3 ms·

judging someone by the sole data point of their choice in the voting booth, without knowing reasons for it, is one of the most stupid kind of thinking imaginabl

judging someone by the sole data point of their choice in the voting booth, without knowing reasons for it, is one of the most stupid kind of thinking imaginable I'd call that holding them accountable and I only know how they voted because they told me. Also, I'd put hating people for the color of their skin, the sexuality, their religion, ... as much much stupider.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> I'd call that holding them accountable You only get to do that after you understand their reasons, which you can then judge. > and I only know how they voted because they told me It doesn't work like that. People don't generally run around, telling everyone who they voted for. It usually comes up in conversations, where the person who divulges their choice don't expect to get hated for it. > Also, I'd put hating people for the color of their skin, the sexuality, their religion, ... as much much stupider. I agree with that (maybe not with the much much part, because to me it seems to be a similar kind of stupidity; different flavours of the same bug in thinking). This doesn't invalidate my point though. People should not do either of those things.
- CalChris 9y ago
  Actually it does work like that. Your conversation example is basically saying that even understanding your reasons that I'm supposed to give you a pass because ... because what? As for stupider, the color of your skin or your sexuality aren't choices. Whether you voted for Trump is. Holding someone accountable for their choices isn't stupid. Hating them for their race, sexuality, ... is. Your equivocation isn't getting anywhere.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    My point is that judging a person - a sophisticated individual with complex life history and embedded in equally complex environment - by just few bits of information, is a very stupid thing to do in general. There are situations in which you have no other choice, when few bits is all you have to go on and you need to make some decision. But those situations are very rare. In a typical case, such evaluation is just irrational - few bits are not enough to describe a person in any useful way.
    - CalChris 9y ago
      At what point do you judge a person because your litany of examples isn't making any sense. All I'm seeing here is an attempt at equivocation.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        I don't? I judge actions, in context, but I avoid doing even that if I don't know a lot about the actions and the context.
        CalChris 9y ago
        > maybe not with the much much part, because to me it seems to be a similar kind of stupidity; Yes, you do. This is equivocation.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> I'd call that holding them accountable You only get to do that after you understand their reasons, which you can then judge. > and I only know how they voted because they told me It doesn't work like that. People don't generally run around, telling everyone who they voted for. It usually comes up in conversations, where the person who divulges their choice don't expect to get hated for it. > Also, I'd put hating people for the color of their skin, the sexuality, their religion, ... as much much stupider. I agree with that (maybe not with the much much part, because to me it seems to be a similar kind of stupidity; different flavours of the same bug in thinking). This doesn't invalidate my point though. People should not do either of those things.

CalChris 9y ago
Actually it does work like that. Your conversation example is basically saying that even understanding your reasons that I'm supposed to give you a pass because ... because what? As for stupider, the color of your skin or your sexuality aren't choices. Whether you voted for Trump is. Holding someone accountable for their choices isn't stupid. Hating them for their race, sexuality, ... is. Your equivocation isn't getting anywhere.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  My point is that judging a person - a sophisticated individual with complex life history and embedded in equally complex environment - by just few bits of information, is a very stupid thing to do in general. There are situations in which you have no other choice, when few bits is all you have to go on and you need to make some decision. But those situations are very rare. In a typical case, such evaluation is just irrational - few bits are not enough to describe a person in any useful way.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    At what point do you judge a person because your litany of examples isn't making any sense. All I'm seeing here is an attempt at equivocation.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      I don't? I judge actions, in context, but I avoid doing even that if I don't know a lot about the actions and the context.
      - CalChris 9y ago
        > maybe not with the much much part, because to me it seems to be a similar kind of stupidity; Yes, you do. This is equivocation.