5 ms·

> I couldn't care less You do care, otherwise you would not even have thought about it twice, let alone comment. The most striking argument against this line

by 47282847 11mo ago

> I couldn't care less You do care, otherwise you would not even have thought about it twice, let alone comment. The most striking argument against this line of reasoning is that there is no possibility for you not to act politically. By ignoring the issue of systemic discrimination (“don’t care don’t personally discriminate”) you actively contribute to and participate in the systemic discrimination. It’s a choice, and I find it important to leave you the choice, as I do not believe forcing anything on you will actually make you see, but it is true nonetheless that you cannot escape your responsibility: The ability to respond. “You can not not communicate.” Not responding and deciding to remain ignorant about it is also a response, and a highly privileged one. It would be easy to at least passively support anyone’s attempt at trying to reduce systemic discrimination, but speaking out against it turns it even more into a political act supporting discrimination than doing nothing and by that delegating it to others.

vladvasiliu 11mo ago
I have a hard time following this line of reasoning. I don't think GP's point is to "ignore systemic discrimination". Rather, it is to ignore those things on which people are discriminated. How can you discriminate against, say, race, if you don't pay attention to the person's race? Specifically, for tech, if you happen upon a code written by someone called "didgetmaster" on github, and the author makes no comment about who they are as a person, how does this contribute to discrimination? Isn't this the whole point of anonymous resumes and such to fight discrimination against minorities for employment?
- DeathArrow 11mo ago
  You are technically right if the goal is to stop ANY kind of discrimination. But is that the goal?
  - vladvasiliu 11mo ago
    I don't know, and I admit I was operating under that assumption. But is that not the goal? Is there some kind of discrimination which is "good", and should go on?
    - btreecat 11mo ago
      I think you're raising the paradox of tolerance. Should I accept technically perfect PRs if they contain comments and messages with hate speak?
      - Citizen_Lame 11mo ago
        There is no paradox of tolerance. This is a social contract, once you break it you are not entitled to it, simple. Also speech, not speak.
        xp84 11mo ago
        The issue arises when people disagree on what reality is. When most Americans are running on pure ideology and a (quite unearned imho) sense of moral certainty and superiority, they assume their worldview is the objectively correct one, and everyone who disagrees with them is "a bigot." Both sides of our divide have some psychotic people who do things like murdering people. But absent actually harmful acts like that, disagreeing with you doesn't make someone intolerant. It could be that your framing is wrong, or that there isn't one black-and-white objective universal right way of framing an issue.
SPICLK2 11mo ago
As a person, treating everyone the same is an excellent response (and even a political one, if you wish) to counteract a system of discrimination.
- 47282847 11mo ago
  Agreed. To illustrate, say you live inside a fenced-off city. You say you don’t discriminate, anyone is welcome to come and talk to and trade with you. Somebody points out that there are people outside the city, behind the fence, that aren’t able to come talk to you. You are free to act or not act on that, but speaking out against the one that merely points it out and tries to change it means you take an active position to support the current discriminatory situation, rather than a passive, opportunistic one that supports whatever the political situation happens to be. All positions are valid positions to take. They do however reflect an active choice and an active act. All of them are political. All of them come from a position of privilege, being inside the city, not outside.
  - SPICLK2 11mo ago
    No-one is "speaking out against" the one who is pointing out any wider discrimination, beyond whatever aribtrary circle you choose to draw. What is being "spoken out against" is the idea that taking the moral (or political) action within whatever circle you feel able or willing to support is insufficient, or even discriminatory in itself. After all, this is exactly how this conversation started. Good for you if you want to change the world - let's not forget 3rd party discrimination against other 3rd parties! For many of us, it's one of numerous pressing problems to be addressed. If you wish to bring privilege into it, having the freedom to make fighting any and all discrimination a primary concern is a sign of privilege that few have.
- Imustaskforhelp 11mo ago
  I am raised in hindu religion and we have a saying here basically meaning, treat others the way you wish to be treated yourself and I am sure that literally every main religion and philosophy can kind of share the sentiment and create a tolerant society overall. Shame that those same religions and people in power forget this core part I suppose. I think that the forgetfulness might be on purpose but I basically hope we can treat literally everyone others the way we wish to be treated ourselves, with dignity and respect. Of course, some people who are clearly bad shouldn't be treated this way but I hope you can get what I mean by the general sentiment of this idea I guess.
zozbot234 11mo ago
> The most striking argument against this line of reasoning is that there is no possibility for you not to act politically. By ignoring the issue of systemic discrimination (“don’t care don’t personally discriminate”) This is not a very good argument, it would make the words "political" and "systemic" simply meaningless. First of all, it's implicitly assuming that the only way of effectively addressing the issue of systemic discrimination against X is to actively care about whether X is involved in the stuff we personally use. But "personal" and "systemic" issues and approaches are mutually contrary; that's what "systemic" means. Also if every social action is "political" by definition, what's even the point of resorting to the word "political" to begin with? It's not saying anything of relevance.
gjvc 11mo ago
what he meant was he "does not care to be told about it"
liveoneggs 11mo ago
So systemic discrimination is an individual problem? Silence is violence?
- 47282847 10mo ago
  It is a collective issue, and as such also the responsibility of each individual indeed. And silence can be one of the psychologically most damaging forms of violence, leading even to physiological damage when persistent. https://vipinbhasin.com/2024/10/21/the-impact-of-silent-treatment-on-the-body-brain-and-behavioral-responses/ https://vipinbhasin.com/2024/10/21/the-impact-of-silent-trea... https://www.royalblueheating.co.uk/08-164491-silent-treatment-is-more-damaging-than-conflict-neuroscientists-document-the-brain-changes-after-72-hours-of-stonewalling/ https://www.royalblueheating.co.uk/08-164491-silent-treatmen... etc.
didgetmaster 11mo ago
I said I don't care about the backgrounds of the creators of tech that I use. I do care when other people in tech insist that I should care, and that I should make decisions based on the identity of certain individuals.

