Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shinotsa]

But salad wilts rather quickly, whereas an alloy stays together until melted down again. Also I can see a great deal of salad tossing jokes coming from that metaphor.

[Truean]

But salad wilts rather quickly, whereas an alloy stays together until melted down again. Also I can see a great deal of salad tossing jokes coming from that metaphor.

Me too. I didn't make it up though.

[Leafsnail]

So I kindof get what you mean now Truean, and all I can say is why do you regard granting legal equality as mutually exclusive with promoting racial tolerence?  Yes, stuff like Brown v Board was good for promoting equality of rights, but it's a total non-sequiter to say that means colourblindness is the only way we can approach racism as a problem.

I see legal sanctions against racists as part of the solution.  The other part is to help show the racists that they are wrong.  I disagree with your contention that people are too stupid to understand the very simple idea that "other cultures are not inherently bad".  The thing is, legal sanctions will never completely eliminate problems for any racial minority.  Sure, they'll help in blatant cases like, say, being barred from attending a school or a cafe, but they can never help against more insidious kinds of racism.  Like, say, rating white applicants for a job as better than black applicants.  Or a reluctance to vote for people from racial minorities.  Or creating de facto segregation by refusing to interact with those of other races due to preconceived notions about them.  It's gonna be extremely difficult to impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that discrimination exists in any of those cases, and yet this racism can cause the marginalisation of racial groups.

For cases like those, you need to address the root cause - that racism exists.  I think that multiculturalism offers a way of addressing this (teaching people about other cultures and why they should be respected/ getting people to meet those who they are discriminating against) in a way that suing only the most blatant and obvious racists does not.  Because I don't think colourblindness has a more effective method of addressing racism itself than saying "hey, don't be racist" (which I think if anything depends more on an assumption that people are decent).

I guess I should to finish off state that I don't mean to belittle the legal victories won by Civil Rights campaigners - they were crucial to combatting some of the worse forms of racism, and indeed to further multiculturalism by allowing black people to mix more with white people in desegregated facilities.  That doesn't mean that colourblind laws are the whole solution, though.

[scriver]

Possible Solution 2 (not "the best" or even "good" just logically an option)
Colorblindness. There's one rule, a fair standard and everyone complies. They're treated the same and no one is looked down upon based upon any differing characteristics. There are no "lesser people" there no conquered people and there are no masters. It's one law for everyone. The individual differences aren't forced to meet the mainstream, they are ignored entirely. This is the main difference between assimilation and colorblindness, which for some reason you've confused it with. You don't force someone else to be the same as you. You don't give a flying shit. As long as they do the bare minimum to meet the basic little rules required to make society run smoothly it doesn't matter. Moreover, they have equal access to society because they can't be denied things like a job or a place to live or services because they are different.

Possible Solution 3 (not "the best" or even "good" just logically an option)
Multiculturalism. Teach everyone to play nice while knowing and respecting other people's differences rather than fighting about them. People are largely incapable of this. They will make fun of each other over tons of stuff that doesn't matter, I've shown before how they will literally trample each other to death to get a better deal at a store. If they can't understand stuff like "don't fucking kill each other to save $20 on some product you want" then how do you expect them to learn this? They don't have the mental capacity, literally. "People are smart enough to handle it?" No. No they're not. Again, a person [singular] can be smart, people [pural] are dumb dangerous panicky animals and you know it if you're honest with yourself.

So to review, because people don't get the difference between these three possible solutions:
A.) Assimilation: Destroy all differences and force people to be one thing.
B.) Colorblindness: Ignore all differences. People cannot be excluded from society. Same rules to operate under.
C.) Multiculturalism: Embrace all differences.

No. This is not right. Multiculturalism does not mean "embracing all differences". It does not mean accepting female genital mutilation, halal/kosher slaughter, pre-18 marriages, honour crimes, institutionalized homophobia, or anything else than is provably wrong just because it comes from another "culture". It means accepting and respecting that your neighbour does not celebrate Christmas, or doesn't celebrate it the way you do. And if you find some custom bad or immoral, you're going to have to bring up real reasons and proof for why it is wrong, not just go "it's Hindu, all Hindu are demon worshipping dicks and therefore it is evil". You are thinking of multiculturalism as the arbitrarily amoral relativist philosphy caricature extremist rightists paint it as.

