641 karma · joined March 23, 2023
And you’ve internatilized an American racism that’s not so shocking to see, unfortunately.
Less than a day later, and you’re back at it. Not even a DEI specific post, but the racism still seeps out.
If it’s due to a lack of clarity, I’ll gladly elucidate here. (I can’t directly edit the comment at this point)
Edit: Haha thanks for the extra downvotes HN. So predictable.
> So you make assumptions about peoples' "culture" and "life experiences" based on their ethnicity?
When dealing with people, to understand the meaning behind their actions and words, one needs to have some understanding of their perspective (including their intent). Their perspective is informed by their culture and life experience, amongst other things (but life experience is broad, so mentioning anything else is just redundant). Life experience is informed by their ethnicity and the environment in which they exhibit that ethnicity. I don't say "hey this guy looks to be [...], therefore he definitely is/experienced [...]", but if they are clearly not of the ethnic majority, then I know they have experienced things that the ethnic majority has generally not experienced. That's a helpful start to understanding their perspective and relating to them. I also can ask questions to understand them better, and express insight or interest in them if my "guess" is right and if I have some background knowledge (of history/culture) to avoid misteps, at which point they are nearly always much more receptive and expressive, seeing that I am curious and open rather than uncurious and closed.
If one could somehow be "blind" to ethnicity, then it would only be a disadvantage to effective communication and relations, for both sides. (As evidence, one need only observe the general state of discourse online.) No one is that blind though, at least subconsciously.
> The differences that you posit exist--are these differences necessarily "advantageous" or can the differences be disadvantageous as well?
I'm a little uncertain as to what you mean here. Advantageous to the population or to the individual?
In either case, both exist, depending on the goals.
Individual advantages and disadvantages are probably obvious, especially the disadvantages given the amount of discussion they receive and the human propensity to identify personal threats rather than potential gains.
For populations on the otherhand, for basic long-term survival in a competitive landscape, diversity is an unequivocal advantage.
But, populations may have particular goals rather than pure real survival. For instance, they may prioritize maintaining their particular culture or ethos, beliefs and perspectives, and as such they view diversity as a threat because beliefs/perspectives are too easily transformed by the introduction of new beliefs/perspectives. Or simply because they are false goals, hiding the real goal of maintenance of power or maintenance of a subpopulation (usually a power-holding subpopulation experiencing decline). We are now experiencing the effects of that goal, as have many other cultures in the past. Always to ill-effect for the population as a whole in the long-run. And especially detrimental to individuals who are not part of the favored subpopulation.
> Bangladesh. My uncle fought a war to gain independence from Pakistan and establish a homeland for our ethnic group.
I appreciate that, as a family history you carry. I'm curious, how do you feel about it in the context of your arguments made here? Do you think ethnic groups should fight for survival and a safe harbor (homeland)? (Rereading your prior answer, it sounds like a definitive "no")
Do you think there is value in maintaining a living culture outside of the homeland?
Do you recognize any potential loss to individuals when their family's culture or ethnicity is erased?
>> How does ethnic identity threaten a mixed person?
> Because ethnic identity is maladaptive in individualist American society.
How so? Would you consider all group identities maladaptive?
How does ethnic identity threaten a mixed person?
Being mixed myself, I'd love to know why you think ethnic identity is a threat to me and others like me.
In my experience, it has been a tremendous advantage, despite the fact that I have lost friends and opportunities simply because I am not "white enough". And that isn't a guess or misread, I've been told that explicitly. It hurts, especially as a child, but knowing this happens allows me to understand the importance of exposing everyone to as much diversity as possible. Why? Because each and every time someone has mistreated me or judged me negatively based on ethnicity, it was quite apparent that they have lived a very cloistered life and oftentimes carry some sort of grudge or sense of victimhood despite their advantages. And they quite often look up to someone (e.g. their father or other adult role model) who exhibit the exact same prejudices, insecurities and victimhood.
I've also been threatened and harassed by the out-group because they thought I was of the in-group. Not a fun experience in the least. But again, it became quite clear why they behaved that way: a lack of diverse real-world experience (particularly a lack of positive experiences) combined with misguided lessons from equally misguided role-models.
Anything affecting appearance can shape one’s life experience drastically as others respond to you based upon their perceptions. And ethnicity affects appearance. As does culture and class.
If this is hard to believe, it wouldn’t be hard to play with one’s appearance (or even one’s speech/behavior) to gather an understanding of how it might shapes one’s life.
As it stands, your statement boils down to “DEI is not diverse enough.”
If one also accepts gp’s point, then it seems DEI should continue, but be applied more carefully and thoughtfully. This would likely mean an increase in resources dedicated to DEI.
I agree and would welcome this (without requiring it legally). But I doubt most others would agree.
But again...they are free to make public statements denouncing what is happening without having to interfere in the moderation. Yet they have not done so. Why not?
Instead, what do they ask for?...For people to "make good new things".
But sometimes, obstruction or even destruction is just as "good". One doesn't watch a cancer grow and say "hmmm....what good thing can i create in response?" No. You fucking destroy the cancer.
They don't want that though. "Good new things" are profitable. Destruction isn't. (Unless it's the destruction of moral constraints.)