vladvasiliu 11mo ago

I have a hard time following this line of reasoning. I don't think GP's point is to "ignore systemic discrimination". Rather, it is to ignore those things on which people are discriminated. How can you discriminate against, say, race, if you don't pay attention to the person's race? Specifically, for tech, if you happen upon a code written by someone called "didgetmaster" on github, and the author makes no comment about who they are as a person, how does this contribute to discrimination? Isn't this the whole point of anonymous resumes and such to fight discrimination against minorities for employment?

DeathArrow 11mo ago
You are technically right if the goal is to stop ANY kind of discrimination. But is that the goal?
- vladvasiliu 11mo ago
  I don't know, and I admit I was operating under that assumption. But is that not the goal? Is there some kind of discrimination which is "good", and should go on?
  - btreecat 11mo ago
    I think you're raising the paradox of tolerance. Should I accept technically perfect PRs if they contain comments and messages with hate speak?
    - Citizen_Lame 11mo ago
      There is no paradox of tolerance. This is a social contract, once you break it you are not entitled to it, simple. Also speech, not speak.
      - xp84 11mo ago
        The issue arises when people disagree on what reality is. When most Americans are running on pure ideology and a (quite unearned imho) sense of moral certainty and superiority, they assume their worldview is the objectively correct one, and everyone who disagrees with them is "a bigot." Both sides of our divide have some psychotic people who do things like murdering people. But absent actually harmful acts like that, disagreeing with you doesn't make someone intolerant. It could be that your framing is wrong, or that there isn't one black-and-white objective universal right way of framing an issue.

SPICLK2 11mo ago

As a person, treating everyone the same is an excellent response (and even a political one, if you wish) to counteract a system of discrimination.

47282847 11mo ago
Agreed. To illustrate, say you live inside a fenced-off city. You say you don’t discriminate, anyone is welcome to come and talk to and trade with you. Somebody points out that there are people outside the city, behind the fence, that aren’t able to come talk to you. You are free to act or not act on that, but speaking out against the one that merely points it out and tries to change it means you take an active position to support the current discriminatory situation, rather than a passive, opportunistic one that supports whatever the political situation happens to be. All positions are valid positions to take. They do however reflect an active choice and an active act. All of them are political. All of them come from a position of privilege, being inside the city, not outside.
- SPICLK2 11mo ago
  No-one is "speaking out against" the one who is pointing out any wider discrimination, beyond whatever aribtrary circle you choose to draw. What is being "spoken out against" is the idea that taking the moral (or political) action within whatever circle you feel able or willing to support is insufficient, or even discriminatory in itself. After all, this is exactly how this conversation started. Good for you if you want to change the world - let's not forget 3rd party discrimination against other 3rd parties! For many of us, it's one of numerous pressing problems to be addressed. If you wish to bring privilege into it, having the freedom to make fighting any and all discrimination a primary concern is a sign of privilege that few have.
Imustaskforhelp 11mo ago
I am raised in hindu religion and we have a saying here basically meaning, treat others the way you wish to be treated yourself and I am sure that literally every main religion and philosophy can kind of share the sentiment and create a tolerant society overall. Shame that those same religions and people in power forget this core part I suppose. I think that the forgetfulness might be on purpose but I basically hope we can treat literally everyone others the way we wish to be treated ourselves, with dignity and respect. Of course, some people who are clearly bad shouldn't be treated this way but I hope you can get what I mean by the general sentiment of this idea I guess.

zozbot234 11mo ago

> The most striking argument against this line of reasoning is that there is no possibility for you not to act politically. By ignoring the issue of systemic discrimination (“don’t care don’t personally discriminate”) This is not a very good argument, it would make the words "political" and "systemic" simply meaningless. First of all, it's implicitly assuming that the only way of effectively addressing the issue of systemic discrimination against X is to actively care about whether X is involved in the stuff we personally use. But "personal" and "systemic" issues and approaches are mutually contrary; that's what "systemic" means. Also if every social action is "political" by definition, what's even the point of resorting to the word "political" to begin with? It's not saying anything of relevance.

gjvc 11mo ago

what he meant was he "does not care to be told about it"

liveoneggs 11mo ago

So systemic discrimination is an individual problem? Silence is violence?

47282847 10mo ago
It is a collective issue, and as such also the responsibility of each individual indeed. And silence can be one of the psychologically most damaging forms of violence, leading even to physiological damage when persistent. https://vipinbhasin.com/2024/10/21/the-impact-of-silent-treatment-on-the-body-brain-and-behavioral-responses/ https://vipinbhasin.com/2024/10/21/the-impact-of-silent-trea... https://www.royalblueheating.co.uk/08-164491-silent-treatment-is-more-damaging-than-conflict-neuroscientists-document-the-brain-changes-after-72-hours-of-stonewalling/ https://www.royalblueheating.co.uk/08-164491-silent-treatmen... etc.

didgetmaster 11mo ago

I said I don't care about the backgrounds of the creators of tech that I use. I do care when other people in tech insist that I should care, and that I should make decisions based on the identity of certain individuals.