11 ms·

In what way? I recognize that the remarks Terry A. Davis made were not his fault, it's the mental illness. Doesn't change the fact that he had an unfortunate fi

In what way? I recognize that the remarks Terry A. Davis made were not his fault, it's the mental illness. Doesn't change the fact that he had an unfortunate fixation on race. I wish his terrible fate could have been avoided, but having been very close for many years to a schizophrenic person, I can tell you that they will only get treatment if they want to. You can't force them. You can try to be there and help them in small ways, but sometimes it's just impossible to make them change course. When I think of TempleOS I think that it was both strange and funny. It was the artistic creation of a mentally ill programmer. I still think that, if it made me and other people laugh at times, that's a small positive thing. I wasn't laughing at the creator, but the small religious minigames in TempleOS cracked me up at times. Linus Tech Tips reviews TempleOS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtlyeDAJR7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtlyeDAJR7A

zozbot234 5y ago
> Doesn't change the fact that he had an unfortunate fixation on race. If so, he shares that trait with plenty of people in the US, who increasingly view "racial blindness" as untenable. Of course it's not their fault either: "noticing" race is simply a very successful, self-replicating memetic parasite which can leverage the likes of Twitter or 4chan equally as platforms for its spread.
- ILMostro7 5y ago
  yikes. Racial blindness is still a form of blindness. If everyone spent more time working on their own shit everyone would be better off. Instead, one side is scared of and angry at the other side, easily leading to stubborn refusal to grow or down a slippery slope towards hatred or indifference.
  - skissane 5y ago
    > Racial blindness is still a form of blindness I'm Australian, born in the 1980s, spent my whole life here. I can tell you growing up we rarely (if ever) thought about "who is what race". In part it is a cultural thing – in my lifetime, official Australian society (government/media/etc) has discouraged talk of "races", encouraging people to instead identify via finer-grained nationality/ethnicity/culture labels – i.e. "Chinese" or "Indian" or "Vietnamese" not "Asian", "Irish" or "Italian" or "Polish" not "white", etc. The whole "who is what race" thing sounds very American to my ears. I believe that way of thinking is becoming more common here, as Australia becomes more Americanised through social media and other sources, but I'm not inclined to see that as a positive development. That's not to say there is no problem with racism in contemporary Australia. I remember at my high school, there was a significant minority of students of Lebanese ancestry (it was a Catholic high school, so our ethnically Lebanese students were predominantly Maronite Catholics) – and I definitely remember hearing some mildly prejudiced things said about them, even to their faces. But, in all that, I doubt anybody was ever asking themselves "are Lebanese people white?" One of my school friends, who is of partial Italian descent (albeit via Argentina/Uruguay rather than directly), had to put up with dumb jokes at school about his dad being in the Mafia. He told me how when his father first moved to Australia in the 1970s, his coworkers would exploit his poor knowledge of English to trick him into saying offensive things to the boss. What "race" are my friend and his dad? The question seems pointless, irrelevant. At least here in Australia, "racism" is generally defined as prejudice on the basis of "race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin" – so it isn't necessary to categorise a person as belonging to any particular "race" to acknowledge them as a victim of racism. How then does one describe this difference between the US and Australia – between a society which strongly (and maybe even increasingly strongly) focuses on coarse-grained racial categories, and a society which (in recent decades) has had a strong tendency towards avoiding them? Maybe "racial blindness" isn't quite the right term for it, but it seems at least somewhat adjacent.
    - ILMostro7 5y ago
      It goes back to the civil war and every step of the way when black people here were actively denied their rights that the civil war was supposed to have guaranteed them. I have lived in multiple countries across different continents. Even if race was not as big of a hot topic issue, eceryone could tell if a person of a different race is standing in front of them. So, to simply say racial blindness is the way to go is ridiculous. The fact that they were usually a very small minority and had no historically brutal ties to the founding of that country is probably the reason why it wasn't considered such a big issue. Nevertheless, ultimately, one can't go through life blaming everything on racism. However, fighting for centuries to be free, to gain rights, only to be systemically rebuffed, ignored and even oppressed and brutalized along the way in different forms, that has to be recognized for what it is. Using a single event to disprove racism and even arguing that some historical things never happened at the very least is willful ignorance. Then, by the same token, reversing certain laws that were meant to safeguard and protect those rights that they finally did end up receiving. Ignoring what that time and history would do to any community to reinforce ones own stereotypical views, as political leaders use it as a way to stir up support from other disenfranchised communities. In the end, the problems only get worse as the next generation kicks the can down the road. The issue could have been, perhaps, resolved a long time ago. At this point, things look even more complicated and the longer it goes on the more difficult it is to overcome or resolve.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > black people here were actively denied their rights that the civil war was supposed to have guaranteed them. The Civil War was not supposed to have guaranteed anyone any rights. Some changes to the Constitution rammed through after the Civil War were, but it's important to separate those from the war, which was about the objective that, even before the rebellion, the notionally-abolitionist Republicans expressly put ahead of treating blacks as humans, the preservation of the unity of the Republic.
        ILMostro7 5y ago
        Granted.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Alan_Dillman 5y ago
  Its an absolutely bonkers aspect of US society. Its not that one needs to be blind to "race", and who could be blind to differences in skin colour? Its that Americans seem to be taught that it is so very important, and that instead of applying situational relevancy, they default to cultural relevancy. So race and skin colour gets mentioned all the time, even by people who aren't bigoted. This can be seen in their news broadcasts, where they will find or make premise for mentioning brown people's ancestry, even when it isn't truly relevant. Kid rescues puppy from sewer drain? Gotta mention that he's African American. Never mind that there he is on camera, and anyone can see, and shouldn't care. And thus morality is tied to visual appearance. In that sense, US society is like the TempleOS guy, who, possibly not even due to his mental illness, needed to squeeze references to his faith into every digital corner.
  - chakkepolja 5y ago
    Not only that, Americans view everyone else and their cultural problems as being similar to theirs. Eg: Journalists who equate India's caste system and racism and writing opinion pieces. (both are terrible, but american journalists understand shit about caste).
    - blkhawk 5y ago
      Yes, another example is the minor kerfuffle the Game "kingdom come deliverance" had about it not having any darker skin toned NPCs in it. It is made by a Czech developer and set in a semi-historical 12th century setting. From an American perspective that looked wrong enough to be called racist.
JasonFruit 5y ago
Your comment came off as lacking compassion; perhaps I was mistaken in that impression.
h0l0cube 5y ago
> In what way? I recognize that the remarks Terry A. Davis made were not his fault, it's the mental illness. I don't think mental illness really changes whether or not you have a good heart. I've met many people dealing with mental illness who are gracious and compassionate to all people no matter their race. Though it's possible his views might have been informed by his upbringing or his environment. Perhaps mental illness impairs self-reform or the capability for better judgement, but it can't be said that the mental illness, in and of itself, was the fault of mental illness.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Everything I've seen about Terry Davis suggests that he was consistently gracious and compassionate to pretty much anyone, other than perhaps those pesky glow-in-the-dark folks...
- snek_case 5y ago
  My own experience has been that, at least in the case of severe mental illness, even well-meaning people can hurt others a lot, without meaning to.
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  > but it can't be said that the mental illness, in and of itself, was the fault of mental illness. Late edit: racism can't be said to be the fault of mental illness
jamal-kumar 5y ago
> mental illness > not just 4chan massively fucking with him

