• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Social Justice out of control

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,164
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
My black friends like to be referred to as Black, but that could be an age thing. They were. young during the Black Power movement and when James Brown sang, "Say it loud. I'm Black and I'm proud". African American has always seemed silly to me. I don't refer to myself as European American. I'm also not crazy about people of color, since we are all basically people of color, plus when the term is used by very old people, they sometimes slip and say, "colored people". A term hated by most black folks.

Three is no nice word to describe someone with a very low IQ, but mentally retarded does need to go. I say that because when I was a child, there was a little girl who suffered from that condition on my Sunday school bus. The mean kids would make fun of her and call her "Retard". That was so hurtful. Maybe we should just use the word disabled or not use any term to describe people based on their intelligence. Besides there are many aspects of intelligence. And, some people who have Down's syndrome also have pretty. high emotional intelligence if they were raised well, while some so called geniuses lack anything resembling emotional intelligence despite being able to easily solve difficult math problems. I think we need to stop labeling people based on their intellectual skills.

The difference between black and nigger is, if you're signalling if you are an ally or not. You're signalling what team you are on. So now when being a racist is out of fashion, what happens. Racists start saying "black" instead of "nigger". They start on insisting on politically correct language. For middle class racists it becomes incredibly important to use non-racist language. They will find non-racially charged proxies with which to excercise their racism. As long as they get this right they can be as racist as they want to be, at their hearts content. They might even convince themselves they are not racist. While all of their actions suggest they are racist.

People talking about mentally changed people, on the other hand, are always talking down to them. Its unavoidable.

Its like the multitude of terms for cleaners. Whatever new respectful term we use will always end up being a slur. Usually immediately the new word is used.

Today a person using politically correct language tells you nothing about how racist or horrible people they are.

We are now living in an age of virtue signalling. Agendas are hidden. We're awash of outright bullshit on every front. It's hard to tell who the evil ones are today.

Trump voters say they are sick of slick politicians saying all the right things but screwing us over anyway. They're not wrong. This is a legitimate gripe they have with the politically correct hell that the left has become. The left will hand over the keys to power to any slick fuck who has figured out what words to say. Among the left it's reached the point where its all just one long Maoist people's court trials. It's the deplatforming and cancel culture. Actual opinions and political platforms and goals seem irrelevant to these people. I think it's a deep crisis among the left. It's really fucked now.

Annecdote. I have a friend who is in my social circal. One of these people who is, spiritual but not religious. She feels things intensely. Is guided by her intuition in life. Always super politically correct. Policing what other people say. But obviously super racist. Doesn't say it outright. But doesn't like having non-Danes included for various transparent bullshit reasons. That's the society we have gotten now
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
I have a friend who is in my social circal. One of these people who is, spiritual but not religious. She feels things intensely. Is guided by her intuition in life. Always super politically correct. Policing what other people say. But obviously super racist. Doesn't say it outright. But doesn't like having non-Danes included for various transparent bullshit reasons. That's the society we have gotten now

Ah science. It'd work if it weren't espoused by scientists of the singular example.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,354
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
With people I am around the worse white and black are used without any negative connotation unless it is part of a context.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,952
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)

I don't think it is anywhere close to as bad as the news media make it seem. They show people who have visceral hated for anyone who disagrees with them and many with apparently deep self loathing problems. These are unbalanced people who are a danger to others and themselves. I have seen absolutely no one in real life like these nuts so I can only conclude that they are a fringe minority that the news hypes for the clicks they will get.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,952
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Today a person using politically correct language tells you nothing about how racist or horrible people they are.

We are now living in an age of virtue signalling. Agendas are hidden. We're awash of outright bullshit on every front. It's hard to tell who the evil ones are today.
Social justice warriors are internet trolls that have broken out of their cellars to harass the general public in an attempt to make themselves feel more worthy.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,164
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

I don't think it is anywhere close to as bad as the news media make it seem. They show people who have visceral hated for anyone who disagrees with them and many with apparently deep self loathing problems. These are unbalanced people who are a danger to others and themselves. I have seen absolutely no one in real life like these nuts so I can only conclude that they are a fringe minority that the news hypes for the clicks they will get.

Yes. On social media we almost only are exposed to the craziest examples from the other side
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,442
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
My black friends like to be referred to as Black, but that could be an age thing. They were. young during the Black Power movement and when James Brown sang, "Say it loud. I'm Black and I'm proud". African American has always seemed silly to me. I don't refer to myself as European American. I'm also not crazy about people of color, since we are all basically people of color, plus when the term is used by very old people, they sometimes slip and say, "colored people". A term hated by most black folks.

Three is no nice word to describe someone with a very low IQ, but mentally retarded does need to go. I say that because when I was a child, there was a little girl who suffered from that condition on my Sunday school bus. The mean kids would make fun of her and call her "Retard". That was so hurtful. Maybe we should just use the word disabled or not use any term to describe people based on their intelligence. Besides there are many aspects of intelligence. And, some people who have Down's syndrome also have pretty. high emotional intelligence if they were raised well, while some so called geniuses lack anything resembling emotional intelligence despite being able to easily solve difficult math problems. I think we need to stop labeling people based on their intellectual skills.

The difference between black and nigger is, if you're signalling if you are an ally or not. You're signalling what team you are on. So now when being a racist is out of fashion, what happens. Racists start saying "black" instead of "nigger". They start on insisting on politically correct language. For middle class racists it becomes incredibly important to use non-racist language. They will find non-racially charged proxies with which to excercise their racism. As long as they get this right they can be as racist as they want to be, at their hearts content. They might even convince themselves they are not racist. While all of their actions suggest they are racist.

People talking about mentally changed people, on the other hand, are always talking down to them. Its unavoidable.

Its like the multitude of terms for cleaners. Whatever new respectful term we use will always end up being a slur. Usually immediately the new word is used.

Today a person using politically correct language tells you nothing about how racist or horrible people they are.

We are now living in an age of virtue signalling. Agendas are hidden. We're awash of outright bullshit on every front. It's hard to tell who the evil ones are today.

Trump voters say they are sick of slick politicians saying all the right things but screwing us over anyway. They're not wrong. This is a legitimate gripe they have with the politically correct hell that the left has become. The left will hand over the keys to power to any slick fuck who has figured out what words to say. Among the left it's reached the point where its all just one long Maoist people's court trials. It's the deplatforming and cancel culture. Actual opinions and political platforms and goals seem irrelevant to these people. I think it's a deep crisis among the left. It's really fucked now.

