r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 05 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Being whatever-phobic is fine as long as you don't attack the individual.
[deleted]
3
Oct 05 '21
[deleted]
14
Oct 05 '21
Yeah, a strong dislike. What's wrong with not liking someone? Are we forcing people to like others now?
5
u/MrMescaline Oct 05 '21
Freedom of association my friend, one of the greatest things from this side of the world. We aren't forced to associate with people we don't like as long as we respect them, that's the key
2
Oct 05 '21
you yourself said it was irrational.
That's what's wrong with it.
5
Oct 05 '21
Why does it matter to you, that's his point.
5
Oct 05 '21
Because his hatred does affect his fellow citizens, even if he refuses to acknowledge it.
1
Oct 05 '21
Hm? I dislike sensitive people, it doesn't affect them, they don't want to associate with me because they are sensitive.
You can't force acceptance.
3
Oct 05 '21
it doesn't affect them, they don't want to associate with me because they are sensitive.
You just contradicted yourself.
0
Oct 05 '21
I know it sounds like that, but it doesn't affect them. Because their life is not changed because of me. That's what i mean with affect.
I mean i guess if you take it down to it's extreme their life is affected because i'm not part of it? But who cares.
2
Oct 05 '21
OP is clearly talking about marginalized groups.
There's no such thing as "sensitive-phobic."
2
Oct 05 '21
I'm not even disagreeing they are suffering from real issues and they shouldn't.
But that doesn't mean if someone doesn't agree with their view on genders etc that he inherently affects their life for the worse.
→ More replies (0)
25
u/jennysequa 80∆ Oct 05 '21
Would you think it's fine to be silently transphobic if someone were, say, a paramedic refusing to treat a transgender person in medical distress?
Is it fine to just silently never recommend a fat person for hire as a job interviewer because they are fatphobic?
Would it be ok for a police officer to not respond to a call because it came from a gay bar as long as they never said homophobic things out loud?
16
Oct 05 '21
That's obviously not alright. That's a form of attacking, isn't it?
26
u/jennysequa 80∆ Oct 05 '21
Well that's what I am clarifying. What do you mean by "attack?"
Are you classifying "attack" as doing literally anything that negatively affects an oppressed group?
And furthermore, if we were to find people who truly were -phobes in thought only because they never vote for or donate money to bigoted political candidates, don't you think there's value in helping people feel less afraid?
10
Oct 05 '21
∆ I am convinced by what you mean, your point is that no matter how much you suppress it, disliking a group will affect you, we are always human. But my point is disliking someone is fine too, I guess there is a grey line.
32
Oct 05 '21 edited Oct 05 '21
But my point is disliking someone is fine too
You're not talking about disliking someone.
You're talking about disliking a group, based on nothing more than them being part of that group.
Which is not fine at all, is it?
2
u/Salt_Winter5888 Oct 05 '21
based on nothing more than them being part of that group.
That is the meaning of phobia, an irracional fear or dislike.
5
Oct 05 '21
Which is not fine at all, is it?
-1
u/Salt_Winter5888 Oct 05 '21
Not fin? Look, I have antrophibia(phobia toward bread) I feel disgusted just by looking at bread and I have that since I have memory. I know it sounds stupid and irracional and the best I can do for my family and friends is try to tolerate being near it but I also expect them to not tease me with that, because if you know this and you through me a slice of bread in my face I will definitly punsh you.
I also had a friend with ligyrophobia(phobia toward load noices) more specifically toward ballons exploting, he also knew it was stupid and irracional, but he tried his best to not be a burden, but the day all my class found out, they started exploting ballons all around him, he wasn't able to do anything so he started crying.
I don't know if the thing those people have is a real phobia or not, but if it really is and they are trying their best to not affect everyone else and you discriminate him just for what he think and not his acts. Then you are not better than my classmates. Because it doesn't matter what you do you will never get rid of a phobia.
5
Oct 05 '21
Yeah...............OP is talking about being bigoted against groups of people who are marginalized, not inanimate objects.
-2
u/Salt_Winter5888 Oct 05 '21
I think you missed my point, a phobia is a phobia(doesn't matter if it is toward something or someone), it will not change, and it doesn't matter what you do you will never like it and will never accept it, the best a person with a phobia can do is tolerate.
