3 ms·

> Just the fact that you think being an Arab is analogous to being a librarian for these purposes raises a number of questions in any reasonable reader's mind.

by Maci 15y ago

> Just the fact that you think being an Arab is analogous to being a librarian for these purposes raises a number of questions in any reasonable reader's mind. Pretty much is man, it's just a label. That's all it is regardless of race, sex, color, religion, profession. For better or for worse. The root of the problem is people clinging to this fiction as fact. Time and understanding will fix that. Given my origin and the situations that come with it at times this philosophy is what works out best for me and those who are willing to listen, if not it's high time to find a more receptive audience. Foremost we're all individuals. And you know if you can't laugh at yourself... :) > Perhaps you think that some people are made librarians from birth and have no choice about the matter. I think that given certain genetic dispositions and the environment where a child grows up that is quite possible. > Your final statement is not even a rebuttal, it's merely an appeal to popularity. Turn on any source of information, labels on everyone everywhere. All neatly grouped and organised. Not pandering to popularity, Just stating fact.

dreyfiz 15y ago
This is making less and less sense. The insight that labels are not the same thing as the thing, itself is a pretty thin one when you water it down like that. You’re taking a truth and turning it into a nihilistic premise that no label is meaningful, just because it’s a label. If that’s the case, programming must be a hellish experience for you, since it mostly consists of labeling things well.
- Maci 15y ago
  Because it IS just a label. It has no inherent value or meaning. It's merely a descriptor which can be true or false. Hardly, Compilers make sense, Humans do not at times.
  - jessedhillon 15y ago
    I understand that you are trying to promote a vision of colorblind equanimity. While your intention may be genuine, you are, frankly, hugely mistaken in your assessment of the impact of racism. Let's apply your declaration of labels as meaningless is arbitrary to another situation: Surely you don't spend your time convincing women that the difference between consensual and forcible sex is a void label? That the concept of consent is a futile attempt to manifest an utter and complete abstraction with no inherent value or meaning. Would you insist that it doesn't matter if a woman -- clinging to the delusion that consent matters -- might be offended when you act on your conviction that consent is an illusion. Circumstances and context are irrelevant, after all! No. You would be a sociopath or worse, for pretending that a meaningful abstract act -- consent -- is meaningless because you can't understand it or are inconvenienced by it. Your entire argument is flawed by fallacious and/or bad reasoning. Based on what you've written, it's obvious that you've never been significantly hurt or impacted by racial discrimination. Consider, then, that you are greatly unqualified to be dictating to anyone the nature of such experiences. The authority with which you deign to define racism -- or dismiss it as non-existent -- is astounding.
    - Maci 15y ago
      That would be taking my commentary completely out of context as I'm clearly applying it to stereotyping and nothing else. Stereotyping would have happened way before the act of intercourse as 2 adults check off all the boxes on their mental wish lists of what they look for in a mate. After that, it's up to proper courtship and etiquette. A completely different matter. > Your entire argument is flawed by fallacious and/or bad reasoning. Based on what you've written, it's obvious that you've never been significantly hurt or impacted by racial discrimination. A bold claim, you assume that just because I have not shared a "woe is me" chronology that I have not suffered the impact of trauma, severe depression, isolation and been thru my share of misfortune. I would almost dare to say that you are discriminating me in this instance because you cannot apply your regular check list for what you would deem a victim of racism. But I can understand why. I will agree that perhaps my reasoning could be better and I may not deal with matters in the most conventional way but permit me to share what I have learned on my journey so far. Perhaps it will bring clarity. I concluded that by removing layers and layers of abstraction, applying for the most part pure logic and what I've learned from human behaviour, that a lot of events become predictable and in its essence very understandable. Applying the method of abstraction to stereotyping, and your particular argument of racism, the end outcome is that one is left with the pure individual. Which to me matters most. Humans are still very much like animals, we fear that which we don't know and understand. Until people understand empathy and ego, judging an individual on a feature set isn't going away anytime soon. With that said, I give it a high probability that you will still say I am breaking all the rules. Breaking all the rules made me a more functioning person.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - jessedhillon 15y ago
        No, sorry, I don't view you as some kind of revolutionary with a novel or even challenging viewpoint. You aren't breaking any rules, you conform to the same mold as most others here. You are another person on this thread who knows absolutely nothing about the impacts of racism. There is nothing bold about this claim. You don't show any level of understanding of the issue. The convenience with which you dismiss the application of your logic to another abstraction merely reveals how arbitrary you are. That you think it's such an enlightened view of the world demonstrates how disconnected your approach is. Perhaps because your mind is your most developed tool, to the neglect of your emotional intelligence, you think that sophistry and intellectual gymnastics can reframe the situation in a way that denies the claims of other people and doesn't require you to seriously contend with the fact that you might have racist attitudes. There's nothing new about that and you are hardly unique for it. Your "woe is me" comment is telling, and perhaps the only glimpse of the truth you've given here. You obviously don't think that people who claim to be impacted by racism are honest or competent, preferring instead to believe that they are allowing themselves to be victimized by attachment to illusory labels. Congratulations Siddhartha; you could have saved a lot of typing by initially stating that you don't think racism is a real phenomenon, despite having no first hand experience with it, and you therefore insist on your right to make racially-derived stereotypes. And, in the interest of preserving your assumptions and avoid having them challenge, you should have initially declared your refusal to listen to people who claim to have been impacted by racism, preferring to dismiss their experiences as delusional. Nobody would have responded to you if you had simply been this honest up front.