Annecdote. I have a friend who is in my social circal. One of these people who is, spiritual but not religious. She feels things intensely. Is guided by her intuition in life. Always super politically correct. Policing what other people say. But obviously super racist. Doesn't say it outright. But doesn't like having non-Danes included for various transparent bullshit reasons. That's the society we have gotten now

I think you missed the point. Use words that other people feel are respectful. If a word or phrase is believed to be an insult, then don't use it to describe that group of individuals. It's as simple as that.

I do have some to add that I found a bit humorous. Somewhere I had mentioned my white friend who is married to a black man and has four children with him. She went on a screed last week on FB about how she hates White people. I so wanted to tell her to look in the mirror and check her race, but of course that wouldn't have helped, so I ignored her comment. I really need to close my FB account down. I rarely go there. I have posted once or twice in the last year and I see nothing positive about that type of social media.

Right now, a lot of people are all worked up, but it's likely that this too will pass as it always does over time. I am mildly hopeful that a few positive things will come from the BLM movement. I've already seen a little bit of it, but if the protests become more violent and less meaningful, the result will probably result in a backlash.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,164
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
My black friends like to be referred to as Black, but that could be an age thing. They were. young during the Black Power movement and when James Brown sang, "Say it loud. I'm Black and I'm proud". African American has always seemed silly to me. I don't refer to myself as European American. I'm also not crazy about people of color, since we are all basically people of color, plus when the term is used by very old people, they sometimes slip and say, "colored people". A term hated by most black folks.

Three is no nice word to describe someone with a very low IQ, but mentally retarded does need to go. I say that because when I was a child, there was a little girl who suffered from that condition on my Sunday school bus. The mean kids would make fun of her and call her "Retard". That was so hurtful. Maybe we should just use the word disabled or not use any term to describe people based on their intelligence. Besides there are many aspects of intelligence. And, some people who have Down's syndrome also have pretty. high emotional intelligence if they were raised well, while some so called geniuses lack anything resembling emotional intelligence despite being able to easily solve difficult math problems. I think we need to stop labeling people based on their intellectual skills.

The difference between black and nigger is, if you're signalling if you are an ally or not. You're signalling what team you are on. So now when being a racist is out of fashion, what happens. Racists start saying "black" instead of "nigger". They start on insisting on politically correct language. For middle class racists it becomes incredibly important to use non-racist language. They will find non-racially charged proxies with which to excercise their racism. As long as they get this right they can be as racist as they want to be, at their hearts content. They might even convince themselves they are not racist. While all of their actions suggest they are racist.

People talking about mentally changed people, on the other hand, are always talking down to them. Its unavoidable.

Its like the multitude of terms for cleaners. Whatever new respectful term we use will always end up being a slur. Usually immediately the new word is used.

Today a person using politically correct language tells you nothing about how racist or horrible people they are.

We are now living in an age of virtue signalling. Agendas are hidden. We're awash of outright bullshit on every front. It's hard to tell who the evil ones are today.

Trump voters say they are sick of slick politicians saying all the right things but screwing us over anyway. They're not wrong. This is a legitimate gripe they have with the politically correct hell that the left has become. The left will hand over the keys to power to any slick fuck who has figured out what words to say. Among the left it's reached the point where its all just one long Maoist people's court trials. It's the deplatforming and cancel culture. Actual opinions and political platforms and goals seem irrelevant to these people. I think it's a deep crisis among the left. It's really fucked now.

Annecdote. I have a friend who is in my social circal. One of these people who is, spiritual but not religious. She feels things intensely. Is guided by her intuition in life. Always super politically correct. Policing what other people say. But obviously super racist. Doesn't say it outright. But doesn't like having non-Danes included for various transparent bullshit reasons. That's the society we have gotten now

I think you missed the point. Use words that other people feel are respectful. If a word or phrase is believed to be an insult, then don't use it to describe that group of individuals. It's as simple as that.

I do have some to add that I found a bit humorous. Somewhere I had mentioned my white friend who is married to a black man and has four children with him. She went on a screed last week on FB about how she hates White people. I so wanted to tell her to look in the mirror and check her race, but of course that wouldn't have helped, so I ignored her comment. I really need to close my FB account down. I rarely go there. I have posted once or twice in the last year and I see nothing positive about that type of social media.

Right now, a lot of people are all worked up, but it's likely that this too will pass as it always does over time. I am mildly hopeful that a few positive things will come from the BLM movement. I've already seen a little bit of it, but if the protests become more violent and less meaningful, the result will probably result in a backlash.

I don't want a world where we are forced to treat each other respectfuly. It's nice if people are. But I don't want it forced upon me or anyone.

On social media anybody having any kind of frank conversation about race is immediately branded a racist. Even when the things said aren't.

I've read Guns, Germs and Steel. I understand why brown countries aren't as rich as white countries in spite of the races having very similar brains. Or I think I do. But it's perfectly logical to make the connection that the poverty of brown countries is because of that the people there are brown. Its got to be OK to have that opinion. Free thought and free expression is sacred to me.
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,531
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
I don't want a world where we are forced to treat each other respectfuly. It's nice if people are. But I don't want it forced upon me or anyone.

On social media anybody having any kind of frank conversation about race is immediately branded a racist. Even when the things said aren't.

I've read Guns, Germs and Steel. I understand why brown countries aren't as rich as white countries in spite of the races having very similar brains. Or I think I do. But it's perfectly logical to make the connection that the poverty of brown countries is because of that the people there are brown. Its got to be OK to have that opinion. Free thought and free expression is sacred to me.

There's a bit of a double standard at work, there. Calling someone a racist is also freedom of expression. It may not be productive, but then again, the overwhelming majority of things people express aren't worth the space they occupy on a database.

I'd like to know what social media contributes to the common good by giving morons a platform, because social media has been popular for a while now and I don't see how it has helped anything.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,952
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
I think you missed the point. Use words that other people feel are respectful. If a word or phrase is believed to be an insult, then don't use it to describe that group of individuals. It's as simple as that.
I think you are missing a lot here. Those most vociferous about "being respectful" will call someone (they don't know) racist based often only on the person being white or, worse yet, a white male. The irony is that the most disrespectful among us are those who accuse others of being disrespectful.

As far as your, "Use words that other people feel are respectful." How the hell, in a climate where "acceptable" ideas are constantly in flux, is someone to know what some other person feels is respectful? Few of us are psychic and what one person finds perfectly acceptable another will call 'disrespectful' and vice-versa.

A functional society is a tolerant society and the "social justice" movement is as intolerant of others and other ideas as the old KKK.

I would say that respect for others is tolerance for their different ideas and beliefs of what is acceptable.
 
Last edited:

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,164
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I don't want a world where we are forced to treat each other respectfuly. It's nice if people are. But I don't want it forced upon me or anyone.

On social media anybody having any kind of frank conversation about race is immediately branded a racist. Even when the things said aren't.