zozbot234 5y ago

> Doesn't change the fact that he had an unfortunate fixation on race. If so, he shares that trait with plenty of people in the US, who increasingly view "racial blindness" as untenable. Of course it's not their fault either: "noticing" race is simply a very successful, self-replicating memetic parasite which can leverage the likes of Twitter or 4chan equally as platforms for its spread.

ILMostro7 5y ago
yikes. Racial blindness is still a form of blindness. If everyone spent more time working on their own shit everyone would be better off. Instead, one side is scared of and angry at the other side, easily leading to stubborn refusal to grow or down a slippery slope towards hatred or indifference.
- skissane 5y ago
  > Racial blindness is still a form of blindness I'm Australian, born in the 1980s, spent my whole life here. I can tell you growing up we rarely (if ever) thought about "who is what race". In part it is a cultural thing – in my lifetime, official Australian society (government/media/etc) has discouraged talk of "races", encouraging people to instead identify via finer-grained nationality/ethnicity/culture labels – i.e. "Chinese" or "Indian" or "Vietnamese" not "Asian", "Irish" or "Italian" or "Polish" not "white", etc. The whole "who is what race" thing sounds very American to my ears. I believe that way of thinking is becoming more common here, as Australia becomes more Americanised through social media and other sources, but I'm not inclined to see that as a positive development. That's not to say there is no problem with racism in contemporary Australia. I remember at my high school, there was a significant minority of students of Lebanese ancestry (it was a Catholic high school, so our ethnically Lebanese students were predominantly Maronite Catholics) – and I definitely remember hearing some mildly prejudiced things said about them, even to their faces. But, in all that, I doubt anybody was ever asking themselves "are Lebanese people white?" One of my school friends, who is of partial Italian descent (albeit via Argentina/Uruguay rather than directly), had to put up with dumb jokes at school about his dad being in the Mafia. He told me how when his father first moved to Australia in the 1970s, his coworkers would exploit his poor knowledge of English to trick him into saying offensive things to the boss. What "race" are my friend and his dad? The question seems pointless, irrelevant. At least here in Australia, "racism" is generally defined as prejudice on the basis of "race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin" – so it isn't necessary to categorise a person as belonging to any particular "race" to acknowledge them as a victim of racism. How then does one describe this difference between the US and Australia – between a society which strongly (and maybe even increasingly strongly) focuses on coarse-grained racial categories, and a society which (in recent decades) has had a strong tendency towards avoiding them? Maybe "racial blindness" isn't quite the right term for it, but it seems at least somewhat adjacent.
  - ILMostro7 5y ago
    It goes back to the civil war and every step of the way when black people here were actively denied their rights that the civil war was supposed to have guaranteed them. I have lived in multiple countries across different continents. Even if race was not as big of a hot topic issue, eceryone could tell if a person of a different race is standing in front of them. So, to simply say racial blindness is the way to go is ridiculous. The fact that they were usually a very small minority and had no historically brutal ties to the founding of that country is probably the reason why it wasn't considered such a big issue. Nevertheless, ultimately, one can't go through life blaming everything on racism. However, fighting for centuries to be free, to gain rights, only to be systemically rebuffed, ignored and even oppressed and brutalized along the way in different forms, that has to be recognized for what it is. Using a single event to disprove racism and even arguing that some historical things never happened at the very least is willful ignorance. Then, by the same token, reversing certain laws that were meant to safeguard and protect those rights that they finally did end up receiving. Ignoring what that time and history would do to any community to reinforce ones own stereotypical views, as political leaders use it as a way to stir up support from other disenfranchised communities. In the end, the problems only get worse as the next generation kicks the can down the road. The issue could have been, perhaps, resolved a long time ago. At this point, things look even more complicated and the longer it goes on the more difficult it is to overcome or resolve.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > black people here were actively denied their rights that the civil war was supposed to have guaranteed them. The Civil War was not supposed to have guaranteed anyone any rights. Some changes to the Constitution rammed through after the Civil War were, but it's important to separate those from the war, which was about the objective that, even before the rebellion, the notionally-abolitionist Republicans expressly put ahead of treating blacks as humans, the preservation of the unity of the Republic.
      - ILMostro7 5y ago
        Granted.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Alan_Dillman 5y ago
Its an absolutely bonkers aspect of US society. Its not that one needs to be blind to "race", and who could be blind to differences in skin colour? Its that Americans seem to be taught that it is so very important, and that instead of applying situational relevancy, they default to cultural relevancy. So race and skin colour gets mentioned all the time, even by people who aren't bigoted. This can be seen in their news broadcasts, where they will find or make premise for mentioning brown people's ancestry, even when it isn't truly relevant. Kid rescues puppy from sewer drain? Gotta mention that he's African American. Never mind that there he is on camera, and anyone can see, and shouldn't care. And thus morality is tied to visual appearance. In that sense, US society is like the TempleOS guy, who, possibly not even due to his mental illness, needed to squeeze references to his faith into every digital corner.
- chakkepolja 5y ago
  Not only that, Americans view everyone else and their cultural problems as being similar to theirs. Eg: Journalists who equate India's caste system and racism and writing opinion pieces. (both are terrible, but american journalists understand shit about caste).
  - blkhawk 5y ago
    Yes, another example is the minor kerfuffle the Game "kingdom come deliverance" had about it not having any darker skin toned NPCs in it. It is made by a Czech developer and set in a semi-historical 12th century setting. From an American perspective that looked wrong enough to be called racist.

JasonFruit 5y ago

Your comment came off as lacking compassion; perhaps I was mistaken in that impression.

h0l0cube 5y ago

> In what way? I recognize that the remarks Terry A. Davis made were not his fault, it's the mental illness. I don't think mental illness really changes whether or not you have a good heart. I've met many people dealing with mental illness who are gracious and compassionate to all people no matter their race. Though it's possible his views might have been informed by his upbringing or his environment. Perhaps mental illness impairs self-reform or the capability for better judgement, but it can't be said that the mental illness, in and of itself, was the fault of mental illness.

zozbot234 5y ago
Everything I've seen about Terry Davis suggests that he was consistently gracious and compassionate to pretty much anyone, other than perhaps those pesky glow-in-the-dark folks...
snek_case 5y ago
My own experience has been that, at least in the case of severe mental illness, even well-meaning people can hurt others a lot, without meaning to.
h0l0cube 5y ago
> but it can't be said that the mental illness, in and of itself, was the fault of mental illness. Late edit: racism can't be said to be the fault of mental illness

jamal-kumar 5y ago

> mental illness > not just 4chan massively fucking with him