Labels

[abaris]

Lol, what the fuck, they were actually talking trash about jews in this day and age?

Does it really matter if they talked about jews or any other given group? The whole reason why I always stand up against this kind of talk, is because I have personal experience from demonizing a certain group of people. it's the reason I don't have any extended family. And I certainly don't sit still for a second helping, just because I'm not in the chosen demographic this time round.

Point is, people still target other people for what they are. Not because they personally give them reason to, but because they belong to a certain group, a certain people, a certain religion, whatever. The spirit is the same. And if we don't see the same effects as of yet, it's just because there isn't a government encouraging them to act on their instincts.

That's why I don't sit still while all of this happens. I can swallow a lot of things, but not targetting groups of people for being inherently evil. That would be like spitting on the graves of my murdered ancestors.

[Excited Penguin]

Lol, what the fuck, they were actually talking trash about jews in this day and age?

Does it really matter if they talked about jews or any other given group? The whole reason why I always stand up against this kind of talk, is because I have personal experience from demonizing a certain group of people. it's the reason I don't have any extended family. And I certainly don't sit still for a second helping, just because I'm not in the chosen demographic this time round.

Point is, people still target other people for what they are. Not because they personally give them reason to, but because they belong to a certain group, a certain people, a certain religion, whatever. The spirit is the same. And if we don't see the same effects as of yet, it's just because there isn't a government encouraging them to act on their instincts.

That's why I don't sit still while all of this happens. I can swallow a lot of things, but not targetting groups of people for being inherently evil. That would be like spitting on the graves of my murdered ancestors.

You said the conversation turned to jew bashing, so now you've got me confused, but ok, whatever. I sympathize and agree, I don't like these kinds of talks either, even if they're "mild", and always interject where possible.

[abaris]

You said the conversation turned to jew bashing, so now you've got me confused, but ok, whatever. I sympathize and agree, I don't like these kinds of talks either, even if they're "mild", and always interject where possible.

Yes, it was, that time round. But I'm invested whenever it turns to any kind of bashing of certain groups. I'm not more or less invested if it's about a group I'm actually belonging to or if it's another group. I know from personal experience where this can end. And as long as I can speak my mind, I won't stand for it.

[Excited Penguin]

You said the conversation turned to jew bashing, so now you've got me confused, but ok, whatever. I sympathize and agree, I don't like these kinds of talks either, even if they're "mild", and always interject where possible.

Yes, it was, that time round. But I'm invested whenever it turns to any kind of bashing of certain groups. I'm not more or less invested if it's about a group I'm actually belonging to or if it's another group. I know from personal experience where this can end. And as long as I can speak my mind, I won't stand for it.

Good for you.

[paulpablo]

For example, have you ever been ashamed about being an atheist and so modified your behaviour in a certain way just to avoid the subject?

No, I never did - if asked or if the conversation went a certain way. I'm me and if you can't deal with that, I'm probably better of without you (not you personally, of course, but in a general way).

Some 18 years ago, I had some conversation and it turned to jew bashing. I proudly mentioned my own jewish heritage, not because I'm actually proud of the coincidence of birth or both of my grandfathers having been jewish, but because to point out the bullshit argument this is. Blaming someone just for the coincidence of birth. It told me something about the people I was talking to, and that I didn't have that much in common with them as I thought.

There are matters I can't keep quiet about when they come up. I would hate myself if I idly sat by to watch hate- and fear mongering happen.

I can relate to this slightly.  I'm part Polish and there's sometimes some anti Polish sentiment, some people might call it racism, going around these days.

Sometimes it can be something that's not even conclusively against Polish people, just a feeling I get when people will say things like "It's all full of Poles down there." In a certain tone.  

It can go up a notch to talking about sending Poles back to where they came from and stop them taking our Jobs.  I agree with limiting immigration if you're going to have boarders, but it's hardly a nuanced and productive idea just to "send them back where they came from"

The worst or funniest experience I had relating to this was with a girl  I hadn't seen for years and decided to visit her again and she was talking about Polish people and how they shouldn't be allowed in the country, shouldn't be able to buy property or own businesses.

I could have told her that she'd done lots and lots of x rated acts with someone who is part Polish and from a very Polish heavy family but I just couldn't be bothered. In her case I just really felt sorry for her, she was jobless with two kids, quite heavily into drugs and anemic from an abortion she'd had and she's criticizing Polish business owners.

It's really weird to judge people on their nationality I personally think.  I think you could rationally criticize a specific culture if something within that culture resulted in more rape, child abuse, things like that.  I think there are differences in the races of people but not so that any individual from any race should be judged dependent on which race they generally belong to.  But when you criticize a nationality you really are against them because of the rock they were born on, not their behaviors or their genetics or what they believe.  Just simple because they popped out of a vagina in a specific location.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What's wrong with that argument, of course, is that it presupposes everyone is so retarded as to define people based on one little detail about them.

It presupposes nothing of the sort. But people prone to use labels as identification for other people do precisely that. When you say 'Boru the atheist' or 'Jimmy the farmer', you ARE defining them based on a particular detail.

But hey, ok. If you care that much about what someone who thinks so narrowly thinks about you then I can certainly understand you.

You miss my point - I manifestly do NOT 'care that much' about the people who use labels. I simply object to labeler's inclination to attempt to define a whole person by a single characteristic.