I've read Guns, Germs and Steel. I understand why brown countries aren't as rich as white countries in spite of the races having very similar brains. Or I think I do. But it's perfectly logical to make the connection that the poverty of brown countries is because of that the people there are brown. Its got to be OK to have that opinion. Free thought and free expression is sacred to me.

There's a bit of a double standard at work, there. Calling someone a racist is also freedom of expression. It may not be productive, but then again, the overwhelming majority of things people express aren't worth the space they occupy on a database.

I'd like to know what social media contributes to the common good by giving morons a platform, because social media has been popular for a while now and I don't see how it has helped anything.

The word racist today has become synonymous with "pure evil". There's got to be some sort of grey area between being Hitler incarnate and a air headed hippie. Right now we're under tremendous social pressure to all be anti-racists where the mere acknowledgement that we may not sit on all the answers is blasphemy.

To me racism is when we think less of someone because of their race. Just thinking that other races are different shouldn't be seen as racism.

And most importantly we have got to stop confusing culture with race. It's perfectly fine to think that Is Islam is the worst thing ever. That doesn't make you a racist. Even though that belief often correlates with being racist.

To sum up. Today racist is the worst thing we can be. So associating anything we don't like with racism is a great way to always win an argument. Far too many things are labelled as racism today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,952
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
... snip ...
To sum up. Today racist is the worst thing we can be. So associating anything we don't like with racism is a great way to always win an argument. Far too many things are labelled as racism today.
I would disagree. The word "racist" has been so misused and overused that it is rapidly on the way to being meaningless. In many cases, it only means that the person using it is angry but incapable of expressing themselves any other way.
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,531
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
The word racist today has become synonymous with "pure evil". There's got to be some sort of grey area between being Hitler incarnate and a air headed hippie. Right now we're under tremendous social pressure to all be anti-racists where the mere acknowledgement that we may not sit on all the answers is blasphemy.

To me racism is when we think less of someone because of their race. Just thinking that other races are different shouldn't be seen as racism.

Perhaps I'm part of the problem you're describing, but I don't know what you mean by "we may not sit on all the answers". There are some things we do know, and one of them is that racism is not a scientific theory. There's no reason to keep entertaining the idea that it is.

And most importantly we have got to stop confusing culture with race. It's perfectly fine to think that Is Islam is the worst thing ever. That doesn't make you a racist. Even though that belief often correlates with being racist.

As you say, the two often correlate, and I think there's good reason to suspect that racism often inspires an extreme fear of Muslims. I also think it's irrational and harmful to conflate all Muslims in general with the ultraconservatives in Al Qaeda.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,594
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
The word racist today has become synonymous with "pure evil". There's got to be some sort of grey area between being Hitler incarnate and a air headed hippie. Right now we're under tremendous social pressure to all be anti-racists where the mere acknowledgement that we may not sit on all the answers is blasphemy.

To me racism is when we think less of someone because of their race. Just thinking that other races are different shouldn't be seen as racism.

Perhaps I'm part of the problem you're describing, but I don't know what you mean by "we may not sit on all the answers". There are some things we do know, and one of them is that racism is not a scientific theory. There's no reason to keep entertaining the idea that it is.

And most importantly we have got to stop confusing culture with race. It's perfectly fine to think that Is Islam is the worst thing ever. That doesn't make you a racist. Even though that belief often correlates with being racist.

As you say, the two often correlate, and I think there's good reason to suspect that racism often inspires an extreme fear of Muslims. I also think it's irrational and harmful to conflate all Muslims in general with the ultraconservatives in Al Qaeda.

Racism is very difficult to define, because race is usually has no clear objective or biological definition. However, racism clearly is about an attitude towards certain socially-defined demographic categories. People used to (and sometimes still do) call different ethnicities (Italian, Mexican, Polish, people with black or brown skin, etc.) "races". Racism is treating individual members of the identified social group as if they fit a stereotype. And there are a lot of different ways in which people do that, sometimes benign and sometimes malignant. So assuming that a black individual is a supporter of Democratic candidates in an election is a form of racism, but it is also an expectation based on a generalization that happens to be true. That may not be a terribly malignant form of racism, but it can become that when Republican officials seek to gerrymander districts in such a way as to lessen the voting impact of certain neighborhoods that happen to be largely African American in population. Republicans see it as "political" gerrymandering, which SCOTUS seems to think isn't racist, but there is a case to be made that it is a malignant form of racism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,164
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The word racist today has become synonymous with "pure evil". There's got to be some sort of grey area between being Hitler incarnate and a air headed hippie. Right now we're under tremendous social pressure to all be anti-racists where the mere acknowledgement that we may not sit on all the answers is blasphemy.

To me racism is when we think less of someone because of their race. Just thinking that other races are different shouldn't be seen as racism.

Perhaps I'm part of the problem you're describing, but I don't know what you mean by "we may not sit on all the answers". There are some things we do know, and one of them is that racism is not a scientific theory. There's no reason to keep entertaining the idea that it is.

Well, because of a lack of research. Because its funding has been blocked on ideological grounds since 1945. When Watson was asked whether he thought there were genetic differences between the races brains he said he didn't know. Which is the correct and scientific answer. He was branded a racist and his book tour was cut short because of it. I think the anti-racists have stopped being the good guys. I also don't think the racists are the good guys.

And most importantly we have got to stop confusing culture with race. It's perfectly fine to think that Is Islam is the worst thing ever. That doesn't make you a racist. Even though that belief often correlates with being racist.

As you say, the two often correlate, and I think there's good reason to suspect that racism often inspires an extreme fear of Muslims. I also think it's irrational and harmful to conflate all Muslims in general with the ultraconservatives in Al Qaeda.

But its got to be OK to have that opinion. The idea that milder forms of Islam encourage the extreme forms is a perfectly logical belief. So I don't think it's irrational to make that connection. It might lead to an irrational fear of Muslims. But the belief itself I don't think is irrational
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,164
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Perhaps I'm part of the problem you're describing, but I don't know what you mean by "we may not sit on all the answers". There are some things we do know, and one of them is that racism is not a scientific theory. There's no reason to keep entertaining the idea that it is.



As you say, the two often correlate, and I think there's good reason to suspect that racism often inspires an extreme fear of Muslims. I also think it's irrational and harmful to conflate all Muslims in general with the ultraconservatives in Al Qaeda.

Racism is very difficult to define, because race is usually has no clear objective or biological definition. However, racism clearly is about an attitude towards certain socially-defined demographic categories. People used to (and sometimes still do) call different ethnicities (Italian, Mexican, Polish, people with black or brown skin, etc.) "races". Racism is treating individual members of the identified social group as if they fit a stereotype. And there are a lot of different ways in which people do that, sometimes benign and sometimes malignant. So assuming that a black individual is a supporter of Democratic candidates in an election is a form of racism, but it is also an expectation based on a generalization that happens to be true. That may not be a terribly malignant form of racism, but it can become that when Republican officials seek to gerrymander districts in such a way as to lessen the voting impact of certain neighborhoods that happen to be largely African American in population. Republicans see it as "political" gerrymandering, which SCOTUS seems to think isn't racist, but there is a case to be made that it is a malignant form of racism.

I'm sorry but assuming a person belonging to a group fits the stereotype of that group cannot be racism. Stereotypes exists because they so often are true. They almost always have a factual basis. Which is frustrating for those of that group who don't fit.

I have a Romanian gypsy friend. He's middle-class and grew up in a typical Romanian well off family. He isn't part of a clan or any of the other stuff gypsies are associated with. He's well educated and smart. He looks like a gypsy. So sucks for him. But he's not bitter about it. He acknowledges the situation and makes sure to dress well and speak in a well mannered way. So people won't put him in the gypsy box. He's still proud of his heritage but isn't an idiot about it. He's well aware of that the stereotypes about gypsies are distressingly often true.

I also have an Iranian friend. He's lived in Denmark for 20 years. Last year he changed his name to a Danish name and took his Danish wife's name. Why did he do this? He was starting to look for a new job. He thought that the Muslim stereotypes would be working against him. It's just being smart about it.

Social patterns in groups don't go away because we ignore them. Rather the opposite. If there's a negative stereotype about a group isn't it better to acknowledge it and talk about how it came to be?

In Denmark if you buy drugs on the street the guy selling it will probably be Muslim. That's a stereotype based on how reality looks like. They also all dress the same. Which baffles me since that surely makes life increadibly easy for the cops. But I digress.
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,531
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
Well, because of a lack of research. Because its funding has been blocked on ideological grounds since 1945. When Watson was asked whether he thought there were genetic differences between the races brains he said he didn't know. Which is the correct and scientific answer. He was branded a racist and his book tour was cut short because of it. I think the anti-racists have stopped being the good guys. I also don't think the racists are the good guys.

I'm getting at a more fundamental point: as a scientific concept, race doesn't work.

This article explains it better than I can:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/reich-genetics-racism/558818/

Race is a concept defined by society, not by genes. It’s true that people around the world differ genetically due to their ancestry, and that people’s racial identity may be statistically correlated with their ancestry, albeit unreliably. But “race” does not mean “ancestry,” and it’s a loaded term for scientific outreach: Biological races are not a current scientific concept and often reinforce historical biases.

Basically, the concept of race has a couple of problems:
1. The races we commonly use to categorise people don't line up that well with our genes.
2. Humans constantly mix through migration and interbreeding.

In that context, it doesn't make a lot of sense to ask that geneticists do research based on race. They study populations, geographical clines, and specific genes, but these are not the same as races.

And most importantly we have got to stop confusing culture with race. It's perfectly fine to think that Is Islam is the worst thing ever. That doesn't make you a racist. Even though that belief often correlates with being racist.

As you say, the two often correlate, and I think there's good reason to suspect that racism often inspires an extreme fear of Muslims. I also think it's irrational and harmful to conflate all Muslims in general with the ultraconservatives in Al Qaeda.

But its got to be OK to have that opinion. The idea that milder forms of Islam encourage the extreme forms is a perfectly logical belief. So I don't think it's irrational to make that connection. It might lead to an irrational fear of Muslims. But the belief itself I don't think is irrational

Your argument is getting to a point now where you are defending a relatively small number of people, relative to the amount of people who express an irrational phobia and call for travel bans, clothing bans, bans on mosques etc.
 

Worldtraveller

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
2,699
Location
Layton, UT
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I don't want a world where we are forced to treat each other respectfuly. It's nice if people are. But I don't want it forced upon me or anyone.

On social media anybody having any kind of frank conversation about race is immediately branded a racist. Even when the things said aren't.

I've read Guns, Germs and Steel. I understand why brown countries aren't as rich as white countries in spite of the races having very similar brains. Or I think I do. But it's perfectly logical to make the connection that the poverty of brown countries is because of that the people there are brown. Its got to be OK to have that opinion. Free thought and free expression is sacred to me.

There's a bit of a double standard at work, there. Calling someone a racist is also freedom of expression. It may not be productive, but then again, the overwhelming majority of things people express aren't worth the space they occupy on a database.

I'd like to know what social media contributes to the common good by giving morons a platform, because social media has been popular for a while now and I don't see how it has helped anything.
Also, I think Dr Z might want to explore some other, less moderated, forums. Since he's actually posting here, where one is more or less obliged by da rulz to be respectful.

I'd be happy to make some recommendations. :)
 

Worldtraveller

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
2,699
Location
Layton, UT
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I think you missed the point. Use words that other people feel are respectful. If a word or phrase is believed to be an insult, then don't use it to describe that group of individuals. It's as simple as that.
I think you are missing a lot here. Those most vociferous about "being respectful" will call someone (they don't know) racist based often only on the person being white or, worse yet, a white male. The irony is that the most disrespectful among us are those who accuse others of being disrespectful.

As far as your, "Use words that other people feel are respectful." How the hell, in a climate where "acceptable" ideas are constantly in flux, is someone to know what some other person feels is respectful? Few of us are psychic and what one person finds perfectly acceptable another will call 'disrespectful' and vice-versa.

A functional society is a tolerant society and the "social justice" movement is as intolerant of others and other ideas as the old KKK.

I would say that respect for others is tolerance for their different ideas and beliefs of what is acceptable.
There's so much bullshit in the post, I could fertilize my whole yard!
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,442
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I think you missed the point. Use words that other people feel are respectful. If a word or phrase is believed to be an insult, then don't use it to describe that group of individuals. It's as simple as that.

I do have some to add that I found a bit humorous. Somewhere I had mentioned my white friend who is married to a black man and has four children with him. She went on a screed last week on FB about how she hates White people. I so wanted to tell her to look in the mirror and check her race, but of course that wouldn't have helped, so I ignored her comment. I really need to close my FB account down. I rarely go there. I have posted once or twice in the last year and I see nothing positive about that type of social media.

Right now, a lot of people are all worked up, but it's likely that this too will pass as it always does over time. I am mildly hopeful that a few positive things will come from the BLM movement. I've already seen a little bit of it, but if the protests become more violent and less meaningful, the result will probably result in a backlash.

I don't want a world where we are forced to treat each other respectfuly. It's nice if people are. But I don't want it forced upon me or anyone.

On social media anybody having any kind of frank conversation about race is immediately branded a racist. Even when the things said aren't.

