Restoring Discrimination

a reply to: TzarChasm

"you are ignorant and racist for ignoring the fact that im black"

you cant win with some people. then again, maybe that chick was just looking for some cheap sympathy.

She was saying that if you feel the need to ignore someones race then you are in fact being racist, whats so bad about being any one particular race that you shouldnt acknowledge it?
To treat another race badly is racist, to acknowledge someone belongs to a particular racial group is fine and in some cases even to treat them differently based on their culture or possible experiences as a result of being from that race is fine.

Everyone in the discussion was white, I only bring that up as I wasnt sure if the first line of your post was you thinking someone in the discussion was black.

P.s dont attack me for the above, it was someone elses opinion that I found fascinating and worthy of sharing

I like to use little words as well.

You seem to have a talent for making even small words seem like big ones haha

If one doesn't see that another's skin is a certain shade, then I might have to call them blind. However, identifying oneself and others with a race or skin color because it supposedly encapsulates something more than skin color, is in my mind equally as blind.

As a general rule the PC programmed part of my brain agrees but what about when in Asia? Being a Whitey over here does encapsulate more than skin colour, true skin colour isnt the reason but it is a great marker and on a global scale you can tell alot about people and their outlook on life due to their race, provided of course they grew up within the culture you would associate with that racial type

Girl 1 and 2 are both wrong.

I will be sure to tell them you said so

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

She was saying that if you feel the need to ignore someones race then you are in fact being racist, whats so bad about being any one particular race that you shouldnt acknowledge it?

whats so important about any one particular race that you should be required to acknowledge it? at that point, anyone whose color is not acknowledged is being discriminated against.

see what you started lesmisanthrope?

Kick the dirt out of Buddha nature then worry about it. Otherwise it's still going round and round in a philosophical recursive loop through infinity.

Consider the sutta about philosophical discrimination? I suggest replacing the word Tathagata another name for the Buddha with self or such-ness. If it makes no sense to you using self? try suchness. if it makes no sense using suchness? try self... ultimately both are the same... but mean different things based on one's chosen sphere of perception or discrimination of attachment. www.accesstoinsight.org...

a reply to: TzarChasm

whats so important about any one particular race that you should be required to acknowledge it? at that point, anyone whose color is not acknowledged is being discriminated against.

Exactly!!!!

Glad were on the same page

see what you started lesmisanthrope?

I think its quite possible no one (not even him) knows what he started due to the fact we cant even be sure we understand what he was saying in the 1st place LOL

I tried to read it again it and just makes my brain go all mushy, thats an indictment on me not the OP

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

As a general rule the PC programmed part of my brain agrees but what about when in Asia? Being a Whitey over here does encapsulate more than skin colour, true skin colour isnt the reason but it is a great marker and on a global scale you can tell alot about people and their outlook on life due to their race, provided of course they grew up within the culture you would associate with that racial type

Skin color is what it is—skin color. Not much more needs to be said about it. It is an invalid unit of measure in regards to judging worth or value. A child born in Mogadishu but raised in Stockholm will speak and act entirely Swedish with very little variance. But yes to appearances, the contrast between white and black is immediate, and we should not pretend that we “don’t see race” because we obviously do, but the skin conceals a great deal more than it reveals.

It is impossible to group all people of a darker skin into a group called “black people”, not only because the gradient of shades and color is continuous, but because it is a meaningless, and therefor stupid, unit of measure. On the other hand, identifying with all black people just because I am black is just as stupid for the very same reasons.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Kick the dirt out of Buddha nature then worry about it. Otherwise it's still going round and round in a philosophical recursive loop through infinity.

Consider the sutta about philosophical discrimination? I suggest replacing the word Tathagata another name for the Buddha with self or such-ness. If it makes no sense to you using self? try suchness. if it makes no sense using suchness? try self... ultimately both are the same... but mean different things based on one's chosen sphere of perception or discrimination of attachment.

sounds complicated

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

It is the Confucian principle Rectification of Names.

A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

I tried to read it again it and just makes my brain go all mushy, thats an indictment on me not the OP

How can a word mean both discernment and acumen, but also racism and bigotry? It cannot and should not.

My only point was to separate the intelligence from the stupidity, to show that racism and bigotry is not discrimination, but indiscrimination.

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

so why act like race is something worth acknowledging anymore than blonde hair or a five foot six figure? is that something we have to point out like someone might feel offended for not having this attribute or that attribute specifically mentioned and highlighted? i feel thats more vain than considerate, placing emphasis on what we are rather than who we are.

i guess i think girl number 2 is a bit shallow, and thats where i will leave it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

I tried to read it again it and just makes my brain go all mushy, thats an indictment on me not the OP

How can a word mean both discernment and acumen, but also racism and bigotry? It cannot and should not.

My only point was to separate the intelligence from the stupidity, to show that racism and bigotry is not discrimination, but indiscrimination.

how can a synonym for fecal matter also denote exceptional quality?

perhaps you should contact merriam webster and CBS and collaborate on a public service announcement.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
How can a word mean both discernment and acumen, but also racism and bigotry?

In the same way that a word can mean both "to carry" and "a type of animal" (bear). In the English language, there are many words that have two meanings. Especially in law.

