3 ms·

It's ridiculous though, that's like saying that the 13th amendment assured the longevity of slavery since it was never as explicitly defined in the Constitution

It's ridiculous though, that's like saying that the 13th amendment assured the longevity of slavery since it was never as explicitly defined in the Constitution.

Supermancho 3y ago
Try to divorce the concept from the specific issue. It's not ridiculous, on it's face. It's one aspect of history, that seems to hold true. The concept of a belief being promoted by enshrining it in writing, is not a truth, but a matter of circumstance. eg Any religious writings.
- whats_a_quasar 3y ago
  I guess I also don't think that speaking directly about a belief makes it stronger, particularly for discrimination. Many people have commented on HN about experiencing caste discrimination but being unable to do anything about it, because Americans have no understanding of what caste discrimination is. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." Certainly writing things down can make it easier for concepts to stick around, but I don't think the dynamics are the same for something written down to call out that it's bad. And holy texts are a totally different ballgame.
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    Many people in this thread have completely misunderstood the answer I gave, to the question that was posed. > holy texts are a totally different ballgame. They are not. Historically, written concepts endure longer than unwritten concepts. Again, this is commonly considered self-evident. > I also don't think that speaking directly about a belief makes it stronger, particularly for discrimination It may be worth it, but the hyperbole of denying the effect: eg "How would it extend longevity?" is the dissonance that I have pointed out.
- jessicas_rabbit 3y ago
  This is a perfect example of why we should always consider the specific issue, as opposed to latching onto general concepts. Religious writings’ sole purpose is to establish & promote a belief system, based on subjective values. Anti-discrimination laws’ sole purpose is to dissolve the practice of belief systems that objectively cause interpersonal harm. These are conceptual opposites in many ways. But if I generalize the concept “writing makes ideas immortal”, then I am able to conflate the two.
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    > This is a perfect example of why we should always consider the specific issue, as opposed to latching onto general concepts. You call it a "general concept", I saw it's a common understanding of reality. Hyperbole is used to poison further discussion. eg I generalize the concept “writing makes ideas immortal” Within your own post, there is misattributed hyperbole (sometimes called uncharitable discussion). Someone asked a question, I answered and all kinds of random assumptions were made about it. Good luck with whatever.

It's ridiculous though, that's like saying that the 13th amendment assured the longevity of slavery since it was never as explicitly defined in the Constitution.

Supermancho 3y ago

Try to divorce the concept from the specific issue. It's not ridiculous, on it's face. It's one aspect of history, that seems to hold true. The concept of a belief being promoted by enshrining it in writing, is not a truth, but a matter of circumstance. eg Any religious writings.

whats_a_quasar 3y ago
I guess I also don't think that speaking directly about a belief makes it stronger, particularly for discrimination. Many people have commented on HN about experiencing caste discrimination but being unable to do anything about it, because Americans have no understanding of what caste discrimination is. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." Certainly writing things down can make it easier for concepts to stick around, but I don't think the dynamics are the same for something written down to call out that it's bad. And holy texts are a totally different ballgame.
- Supermancho 3y ago
  Many people in this thread have completely misunderstood the answer I gave, to the question that was posed. > holy texts are a totally different ballgame. They are not. Historically, written concepts endure longer than unwritten concepts. Again, this is commonly considered self-evident. > I also don't think that speaking directly about a belief makes it stronger, particularly for discrimination It may be worth it, but the hyperbole of denying the effect: eg "How would it extend longevity?" is the dissonance that I have pointed out.
jessicas_rabbit 3y ago
This is a perfect example of why we should always consider the specific issue, as opposed to latching onto general concepts. Religious writings’ sole purpose is to establish & promote a belief system, based on subjective values. Anti-discrimination laws’ sole purpose is to dissolve the practice of belief systems that objectively cause interpersonal harm. These are conceptual opposites in many ways. But if I generalize the concept “writing makes ideas immortal”, then I am able to conflate the two.
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > This is a perfect example of why we should always consider the specific issue, as opposed to latching onto general concepts. You call it a "general concept", I saw it's a common understanding of reality. Hyperbole is used to poison further discussion. eg I generalize the concept “writing makes ideas immortal” Within your own post, there is misattributed hyperbole (sometimes called uncharitable discussion). Someone asked a question, I answered and all kinds of random assumptions were made about it. Good luck with whatever.