|
Grex > Agora41 > #234: I choose more than mere tolerance | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 23 new of 97 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 75 of 97:
| 
Jun 13 16:35 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
lk
|
|
response 76 of 97:
|
Jun 13 18:16 UTC 2002 |
Paul, I think the difference between having prejudices and being a racist
is that in the former proves that you are only human while the latter may
indicate that you don't thin some other people are human (or equal).
Everyone has prejudices, but while some of us work to overcome them, the
racist believes in their validity and may often want to impose these
beliefs upon others or the rest of society.
|
brighn
|
|
response 77 of 97:
|
Jun 13 19:35 UTC 2002 |
Rane, you didn't answer Michael's question, you just tried to dodge it.
Michael's question wasn't, "Is there a point to making ethnic assumptions?",
it was, "What's the HARM in making ethnic presumptions?" I asked roughly the
same question, and see that nobody answered me, either. To say that there's
no point to it, well, I'm not sure I'd argue with you there. Ok. But what HARM
could it cause to presume that someone named Okia Hirajawa is Japanese, for
instance? (Actually, there *is* an example where it might be useful to presume
ethnicity from the name. If I know two people who are Asian, one of whom is
named Akaha and one of whom is named Ng, I'll be more likely to offer the
first one sushi in a dining situation.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 78 of 97:
|
Jun 13 19:45 UTC 2002 |
I was making my own point, not trying to answer anyone's questions.
But to answer the question, the only harm in making ethnic presemptions is
frequently being in error, and that harm falls upon yourself.
|
md
|
|
response 79 of 97:
|
Jun 13 20:57 UTC 2002 |
"humorless, censorious, and ultimately hypocritical" -- I'm a prophet.
Worship me.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 80 of 97:
|
Jun 14 02:51 UTC 2002 |
I'd think someone as dedicated to the scientific method as Rane is would
understand the value of a working hypothesis. The assumption that Mr. Gupta
is Indian is a simple, plausible hypothesis that I'll drop as soon as I meet
him and find out that he _is_ a black guy from Bloomfield Hills. Researchers
don't give up on making hypotheses for fear of "being in error," so why should
the rest of us?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 81 of 97:
|
Jun 14 05:18 UTC 2002 |
Hypotheses are adopted in order to test them. Since I have no reason to
pursue a test of anything, since it is not important to me what ethnicity
a person is until that becomes a central point of some discussion, I
do not waste my thought adopting a hypothesis. Scientists do not propose
hypotheses for no reason.
|
lk
|
|
response 82 of 97:
|
Jun 14 15:18 UTC 2002 |
I think such an hypothesis would have more to do with compartmentalization.
|
oval
|
|
response 83 of 97:
|
Jun 14 18:44 UTC 2002 |
people do it all the time to some degree though, without realizing it.
even on grex people have *assumed* i am male, since i rarely type in a female
manner. <huggles> people have also assumed that i am anti-semitic. <coughs>
i have assumed jan was a woman, bru was black, and polytarp was a bot.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 84 of 97:
|
Jun 14 18:59 UTC 2002 |
All right, Rane. You've been communicating by email with Mr. Gupta for a long
time, and he arranges to meet you at a certain restaurant. The place is
packed when you get there, and you're running late. Everyone there is white
except for one man, who has brownish skin and black hair. Who do you approach
first?
(No fair saying you'd never arrange to meet someone without trading
descriptions first.)
|
twinkie
|
|
response 85 of 97:
|
Jun 14 21:16 UTC 2002 |
Oh, I'm sure he'd have an easy time spotting the 13 year-old boy named Gupta.
;-)
Okay...okay...pedo jokes aside, he'd probably ask the Maitre'd where Mr. Gupta
was sitting. *snort*
|
rcurl
|
|
response 86 of 97:
|
Jun 14 22:46 UTC 2002 |
In addition to the suggestions for determining who I am meeting, a
situation has been invented where a hypothesis might be in order.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 87 of 97:
|
Jun 17 01:57 UTC 2002 |
So out with it. What hypothesis do you arrive at first?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 88 of 97:
|
Jun 17 02:07 UTC 2002 |
It would depend upon additional aspects of the situation. Perhaps my
appointee had not arrived. However, given that all normal coures are
eliminated, I would first ask the Indian looking gentleman if he were Mr.
Gupta.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 89 of 97:
|
Jun 17 02:09 UTC 2002 |
Thank you.
|
md
|
|
response 90 of 97:
|
Jun 17 11:31 UTC 2002 |
"Indian looking gentleman"?!?
RACIST!
|
orinoco
|
|
response 91 of 97:
|
Jun 17 14:50 UTC 2002 |
Shut up, md. I thought Rane was playing quite nicely. :)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 97:
|
Jun 17 15:50 UTC 2002 |
What you have shown is that I will make and test a hypothesis if that
seems the best way to proceed, given the circumstances.
|
gull
|
|
response 93 of 97:
|
Jun 17 16:19 UTC 2002 |
Re #15: Personally, I think the legal and religious aspects of marriage
should be seperate, but I think I'm in a minority there.
My ideal scheme would go something like this:
Create a "civil union" or whatever you want to call it, with all the
currently recognized secular benefits of marriage. This is what everyone
gets, homosexual or heterosexual, from the government when they fill out the
necessary paperwork, sort of like being married by a justice of the peace
today. People who are religious can still go to the church and have a
priest marry them "in the eyes of God", but that would carry no legal
weight.
Ideally that would let us recognize homosexual unions while still keeping
the religious concept of marriage "pure". It also eliminates one of the few
places where we still have government deciding which churches are "real" and
should get special treatment.
Re #83: What's involved in "typing in a female manner"? I've looked all
over, but I can't find an option to make little heart-shaped dots on top of
the letter "i".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 94 of 97:
|
Jun 17 16:46 UTC 2002 |
Re #93: that's what they do in Europe. You have to go through both
a civil and (if you wish) religious marriage. I'm not sure how many
European countries do this, or if countries elsewhere do too, but it
is not uncommon. I don't think, however, this is used yet in Europe
for homosexual unions.
|
vmskid
|
|
response 95 of 97:
|
Jun 17 17:02 UTC 2002 |
It should be. Marriage should be no one else's business other than the
two or more people involved.
|
mta
|
|
response 96 of 97:
|
Jun 18 17:46 UTC 2002 |
Back to a previous topic (since it's taken me this long to get through this
item).
People will always classify things. It's the way we learn -- we draw
distinctions and put things into categories. It was a very, very successful
strategy for understanding the world for a long time. It's become somewhat
outmoded lately, especially when dealing with people, but that's much to recent
to have any effect on instincts born of thousands, maybe milions, of years.
We draw these distinctions still and we do it subconsciously -- and the best
thing to do about that is to acknowledge that while we may be making reasonable
presumptions, we must be ready for them to be disproven. Once we're
comfortable with that step, we're on our way to not making the presumptions at
all.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 97 of 97:
|
Jun 20 20:35 UTC 2002 |
#94 - That's continent-wide? I remember finding this out about Russia,
but no other places. Interesting. For how long has this been in place?
|