Colorblindness, on the other hand, can work with the worst of humanity. A judge isn't going to shout at the criminal the various lovely nuances of different cultures and how they're all special and respectable and whatever. You know what a judge can shout at a criminal, "Mr. [Name]! I KNOW I'm not going to see you in my courtroom for beating somebody up again just cause they're darker skinned. I'm right aren't I? AREN'T I?" <----This might actually stand a chance of working.

Also this is just ridiculous. There is no reason one couldn't just change that quote to " Mr. [Name]! I KNOW I'm not going to see you in my courtroom for beating somebody up again just cause they're of a different culture. I'm right aren't I? AREN'T I?" You seem to be under some strange belief that multiculturalism means you can't sue or prosecute someone for unequal actions. This is not true.

[Shinotsa]

...or anything else than is provably wrong...

How do you prove something is good or evil, right or wrong? I understand not accepting anything that makes you uncomfortable, but it's dangerous to apply an assumption of proof to a subjective term.

Anyhow, as I understand it the basic difference here is that multiculturalism has a component of understanding, where as colorblindness does not. Culture and race is not what is being discussed here. If a man were sued by discrimination based on culture he might stop discriminating openly, but he would certainly not adopt multicultural values. He'd simply stop discriminating publicly  and hate without outwardly showing it. I'm sure Truean is going to lay everything out far better and in many more words in just a little bit, so feel free to ignore me and wait for a well written argument with sources and whatnot.

Edit: +1 to Glyph below me

[GlyphGryph]

Multiculturalism is about understanding that being different, having different beliefs and knowledge, is not bad, in and of itself, and that we can still work together, towards happiness, despite those differences (and often more easily because of them).

I think the salad bowl analogy is a terrible one - multiculturalism is not lumping people together while letting them remain isolate. Instead of a salad, if you don't want a melting pot, imagine a quilt - pieces, all very different, but tied together.

It also means allowing and even encouraging the rise and spread of subcultures and alternative cultures because different modes of thought have things of value they can contribute. It means that people can participate in the main culture or cultures without being afraid that their own culture will be subsumed by it.

Thats my opinion, anyways.

[Truean]

...or anything else than is provably wrong...

How do you prove something is good or evil, right or wrong? I understand not accepting anything that makes you uncomfortable, but it's dangerous to apply an assumption of proof to a subjective term.

Anyhow, as I understand it the basic difference here is that multiculturalism has a component of understanding, where as colorblindness does not. Culture and race is not what is being discussed here. If a man were sued by discrimination based on culture he might stop discriminating openly, but he would certainly not adopt multicultural values. He'd simply stop discriminating publicly  and hate without outwardly showing it. I'm sure Truean is going to lay everything out far better and in many more words in just a little bit, so feel free to ignore me and wait for a well written argument with sources and whatnot.

Edit: +1 to Glyph below me

^^^
Yes

So I kindof get what you mean now Truean, and all I can say is why do you regard granting legal equality as mutually exclusive with promoting racial tolerence?  Yes, stuff like Brown v Board was good for promoting equality of rights, but it's a total non-sequiter to say that means colourblindness is the only way we can approach racism as a problem.

I see legal sanctions against racists as part of the solution.  The other part is to help show the racists that they are wrong.  I disagree with your contention that people are too stupid to understand the very simple idea that "other cultures are not inherently bad".  The thing is, legal sanctions will never completely eliminate problems for any racial minority.  Sure, they'll help in blatant cases like, say, being barred from attending a school or a cafe, but they can never help against more insidious kinds of racism.  Like, say, rating white applicants for a job as better than black applicants.  Or a reluctance to vote for people from racial minorities.  Or creating de facto segregation by refusing to interact with those of other races due to preconceived notions about them.  It's gonna be extremely difficult to impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that discrimination exists in any of those cases, and yet this racism can cause the marginalisation of racial groups.