I've read Guns, Germs and Steel. I understand why brown countries aren't as rich as white countries in spite of the races having very similar brains. Or I think I do. But it's perfectly logical to make the connection that the poverty of brown countries is because of that the people there are brown. Its got to be OK to have that opinion. Free thought and free expression is sacred to me.

Oh please. Spare me your nonsense. Nobody is forcing your to be respectful of others. But, if you want to be respectful of others, you won't refer to them using insulting terms.

I agree that the accusations of who is racist has gotten a bit absurd. I don't think it's helpful to call other people racist, but I see nothing wrong with telling people that some of their comments sound bigoted or insulting. Using insulting words can lead to misunderstandings, even when that was never the intention of the user. I don't think the "social justice movement" per se has gone too far because there is still an awful lot of social injustice in the world. I'm most familiar with the injustices in my own country.

We used to say, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me", when I was a child. And, I am the type of person who doesn't get hurt by words, but that little phrase isn't true for all. Words are very hurtful to a lot of people, so I try to show them respect by not using those words. Nobody is forcing me to be respectful. Nobody is forcing you to be respectful. You have every right to be an in sensitive jerk if that's your preference. :p

And, nothing is sacred to me. :p.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,164
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I'm getting at a more fundamental point: as a scientific concept, race doesn't work.

This article explains it better than I can:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/reich-genetics-racism/558818/



Basically, the concept of race has a couple of problems:
1. The races we commonly use to categorise people don't line up that well with our genes.
2. Humans constantly mix through migration and interbreeding.

In that context, it doesn't make a lot of sense to ask that geneticists do research based on race. They study populations, geographical clines, and specific genes, but these are not the same as races.

You are preaching to the choir. What I'm defending is the idea that those who don't agree aren't completely crazy. I want it to be OK for everyone to be allowed to have they or for everyone to have their own opinion on it and that they should feel free to express it. Whatever it is.

And most importantly we have got to stop confusing culture with race. It's perfectly fine to think that Is Islam is the worst thing ever. That doesn't make you a racist. Even though that belief often correlates with being racist.



As you say, the two often correlate, and I think there's good reason to suspect that racism often inspires an extreme fear of Muslims. I also think it's irrational and harmful to conflate all Muslims in general with the ultraconservatives in Al Qaeda.

But its got to be OK to have that opinion. The idea that milder forms of Islam encourage the extreme forms is a perfectly logical belief. So I don't think it's irrational to make that connection. It might lead to an irrational fear of Muslims. But the belief itself I don't think is irrational

Your argument is getting to a point now where you are defending a relatively small number of people, relative to the amount of people who express an irrational phobia and call for travel bans, clothing bans, bans on mosques etc.

I'm defending people to be allowed to have whatever beliefs they have and they shouldn't be persecuted for it.
 

Worldtraveller

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
2,699
Location
Layton, UT
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You are preaching to the choir. What I'm defending is the idea that those who don't agree aren't completely crazy. I want it to be OK for everyone to be allowed to have they or for everyone to have their own opinion on it and that they should feel free to express it. Whatever it is.

And most importantly we have got to stop confusing culture with race. It's perfectly fine to think that Is Islam is the worst thing ever. That doesn't make you a racist. Even though that belief often correlates with being racist.



As you say, the two often correlate, and I think there's good reason to suspect that racism often inspires an extreme fear of Muslims. I also think it's irrational and harmful to conflate all Muslims in general with the ultraconservatives in Al Qaeda.

But its got to be OK to have that opinion. The idea that milder forms of Islam encourage the extreme forms is a perfectly logical belief. So I don't think it's irrational to make that connection. It might lead to an irrational fear of Muslims. But the belief itself I don't think is irrational

Your argument is getting to a point now where you are defending a relatively small number of people, relative to the amount of people who express an irrational phobia and call for travel bans, clothing bans, bans on mosques etc.

I'm defending people to be allowed to have whatever beliefs they have and they shouldn't be persecuted for it.
No, you're specifically advocating for people to be allowed to behave towards others in a way that those on the receiving end might find offensive, threatening, bullying, or otherwise intimidating, and for there not to be consequences.

You can believe what you want (for instance, I'm actually not allowed to express what I believe about you on the forum) but you can't expect there to not be consequences when those beliefs are expressed by actions.

Read this a few times. I can try to explain it again using smaller words if needed.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,164
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You are preaching to the choir. What I'm defending is the idea that those who don't agree aren't completely crazy. I want it to be OK for everyone to be allowed to have they or for everyone to have their own opinion on it and that they should feel free to express it. Whatever it is.

And most importantly we have got to stop confusing culture with race. It's perfectly fine to think that Is Islam is the worst thing ever. That doesn't make you a racist. Even though that belief often correlates with being racist.



As you say, the two often correlate, and I think there's good reason to suspect that racism often inspires an extreme fear of Muslims. I also think it's irrational and harmful to conflate all Muslims in general with the ultraconservatives in Al Qaeda.

But its got to be OK to have that opinion. The idea that milder forms of Islam encourage the extreme forms is a perfectly logical belief. So I don't think it's irrational to make that connection. It might lead to an irrational fear of Muslims. But the belief itself I don't think is irrational

Your argument is getting to a point now where you are defending a relatively small number of people, relative to the amount of people who express an irrational phobia and call for travel bans, clothing bans, bans on mosques etc.

I'm defending people to be allowed to have whatever beliefs they have and they shouldn't be persecuted for it.
No, you're specifically advocating for people to be allowed to behave towards others in a way that those on the receiving end might find offensive, threatening, bullying, or otherwise intimidating, and for there not to be consequences.

You can believe what you want (for instance, I'm actually not allowed to express what I believe about you on the forum) but you can't expect there to not be consequences when those beliefs are expressed by actions.

Read this a few times. I can try to explain it again using smaller words if needed.

OK, you got me. Yes, that is what I am arguing for. There can be consequences. But those consequences should never be anything more than an interesting conversation, at worst. They shouldn't be risking their jobs or feel their lives threatened
 

Worldtraveller

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
2,699
Location
Layton, UT
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You are preaching to the choir. What I'm defending is the idea that those who don't agree aren't completely crazy. I want it to be OK for everyone to be allowed to have they or for everyone to have their own opinion on it and that they should feel free to express it. Whatever it is.

And most importantly we have got to stop confusing culture with race. It's perfectly fine to think that Is Islam is the worst thing ever. That doesn't make you a racist. Even though that belief often correlates with being racist.



As you say, the two often correlate, and I think there's good reason to suspect that racism often inspires an extreme fear of Muslims. I also think it's irrational and harmful to conflate all Muslims in general with the ultraconservatives in Al Qaeda.

