself, this is something that has to be discussed very delicately, to say the least.

I don't think the human impulse to engage in violent warfare ever goes away. After all, every person must pass through the Red stage of development even in a Turquoise society. So instead, the best we can hope for is that it is transmuted into alternative forms of human expression that aren't as destructive. In our current society we see that transmutation take the form of professional sports including MMA, violent video games, violent movies, etc. So it may take a different form in the future but it will probably be necessary for people to have some place where they can (safely) let out those impulses to dominate and control others.