4 ms·

Racist is the wrong word probably maybe ... antisocial in that it is against society.

by th0ma5 2y ago

consumer451 2y ago
Maybe misanthropic?
- mdp2021 2y ago
  Nope. Misanthropic is when some people dislike other people. Racist is when some people attribute some dubious quality to all people in some category.
  - geonineties 2y ago
    (dropped the snark) Racist means grouping according to race, or potentially geographic origins. The word for what you're describing is probably closest to discriminatory, or prejudicial. However, misanthropic is probably more correct as the paper applies to all people negatively.
    - mdp2021 2y ago
      > racist And in fact there are people that go "all humans are <broken with some specific fault said to always show>". They have made "one big race". Historically the term (with predecessors like 'racialism' has had even other related nuances, e.g. superiority), but the matter does not change. I picked the term in its spirit. > prejudicial Prejudice can hit individuals and groups of disconnected individuals; "racist" is for prejudice against some (in theory) internally connected group. > discriminatory The opposite: the proponents do not discriminate (they do not make a distinction recognizing that some individuals are different from the supposed median in the group). (You are thinking of 'discriminate' as "hitting a group vs other groups".) > misanthropic Misanthropy is not necessarily attributing specific (undesirable) qualities to the group. -- Now, since the occasion is there: could you please do me a favour? I never understood what "snark" instead is meant to mean, what people want to say with that. I asked other times (it is used in the guidelines), the only reply I ever got is sniping. Could you be so kind to explain what "snark" and "snarky" are supposed to mean? A non analytical reply (as opposed to this very branch of posts) suffices.
mdp2021 2y ago
I wrote '"racist"', because the proponents insist that "all members of class X are also Y" (there where X does not imply Y as an "analytic judgement" - it is not entailed from the nature of X but accidental to X ... yet seen by the proponents as a constant property of X): that is the character of racism. "All wood is odorous", etc. Those who insist that "all humans are <slur>" are "racist" against humanity (against the "human race", if you wish). That spirit is in the refusal to see exceptions and to recognize that there can be exceptions.
- tavavex 2y ago
  Isn't "prejudice" a better word? It's the base underlying idea of assuming some bad quality about an individual based on their membership in a group that they can't change. It's just strange for me when one 'ism' out of thousands is taken as the defining form of prejudice. Maybe it's just me, but I find it prevalent in US-centric communities, where racism is the agreed-upon baseline discrimination, from which parallels are drawn to the other forms.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    > Isn't "prejudice" a better word While 'prejudice' is in a way forced to be related to a group, because we suppose it triggered by a perceived pattern, which constitutes a group (but it could be a group of accidentally linked members as opposed to supposedly naturally linked members, as in "race"), the term 'prejudice' means "judging before the ability to express a fair judgement". > one 'ism' out of thousands ... taken as the defining form of prejudice It was meant to be specific in this case (in the context of this submission): they look at the median, and go (with fallacy) "look at the median, judge the group"... As you can see, that is not prejudice but bad judgement given samples of the group: that is racism. When people say "humans are <some fault>" that is bad judgement disregarding the possibility of exceptions, not bad preliminary judgement. It is poor judgement, not prejudice. I find it especially worth of denunciation not only because it is sloppy thinking (which must be curbed): also, some people may use it as an excuse to remain in avoidable mud. When people say that something "would be necessary", they may avoid the really necessary steps to avoid that something.

Racist is the wrong word probably maybe ... antisocial in that it is against society.

by th0ma5 2y ago

Racist is the wrong word probably maybe ... antisocial in that it is against society.

consumer451 2y ago

Maybe misanthropic?

mdp2021 2y ago
Nope. Misanthropic is when some people dislike other people. Racist is when some people attribute some dubious quality to all people in some category.
- geonineties 2y ago
  (dropped the snark) Racist means grouping according to race, or potentially geographic origins. The word for what you're describing is probably closest to discriminatory, or prejudicial. However, misanthropic is probably more correct as the paper applies to all people negatively.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    > racist And in fact there are people that go "all humans are <broken with some specific fault said to always show>". They have made "one big race". Historically the term (with predecessors like 'racialism' has had even other related nuances, e.g. superiority), but the matter does not change. I picked the term in its spirit. > prejudicial Prejudice can hit individuals and groups of disconnected individuals; "racist" is for prejudice against some (in theory) internally connected group. > discriminatory The opposite: the proponents do not discriminate (they do not make a distinction recognizing that some individuals are different from the supposed median in the group). (You are thinking of 'discriminate' as "hitting a group vs other groups".) > misanthropic Misanthropy is not necessarily attributing specific (undesirable) qualities to the group. -- Now, since the occasion is there: could you please do me a favour? I never understood what "snark" instead is meant to mean, what people want to say with that. I asked other times (it is used in the guidelines), the only reply I ever got is sniping. Could you be so kind to explain what "snark" and "snarky" are supposed to mean? A non analytical reply (as opposed to this very branch of posts) suffices.

mdp2021 2y ago

I wrote '"racist"', because the proponents insist that "all members of class X are also Y" (there where X does not imply Y as an "analytic judgement" - it is not entailed from the nature of X but accidental to X ... yet seen by the proponents as a constant property of X): that is the character of racism. "All wood is odorous", etc. Those who insist that "all humans are <slur>" are "racist" against humanity (against the "human race", if you wish). That spirit is in the refusal to see exceptions and to recognize that there can be exceptions.

tavavex 2y ago
Isn't "prejudice" a better word? It's the base underlying idea of assuming some bad quality about an individual based on their membership in a group that they can't change. It's just strange for me when one 'ism' out of thousands is taken as the defining form of prejudice. Maybe it's just me, but I find it prevalent in US-centric communities, where racism is the agreed-upon baseline discrimination, from which parallels are drawn to the other forms.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > Isn't "prejudice" a better word While 'prejudice' is in a way forced to be related to a group, because we suppose it triggered by a perceived pattern, which constitutes a group (but it could be a group of accidentally linked members as opposed to supposedly naturally linked members, as in "race"), the term 'prejudice' means "judging before the ability to express a fair judgement". > one 'ism' out of thousands ... taken as the defining form of prejudice It was meant to be specific in this case (in the context of this submission): they look at the median, and go (with fallacy) "look at the median, judge the group"... As you can see, that is not prejudice but bad judgement given samples of the group: that is racism. When people say "humans are <some fault>" that is bad judgement disregarding the possibility of exceptions, not bad preliminary judgement. It is poor judgement, not prejudice. I find it especially worth of denunciation not only because it is sloppy thinking (which must be curbed): also, some people may use it as an excuse to remain in avoidable mud. When people say that something "would be necessary", they may avoid the really necessary steps to avoid that something.