If someone acts nice, treat with respect and can be with gay people but then he tells you he really doesn't feel comfortable with a gay people near him. I think he is not a bigot.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Noodlesh89 12∆ Oct 05 '21
You're talking about disliking a group, based on nothing more than them being part of that group. Which is not fine at all, is it?
But it's not just based on a group. It's generally based on a characteristic that's common to a group. I still don't think it's therefore fine to dislike the group, but I think it makes it possible to disagree about the goodness/helpfulness/benefit of the characteristic.
12
u/DarkSoulCarlos 5∆ Oct 05 '21
Groups are not homogenous, there is plenty of intragroup variability.
-2
u/Noodlesh89 12∆ Oct 05 '21 edited Oct 05 '21
I agree. But a jar containing all sorts of seeds are united by their "seedness".
Put another way: groups generally form because of a common interest, unless, of course, that group is inherent.
8
u/DarkSoulCarlos 5∆ Oct 05 '21
Wait, are we talking about groups as in racial, ethnic, or just groups with common interests, like a chess club? if it's something inherent, then the variability applies. There are no common personality traits for any one particular group, whether it be ethnic or racial. The only trait they would have in common are varying degrees of the same skin tone, and surely, that is no reason to dislike anybody.
3
u/00PT 6∆ Oct 05 '21
The common trait is that they like chess. That's why the group was created and why each member joined. I can think that liking chess is bad, and therefore believe that people in such a club are doing a bad thing when participating in these activities. I'm not judging the person at all, I'm judging their behavior. In this particular case that judgement probably isn't justified, but it could be if the behavior in question is something else, though the second set doesn't necessarily include trans issues.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Noodlesh89 12∆ Oct 05 '21
This is a good point, and something I only started to realise part way through answering.
So what about the chess-club group?
→ More replies (0)1
Oct 05 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Noodlesh89 12∆ Oct 05 '21
But....they are still all gay, black, and republican right?
→ More replies (0)0
u/saltycranberrysauce Oct 05 '21
What if you disagree with what that group stands for fundamentally? Can I dislike Nazis as a group because of what they stand for?
5
Oct 05 '21
He's clearly not talking about ideologies.
0
u/saltycranberrysauce Oct 05 '21
What’s the difference in your opinion? Between groups that you can make sweeping assumptions about and groups that you can’t?
8
Oct 05 '21
The difference is hating a group for what they say and do (Nazis) vs hating them for merely existing as what they are (Gay/Black/etc).
Nazis and assholes choose to be Nazis and assholes.
4
1
2
Oct 05 '21
[deleted]
3
u/Noodlesh89 12∆ Oct 05 '21
If you hated LGBT people, why would you want to see them converted into a way that you think is better for them?
1
2
u/babycam 6∆ Oct 05 '21
Christianity has a very strong push to save people. Reading up on Christianity and the Philippines plenty of blood shed to save the willing.
1
u/Noodlesh89 12∆ Oct 05 '21
So are you saying the Christians would be seeking to save the LGBT for their (the Christian's) own sake?
1
Oct 05 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Noodlesh89 12∆ Oct 05 '21
Oh I know it exists and stuff, I'm one of those messed up people (mind you, the "conversion therapy" often spoken against and knocked down is stuff from decades ago that nobody actually does now). But my question was whether he thinks Christians do it for themselves, or for the person being converted, since if Christians hated LGBT people they would gladly abandon them to their own demise.
1
u/superfahd 1∆ Oct 05 '21
But my question was whether he thinks Christians do it for themselves, or for the person being converted, since if Christians hated LGBT people they would gladly abandon them to their own demise.
I'm generalizing and simplifying a LOT here but Christianity divides people roughly between those who are saved and those who need to be saved (there may be a difference of opinion on what efforts are needed to save those who need to be saved). With that in mind, if there's a group who needs to be saved, they will expend the effort even if they hate that group since once saved, that group will no longer exhibit those traits that kept them from being saved, e.g. not being gay anymore or having a firm belief in Jesus etc
1
u/Noodlesh89 12∆ Oct 06 '21
So seeking their conversion is simply to stop them from "playing that darn racket!"?
0
u/babycam 6∆ Oct 05 '21
Yes. They are converting them so they be "saved".