There's the non-legal meaning of discrimination, which means discernment and the legal meaning which means to deny certain rights to a category of people.

They are actually related, but don't have the exact same meaning.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

In the same way that a word can mean both "to carry" and "a type of animal" (bear). In the English language, there are many words that have two meanings. Especially in law.

There's the non-legal meaning of discrimination, which means discernment and the legal meaning which means to deny certain rights to a category of people.

They are actually related, but don't have the exact same meaning.

Sure but “bear” doesn’t mean both to carry, and also its exact opposite, to drop. If discrimination also meant salamander, I wouldn’t pay it any more notice.

Appeals to authority may be worthwhile to those who refuse to think beyond them, but we are discussing philosophy, not law.

So how are they related?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

I tried to read it again it and just makes my brain go all mushy, thats an indictment on me not the OP

How can a word mean both discernment and acumen, but also racism and bigotry? It cannot and should not.

Yep still no idea,

My only point was to separate the intelligence from the stupidity, to show that racism and bigotry is not discrimination, but indiscrimination

I feel you have succeeded in your point and unfortunately I feel that I fit into the stupidity catergory LOL

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Names are moot, the condition they try to express however are not. The conversation or language I don't hear or understand at the table next to me in a restaurant, bares no comprehension, but the conditions of it are not missed, laughter is universal, and so are tears and tension. Empathetic comprehension is only lost on those that do not bare any.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Names are moot, the condition they try to express however are not. The conversation or language I don't hear or understand at the table next to me in a restaurant, bares no comprehension, but the conditions of it are not missed, laughter is universal, and so are tears and tension. Empathetic comprehension is only lost on those that do not bare any.

Names are not moot. Human language is one of the few faculties that distinguishes humanity from the other beings on earth, and has a palpable effect on behaviour, as such fields as marketing, psychology, law, religion, politics and propaganda show. It is why humans have come to dominate the planet. But indifference towards reality is only lost on those that do not bear any.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So when one of us monkeys are reaching for a banana and grunting, the emphasis or gusto we put on this grunt means something different to the monkey? Of course it does, but only to the monkey or those sympathetic or fearful of the monkeys hooting for the banana... however the expression itself simply desires the banana no matter the emotion augmenting the grunt or hooting does not change the need for the banana by the monkeys expressing of how bad it thinks it needs or wants it.

йачӀва, удзышва, askaskui, prãna, samék, misuqadi, уцышъо, groen, č̣aʔs, samékbau, жомолӀибе, okchakko, jeshile, chidĝaayux̂. That's just a sample of some words in many languages describing one concept:

Green


If one wishes to drift into word entropy over complicating everything, to make some concepts out of comprehensible grasp for others, I suppose that is their business. I'd much rather explain complex concepts with simplicity, rather than complex words to explain a simple concept.

We are typically not use to words such as Tathagata so to comprehend the text with more understanding, it's best to swap out it's equivalent to the concept you do grasp or comprehend on a more intimate level. If I wrote an art book on the color green for example and wrote it thus...

There is an effect of wave length or focal distance on the cone within an eye that separates light into a color spectrum. Misuqadi is one of these colors, if one were to add more intensity then the okchakko would be of a lighter hue, if one were to decrease intensity of the wave length then one would achieve a darker йачӀва. Remembering those words mean green when reading it weakens ones comprehension, it doesn't strengthen it.. yes it may expand multiculturalism and mental growth of an individual to concider something else... but adding to the reality of green itself? nothing. The same way as cover, blanket, spread, duvet, comforter, quilt... are all extraneous to the simple concept of a rectangular material one places on top of their body to retain body heat, it will preform this function as intended no matter what one splits hairs and calls it.

English is supposed to be the most difficult language to learn for this very reason... many languages to not discriminate by using excess vernacular describing the same thing. Nothing wrong with it, but it can create language barriers and misunderstanding even when speaking the same language. If language is meant to convey comprehension, the entropy of language spreading out relabeling the same concept something else only accomplishes a vagarity left to be comprehended by the listener. If you seek comprehension of what you are saying then simplicity is best, if you seek credibility among peers then specialized words of the field work, the concept behind the word and what it describes is the same no matter who it's spelled or geared towards.

You do not seem to like this though, and prefer all 360 degrees to the circle than just the whole circle itself. Nothing wrong with meticulous detail of slicing and dicing especially in the fields of medicine, but ultimately we are going to die anyway so why waste time over complicating simple concepts to grasp? Most of it is just rote learning when done in such a fashion only to be forgotten a few seconds later.

Where is the line between intelligence and bigotry?

If martians land on earth and 90 out of 100 martians steal, would you be concerned to see a martian looking at your wallet?

It's science to acknowledge that if 90% of martians steal, then the likelihood of your stuff being stolen is higher if a martian is in the room, right?

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: nwtrucker

Prejudice is a human failing.

I'm not so sure.
It may be a defense mechanism.

Reaction time is faster when the mind is already oriented toward the task.

Discernment is also faster for an alerted mind.

The meanings and usages of words will always drift by some expedient, until people recognize the point Socrates was trying to make, i.e. that thinking avoids a lot of work and trouble.

H. L. Menken predicted Man to be a genuinely reasonable creature after another 3000 years or so.