by Maci 15y ago

dreyfiz 15y ago

This is making less and less sense. The insight that labels are not the same thing as the thing, itself is a pretty thin one when you water it down like that. You’re taking a truth and turning it into a nihilistic premise that no label is meaningful, just because it’s a label. If that’s the case, programming must be a hellish experience for you, since it mostly consists of labeling things well.

Maci 15y ago
Because it IS just a label. It has no inherent value or meaning. It's merely a descriptor which can be true or false. Hardly, Compilers make sense, Humans do not at times.
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  I understand that you are trying to promote a vision of colorblind equanimity. While your intention may be genuine, you are, frankly, hugely mistaken in your assessment of the impact of racism. Let's apply your declaration of labels as meaningless is arbitrary to another situation: Surely you don't spend your time convincing women that the difference between consensual and forcible sex is a void label? That the concept of consent is a futile attempt to manifest an utter and complete abstraction with no inherent value or meaning. Would you insist that it doesn't matter if a woman -- clinging to the delusion that consent matters -- might be offended when you act on your conviction that consent is an illusion. Circumstances and context are irrelevant, after all! No. You would be a sociopath or worse, for pretending that a meaningful abstract act -- consent -- is meaningless because you can't understand it or are inconvenienced by it. Your entire argument is flawed by fallacious and/or bad reasoning. Based on what you've written, it's obvious that you've never been significantly hurt or impacted by racial discrimination. Consider, then, that you are greatly unqualified to be dictating to anyone the nature of such experiences. The authority with which you deign to define racism -- or dismiss it as non-existent -- is astounding.
  - Maci 15y ago
    That would be taking my commentary completely out of context as I'm clearly applying it to stereotyping and nothing else. Stereotyping would have happened way before the act of intercourse as 2 adults check off all the boxes on their mental wish lists of what they look for in a mate. After that, it's up to proper courtship and etiquette. A completely different matter. > Your entire argument is flawed by fallacious and/or bad reasoning. Based on what you've written, it's obvious that you've never been significantly hurt or impacted by racial discrimination. A bold claim, you assume that just because I have not shared a "woe is me" chronology that I have not suffered the impact of trauma, severe depression, isolation and been thru my share of misfortune. I would almost dare to say that you are discriminating me in this instance because you cannot apply your regular check list for what you would deem a victim of racism. But I can understand why. I will agree that perhaps my reasoning could be better and I may not deal with matters in the most conventional way but permit me to share what I have learned on my journey so far. Perhaps it will bring clarity. I concluded that by removing layers and layers of abstraction, applying for the most part pure logic and what I've learned from human behaviour, that a lot of events become predictable and in its essence very understandable. Applying the method of abstraction to stereotyping, and your particular argument of racism, the end outcome is that one is left with the pure individual. Which to me matters most. Humans are still very much like animals, we fear that which we don't know and understand. Until people understand empathy and ego, judging an individual on a feature set isn't going away anytime soon. With that said, I give it a high probability that you will still say I am breaking all the rules. Breaking all the rules made me a more functioning person.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - jessedhillon 15y ago
      No, sorry, I don't view you as some kind of revolutionary with a novel or even challenging viewpoint. You aren't breaking any rules, you conform to the same mold as most others here. You are another person on this thread who knows absolutely nothing about the impacts of racism. There is nothing bold about this claim. You don't show any level of understanding of the issue. The convenience with which you dismiss the application of your logic to another abstraction merely reveals how arbitrary you are. That you think it's such an enlightened view of the world demonstrates how disconnected your approach is. Perhaps because your mind is your most developed tool, to the neglect of your emotional intelligence, you think that sophistry and intellectual gymnastics can reframe the situation in a way that denies the claims of other people and doesn't require you to seriously contend with the fact that you might have racist attitudes. There's nothing new about that and you are hardly unique for it. Your "woe is me" comment is telling, and perhaps the only glimpse of the truth you've given here. You obviously don't think that people who claim to be impacted by racism are honest or competent, preferring instead to believe that they are allowing themselves to be victimized by attachment to illusory labels. Congratulations Siddhartha; you could have saved a lot of typing by initially stating that you don't think racism is a real phenomenon, despite having no first hand experience with it, and you therefore insist on your right to make racially-derived stereotypes. And, in the interest of preserving your assumptions and avoid having them challenge, you should have initially declared your refusal to listen to people who claim to have been impacted by racism, preferring to dismiss their experiences as delusional. Nobody would have responded to you if you had simply been this honest up front.