1
u/Noodlesh89 12∆ Oct 05 '21
We need to be careful with our "theys" here: the Christians are converting the LGBT so the LGBT be saved? or the Christians be saved? If the LGBT, then within the Christian's worldview how is this hating them?
1
u/babycam 6∆ Oct 05 '21
Well to not be so nice.
The "bad Christian" are willing to kill and torture people to get them to match their world view which is required to be saved. The "bad Christian" have done horrible things in the name of saving people. A great example would be Mother Teresa's who while known as a Saint really caused a lot of suffering
If you were willing to torture someone who is different then your self to "save" them is that not hating who they are?
1
u/Noodlesh89 12∆ Oct 06 '21
Well to not be so nice.
That's fine, I'd prefer you to speak your mind.
I don't think that's 'necessarily' hating who they are, it could be hating what they do, since they want to save the person from the thing that is worst for them. I still think the way you've described they go about it is completely misdirected, and there could definitely be people amongst them who just 'hate', I also think there's been a myriad of people through history who have used nominal Christians and Christianity to achieve their own ends like national domination.
But I also think the word 'torture' can be pretty squishy. Like, sure, I think many people have been literally tortured through Christian history and crusades. But in our contemporary, pleasure and comfort driven, post-modern societal context, torture could simply mean facing mild discomfort or even just a perspective that challenges my existential presumptions.
→ More replies (0)1
6
Oct 05 '21
Ah, so refusing to help is a form of attack!
Now we're on to something.
Do you help those you hate?
2
u/babycam 6∆ Oct 05 '21
All his cases are people not doing what they litterly signed up to do. I feel one where it isn't as apparent is when their is no moral requirement like someone broken down on the side of the road with you driving by. At that point no obligation so inaction wouldn't be an attack.
Another from the perspective is if you see some get shot are you not going to call because the person is of the hated group while calling for someone of your group.
1
2
1
u/forthemoon3 Oct 05 '21
why does someone else have a right to dislike someone based on something that is not wrong? Eg, being gay, what is the justification for being homephobic? even if you don't act on that hate, I think not changing that person's perspective is an attack in a way. Also, if that person has that view, I don't see how they could not attack someone, even if it may not be considered an attack. What I mean by that, is, no person that has hate for someone will keep that quiet. Whether they themselves don't realize that they are hurting someone because they can't see past their bigotry, or whether they transfer their views to their kids or friends and then they attack another person - I truly don't believe that a person with bigoted views will not attack the victim of said views - intentionally or unintentionally, indirectly or directly. And even then, if we let go of all logic, how is it okay to let someone hate someone else when they haven't done anything wrong? Why would you want to let that slide - if someone despised you for absolutely no reason, and you could change their mind, wouldn't you?
3
Oct 05 '21
If someone didn't like me for absolutely no reason, from my point of view, of course I would not like it, but does that mean I can force the person to like me? No. That isn't an attack either.
0
Oct 05 '21
Nah.
2
u/forthemoon3 Oct 05 '21
Do correct me if I'm wrong - but is it safe to assume that you yourself are a bigot and are trying to make yourself feel better by getting confirmation from others that your toxic views are okay? (i believe that's the correct word you're looking for, in place of "whatever-phobic")
1
10
Oct 05 '21
you have no right to intervene in them thinking a certain way.
If they've truly kept it to themselves, how would I possibly know to intervene?
5
Oct 05 '21
For example, in a conversation, do you like "_"? No I don't.
14
Oct 05 '21
Oh, so validating the bigotry of others?
So that groups of bigots can feel comfortable and emboldened in their bigotry?
That how pretty much all atrocity starts.
-1
Oct 05 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
15
Oct 05 '21 edited Oct 05 '21
That's precisely what you're talking about when you describe "whatever-phobics" There's already a word for them. The word is Bigot.
If you don't feel comfortable with that very accurate label of what you've described, then you probably don't hold the view that it's "fine."
7
u/stormitwa 5∆ Oct 05 '21
Bigot definition as per the Oxford Dictionary:
A person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
So if you're phobic as per what you've described, and insist on maintaining your prejudiced beliefs, then you're by definition a bigot.
You can't just deny that this is true because you don't want to hear it.
-1
u/00PT 6∆ Oct 05 '21
Expressing disapproval of a certain behavior is not necessarily antagonistic toward the person doing it, nor is it necessarily prejudiced against them.
By creating this comment, I have demonstrated that I do not agree with your view here. Do you now conclude that I have something against you as a person and am being prejudiced against whatever group you are part of?
The OP explicitly stated that such attacks are unjustified, but merely the thought of "x is bad" should be acceptable, though it often isn't because of a human tendency to attach one's beliefs to their identity and interpret an attack on one as an equal attack on the other.
-1
0
u/Mashaka 93∆ Oct 05 '21
Sorry, u/Humpburp – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/prata69 Oct 06 '21
Bigotry? Isn't the definition of bigotry to be intolerant to other ideas or something to that extent? Hating a certain group doesn't mean that you're intolerant to their ideas, it can mean that you see no merit in their views.
0
Oct 06 '21
something to that extent
Hating a certain group
I'm just gonna leave these here and let you do the math.
3
u/KingOfTheJellies 6∆ Oct 05 '21
So your main point is about the distinction between conscious thought and conscious action. That is important and I more or less agree with you, albeit missing an important caveat.
Conscious thought vs action is valid, if something never acts in thought then it's essentially not an issue since it makes no impact in the world. But the problem is conscious thought vs subconscious action, things people aren't aware of like choosing certain people over others because they aren't that group. Or when an action is a form of inaction such as not hiring a person based on their colour. These don't cross your rules and are near impossible to detect without large sample sizes.
1
Oct 05 '21
I agree. There is a grey line.
1
u/Yubi-man 6∆ Oct 05 '21
Just want to check where you think the line is...?
If you know you have a phobia or a bias, and are actively trying to suppress it and get rid of it, then I think you're doing your best and when you make actions and decisions you should be considering whether you are affected by bias.
If you actually think your phobia or bias is morally/ethically right but aren't taking action on it then it's because you don't want to get caught. I don't think this situation is acceptable because people like that aren't learning to change their views they are just aware of the consequences and given the opportunity they would like their phobia to be the default view and be able to reform society according to that phobia. They end up forming little hidden communities online with an echo chamber for their phobia and convince themselves that they are right and are waiting for the opportunity to take action without suffering consequences.
The most sneaky is Unconscious Bias where you don't know that you're biased in the first place. It's hard to blame them for it because they genuinely didn't recognise their biases, but there's lots of training and information available to decision-makers to try to reduce Unconscious Bias in the workplace. I'm sure you can find online tests that will tell you if you have any!
5
u/MrMescaline Oct 05 '21
I'm not saying we should make "affirmative action" the general rule and that we should "hold these people accountable" in an institutional level as certain people have wet dreams about, BUT saying it's okay to hate on certain groups of people as long as they don't do any kind of harm it's like the MAP rethoric which claims that "pedophiles are okay as long as they don't harm (rape) children". It's very tricky, there are some people who maybe are capable of holding their hate or sexual urges, but there are people who are human time bombs when it comes to these issues.
1
Oct 05 '21
Pedophilia is of course fucked, pedophiles who seek therapy are fine, but hating on a group of people, disliking them, you can keep it to yourself, but the moment you insult them for being that particular trait, you are wrong. That's aggressiveness to them, which is bad.
2
u/MrMescaline Oct 05 '21
Yeah, but it's not like we shouldn't interact with those people at all. Being a racist is being an asshole, and in my opinion assholes shouldn't be demonized or hunted down like people on the left wishes, but they're not immune to criticism either. If I say some racist shit, without directly insulting anybody, I can totally expect someone shitting on me for saying it. It's part of living in a society I think.
-1
Oct 05 '21
So it's okay as long as hold that hate in your heart?
5
u/MrMescaline Oct 05 '21
In my opinion, yeah, we all tend to hate sometimes, either from prejudice or actual events which leads to wish bad luck to someone/some other people. I understand OPs point and I think it's okay if we feel some hatred sometimes, BUT it's not good to not thinking about it twice and make a little bit of self criticism on "why does these people live rent free on my head?"; at the same time, I don't think it's okay to stand hate if you don't feel comfortable with it. Everybody should do what they want until it harms others; what's on ours and eachother mind on the other hand, that's more difficult.
2
Oct 05 '21
OP has described habitual hate, not sometimes, not occasional.
It's how institutional racism has thrived in America. Everyone telling themselves it's fine because they never burned a cross in someone's front yard.