But its got to be OK to have that opinion. The idea that milder forms of Islam encourage the extreme forms is a perfectly logical belief. So I don't think it's irrational to make that connection. It might lead to an irrational fear of Muslims. But the belief itself I don't think is irrational

Your argument is getting to a point now where you are defending a relatively small number of people, relative to the amount of people who express an irrational phobia and call for travel bans, clothing bans, bans on mosques etc.

I'm defending people to be allowed to have whatever beliefs they have and they shouldn't be persecuted for it.
No, you're specifically advocating for people to be allowed to behave towards others in a way that those on the receiving end might find offensive, threatening, bullying, or otherwise intimidating, and for there not to be consequences.

You can believe what you want (for instance, I'm actually not allowed to express what I believe about you on the forum) but you can't expect there to not be consequences when those beliefs are expressed by actions.

Read this a few times. I can try to explain it again using smaller words if needed.

OK, you got me. Yes, that is what I am arguing for. There can be consequences. But those consequences should never be anything more than an interesting conversation, at worst. They shouldn't be risking their jobs or feel their lives threatened
Never? That's pretty definitive.

You're saying you can't think of any actions that someone can do towards someone that might result in them losing their job, or possibly being sued? You need to work on your imagination (or, you know, read some news about the stupid racist shit that's going on (and gets filmed) in the US).
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,531
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
You are preaching to the choir. What I'm defending is the idea that those who don't agree aren't completely crazy. I want it to be OK for everyone to be allowed to have they or for everyone to have their own opinion on it and that they should feel free to express it. Whatever it is.

That's ultimately where we disagree, then.

I don't think this notion of unfettered expression actually produces much, if anything, of value. In order to have constructive discussion, including discussion involving extreme differences of opinion, you have to set some standards. Like, it's OK to say some stupid things, but it's not OK to be a recalcitrant fuckwit all the time. Without standards, the noise drowns out everything else.

What do you think we gain from platforms, particularly social media, that allow anyone to express any opinion?

I'm defending people to be allowed to have whatever beliefs they have and they shouldn't be persecuted for it.

I agree that thought-policing is bad. It should be OK to stay silent, reserve judgment, or keep one's thoughts to oneself.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,164
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You are preaching to the choir. What I'm defending is the idea that those who don't agree aren't completely crazy. I want it to be OK for everyone to be allowed to have they or for everyone to have their own opinion on it and that they should feel free to express it. Whatever it is.

And most importantly we have got to stop confusing culture with race. It's perfectly fine to think that Is Islam is the worst thing ever. That doesn't make you a racist. Even though that belief often correlates with being racist.



As you say, the two often correlate, and I think there's good reason to suspect that racism often inspires an extreme fear of Muslims. I also think it's irrational and harmful to conflate all Muslims in general with the ultraconservatives in Al Qaeda.

But its got to be OK to have that opinion. The idea that milder forms of Islam encourage the extreme forms is a perfectly logical belief. So I don't think it's irrational to make that connection. It might lead to an irrational fear of Muslims. But the belief itself I don't think is irrational

Your argument is getting to a point now where you are defending a relatively small number of people, relative to the amount of people who express an irrational phobia and call for travel bans, clothing bans, bans on mosques etc.

I'm defending people to be allowed to have whatever beliefs they have and they shouldn't be persecuted for it.
No, you're specifically advocating for people to be allowed to behave towards others in a way that those on the receiving end might find offensive, threatening, bullying, or otherwise intimidating, and for there not to be consequences.

You can believe what you want (for instance, I'm actually not allowed to express what I believe about you on the forum) but you can't expect there to not be consequences when those beliefs are expressed by actions.

Read this a few times. I can try to explain it again using smaller words if needed.

OK, you got me. Yes, that is what I am arguing for. There can be consequences. But those consequences should never be anything more than an interesting conversation, at worst. They shouldn't be risking their jobs or feel their lives threatened
Never? That's pretty definitive.

You're saying you can't think of any actions that someone can do towards someone that might result in them losing their job, or possibly being sued? You need to work on your imagination (or, you know, read some news about the stupid racist shit that's going on (and gets filmed) in the US).

Violence should be met with violence. But just words. If we meet words with violence we will get an increasely extremist and violent world, as well as a dumber world
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,164
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You are preaching to the choir. What I'm defending is the idea that those who don't agree aren't completely crazy. I want it to be OK for everyone to be allowed to have they or for everyone to have their own opinion on it and that they should feel free to express it. Whatever it is.

That's ultimately where we disagree, then.

I don't think this notion of unfettered expression actually produces much, if anything, of value. In order to have constructive discussion, including discussion involving extreme differences of opinion, you have to set some standards. Like, it's OK to say some stupid things, but it's not OK to be a recalcitrant fuckwit all the time. Without standards, the noise drowns out everything else.

What do you think we gain from platforms, particularly social media, that allow anyone to express any opinion?

Forums are different than from society at large.

Forums need to be moderated. Society shouldn't be. And that's important. Otherwise the most dominant group will bully, oppress and silence the others.

I'm defending people to be allowed to have whatever beliefs they have and they shouldn't be persecuted for it.

I agree that thought-policing is bad. It should be OK to stay silent, reserve judgment, or keep one's thoughts to oneself.

Bah. That's not really free thought. If we can't speak freely we can't think freely either. We are a social species. We need to express ourselves or we die inside
 

Worldtraveller

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
2,699
Location
Layton, UT
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Violence should be met with violence. But just words. If we meet words with violence we will get an increasely extremist and violent world, as well as a dumber world
Maybe this is because you live outside the US, but in the US, lots of words have the potential for violence (like calling police on black people for being black). Do we have to wait until those threats actually turn into violence to act? Because that's sorta how we got where we are, and it gives a distinct 'advantage', for lack of a better word, to those who instigate the violence over those who are subject to said violence.

Sorry, but the world just ain't as simple as your absolutes paint it to be.

I'm willing to talk about this, but it appears you haven't actually examined your basis for this very deeply.

I've actually had a lot of training in self defense, and a lot of that involves ways to de-escalate, and recognizing when things probably won't de-escalate and acting quickly and decisively. In theory, my self defense would make me the aggressor in your world. The cops take advantage of your kind of thinking all the time, yelling that they feel threatened, or 'stop resisting' as they are beating the shit out of a helpless victim.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,594
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
...
Racism is very difficult to define, because race is usually has no clear objective or biological definition. However, racism clearly is about an attitude towards certain socially-defined demographic categories. People used to (and sometimes still do) call different ethnicities (Italian, Mexican, Polish, people with black or brown skin, etc.) "races". Racism is treating individual members of the identified social group as if they fit a stereotype. And there are a lot of different ways in which people do that, sometimes benign and sometimes malignant. So assuming that a black individual is a supporter of Democratic candidates in an election is a form of racism, but it is also an expectation based on a generalization that happens to be true. That may not be a terribly malignant form of racism, but it can become that when Republican officials seek to gerrymander districts in such a way as to lessen the voting impact of certain neighborhoods that happen to be largely African American in population. Republicans see it as "political" gerrymandering, which SCOTUS seems to think isn't racist, but there is a case to be made that it is a malignant form of racism.

