Wait I don’t think that we’re talking about the same thing at all. I’ve got this whole response prepared in my head where I go on about how there’s generally a social sciences and physical sciences divide and that, based on our conversations, you seen to not only be purely on the physical side but limited to the area in which you specialize with a stated tendency to skim over information as you read through things. Thus, I was going to state how this differs from myself who not only bridges that field gap but is more often than not (at least when my health/meds aren’t interfering a detail magnet) one to find that such analysis of these types is critical or academically relevant and is used to the scorn of the “scientists”.
However, it sounds like you were making some point on the morality or common sense itself? I was speaking to the need for one to analyze. Which is the point of this article and discussion. Since you’ve brought up the analogy: Here’s the thing, I do not excuse racism. But, on an intellectual level, in our society, I do understand its roots, we’re programmed to be that way from birth. It’s something that pounded into us at every turn from every avenue and seeps into our subconscious. I feel as if there’s at point at which, it’s willful ignorance not to take the time to learn and grow out of the acculturation and misinformation that causes the inequities. Especially when there are those attempting to show you the correct path.
In a work of art, however, everything is right in front of you. There’s not a bunch of misinformation and propaganda or subconscious messages giving you the wrong message so the parallels do not exist in the same manner. It’s just not an equitable comparison. Furthermore, stating that a failed/missed literary analysis is on the same level as being a racist is extreme? Again, am I misinterpreting? I really feel like this is a crossed paths conversation here...
So... can you elaborate on what in the AF you’re trying to say so I can understand because I don’t get it. I’m lost and really want to understand.
As for the rest of the message, thanks for your concern. Things are meh but this too shall pass I guess. We can talk about it in AMA or something. ^_^
Whether you fully believe in the paragraph I quoted (and specifically the first sentence of no such thing as common sense), is whether we are on the same concept of societal analysis. I am very purposeful from the AP writing classes in that every sentence is supporting the big picture. It is a positive trait, but because you are very open minded and let your mind go in whatever direction it wants to go, every so often there is a partially disconnected sentence. If the sentence on common sense does not exist is one of these instances, then just the normal minuscule miscommunication in the midst of analyzing big stuff.
I am biased by the physical science, but that's just me sticking to what I know. Social sciences naturally have the human X-factor applied, so there's just more gray area, which in turn makes it all situation specific/varied from case to case.
Ah, kk. So reading at least the second and third paragraphs, this goes directly back to my top part on whether you believe there is no such thing as common sense. I am naturally going to take every sentence literally (so like the Kakushigoto discussion where the subject suddenly changed mid-paragraph) is going to throw me off. Maybe this is the same case here, but my gut says this is going to go down the "uncomfortable discussion" tangent.
So yes, the direct connection to the on topic discussion of necessitating analysis is something of course I 100% agree with. The sentence in question is whether this tangent goes on. And yes, morality is directly linked to "common sense" to me. I guess I should further expand that the lack of common sense (no matter what the topic) comes down to ignorance when oversimplified. The lack of exposure is what creates the ignorance and inability to analyze rationally. I read the paragraph as an excuse making for the ignorance. This is directly what is happening with racism and bigotry. People want to live in their ignorant bubble and will blindly be biased against anything that goes against their fake paradise. Society is creating a norm where common sense is not common because it is acceptable to not conform to the norm. Be yourself to an extreme even if it is detrimental. Yes, that is your choice, but obviously it's stupid if it negatively affects others.
So specifically in regards to the third paragraph, yes, I will 100% agree. My tangent is solely based on the common sense does not exist side-tangent. So if you believe common sense does not exist, I would want to continue this because that's the tightrope walk/fine line that can have huge detrimental effects. The reasoning behind what I called "excuse" making is legitimate and rationale. Based on my morals, which is always what drives my decision making/something I never compromise (even if it reads negatively), the fine line is being crossed and opening up Pandora's Box.
Like anything else, understanding where the other person is coming from helps a lot. For me, I need clarification on the sentence that sparked my tangent, just like my tangent confused you since what sparked it might be miscommunication.
Sounds good. Other than one and only one topic, I'm literally AMA so I'd happily discuss literally anything there.