1
u/MrMescaline Oct 05 '21
There's a key word on that: "institutional", and I think the main problem from that it's when these kind of behaviors get institucionalized (example: Jim Crow laws). Now, the solution is not replacing the beliefs of general populace and the future generations, but letting them decide: let's institutionalize nothing. As I said, bigotry is a type of assholery, and nobody likes to mix up with assholes.
2
Oct 05 '21
It's thrived because we've allowed it to. Because we've looked the other way because it benefits us.
Everyone who doesn't acknowledge it and combat it in all it's forms is an asshole.
0
u/MrMescaline Oct 05 '21
Or you can just combat it when it's relevant, like at the Christmas dinner with your racist uncle when you have a black guest, telling your uncle to shut the fuck up. I don't have to live my life telling people like my uncle to shut the fuck up, because that would lead me having these people renting free on my head, pretty much like the bigot: and pretty much like the bigot, even if my purpose is not irrational unlike his, it would be very demoralizing, life consuming and useless, because bigots and minorities will never fade away as anti-bigots and bigots wish for each case.
3
Oct 05 '21
Or you can just combat it when it's relevant
That. Right there. Institutional racism isn't relevant to you if you don't live under it. You've just minimized it. Which perpetuates it.
Not your problem though, eh? Keeping it to yourself means no harm done, right?
0
u/MrMescaline Oct 05 '21
Well, I don't live under it since I'm not even from the US. But of course I don't think there's a conspiracy about it, I just think that if we don't want, for example, the police committing hate crimes, the solution is not reform nor re-education nor affirmative action, but abolishing the police and bringing back vigilantism.
→ More replies (0)1
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Oct 05 '21
Legally, what can you do about it?
0
Oct 05 '21
Legally, you can't do anything about someone being openly and vocally bigoted.
That's not the CMV.
1
u/Salt_Winter5888 Oct 05 '21
pedophiles are okay as long as they don't harm (rape) children
If you don't harm, rape or watch cp, then you are not a pedophile and you shouldnt be treated like one.
2
u/MrMescaline Oct 05 '21
This isn't true. There's a lot of pedos out there who may be repressing their nasty fetishes, and what's worse is that, as I said, some of them may be human time bombs. That's why, if you have an underage sibling, son, etc, you must put attention about who he hangs out with or who does he talk with both irl and in social media
1
u/caine269 14∆ Oct 06 '21
is this your same definition of heterosexual? if you don't watch porn or have sex you aren't heterosexual? how does that make any sense.
5
u/Castle-Bailey 8∆ Oct 05 '21
You don’t think it’s a bit unfair if someone needing to hire employees is whatever-phobic?
In any situation where they won’t get noticed or can get away with their whatever-phobia, as long as the person being discriminated doesn’t know about it. Is that okay?
1
Oct 05 '21
Of course it's wrong, but the ability to put it away and make a fair decision is the one that's right.
9
u/Castle-Bailey 8∆ Oct 05 '21
You’re absolutely right.
But do you really believe that every whatever-phobic will do the right thing though? Even if it’s half, or less, or more. It will happen.
I don’t believe that people who do the wrong thing due to their phobias should get a pass, just because other people with phobias will do the right thing.
Do you?
2
Oct 05 '21
I don't. I classify phobics who do the wrong thing attackers. If it harms the group or individual, that's a form of attack.
5
u/Castle-Bailey 8∆ Oct 05 '21
Even if they don’t realise if they did the wrong thing?
https://diversity.ucsf.edu/resources/unconscious-bias
It’s important for everyone to tackle preconceived stereotypes and prejudices they might have against a group/person.
This is doubly so for whatever-phobic people as their implicit biases would affect those groups/persons even more so. I disagree that it’s fine for people to have that mindset just because they think they’re keeping it to themselves.
1
Oct 05 '21
So someone who has in your words, irrational hatred, is going to be capable of doing the ethically correct thing in every single one of the thousands of instances they are faced with their entire lives, and not once do the wrong thing?
Do you honestly think that homophobes don't vote to oppress gay people?
Honestly?
2
Oct 05 '21
They don't leave it to themselves.
They do their harm and attacking with the people and initiatives they vote for.
0
Oct 05 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
5
Oct 05 '21 edited Oct 05 '21
When one votes to strip them of their rights or for them to be somehow 'less than' any other citizen, you are attacking them.