I'm sorry but assuming a person belonging to a group fits the stereotype of that group cannot be racism. Stereotypes exists because they so often are true. They almost always have a factual basis. Which is frustrating for those of that group who don't fit.

You are confusing valid generalization with stereotyping. Stereotyping is about an individual's attitudes and judgments about a socially-defined group of people. It is usually used to justify discriminatory or prejudicial treatment of that group. For example, there is a popular myth among white supremacists that dark-skinned people are more dishonest, stupid, and lazy. If a black neighbor doesn't cut his lawn, a prejudiced person might see that as directly related to his race, whereas a white neighbor who doesn't cut his lawn is just lazy. If a woman becomes hysterical, than might be seen by a male chauvinist is just female behavior, whereas a male becoming hysterical might be seen as just momentarily traumatized. Stereotypes are usually harmful generalizations that drive harmful social policies.

I have a Romanian gypsy friend. He's middle-class and grew up in a typical Romanian well off family. He isn't part of a clan or any of the other stuff gypsies are associated with. He's well educated and smart. He looks like a gypsy. So sucks for him. But he's not bitter about it. He acknowledges the situation and makes sure to dress well and speak in a well mannered way. So people won't put him in the gypsy box. He's still proud of his heritage but isn't an idiot about it. He's well aware of that the stereotypes about gypsies are distressingly often true.

I also have an Iranian friend. He's lived in Denmark for 20 years. Last year he changed his name to a Danish name and took his Danish wife's name. Why did he do this? He was starting to look for a new job. He thought that the Muslim stereotypes would be working against him. It's just being smart about it.

These are not examples of stereotyping, valid or otherwise. They are examples of people who feel themselves victimized by discriminatory behavior, which is the kind of behavior that bigots justify with false and unfair stereotypes.

Social patterns in groups don't go away because we ignore them. Rather the opposite. If there's a negative stereotype about a group isn't it better to acknowledge it and talk about how it came to be?

In Denmark if you buy drugs on the street the guy selling it will probably be Muslim. That's a stereotype based on how reality looks like. They also all dress the same. Which baffles me since that surely makes life increadibly easy for the cops. But I digress.

No, you've got it backwards. Your generalization is an opinion about reality that is based on a stereotype. And you have just told us that you trust stereotypes to be grounded in truth, and that is why you rely on them to make such generalizations. This is the kind of subjective reasoning that leads to scapegoating and abusive discriminatory treatment of minorities. If you did some actual research on the ethnicity of street dealers in Denmark, you might even find that the majority are not Muslims.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,400
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

I don't think it is anywhere close to as bad as the news media make it seem. They show people who have visceral hated for anyone who disagrees with them and many with apparently deep self loathing problems. These are unbalanced people who are a danger to others and themselves. I have seen absolutely no one in real life like these nuts so I can only conclude that they are a fringe minority that the news hypes for the clicks they will get.

Like you, I don't know anyone in real life like these lunatics either. I guess that means we tend to hang out with rational, sensible people. :) But, they are out there and do have the power to destroy, which is worrisome to me. Just came across this:

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-over-alleged-racist-gesture-says-he-was-cracking-knuckles/2347414/

There are actually a number of ridiculous cases like this. A tennis commentator recently lost his job for saying Venus Williams was using "guerilla tactics" in her playing style, and a journalist interpreted it as "gorilla tactics", and assumed he was being racist. The whole thing reminds me of those old Ghosthunter stories where people run screaming from the haunted house yelling "Ghosts!!!" when the house was just creaking, drafty or had bad electrical problems.
 

repoman

Contributor
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,279
Location
Seattle, WA
Basic Beliefs
Science Based Atheism
Large corporations control of social media and bank transfers (Mastercard and so on) are fully behind this for one reason that I think almost no one is considering.

The large amount of natural resistence to immigration rates and temporary immigration (H1B etc) will affect them directly. Less people coming in the US and Europe means less growth, less money coming in to pay for investments on recent and current construction, less new housing starts. Also, tech companies have a direct conflict of interest to keep H1Bs off the table of discussion.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,037
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
"Slave" is in the context of "master/slave networking" and similar. When I learned of that usage, I found it rather odd, because "slave" is usually considered a demeaning sort of status."Master/servant" would be nicer, since being a servant is a much less demeaning status. There has to be some simple way of stating a command hierarchy here.


As to "blacklist" vs "whitelist", "blocklist" and "allowlist" seems more neutral. "Enemylist" and "friendlist" is another possibility. I've seen "watchlist" in a different context.


As to black and dark being bad and white and light being good, I think that that is a result of what is easier to see -- one can't see very much without a lot of light in one's surrounded. One can't see very much in a dark environment.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,750
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
"Slave" is in the context of "master/slave networking" and similar. When I learned of that usage, I found it rather odd, because "slave" is usually considered a demeaning sort of status."Master/servant" would be nicer, since being a servant is a much less demeaning status. There has to be some simple way of stating a command hierarchy here.


As to "blacklist" vs "whitelist", "blocklist" and "allowlist" seems more neutral. "Enemylist" and "friendlist" is another possibility. I've seen "watchlist" in a different context.


As to black and dark being bad and white and light being good, I think that that is a result of what is easier to see -- one can't see very much without a lot of light in one's surrounded. One can't see very much in a dark environment.

And dark is generally the criminal's friend, whereas crime has a hard time hiding in the light.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,037
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Another bit of negative whiteness is "whitebread", meaning plain and bland.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,037
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This issue reminds me of a certain issue about CPU instructions. A bad one is sometimes called "illegal", and I've seen that name criticized as intimidating. "Invalid" would be a good substitute. I recall that one CPU architecture has one instruction permanently named "Illegal", meaning that if one wants to test its response to invalid instructions, one can always use that one.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,514
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Oh. Bad memories. Back in the day, early eighties, presented a real problem with validating time and process critical code. If memory has consistent failure one might get the wrong command signal from operator input. We had a lot of trouble at DoD SSSAs validating SW changes in the presence of memory substrate issues in ECM systems. The fix, more frequent replacement of memory and memory interfaces with CPU. Automated SW validation procedures were incapable of detecting memory failures without change out of memory modules.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,164
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
"Slave" is in the context of "master/slave networking" and similar. When I learned of that usage, I found it rather odd, because "slave" is usually considered a demeaning sort of status."Master/servant" would be nicer, since being a servant is a much less demeaning status. There has to be some simple way of stating a command hierarchy here.


As to "blacklist" vs "whitelist", "blocklist" and "allowlist" seems more neutral. "Enemylist" and "friendlist" is another possibility. I've seen "watchlist" in a different context.


As to black and dark being bad and white and light being good, I think that that is a result of what is easier to see -- one can't see very much without a lot of light in one's surrounded. One can't see very much in a dark environment.

The point is clarity. How isn't Master/servant as demeaning? I'd argue that slave is more appropriate since a slave drive has to obey the master drive or it won't work. A servant always has the option to fuck off at any moment. A slave drive is in no way an indipendent unit. Which is what we're trying to communicate. I think it's a great metaphor. Very clear.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,164
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I'm pretty sure that an apt onto description of a process relation "Master/Slave" is outside one's need for the social comfort of Euphemizing it to "Master/Servant".

Yeah, it's newspeak. I also doubt that anybody is truly offended. Why would they, unless they're completely derranged.
 

J842P

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
4,137
Location
USA, California
Basic Beliefs
godless heathen
I'm pretty sure that an apt onto description of a process relation "Master/Slave" is outside one's need for the social comfort of Euphemizing it to "Master/Servant".

Yeah, it's newspeak. I also doubt that anybody is truly offended. Why would they, unless they're completely derranged.

There's an entire generation of people being indoctrinated into this derangement. Believe me, it's real.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,164
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I'm pretty sure that an apt onto description of a process relation "Master/Slave" is outside one's need for the social comfort of Euphemizing it to "Master/Servant".

Yeah, it's newspeak. I also doubt that anybody is truly offended. Why would they, unless they're completely derranged.

There's an entire generation of people being indoctrinated into this derangement. Believe me, it's real.

Which is why I think it's important not to give in. To stick to the master/slave nomenclature, just to stop this before it spreads further. It's already silly. it's going to get sillier.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,076
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Which is why I think it's important not to give in. To stick to the master/slave nomenclature, just to stop this before it spreads further. It's already silly. it's going to get sillier.
Ottoman Empire customs officials once blocked an import shipment of electric generators because the manifest contained the phrase "revolutions per minute". History repeats itself, Engels tells us, once as grand tragedy and the second time as rotten farce.
 

Jokodo

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
4,617
Location
Riverside City
Basic Beliefs
humanist
"Slave" is in the context of "master/slave networking" and similar. When I learned of that usage, I found it rather odd, because "slave" is usually considered a demeaning sort of status."Master/servant" would be nicer, since being a servant is a much less demeaning status. There has to be some simple way of stating a command hierarchy here.


As to "blacklist" vs "whitelist", "blocklist" and "allowlist" seems more neutral. "Enemylist" and "friendlist" is another possibility. I've seen "watchlist" in a different context.


As to black and dark being bad and white and light being good, I think that that is a result of what is easier to see -- one can't see very much without a lot of light in one's surrounded. One can't see very much in a dark environment.

The point is clarity. How isn't Master/servant as demeaning? I'd argue that slave is more appropriate since a slave drive has to obey the master drive or it won't work. A servant always has the option to fuck off at any moment. A slave drive is in no way an indipendent unit. Which is what we're trying to communicate. I think it's a great metaphor. Very clear.

And "gaschamber" is an apt metaphor for /dev/null: nothing that goes there ever comes back.

Yet somehow I don't see us picking that up as official terminology: most people with a brain understand that doing so would trivialize the holocaust.

But some people, otherwise appearing to be equipped with a brain, fail to understand that using "slave/master" can be in a fully parallel fashion seen as trivializing slavery.

That's actually quite deranged, to borrow your word.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,594
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
It is foolish to argue over the "master/slave" usage, because it exists in technical jargon that is used internationally. It is in countless contracts, specifications, instructions, warranties, and other legal documentation. Most people could care less about this issue, and it would take a lot of people caring for linguistic usage to start to change.
 

Jokodo

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
4,617
Location
Riverside City
Basic Beliefs
humanist
It is foolish to argue over the "master/slave" usage, because it exists in technical jargon that is used internationally. It is in countless contracts, specifications, instructions, warranties, and other legal documentation. Most people could care less about this issue, and it would take a lot of people caring for linguistic usage to start to change.

Some people do care, and calling them deranged just because you gont is , well, ironically, rather deranged.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,442
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
It is foolish to argue over the "master/slave" usage, because it exists in technical jargon that is used internationally. It is in countless contracts, specifications, instructions, warranties, and other legal documentation. Most people could care less about this issue, and it would take a lot of people caring for linguistic usage to start to change.

Some people do care, and calling them deranged just because you gont is , well, ironically, rather deranged.

Where did he call them deranged? Copernicus said that most, not all people don't care about this. I think he's right. He was just explaining how difficult it would be to change some of the terms that offend a small percentage of people.

It would be really helpful if people would communicate more effectively and actually listen to each other. Imo, it would be better to use our energy to try and change how people treat each other, and work to change the systemic racism in our system, instead of spending so much time worrying about words that aren't even being used to describe humans.

As individuals, we can avoid using certain terms and words to describe groups of people. We can all do that, but if slave/master are used to describe something that has no relationship to humans, it does seem a bit extreme, even to me, a person who always tries not to use offensive terms when it comes to actual humans. But, to use an old cliche' "actions speak louder than words".
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,952
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
It is foolish to argue over the "master/slave" usage, because it exists in technical jargon that is used internationally. It is in countless contracts, specifications, instructions, warranties, and other legal documentation. Most people could care less about this issue, and it would take a lot of people caring for linguistic usage to start to change.

Some people do care, and calling them deranged just because you gont is , well, ironically, rather deranged.

Where did he call them deranged? Copernicus said that most, not all people don't care about this. I think he's right. He was just explaining how difficult it would be to change some of the terms that offend a small percentage of people.

It would be really helpful if people would communicate more effectively and actually listen to each other. Imo, it would be better to use our energy to try and change how people treat each other, and work to change the systemic racism in our system, instead of spending so much time worrying about words that aren't even being used to describe humans.

As individuals, we can avoid using certain terms and words to describe groups of people. We can all do that, but if slave/master are used to describe something that has no relationship to humans, it does seem a bit extreme, even to me, a person who always tries not to use offensive terms when it comes to actual humans. But, to use an old cliche' "actions speak louder than words".

How cold and cruel you are using such an expression. I am offended... there are invalids who are incapable of actions and you are saying they don't matter as much as those are.


Just a little satirical example of those who embrace victimhood and wokeness. No words are safe from them.
 
Top Bottom