Comment on Blocked instances question
mwguy@infosec.pub 1 year agoMeriam-Webster - bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I think that’s the issue. 100 years ago, this would have described people fighting against racism, segregation and what we would describe today as bigotry in most of the Western world. You forget that the science and academia of the era backed racism. You would be the obstinate one fighting what today we’d call bigotry.
Saying black people deserve to be eslaved and murdered was bigoted 200 years ago, is bigoted now and will be bigoted in 200 years.
You wouldn’t have said this had you grown up 200 years ago.
Black people certainly didn’t think it was okay.
That is unfortunately a niave and disappointing assumption. Look up “Blue Vein” clubs from approximately 1920 or so.
Also, just go back a couple hundred years more and suddenly even people considered “learned” would say the earth is flat. …
In your mind, what is something that is subjective vs. objective?
fr0g@infosec.pub 1 year ago
That makes zero sense. Were the people fighting against slavery also trying to enslave the people arguing for it and deny their status as free people?
Only one of these groups was championing and enacting deeds of maximum intolerance and harm for another racial group. So the very best argument you could make here is that maybe the anti-racism people were also sometimes bigoted, depending on how they went about it. But there’s definitely zero point to be made that the racists were not bigoted.
The rest I’m not going to go into. I’ve made the point several times that what people, scientists, me might have though during any time period has absolutely zero bearing on whether something is objectively the case or not. So I’m genuinely lost in regards to what point you’re trying to make here.
And if you want a definition for objectivity just check wiki: Something is objective if it can be confirmed independent of a mind (its biases, perception, emotions, opinions, or imagination). If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true
mwguy@infosec.pub 1 year ago
100 years ago social sciences supported segregation as a matter of science. So support for integration was a position of obstination. It would be anti-science.
“Your honor I’m not going to address it because it’s devastating to my case.” 😆
Bigotry cannot be confirmed absent of a mind.
fr0g@infosec.pub 1 year ago
You’re a fucking child. I’ve made my point why your positions do nothing to assess any potential objectivity seveal times, you completely refuse to even go into that point.or acknowledge it in any way and when I say I’m not gonna engage with that any more because you don’t muster any kind of response you proceed to wear that as a badge of honor. There’s no point in arguing with people like you.
fr0g@infosec.pub 1 year ago
Like, I don’t even understand what point you think you are making in the first part. A position being endorsed by Academia at the time, or people saying they are using science as a reason, doesn’t suddenly make discriminatory or hateful behaviour not that. (Especially when we are talking about social sciences where both the basis for it at that time was shoddy as fuck and where the goals you want to implent with that knowledge obviously are highly subjective).