There's nothing you can do about emotions. Evie told me this just recently.

I think the world of Evie, but you're both wrong about this. You can do a lot about emotions, such as managing your reaction to them. By my attitude about people who label others isn't an emotion, it's a value judgement.

Sorry for the strong language, for some reason I feel like cursing right now. It's got nothing to do with what we're talking about or with you guys, I can assure you.

Nothing to be sorry for, EP.

Boru

[Excited Penguin]

What's wrong with that argument, of course, is that it presupposes everyone is so retarded as to define people based on one little detail about them.

It presupposes nothing of the sort.  But people prone to use labels as identification for other people do precisely that.  When you say 'Boru the atheist' or 'Jimmy the farmer', you ARE defining them based on a particular detail.

But hey, ok. If you care that much about what someone who thinks so narrowly thinks about you then I can certainly understand you.

You miss my point - I manifestly do NOT 'care that much' about the people who use labels.  I simply object to labeler's inclination to attempt to define a whole person by a single characteristic.

There's nothing you can do about emotions. Evie told me this just recently.

I think the world of Evie, but you're both wrong about this.  You can do a lot about emotions, such as managing your reaction to them.  By my attitude about people who label others isn't an emotion, it's a value judgement.

Sorry for the strong language, for some reason I feel like cursing right now. It's got nothing to do with what we're talking about or with you guys, I can assure you.

Nothing to be sorry for, EP.

Boru

I am simply talking about identifying as an atheist in the relevant circumstances, not all of the time and without any context - as well as being identified as such. Surely, that is not a bad thing? Yet, some people are strangely reluctant to do this, and this is what actually puzzles me. 

So, to recap, I am not talking about the practice of labeling someone with a certain term that you have preconceived notions about and then viewing that person through that lens alone.

[Edwardo Piet]

There's nothing you can do about emotions. Evie told me this just recently.

I think the world of Evie, but you're both wrong about this.  You can do a lot about emotions, such as managing your reaction to them.  By my attitude about people who label others isn't an emotion, it's a value judgement.

I just expressed myself badly. I think there is a lot of control we can have over our emotions and biases. I initially said that I think it's irrational to try to change what we cannot change. Surely that is reasonable. I then reiterated and oversimplified my own point and expressed it badly the second time.

My position on this matter is the one I get from Daniel Kahneman from his widely influencial book Thinking Fast and Slow. Here is Steven Pinker summarizing his posion I think quite well

I've called Daniel Kahneman the world's most influential living psychologist and I believe that is true. He pretty much created the field of behavioural economics and has revolutionised large parts of cognitive psychology and social psychology. His central message could not be more important, namely, that human reason left to its own devices is apt to engage in a number of fallacies and systematic errors, so if we want to make better decisions in our personal lives and as a society, we ought to be aware of these biases and seek workarounds. That's a powerful and important discovery.

Here's a short 6 minute interview with him Daniel Khaneman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4zSc2lYl60

We think, each of us, that we're much more rational than we are. And we think that we make our decisions because we have good reasons to make them. Even when it's the other way around. We believe in the reasons, because we've already made the decision.

Finally, and most importantly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

[abaris]

I just expressed myself badly. I think there is a lot of control we can have over our emotions and biases. I initially said that I think it's irrational to try to change what we cannot change. Surely that is reasonable. I then reiterated and oversimplified my own point and expressed it badly the second time.

You know, I didn't read your original statement. But what can't we change if we put our minds to it? Gravity, sure, time, also pretty sure. But if I am to convicen even one person to be less exclusive, I have changed something.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well we'll never be 100% unbiased or rational because biases are built into human psychology via heuristics and System 1:

In the book's first section, Kahneman describes two different ways the brain forms thoughts:

System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious
System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious

Kahneman covers a number of experiments which purport to highlight the differences between these two thought systems and how they arrive at different results even given the same inputs. Terms and concepts include coherence, attention, laziness, association, jumping to conclusions, and how one forms judgments. The System 1 vs. System 2 debate dives into the reasoning or lack thereof for human decision making, with big implications for market research.

The second section offers explanations for why humans struggle to think statistically. It begins by documenting a variety of situations in which we either arrive at binary decisions or fail to precisely associate reasonable probabilities with outcomes. Kahneman explains this phenomenon using the theory of heuristics. Kahneman and Tversky originally covered this topic in their landmark 1974 article titled Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

Kahneman uses heuristics to assert that System 1 thinking involves associating new information with existing patterns, or thoughts, rather than creating new patterns for each new experience. For example, a child who has only seen shapes with straight edges would experience an octagon rather than a triangle when first viewing a circle. In a legal metaphor, a judge limited to heuristic thinking would only be able to think of similar historical cases when presented with a new dispute, rather than seeing the unique aspects of that case. In addition to offering an explanation for the statistical problem, the theory also offers an explanation for human biases.

We can indeed change and manage our biases, but only with System 2... and System 1 is more powerful. We have to stop and think to avoid biases and irrationality and the cognitive strain involved for that and our reliance on our automatic habitual System 1 makes it impossible for us to do that all the time. We'd have to be superhuman to be rational all the time.

System 1 makes us blind to our own blindness. When it is engaged and we're being irrational, we're not able to stop to think to realize we are being irrational. When we're in habit-mode, we don't notice the mental shortcuts we are using to jump to conclusions and engage in things like confirmation bias and the halo effect.

Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.