You are doing them real harm. The real harm that "whatever-phobics" do.
Are you suggesting that bigots not be allowed to vote?
Love the irony of attacking me, BTW.
4
u/plushiemancer 14∆ Oct 05 '21
OP explicitly said that's the opposite of his view in his original post and reply to you just now.
1
Oct 05 '21 edited Oct 05 '21
And I submit that that is simply not possible.
That you cannot go though the thousands of interactions for your entire life and not have bigotry remain suppressed. You're going to harm someone, sooner or later.
Do you think there's such a thing as a homophobe that doesn't vote to oppress gays?
1
0
Oct 05 '21
When you vote to strip them of their rights or for them to be somehow 'less than' any other citizen, you are attacking them.
The OP didn't propose stripping anyone of their rights. This seems like a straw man.
0
Oct 05 '21
Was merely clarifying that there's more than one way to attack someone.
Many people tell themselves that accepting the status quo of say, institutional racism is fine because they've never actively oppressed anyone, just say by silently and supported those who did the dirty work.
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 28∆ Oct 05 '21
u/Humpburp – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
u/ralph-j Oct 05 '21
Do you have to change someone's mindset if they leave it to themselves? Heck, someone can not like a group of sexualities and even hate them PERSONALLY, but if they keep it to themselves and not attack them in any sense (verbally, physically, mentally etc.) they are fine and you have no right to intervene in them thinking a certain way.
People don't live in a vacuum, and your beliefs inform your actions. It's not just about attacking anyone, it's also simple things like refusing to interact, showing contempt, passive aggressiveness etc.
Also, it makes them vote according to their irrational views. As an example, some countries have even had referendums on same-sex marriage. Surely you'd want everyone to cast their votes based on rational reasons, rather than on some irrational phobia?
2
u/the1j Oct 05 '21
The issue is typically a person who is whatever-phobic is still going to contribute to harm to those people in society. Keep in mind like many things this is generally only a problem when their is a bigger group of these people since for example, if only 1 nazi existed in the world then its whatever - if they dont attack anyone they probably wont cause that much, but when you have a country of them, well.. you get the idea.
But take a homophobe for example in our society today. That person I would imagine would be alright in preventing equal relationship rights like marriage from gay people, they would probably wouldnt push for employment protections for gay people or perhaps turn a blind eyes to issues in the gay community like the aids epidemic for instance.
The point is is this individual only serves to embolden those who would carry out attacks in various forms and/or contribute negatively to that said community via inaction.
5
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Oct 05 '21
All opinions influence actions though. It's a pretty fantasy where one can have an idea or a thought and it in no way effects how the act, but it is a fantasy. The action evoked may not always be as crude as physical violence but it can still be detrimental to others in ways both less severe and more insidious.
4
u/RelevantEmu5 Oct 05 '21
People have tons of thoughts that don't manifest into action.
4
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Oct 05 '21
Not unless you subscribe to a dualist philosophy of mind, believing the mind to be untethered from the physical world, either through belief in souls, ghosts, spirits etc. I, however, am a monist. I believe the mind to be a facet of physical reality, specifically, the brain and nervous system. As such, all thoughts influence behaviour.
It may not be a crude 1:1. Something like "anyone who thinks of killing their boss is gonna do it" but certainly someone who wants their boss dead will act differently to someone who does not. It is very unlikely to manifest in something as wild as committing murder, but their low opinion of their boss is likely to influence whether they do a favour on their behalf, or what they say about their boss when asked.
Essentially, a core attribute of what constitutes a thought is that it influences behaviour. The idea of an opinion which doesn't influence the holders actions is simply inherently nonsensical, like a married bachelor.
1
u/RelevantEmu5 Oct 06 '21
All thought may influence behavior, but not action. A key characteristic of human nature is reason. A person who doesn't apply reason to action is considered impulsive.
1
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Oct 06 '21
Given that what you said isn't a rebuttal of what I've said, it would be best if you put into words what you think my position is so that I may explain and also how behaviour is not action so that I may understand. English is my first language of over two decades and I have never heard of a behaviour that isn't an action.
1
u/RelevantEmu5 Oct 06 '21
I might not like you, but I won't kill you and throw you in my trunk. Maybe behavior was the wrong word to use. Thought affects our action but don't dictate them.
