FWIW, the philosopher William Wollaston’s magnum opus is devoted to defending the thesis that truth and morality completely overlap with one another: that to adhere to truth and to be moral are identical.
Here’s a free ebook version of his argument: https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/william-wollaston/the-religion-of-nature-delineated
And my summary of his argument: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/P75rzmpJ62E2Qfr3A/truth-reason-the-true-religion
I think you may be reading more (and more sinister things) into this than were originally there. I don’t think DiAngelo starts with “a large part of your core identity is inherently very bad” at all. The progression she has in mind is more like this:
You were raised in a culture that has a lot of baggage from its explicitly white supremacist origins, and as part of learning to adopt to that culture you learned ways of getting along with it that have the effect of reinforcing its racism. In part this is because as a white person those things were designed with your benefit in mind and so you didn’t have much reason to look the gift horse in the mouth. You did this even if you didn’t have any bigoted intentions or desire to be awful to non-white people.
If you would rather work to repair the racist system rather than coast along continuing to take advantage of it, you’ll have to work on that. But if you respond defensively whenever such opportunities are pointed out to you, you probably won’t succeed.
So try to drop your defensiveness and don’t take it so personally when someone points out ways in which you have picked up patterns of behavior that help to reinforce a racist system you aren’t even very sympathetic with.
This isn’t my area of expertise, but as best as I understand it, one reason why racismS is not de facto a synonym for “being white” because racismS is not primarily a description of individual people, the way racismF can be.
That is to say, you can call someone a racistF, which is de facto a synonym for calling them a bigot or intolerant or a “race realist” or something like that, because a racistF is someone who believes in or professes racismF or acts like they do. But racismS doesn’t work like that. It isn’t an explicit belief system, but “a systemic, usually (nowadays) non-explicit or euphemistic, often subconscious, interlocking and pervasive set of social, cultural, and political devices that reinforce white supremacy.”
So you wouldn’t tell someone “you’re racistS” but you might tell someone “you might want to be aware that the decision X that you made, or the thing Y that you said, had the effect of strengthening or perpetuating racismS.”
I see where you’re coming from, and I also wish I didn’t have to do the extra work to remember the correct technical definition of racism when I read White Fragility. That said, I expect that when I read a book in a particular discipline that I will need to be more attentive to the terms of art in that discipline. For instance, when I read a book of physics, I don’t expect the author to cater to my folk definitions of “work”, “energy”, “power”, “momentum”, and so forth: instead, I expect that I will need to learn how to use the terminology of the field precisely as its practitioners do if I am to follow its arguments and learn what they have to teach.
See also: Notes on Optimism, Hope, and Trust
Bostrom estimates that just one second of delayed colonization equals 100 trillion human lives lost. Therefore taking action today for accelerating humanity’s expansion into the universe yields an impact of 100 trillion human lives saved for every second that it’s is brought closer to the present.
I don’t much care for this rhetorically sneaky way of smudging the way we feel the import of “lives lost” and “lives saved” so as to try to make it also cover “lives that never happen” or “lives that might potentially happen.” There’s an Every Sperm is Sacred silliness at work here. Do you mourn the millions of lives lost to vasectomy?
Endurance, maybe? Perseverance?
See also: The trouble with passive voice sentences.
You can exit insert mode by pressing Escape but it is faster to remap your CapsLock key to Ctrl and then exit insert mode with Ctrl-[.
I don’t get how that’s faster.
So… first of all, I’d like someone to look up the logical positivists and say what it is they actually believed.
A.J. Ayer’s Language, Truth, and Logic is brief, to-the-point, bold, and fun to read. All of this to the extent that you may forget why you dislike reading philosophy. I’m pretty sure that Eliezer and Scott would enjoy their time reading it and would get something out of it.
I wish I remembered where I heard about this. It was a long time ago and seemed convincing to me at the time, but now I don’t remember the details, and a little googling doesn’t turn up much of anything to confirm this. I should probably dial back how I describe this until I can verify it.
I try to maintain my concentration on what I see, and so deliberately don’t pay attention to other sensations.
I haven’t experimented much with the other senses in this way. I wonder if you could get similar results by concentrating on bodily sensations (or some other sense) that I’ve gotten by concentrating on the visual. Seems like it’d be a good avenue for experimentation.
When I’ve been aware of such sudden-jerks, it’s been around Guidepost 6, just as I’m about to slip into sleep, and is usually accompanied by a micro-dream in which I need to suddenly move for some reason (usually, it’s that I missed a step on a staircase or something like that; but once I remember flinging my arm out in front of me to catch a baseball coming my way).
Some of this may be as you theorize: that sleep paralysis is lagging dream-consciousness and so your body doesn’t know that it shouldn’t actually move when your dream-consciousness tells it to.
I’ve interpreted some of the instances of this as a protective mechanism: if you’re lying in a position where your tongue might block your airway or for some other reason your body decides that you’re not safely-situated for sleep, it jerks you awake to encourage you to start over in another position… sort of like an abort to the launch sequence. I don’t know whether there’s anything to this interpretation; it’s just a pet theory.