u/Careful_Set_2469

I’ve been thinking about how society decides which traits are valid identities and which ones get pathologized.

The term Asocial was fundamentally rooted in eugenics and nationalist ideology, intended to excise those who did not conform to the regime’s demands for productivity, racial purity, and order.

Those labeled as "asocials" and forced to wear black triangles in concentration camps included the homeless, long term unemployed, the "work shy", addicts, people living off-grid, disabled people, sex workers, and many others.

The label was deliberately vague and nebulous so that the police could send Asocials to the concentration camps for arbitrary reasons such as having a bad attitude, being perceived as untrustworthy, or generally not the cooperating with the state. If one were to engage in this behaviour today, you would be swiftly labelled as Anti Social, and given any number of clinical diagnoses such as ASPD, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, and many more conditions which are beginning to look more and more like political crimes that can be pathologised and treated with powerful, personality-altering medicine, or otherwise criminalised, or perhaps encouraged to label yourself as disabled and claim compensation.

Hans Asperger had to actively defend the children in his clinic by arguing to the Nazi regime that their "social eccentricities" could be funneled into high-level intellectual and economic utility for the state. He knew that if the regime categorized these children purely as "asocial," they would face forced sterilization. The autistic savant trope has some dark roots.

This is my answer to everyone who ever said "I never asked to be born", who recognised they were forced to play along with a society that never once asked their permission in a meaningful way.

And this is my question to you:

Asexuality is now becoming rightly recognized as a valid orientation. But true asociality, such as the desire to be entirely away from people is still judged or viewed as a medical or criminal issue.

From your perspective as an ace person, why do you think society is more comfortable accepting a lack of sexual attraction than a lack of social attraction?

Ok so I'm not a good student of history and I didn't read the footnotes that might've explained a bit more of the context and puns in The Clouds. I studied the Peloponnesian war at school but I can't remember much about it now. Anyway I'm not a student but I'm trying to understand Athenian criticisms of Socrates and this was suggested.

My question is, how is this read as a criticism of Socrates?

It felt to me much more like the author was critical of both sides, and Strepsiades was being punished for hubris (or blasphemy? In denying the gods) or choosing the unjust argument and avoiding repaying his debt, whereas Socrates (even though his thinkery gets burned and he's described as being a bit pompous and lofty) seemed more like a tool of the gods to punish Strepsiades.

Also, what's this idea of the Whirlwind meant to be about?

And the thing that Strepsiades says at the end against Socrates about studying the face of the moon being some kind of evil?

Ok so I'm not a good student of history and I didn't read the footnotes that might've explained a bit more of the context and puns in The Clouds. I studied the Peloponnesian war at school but I can't remember much about it now. Anyway

My question is, how is this read as a criticism of Socrates?

It felt to me much more like the author was critical of both sides, and Strepsiades was being punished for hubris (or blasphemy? In denying the gods) or choosing the unjust argument and avoiding repaying his debt, whereas Socrates (even though his thinkery gets burned and he's described as being a bit pompous and lofty) seemed more like a tool of the gods to punish Strepsiades.

Also, what's this idea of the Whirlwind meant to be about?

And the thing that Strepsiades says at the end against Socrates about studying the face of the moon being some kind of evil?

During and after the war.

Looking for anything interesting that goes beyond what I can find out on Wikipedia.

I use the word "shunned" loosely. (From what I understand many chose to hide the fact they wore the black triangle for a long time after the war for fear of being alienated, ostracised or shamed.)

You can see this shunning behaviour in modern negative attitudes towards the disabled, people on welfare or long term unemployed, travellers, prostitutes etc

Seems crazy to me that they only really gained any kind of commemoration in 2020, meaning (from what I can understand) most of these people would've lived their whole lives without really being recognised as victims

(I made a few edits here so I'm sorry if you were working on replying while I did that)

These are the things that we protect uncontacted human settlements from with our international no-contact policy:

​

Diseases

Religious imposition

Cultural disruption/modern media

Gangs and drug trafficking

Infrastructure encroachment

Resource extraction

Violence and exploitation

Social marginalization

​

Yet, when it comes to extraterrestrial life, the law seems to have made the assumption that those same standards don't apply.

​

International bodies have legally defined uncontacted tribes as "indigenous people in voluntary isolation," recognizing an active, contemporary choice to resist intrusion.

​

METI projects completely violate this fundamental principle of collective consent and humanity's right to self-determination by unilaterally broadcasting Earth's location to the cosmos.

​

If respecting privacy, boundaries, and voluntary isolation is an ethical benchmark for human rights on Earth, those same standards must apply to our relationship with the cosmos and any potential alien intelligence.

These are the things that we protect uncontacted human settlements from with our international no-contact policy:

​

-Diseases

-Religious imposition

-Cultural disruption/modern media

-Gangs and drug trafficking

-Infrastructure encroachment

-Resource extraction

-Violence and exploitation

-Social marginalization

​

Yet, when it comes to extraterrestrial life, international law seems to have made the assumption that those same standards don't apply. International bodies have legally defined uncontacted tribes as "indigenous people in voluntary isolation," recognizing an active, contemporary choice to resist intrusion.

​

METI projects completely violate this fundamental principle of collective consent and humanity's right to self-determination by unilaterally broadcasting Earth's location to the cosmos. If respecting privacy, boundaries, and voluntary isolation is an ethical benchmark for human rights on Earth, those same standards must apply to our relationship with the cosmos.

These are the things that we protect uncontacted human settlements from with international no-contact policy:

​

Diseases

​

Religious imposition

​

Cultural disruption/modern media

​

Gangs and drug trafficking

​

Infrastructure encroachment

​

Resource extraction

​

Violence and exploitation

​

Social marginalization

​

Yet, when it comes to extraterrestrial life, international law seems to have made the assumption that those same standards don't apply.

​

International bodies have legally defined uncontacted tribes as "indigenous people in voluntary isolation".

​

This framing is vital because it recognizes isolation not as a primitive accident of nature, but as an active, contemporary choice to resist intrusion by a technologically superior neighbor.

​

And yet a small group of people (METI projects) have decided on humanity's behalf to broadcast Earth's location to the cosmos, presumably under the assumption that whatever life may be out there is not only technologically but morally superior to us—violating the principle of collective consent and humanity's right to self-determination.

​

If respecting the right to privacy and isolation is a benchmark of ethical maturity on Earth, why do the same standards not apply to the way we treat the cosmos?

​

​

​

These are some of the things that we protect uncontacted human settlements from with international no-contact policy:

​

Diseases

​

Religious imposition

​

Cultural disruption/modern media

​

Gangs and drug trafficking

​

Infrastructure encroachment

​

Resource extraction

​

Violence and exploitation

​

Social marginalization

​

Yet, when it comes to extraterrestrial life, international law seems to have made the assumption that those same standards don't apply.

​

International bodies have legally defined uncontacted tribes as "indigenous people in voluntary isolation".

​

This framing is vital because it recognizes isolation not as a primitive accident of nature, but as an active, contemporary choice to resist intrusion by a technologically superior neighbor.

​

And yet a small group of people (METI projects) have decided on humanity's behalf to broadcast Earth's location to the cosmos, presumably under the assumption that whatever life may be out there is not only technologically but morally superior to us—violating the principle of collective consent and humanity's right to self-determination.

​

If respecting the right to privacy and isolation is a benchmark of ethical maturity on Earth, why do the same standards not apply to the way we treat the cosmos?

​

​

These are some of the things that we protect uncontacted human settlements from with our international no-contact policy:

​

* Diseases

* Religious imposition

* Cultural disruption/modern media

* Gangs and drug trafficking

* Infrastructure encroachment

* Resource extraction

* Violence and exploitation

* Social marginalization

​

Yet, when it comes to extraterrestrial life, international law seems to have made the assumption that those same standards don't apply.

​

International bodies have legally defined uncontacted tribes as "indigenous people in voluntary isolation".

​

This framing is vital because it recognizes isolation not as a primitive accident of nature, but as an active, contemporary choice to resist intrusion by a technologically superior neighbor.

​

And yet a small group of people (METI projects) have decided on humanity's behalf to broadcast Earth's location to the cosmos, presumably under the assumption that whatever life may be out there is not only technologically but morally superior to us—violating the principle of collective consent and humanity's right to self-determination.

​

If respecting the right to privacy and isolation is a benchmark of ethical maturity on Earth, why do the same standards not apply to the way we treat the cosmos?