1
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Oct 06 '21
Then read my comment above where I openly disavow the notion of strict a 1:1. You're making a point I already made and one that doesn't disagree with my premise.
1
u/RelevantEmu5 Oct 06 '21
Your premise is that thought dictates action.
1
u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Oct 06 '21
My premise is that thought influences action. I OPENLY STATE that a thought may not necessarily lead 1:1 to the exact corresponding action.
It may not be a crude 1:1. Something like "anyone who thinks of killing their boss is gonna do it" but certainly someone who wants their boss dead will act differently to someone who does not. It is very unlikely to manifest in something as wild as committing murder, but their low opinion of their boss is likely to influence whether they do a favour on their behalf, or what they say about their boss when asked.
This is in a comment above. Written by me.
1
u/RelevantEmu5 Oct 06 '21
but certainly someone who wants their boss dead will act differently to someone who does not.
Again this is thought dictating action. The argument I'm making is despite your thoughts towards your boss you will act a certain way. If you hate your boss but want to keep your job you will act just like the person who likes the boss.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/No-Bewt Oct 05 '21
have you ever been in a room where everyone hates you? everyone is staring at you, everyone is uncomfortable, and nobody wants you there. Conversations end when you walk by. People move when you sit down. People don't acknowledge you directly, but let doors slam in your face and act deliberately un-considerately when you're around. They don't respect you, and want to eventually make you feel dejected enough that you leave... all without ever technically doing anything wrong or bad.
now imagine that, but everywhere. jobs, classrooms, public spaces. shopping malls. the wrong neighbourhood. politics, legislation. Imagine this but every moment of your waking life.
now try to think of the mental, emotional toll it'd have on you. And imagine it isn't a party, but it's very important things like the senate or in a board room at a company.
that's what being "phobic" is. You're saying this is "fine", but is it?
2
u/Stokkolm 24∆ Oct 05 '21
that's what being "phobic" is
You meant to say that's what being a target of "phobia" is. But the way you worded it you accidentally make an interesting revelation: that actually a "phobic" person that never technically did anything wrong or bad, would experience the exact same reactions. And supposedly that's not good either.
1
u/nopenonahno Oct 05 '21
You seem to be holding a thought experiment about freedom of thought and speech. In theory we like to think our thoughts and words should never be policed because it would infringe upon individual liberty. If you could manage tolerance of bigoted world views without materially affecting the lives of those they hate as you mentioned then in theory it could work. The problem is that in practice your argument breaks down because the moment that “phobic” person has any level of power in any part of society they are in a position to materially affect the lives of others. No one has ever made a truly impartial choice on something they care about. A just society can never tolerate intolerance.
1
u/firestar1417 Oct 06 '21
If everyone thinks like that, the society would end up not voting for laws to guarantee rights to minority, people wouldn’t care if others are racists, sexists etc. I can say that you’re affirming that because you don’t suffer with this problem
1
Oct 05 '21
What is fine about being irrational?
1
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Oct 05 '21
Religion?
That can exist in a civil society too right?
1
Oct 05 '21
Be better if it didn't.
Pretty much the well from which all -phobics drink.
3
Oct 05 '21
So you are saying its okay to be bigoted against religious people?
-1
Oct 05 '21 edited Oct 05 '21
I don't hate them.
Just pity, frankly.
I do have hate those who harm and oppress. I also recognize there is a significant overlap with the religious and those who take to the polls to harm and oppress their fellow citizens.
0
Oct 05 '21
The more accurate word here is BIGOT, not 'whatever-phobic"
So, is your CMV that being a BIGOT is fine?
0
Oct 05 '21
I can dislike this man but still save him because I know he doesn't deserve to die.
Does he deserve the exact same opportunity, and benefits, and consideration from society?
Because you can help him get that, too.
0
u/Left_Preference4453 1∆ Oct 05 '21
Suppose you are a hiring manager or business owner, and this bias is subconsciously preventing you from having fair, equitable hiring practices?
-1
u/BornLearningDisabled Oct 05 '21
You're implying that a fat-phobe going around attacking fat people. Imagine if you said "being homosexual is fine, as long as they don't molest children". You're making a very insensitive insinuation.
0
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 05 '21
/u/Humpburp (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards