Discrimination and philosophy of mind
-------------------------------------

There was an interesting exchange recently between visiblink and yargo
[1,2,3] on the subject of what does or does not make it okay to make
fun of someone.  I am going to dramatically escelate this discussion
well beyond where I imagine either author wanted it taken, because,
well,  why not? :p

Reference was made to the idea, relatively common, I think, that it's
okay to criticise people for their beliefs and ideas because those are
under the person's direct and conscious control, and thus they are
responsible for them, but that it's not okay to criticise somebody for
their physical appearance because that's not a matter of choice or
something they can change, and is utlimately out of their control.

This philosophy is pretty sensible on the face of it and I am not
surprised that many people probably thought like this last century.
In 2019, if you look closely enough, this argument is actually
straining at the seams, and badly.

The reason is that in the last decade or two, Western society has
embraced materialistic philosophy of mind[4].  Not explicitly, of
course.  Most people have never heard of the idea, and if you describe
it to them I think many people would actually explicitly *reject* it
as cold-hearted reductionism.

But actions speak louder than words and here are some facts: if you
try to publically argue in 2019 that somebody who is seriously and
reguarly depressed, or never able to focus their attention on
something, or is incredibly anxious about routine interactions, needs
to simply grit their teeth and cheer up, or try harder - basically
try in any way to change their mental state through the application of
force of will or through rational thought - you will be condemned as a
dinosaur, and told something like "mental illness is real", and that
people can't "just snap out of" depression etc. because these mental
states are the consequence of some chemical inbalance in the brain
which can only be treated with SSRIs or similar medication.

However, if somebody were to claim that they couldn't, through force
of will or following a rational line of argument, snap themselves
without chemical assistance out of being sexist or racist or
homophobic, the very idea would be considered intrinsically offensive,
or at least ridiculous, and no public commentator would dare to be
seen as giving it even the slightest bit of credence.

This is, of course, having your cake and eating it too.  If you really
believe that nothing happens inside the human skull which violates the
natural laws which hold everywhere outside of it - and how can our
brain scanning, mental illness diagnosing, drug prescribing society
coherently reject this notion? - then the whole idea of people bearing
moral responsibility for their beliefs seems no more well-founded than
people bearing moral responsibility for their appearance.

Where does this leave us on the question of who is fair game for
mockery by comedians?  Well, what makes you think comedians have
conscious control of who they make fun of? :p

[1] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space:70/0/~visiblink/phlog/20190117
[2] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space:70/0/~yargo/clog/yr-joking-about-others.txt
[3] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space:70/0/~visiblink/phlog/20190118
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism