Trident

TV’s Frink said:

Hmmm…you believe different than I do? Ok, you’re going to be tortured forever after you die.

Oh, and that other guy who led a terrible life, raped, robbed, murdered, kicked puppies and pushed down old ladies, but accepted Jesus as his savior right at the end? He’s a better person than you are.

Nah, doesn’t seem like a shitty belief system at all.

A guy who accepts getting saved at the end isn’t gonna fool God if he’s not sincere. And if he’s sincere? Why wouldn’t that matter?

I mean how would such a guy have heard of Jesus anyway if not for someone else taking time to point it out to him. Someone who noticed he was on a destructive path and took a lot of effort to help him onto a better one?

I don’t know why you’d be against the idea that even a horrible person could find a way to redeem themselves. I mean can criminals be rehabilitated or not? Should we lock people up forever on a 1st offense? Or should we give them other chances?

TV’s Frink said:

Trident said:

I think the problem sums up about like this.

If you’re a guy who really really believes that someone’s gonna go to hell because of a thing they’re doing there’s a pretty big problem about just keeping that religious view in your own pocket. I mean if you do that it means 1 of 2 things. Either you don’t actually believe it? Or you actually don’t care.

The other thing’s that a lot believe that God wants us to get in each other’s business. That God wants us to spread the message and save the sinners. So ignoring that job seems like a bad idea when God’s gonna look over your ledger after you die. So it kind of makes sense that a guy who really believes wouldn’t really just keep his religion to himself and look the other way.

I’m a guy who thinks it’s pretty shitty to think that someone is going to hell because they’re gay or because they don’t believe Jesus was resurrected, just to pick two.

Pretty much.

All I’m really saying tho is it’d be pretty shitty to actually believe that? And then go ahead and do nothing about it anyway.

I mean either you care? Or you don’t.

I am not.

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Not really. Racism, iirc, is defined as discrimination and/or antagonism against a race/races, so I don’t think demographic grouping counts.

Racism is defining something. Or assuming something. Or judging something. Based on race. It doesn’t even have to be a negative.

It’s just a way to categorize. If it’s done by race? It’s based on an assumption of that race.

You’re not even making sense. Usually surveys are self-identifying and you can choose not to disclose your race if you want.

Trident said:

DominicCobb said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Not really. Racism, iirc, is defined as discrimination and/or antagonism against a race/races, so I don’t think demographic grouping counts.

Exactly. If one were to survey approval ratings from those aged 18-24, that wouldn’t be ageist.

If the purpose of asking was in order to make up a way to rope that age group into some sort of “plan”? Then I’d say it probably would have a flavor of ageism going for it.

What are you talking about “some sort of plan”? What does that even mean? It’s a statistic. You can interpret however you want, but it’s actually a neutral thing.

Look. A guy calls up and wants to know what people “think”. Bases it on race. Bases it on age. Bases it on whatever category. That guy then runs with the stats and figures out sells them to whatever group wants them.

Groups buy stats in order to peddle influence. They figure out how to sway a group and then they do it.

I was pointing out if we do it on the regular? If we’re grouping people by type in order to do anything specific and point to them as a group? Well then that has a label. You want to call it statistics and paint it innocent. That’s fine.

I was giving a bit of a tongue in cheek pointer that it’s just as racist as claiming that group does anything else as a group. The fact that it’s true instead of exaggerated probably cools it a bit. But it’s still a thing we do.

No one’s saying “they” do something “as a group.” You seem to completely misunderstand the point of demographic grouping, statistics, and surveys in general.

Stats is a way of grouping. And the survey’s a way of dividing what people think along racial lines.

I mean without that survey? None of us would even know there was a “black” or “white” vote.

And what’s a guy supposed to do with that information exactly?

Except try to use it to some advantage maybe?

Jeebus said:

Trident said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Not really. Racism, iirc, is defined as discrimination and/or antagonism against a race/races, so I don’t think demographic grouping counts.

Racism is defining something. Or assuming something. Or judging something. Based on race. It doesn’t even have to be a negative.

So, to even acknowledge that someone is of another race is racist? I hate to be the guy that pulls out the dictionary, but that is not what racism is.

Yes. And more Wikipedia words:

“Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. Today, the use of the term “racism” does not easily fall under a single definition.”

But I was pointing out “WHY” we’re interested in finding out how 1 race is voting in one way instead of another. I was giving a soft nudge to the idea that the very fact we’re interested in “them” and “us” and “those other guys” is because there’s a basic categorizing going on. There’s a basic thing that is still at work in the background.

If there wasn’t any racism at all? We wouldn’t care less what one group of people was voting on based on the color of their skin. It just wouldn’t be relevant.

Not ever.

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Not really. Racism, iirc, is defined as discrimination and/or antagonism against a race/races, so I don’t think demographic grouping counts.

Racism is defining something. Or assuming something. Or judging something. Based on race. It doesn’t even have to be a negative.

It’s just a way to categorize. If it’s done by race? It’s based on an assumption of that race.

You’re not even making sense. Usually surveys are self-identifying and you can choose not to disclose your race if you want.

Trident said:

DominicCobb said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Not really. Racism, iirc, is defined as discrimination and/or antagonism against a race/races, so I don’t think demographic grouping counts.

Exactly. If one were to survey approval ratings from those aged 18-24, that wouldn’t be ageist.

If the purpose of asking was in order to make up a way to rope that age group into some sort of “plan”? Then I’d say it probably would have a flavor of ageism going for it.

What are you talking about “some sort of plan”? What does that even mean? It’s a statistic. You can interpret however you want, but it’s actually a neutral thing.

Look. A guy calls up and wants to know what people “think”. Bases it on race. Bases it on age. Bases it on whatever category. That guy then runs with the stats and figures out sells them to whatever group wants them.

Groups buy stats in order to peddle influence. They figure out how to sway a group and then they do it.

I was pointing out if we do it on the regular? If we’re grouping people by type in order to do anything specific and point to them as a group? Well then that has a label. You want to call it statistics and paint it innocent. That’s fine.

I was giving a bit of a tongue in cheek pointer that it’s just as racist as claiming that group does anything else as a group. The fact that it’s true instead of exaggerated probably cools it a bit. But it’s still a thing we do.

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

I’m just trying to imagine how this questioning goes. I mean do you ask the guy after the interview “Are you black? Oh, that’s interesting. I’ll check this box here then.” But then what is black exactly? I mean what % counts? 1/2? 1/4? 1/16?

And why does it matter?

It seems to me it only matters if someone’s trying to figure out what “they” think. Which obviously means that “they’re” a group. Which obviously means there’s a common thought being pulled from that group. Which obviously means someone somewhere will be tempted to say: “Black people think this way. Black people vote this way. Black people are this way.”

If that’s not grouping by race and labeling by race I’m not sure what is. I mean what’s the difference between being racist (judging based on race) and playing with racial statistics (predicting based on race)?

I think you need to do some research into why “color blindness” is considered problematic.

All I know is that I don’t spend any time wondering what guys of Irish decent like me think about something compared to guys of French decent. Seems like the reason we’re doing it with black people is because we can see the color of their skin.

I mean if we’re really interested in finding out how “they” think? We’d be scanning for what kind of tribe they came from originally. Instead of grouping them into a “group” that sort of looks the “same” to us.

I don’t know.

As long as systemic racism exists we can’t pretend that all the races are “equal” and therefore are treated exactly the same by everyone. What I mean is that, one’s situation is often very much influenced by their race, and we can’t ignore that. There are current and historic factors at play here and to neglect them out of a misguided (though well intentioned) yearning for “color blindness” is ignorant, at best.

Trust me when I say this topic has been well covered by many others (who are much smarter than me and have more relevant experience). Feel free to google.

I don’t really care if the topic’s been talked to death. I don’t really care what 50 big brains in a room think atm.

What you’re actually saying is that you don’t care what people with different perspectives (perhaps more relevant perspectives) think.

What I’m actually saying is what I actually said.

All I was pointing out was when something’s done up by race it’s racist. It doesn’t matter why. It doesn’t matter what the intentions are. It doesn’t matter if everyone nods and accepts that it’s ok.

You say it like this is an objective matter. And it is, you’re just wrong.

Pfft

And let’s be clear. I didn’t ever say it wasn’t ok. I was mostly pointing out it’s a thing we do.

I don’t even know what this means.

Obviously

DominicCobb said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Not really. Racism, iirc, is defined as discrimination and/or antagonism against a race/races, so I don’t think demographic grouping counts.

Exactly. If one were to survey approval ratings from those aged 18-24, that wouldn’t be ageist.

If the purpose of asking was in order to make up a way to rope that age group into some sort of “plan”? Then I’d say it probably would have a flavor of ageism going for it.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Not really. Racism, iirc, is defined as discrimination and/or antagonism against a race/races, so I don’t think demographic grouping counts.

Racism is defining something. Or assuming something. Or judging something. Based on race. It doesn’t even have to be a negative.

It’s just a way to categorize. If it’s done by race? It’s based on an assumption of that race.

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

I’m just trying to imagine how this questioning goes. I mean do you ask the guy after the interview “Are you black? Oh, that’s interesting. I’ll check this box here then.” But then what is black exactly? I mean what % counts? 1/2? 1/4? 1/16?

And why does it matter?

It seems to me it only matters if someone’s trying to figure out what “they” think. Which obviously means that “they’re” a group. Which obviously means there’s a common thought being pulled from that group. Which obviously means someone somewhere will be tempted to say: “Black people think this way. Black people vote this way. Black people are this way.”

If that’s not grouping by race and labeling by race I’m not sure what is. I mean what’s the difference between being racist (judging based on race) and playing with racial statistics (predicting based on race)?

I think you need to do some research into why “color blindness” is considered problematic.

All I know is that I don’t spend any time wondering what guys of Irish decent like me think about something compared to guys of French decent. Seems like the reason we’re doing it with black people is because we can see the color of their skin.

I mean if we’re really interested in finding out how “they” think? We’d be scanning for what kind of tribe they came from originally. Instead of grouping them into a “group” that sort of looks the “same” to us.

I don’t know.

As long as systemic racism exists we can’t pretend that all the races are “equal” and therefore are treated exactly the same by everyone. What I mean is that, one’s situation is often very much influenced by their race, and we can’t ignore that. There are current and historic factors at play here and to neglect them out of a misguided (though well intentioned) yearning for “color blindness” is ignorant, at best.

Trust me when I say this topic has been well covered by many others (who are much smarter than me and have more relevant experience). Feel free to google.

I don’t really care if the topic’s been talked to death. I don’t really care what 50 big brains in a room think atm.

All I was pointing out was when something’s done up by race it’s racist. It doesn’t matter why. It doesn’t matter what the intentions are. It doesn’t matter if everyone nods and accepts that it’s ok.

And let’s be clear. I didn’t ever say it wasn’t ok. I was mostly pointing out it’s a thing we do.

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Yeah, in theory it’s a nice idea to look beyond racial differences and just see one happy human race, but that undermines the struggles people of color have faced and still face because of their race.

…and will still face as long as we keep surveying them as “those kind of people think this”

It’s not about “those kinds of people” (although maybe the article was, who knows). You can easily find statistics about approval ratings from white people too. Demographics are important to take stock of.

I’m not arguing that isn’t the case. I’m pointing out it’s grouping by race. I’m pointing out grouping by race is racist. By definition.

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

I’m just trying to imagine how this questioning goes. I mean do you ask the guy after the interview “Are you black? Oh, that’s interesting. I’ll check this box here then.” But then what is black exactly? I mean what % counts? 1/2? 1/4? 1/16?

And why does it matter?

It seems to me it only matters if someone’s trying to figure out what “they” think. Which obviously means that “they’re” a group. Which obviously means there’s a common thought being pulled from that group. Which obviously means someone somewhere will be tempted to say: “Black people think this way. Black people vote this way. Black people are this way.”

If that’s not grouping by race and labeling by race I’m not sure what is. I mean what’s the difference between being racist (judging based on race) and playing with racial statistics (predicting based on race)?

I think you need to do some research into why “color blindness” is considered problematic.

All I know is that I don’t spend any time wondering what guys of Irish decent like me think about something compared to guys of French decent. Seems like the reason we’re doing it with black people is because we can see the color of their skin.

I mean if we’re really interested in finding out how “they” think? We’d be scanning for what kind of tribe they came from originally. Instead of grouping them into a “group” that sort of looks the “same” to us.

I don’t know.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Yeah, in theory it’s a nice idea to look beyond racial differences and just see one happy human race, but that undermines the struggles people of color have faced and still face because of their race.

…and will still face as long as we keep surveying them as “those kind of people think this”

I’m just trying to imagine how this questioning goes. I mean do you ask the guy after the interview “Are you black? Oh, that’s interesting. I’ll check this box here then.” But then what is black exactly? I mean what % counts? 1/2? 1/4? 1/16?

And why does it matter?

It seems to me it only matters if someone’s trying to figure out what “they” think. Which obviously means that “they’re” a group. Which obviously means there’s a common thought being pulled from that group. Which obviously means someone somewhere will be tempted to say: “Black people think this way. Black people vote this way. Black people are this way.”

If that’s not grouping by race and labeling by race I’m not sure what is. I mean what’s the difference between being racist (judging based on race) and playing with racial statistics (predicting based on race)?

So are we all if we’re measuring approval ratings by skin color

Probably it’s just that most people have to go back to Reagan before they remember a president in the near of now they actually either respect? Or think led us in a good and solid way.

Handman said:

I am super depressed.

Hope you’re ok buddy. I wish there was a way we could get together and play cards or something.

I think the problem sums up about like this.

If you’re a guy who really really believes that someone’s gonna go to hell because of a thing they’re doing there’s a pretty big problem about just keeping that religious view in your own pocket. I mean if you do that it means 1 of 2 things. Either you don’t actually believe it? Or you actually don’t care.

The other thing’s that a lot believe that God wants us to get in each other’s business. That God wants us to spread the message and save the sinners. So ignoring that job seems like a bad idea when God’s gonna look over your ledger after you die. So it kind of makes sense that a guy who really believes wouldn’t really just keep his religion to himself and look the other way.

Here’s the thing about evidence. It’s a tricky set up once we get the debate swung only that way.

Because for believers? We have a sort of evidence that doesn’t really make an unbeliever jump over our fence most of the time.

The evidence is something real enough to us? But sort of aimed in a way that it doesn’t give us a universal solve to the whole problem. I mean it sort of fits in well with the idea that God doesn’t want a clear path to his door. He sort of gives out clues instead of roadmaps so that those who want to find him do? And those who don’t simply don’t end up blocking the path.

For example my evidence is really a tight package in with what helped me get past my addictions. But it isn’t likely to change anyone else’s mind. And that’s ok though. I mean I don’t need people to believe in God just because I had a personal vision right at the time when I expected it the least. Right at a time when I deserved it the least.

So I don’t really know what to tell you about subjective evidence.

I guess it’s sort of like willful bias. If a guy looks for proof of God he’ll find it. But honestly if he looks for proof that God doesn’t exist he’ll find that too. It’s the only way God can stay a chosen option instead of a forced one.

Or something

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Stop making me defend Religion. I don’t like doing it, but you’re making a very silly comparison.

It isn’t that silly. Some people take their love of the Star Wars prequels very seriously and treat it almost like a religion. I find religion to often be extremely offensive, but I’m expected to treat it with kid gloves.

I think it’s because religion’s usually the main thing that motivates a person to get through life at the angle they’re going.

And more than that? It’s a relationship that gets built based on trust and hope and reasonable understanding of what seems to be and what seems to makes sense.

So cutting it up fine in front of a believer is sort of like walking in and telling them they sure picked a lousy spouse. I mean it’s a personal relationship that’s very meaningful. It’s basically the answer that seems most strong after a lifetime of getting to that point. So going in and treating it like nonsense without a care is really sort of raw rub.

Possessed said:

Fine. I “respectfully hold the opinion” that presenting your beliefs and opinions as absolute truth and fact is problematic. Feel better?

Do you hold this opinion absolutely?

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

To some degree, I can not answer some of those follow-up questions in a meaningful way, because
(…)
2) certain answers that readily come to me assume certain truths that people call into question. And I can not convince people of those truths.
(…)

True. Though, some people do present themselves as though their opinion is the correct one.
…and that probably also includes me.

When you use words like “truths” to describe your beliefs, is it difficult not to think that you present your opinion as the correct one.

It’d be a pretty odd belief if that wasn’t the case tho. I mean believing things are true is sort of why we believe in them 😉

Yeah. I know how it is. I haven’t seen a girl I was in a pair with for over a year. Haven’t talked to her in over 8 months. We were close for a long time.

Today I happened to log in to a game we used to play a lot together. Haven’t played it in ages. Neither has she. After a couple rounds and just as I was ready to sign off she logged in.

Man.

It was tough keeping off the temptation to talk. But a promise is a promise.

So I logged off wordless.

And spent the rest of the day wishing I hadn’t.

You need to stop thinking so much and just be.

The thing you need to remember is she likes you for you. Stop trying to complicate the simple by over-guessing. Just relax into who you are and shrug off the rest.

Easy advice to give.

Hard advice to live.

But you need to try. Over-thinking things is poison

I know what you’re up against buddy. I mean I’m just a few years older than you and really going nowhere fast. The only differences is I sort of lucked out with some better jobs I sort of fell into. But none of it has anything to do with what I want. And what do I want? No fucking clue.

But as far as your skill in cooking goes? Why not look around to see who needs a chef? I mean that must be a job that needs doing around your town now and then?

Anyway. Really good to reconnect man. It’s been a long spin out of this site for me too. Nice to be back home