4 ms·
I respect your need to moderate discussions. But there’s an effort to redefine racism to include any policy that acknowledges race, as opposed to the normal de
by jmull 6y ago
I respect your need to moderate discussions.
But there’s an effort to redefine racism to include any policy that acknowledges race, as opposed to the normal definition that holds a policy is racist if it promotes the superiority of one race over another.
Semantic arguments are bad when they obscure and distract from the central point. But they are good when the distinction at issue is important to the issue at hand. In this case, the distinction is critical. In a world where widespread racism exists, but policies are not allowed to acknowledge race, then policy cannot address racism, thus it continues.
> ...keep discussion stuck in superficial and uninteresting places...
Sigh
Leaves me with so little hope. I guess we get to go around and around again on all this.
- dang 6y agoSorry, and not to pick on you, but this is part of the going around in circles. People have been making the exact same points for literally decades. Combine that repetition with the superficiality and hair-triggerness of internet discussion, and we get a recipe for tedious flamewar, which is definitely off topic here. It's part of the general principle about canned arguments. Intellectual curiosity is all about diffs, and the diff between threads with canned arguments and threads without them is significant. The latter are much better.
- edanm 6y ago> Intellectual curiosity is all about diffs, and the diff between threads with canned arguments and threads without them is significant. Setting aside the context for this discussion: I really love your way of putting this. I've always looked at a lot of things that way - especially reading non-fiction books. I read a lot, so I usually only take a way a few key points from a book - but it's those diffs to how I viewed the world before that are the important part.