Seems to me it’s part of every person growing into an adulthood, that at some point early on, we think about what ethics we want to guide our actions as we get ready to leave the family and make it on our own.
A Personal code of conduct. Expectations we set for ourselves and then spend our lives trying to fulfill. It’s said we become who we are by the time we reach five years old. I believe there’s a lot of truth there, particularly the 'hard-wired attitudes towards our daily challenges. The biology, you could almost say the Physical Reality side of ourselves.
Of course, teen years and twenty is where our environment becomes the main driver. Variety circumstances and challenges results in a variety of outcomes. Our psychological, our Mindscape, produce the full spectrum outcomes.
All this comes up because I been thinking about sree, and it sure would be interesting to know what kind of fundamental ethics guide his days?
How does he see his place in society and how does perceive society itself?
Would like to work on this bit more, but out of time. Gotta shut it down.
Two cents? I don't even have one cent's worth of expectations I set for myself to fulfill. Seriously. I don't have answers but only questions, doubts about the "Mindscape" dished out to me when I was old enough to think.
It was when I was around 6 years old when I became self-aware. Looking into the mirror, I would stare at my face and peer into my eyes (no $$ signs as @timb said). One time, I stared into those holes called the pupils and got scared. That unpleasant emotion remains with me today. It’s uneasiness with the unknown.
When I was ten, I remember asking my father - an impressive, successful, confident, self-assured man of the world - “what is life about and why are we here?” He told me that he didn’t know and nobody knows. Ain’t that the truth?
How does he see his place in society and how does perceive society itself?
A banal answer would be seeing myself as a citizen of the USA, a nation of people living together in ordered communities.
All this comes up because I been thinking about sree, and it sure would be interesting to know what kind of fundamental ethics guide his days?
The ethics that guide my behavior are those of the community and that which inform the laws of the country. I conduct myself the same way at home or abroad, always regarding myself as a visitor in an unknown world.
My personal ethics include upholding the golden rule. (The real golden rule, not the bastard version of “He who has the gold rules.”) That covers most of my sense of ethics. But I also believe in upholding truth.
There are, ALSO, for some people, in some professions, professional ethics that are determined by their professional group.
For me, I treat all humans like humans and treat other animals humanely, which also means not killing them and eating them. I also treat the earth with respect by not littering, using too much energy, etc etc etc. I practice not being greedy, taking/using only what I need. There’s more to it than that, including treating myself with care and respect and being honest with myself and others, but that’s the basics. It goes deeper than that.
@sree why do your ethics need to be that of the community? Don’t you think for yourself and from your own ethics? And just what are community ethics?
This is a good question and I appreciate it. If I were to be invited to and come to your home, your ethics - regardless of your race, creed, culture, sexual orientation, whatever - dictate how I must conduct myself. To me, that's just good social manners and, more importantly, not disturb harmony in your home. Community ethics are moral principles that govern the way folks in that community want to live by. Of course, I do think for myself but that doesn't give me the right to upset the community in which I live if I find the ethics of folks around me reprehensible. Majority rules, and I either abide by the wish of the community or leave.
Well, for one thing, I wouldn’t be serving meat, so you’d either eat the meal I serve or politely decline, I’m sure, but a plant based diet never harmed anyone. And you’d be treating my family like human beings, instead of discriminating against them because they are 1/2 black- none of that racist BS you’ve posted here. That’s probably for starters. Actually, I don’t think you’d come to my home because we don’t agree on a lot of things. The same goes with communities- if you don’t like how that community lives you’ll move.
Actually, I don’t think you’d come to my home because we don’t agree on a lot of things. The same goes with communities- if you don’t like how that community lives you’ll move.
Quite right, and that's the way it is in a free society just as it is in Nature. Everyone gravitates to the community he or she likes. It's not racism; it's freedom of choice unconstrained by public censure. Condemning white folks who prefer living in white communities as racist is, in my opinion, unethical.
Condemning white folks who prefer living in white communities as racist is, in my opinion, unethical.
Condemning? That's a bit hyperbolic. It is just a fact that white people, generally speaking, probably have that sort of racial bias. Is it racist? Well, sure, depending on your operational definition of racism. (To beat you to the point, I will say that there is, generally speaking, black people have a mirrored biased preferences or racial bias.)
So the point that I am getting to, is that we should, at some point, look clearly (and without a cloud of defensiveness, or guilt, or blame) at the simple facts of our biases. We can examine those as much as we want, but, I think the priority, even before doing all that, is to become “anti-racist”. We know that the time for repairing the disparities of justice in our society, is at hand, now, in the year of COVID, 2020.
So it seems to me that what would be beyond “unethical” is to not, at least, recognize, if not actively support, the forward movement of our culture. All lives can’t matter unless ALL lives matter, which includes Black Lives and Native American Lives. Because you can’t have ALL lives, without them.
Everyone gravitates to the community he or she likes. It’s not racism; it’s freedom of choice unconstrained by public censure. -- Sree
Unless of course the government creates a system of "red-lining" that is instituted by the banks and all the home sellers and landlords go along with it and you can't buy a house or rent an apartment, unless you are white. Oh, sorry, unless you "gravitate" toward that community. Google it bro.
Forty years ago, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, which required banks to lend to qualified borrowers in blighted neighborhoods. The act aimed to eliminate government-sponsored housing discrimination, known as redlining. But it is full of loopholes: It doesn’t apply to mortgage brokers or cover internet banking, and it allows banks to claim credit for loaning almost exclusively to white applicants moving into historically black neighborhoods – supposedly lifting up low-income areas, but also enabling gentrification.