And worse yet, destruction will inevitably result in the downfall of some of their very close friends and acquaintances. It's no surprise they aren't saying anything.
(I realize your response is neutral, or I at least read it as such, so please don't take my comment as an attack on you.)
This community is becoming a moral embarrassment and nearly not worth participating in any longer.
Like most minds, the HN hive mind prefers to deny and suppress in response to various forms of cognitive dissonance, such as that which arises when one’s actions (or inaction) contradict one’s stated beliefs or morals.
HN also isn’t one for conscious introspection (ie meta commentary). Your comment and my response are generally no-nos.
I feel like this sort of comment (from someone with 14k+ “karma” points) is a kind of DoS attack on their self-perceived opponents.
But nonetheless, here’s three benefits for all, regardless of usage:
- reduction in healthcare costs, both physical and mental
- increased tourism
- increased appreciation for environment which in turn loops back into this list from the top
Just focusing on health alone has wide ranging benefits. And if all you care about are tax revenues and GDP, a healthy, happy workforce goes quite a way to improving both.
I’m not going to list anymore because I got other things to do and think about. And this isn’t going to change your mind anyways.
Or if the necessary capital is out of reach for margin trades or options (for his friends it isn't), buy long 3x inverse ETFs as much as you can risk.
If you expect him to play yo-yo some more, rinse and repeat buying either regular or inverse 3x ETFs as needed.
Is this happening at some scale? Surely. Is it the main purpose? Probably not. I'd expect there are easier ways for corrupt politicians and their cronies to profit.
That said, I am sorry you've been burdened to the point of depression and personal struggles. It can be a natural outcome of difficult realizations and guilt, but I don't wish it upon someone for longer than necessary to make positive changes in their life (which you seem to have achieved, given your openness).
Or simply for the most minimal of external rewards: recognition and respect.
Or for the purest: seeing others live longer and happier as a result.
I agree.
But this must include the dissolution of patents. Otherwise corporations and the owners of the infrastructure will simply control everything, including the easily replicable works of individuals.
They are generally not opposed to personal property, especially if the property is actively used.
Extreme libertarians, “anarcho-capitalists”, do not distinguish between productive and nonproductive property. And so they ignore the end result of private ownership and accumulation of the means of production: new rulers in some form.
Opinions on money and currency vary.
Similarly, opinions on wage labor vary, but generally they expect a laborer to receive their full worth, ie wage labor would not see profit extracted from it.
This isn’t generally true. The copyright holder need only claim that the value of their copyrighted work or the profits received by its distribution has been reduced or lost. I’m not sure they even need to make such a claim, as courts have already determined that commerciality isn’t a requirement for infringement. It’s a matter of unauthorized use, distribution or reproduction, not trade.
They of course will likely never know and might not bother to litigate given the private and uncommercial nature, but they still have the right to do so.
They would weigh the financial and reputational cost of litigating against children sharing images and decide not to. Of course if one had 10000 friends and provided this service to them in a visible manner, then they’d probably come knocking.
Private copying and transference, even once for a friend, is copyright infringement.
I don’t necessarily agree with this, but it is true nonetheless.
It isn’t an independent human. It is a service paid for by customers. The moment it provides the image to a paying user, the image has thus been used commercially.
In fact, the user may not even necessarily have to be paying in order to infringe copyright.
And besides, even amateur artists are ashamed to produce copies unless they are demonstrating mastery of technique or expressing adoration. And if it happens spontaneously, they are then frustrated and try to defend themselves by claiming to never have even experienced the original material. (As happens with simplistic, but popular musical riffs.) But AI explicitly is trained on every material it can get its hands on and so cannot make such a defense.
Leftist anarchists are acutely aware that power and capital accumulation go hand-in-hand.
Extreme libertarians are perfectly fine with the unfettered accumulation of capital and seemingly ignore that that results in unchecked power. Or they have faith that a “truly” free economy would somehow check itself before becoming effectively neo-feudalistic or dictatorial. As if the lion would fear the zebra.
Leftist-anarchists want to keep power to an absolute minimum. Usually relying on a combination of culture and group action to wield just enough power to prevent the growth of unchecked power in the hands of a few.
In my mind, culture is the key element. The capital-worshipping, me-versus-all culture we live in would fit quite well into extreme-libertarianism and then it would devolve into defacto rule by a few. (As seems to be happening anyways. Because, again, capital accumulates, protects itself and takes power where it can when no one is willing to or allowed to work together to stop it.)
Leftist-anarchism requires a more mature, selfless, introspective, cooperative culture. Anathema to the “United” States of America.
But until you can present at least one such example scenario, no individual would be willing to take such a risk when their own life is at stake. Real combatants might value the motivating threat of being overwhelmed, but do not actually wish to be overwhelmed (i.e. have their OODA loop compromised).
In deadly combat, no one is looking to theorize. No one quibbles about their inability to prove the negative. They just want to live to see the next day.
You of course don't want to become comfortable and complacent, risking losing focus, but there must be better ways of avoiding that other than being occasionally overwhelmed.
And the excellent scene that follows (after the train stops without any passengers departing, or so the gang thinks):
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ideal
(We’re allowed to imagine the impossible.)