Today, a new epidemic of modern-day redlining has crept quietly across America. The gap in homeownership between African Americans and whites is now wider than it was during the Jim Crow era.
Ahead of this week’s episode, our reporters analyzed 31 million government mortgage records and determined that people of color were more likely than whites to be denied a conventional home loan in 61 metro areas, including Atlanta, Detroit and Washington. That’s after controlling for a variety of factors, including applicants’ income, loan amount and neighborhood. . . .
Feb 17, 2018
The red line: Racial disparities in lending
Credits
Today’s show was produced by Katharine Mieszkowski and Laura Starecheski, reported by Aaron Glantz and Emmanuel Martinez and edited by Deborah George.
Anne Hoffman and Rachel de Leon reported from Philadelphia. Eric Sagara, Sinduja Rangarajan, Michael Corey and Jennifer LaFleur helped with data, as well as Angel Kastanis from the Associated Press.
Special thanks to Animal Media Group in Pittsburgh and to Solomon Jones in Philadelphia. Special thanks to WHYY for production support.
"Forty years ago, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, which required banks to lend to qualified borrowers in blighted neighborhoods. The act aimed to eliminate government-sponsored housing discrimination, known as redlining. But it is full of loopholes: It doesn’t apply to mortgage brokers or cover internet banking, and it allows banks to claim credit for loaning almost exclusively to white applicants moving into historically black neighborhoods – supposedly lifting up low-income areas, but also enabling gentrification.
Today, a new epidemic of modern-day redlining has crept quietly across America. The gap in homeownership between African Americans and whites is now wider than it was during the Jim Crow era.
Ahead of this week’s episode, our reporters analyzed 31 million government mortgage records and determined that people of color were more likely than whites to be denied a conventional home loan in 61 metro areas, including Atlanta, Detroit and Washington. That’s after controlling for a variety of factors, including applicants’ income, loan amount and neighborhood.
No city better exemplifies the trend than Philadelphia, where so-called up-and-coming neighborhoods abound …"
Unless of course the government creates a system of “red-lining” that is instituted by the banks and all the home sellers and landlords go along with it and you can’t buy a house or rent an apartment, unless you are white. Oh, sorry, unless you “gravitate” toward that community. Google it bro.
I did, and this is what I found:
“Although informal discrimination and segregation had existed in the United States, the specific practice called “redlining” began with the National Housing Act of 1934, which established the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).” (Wikipedia)
1934? Can we live in the present and not drag in Joe’s misery on Old Man River while the white people play? Admittedly, there are “food deserts” in most US cities where blacks live. No supermarkets and chain stores want to open up in those places. Shall we examine why?
And continued until 1968. And after the law changed, it continued by silent agreement. That’s my childhood. I benefitted from this, while a black kid suffered because of it. This is affecting cities to this day.
And continued until 1968. And after the law changed, it continued by silent agreement. That’s my childhood. I benefitted from this, while a black kid suffered because of it. This is affecting cities to this day.
One thing I would not dispute with you is that it's ultimately the white man's fault because he invaded and took over other people's lands. We have seen how it all played out in South Africa and Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). The white man handed the lands back to the black man. I propose we do the same here in the USA and give the land back to the Native Americans. The blacks can return to Africa now that the Ghanian government has offered to take them back. Those blacks (like Oprah, Michael Jordan, etc) who prefer to stay can negotiate terms with the Native Americans along with the whites and other minority immigrants. If you want justice, let's do it right and stop this inane bickering once and for all
Sree, Show us the way. Give all that you own to the Native Americans, along with a sincere apology and then take you and yours back to whatever European countries you descended from.
Give all that you own to the Native Americans, along with a sincere apology and then take you and yours back to whatever European countries you descended from.
Give up all we whites own - railways, highways, cities, farms, power and communication grids, nuclear weapons? No way. Just the land and the bison, the way we found it. I am not sure if the Lakhota Nation would want an apology when we are done with them after plying them with "firewater" the way we did before.
You can be a role model. A leader.
Couldn't be anything else. We - namely whites - will strike a deal with the "red Indians" and the indigenous Aztec and Mayan people in the south. Any minority group, including illegals, without a bargaining chip can clear out. You want social justice?Let's do it.
The Art of the Deal by the Dotard is no deal with me. Not even the Native Americans want to make a deal with him and even took him to court, stopping his damn pipeline from not only going onto tribal land, but also not polluting the water. More and more people are telling him “no deal”. The only way we can get social justice is to get the racist, sexist, bigoted, egotistical idiot out of office. He never was qualified to run the country.
July 8, 2020 at 10:24 pm#331530
@sree
Mriana points out "That’s called cheating."
You can’t impose your ethics on someone else who live by a different moral principle. Diversity. If you embrace it, then stop condemning those who don’t think like you do.
So there you have it, Sree's ethics in a nut shell. Me First, disregard for honesty, sleep til noon and screw them all.
Plus that petty mean streak, propping up his lack of substance, by belittling others.
I’ve seen it in other trustafarians, oblivious to all but their own sense of entitled superiority.
Although, I actually imagine all that is just what sree wishes he were, and I find it easier to imagine him learning his culinary sense for watching Nero Wolfe, than mom and nights out on the town.