For cases like those, you need to address the root cause - that racism exists.  I think that multiculturalism offers a way of addressing this (teaching people about other cultures and why they should be respected/ getting people to meet those who they are discriminating against) in a way that suing only the most blatant and obvious racists does not.  Because I don't think colourblindness has a more effective method of addressing racism itself than saying "hey, don't be racist" (which I think if anything depends more on an assumption that people are decent).

I guess I should to finish off state that I don't mean to belittle the legal victories won by Civil Rights campaigners - they were crucial to combatting some of the worse forms of racism, and indeed to further multiculturalism by allowing black people to mix more with white people in desegregated facilities.  That doesn't mean that colourblind laws are the whole solution, though.

The real crux of it between you and I as I see it:
Ideally, you could do that. You could explain to people, exactly as you detail.... I don't think they'll listen, not really. You do.

You see legal sanctions as part of the solution alongside reasoning.
I see legal sanctions as the only thing that'll work because people aren't reasonable.

Possible Solution 2 (not "the best" or even "good" just logically an option)
Colorblindness. There's one rule, a fair standard and everyone complies. They're treated the same and no one is looked down upon based upon any differing characteristics. There are no "lesser people" there no conquered people and there are no masters. It's one law for everyone. The individual differences aren't forced to meet the mainstream, they are ignored entirely. This is the main difference between assimilation and colorblindness, which for some reason you've confused it with. You don't force someone else to be the same as you. You don't give a flying shit. As long as they do the bare minimum to meet the basic little rules required to make society run smoothly it doesn't matter. Moreover, they have equal access to society because they can't be denied things like a job or a place to live or services because they are different.

Possible Solution 3 (not "the best" or even "good" just logically an option)
Multiculturalism. Teach everyone to play nice while knowing and respecting other people's differences rather than fighting about them. People are largely incapable of this. They will make fun of each other over tons of stuff that doesn't matter, I've shown before how they will literally trample each other to death to get a better deal at a store. If they can't understand stuff like "don't fucking kill each other to save $20 on some product you want" then how do you expect them to learn this? They don't have the mental capacity, literally. "People are smart enough to handle it?" No. No they're not. Again, a person [singular] can be smart, people [pural] are dumb dangerous panicky animals and you know it if you're honest with yourself.

So to review, because people don't get the difference between these three possible solutions:
A.) Assimilation: Destroy all differences and force people to be one thing.
B.) Colorblindness: Ignore all differences. People cannot be excluded from society. Same rules to operate under.
C.) Multiculturalism: Embrace all differences.

No. This is not right. Multiculturalism does not mean "embracing all differences". It does not mean accepting female genital mutilation, halal/kosher slaughter, pre-18 marriages, honour crimes, institutionalized homophobia, or anything else than is provably wrong just because it comes from another "culture". It means accepting and respecting that your neighbour does not celebrate Christmas, or doesn't celebrate it the way you do. And if you find some custom bad or immoral, you're going to have to bring up real reasons and proof for why it is wrong, not just go "it's Hindu, all Hindu are demon worshipping dicks and therefore it is evil". You are thinking of multiculturalism as the arbitrarily amoral relativist philosphy caricature extremist rightists paint it as.

Colorblindness, on the other hand, can work with the worst of humanity. A judge isn't going to shout at the criminal the various lovely nuances of different cultures and how they're all special and respectable and whatever. You know what a judge can shout at a criminal, "Mr. [Name]! I KNOW I'm not going to see you in my courtroom for beating somebody up again just cause they're darker skinned. I'm right aren't I? AREN'T I?" <----This might actually stand a chance of working.

Also this is just ridiculous. There is no reason one couldn't just change that quote to " Mr. [Name]! I KNOW I'm not going to see you in my courtroom for beating somebody up again just cause they're of a different culture. I'm right aren't I? AREN'T I?" You seem to be under some strange belief that multiculturalism means you can't sue or prosecute someone for unequal actions. This is not true.

We seem to have lost something in translation somewhere. I'm rather far from right wing. I don't think of it that way. It appears I shouldn't have said "all." There are a slew of things multiculturalism doesn't accept, but a.) where do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable? b.) what's accepted depends who you hear it from, my professors literally tried to say tolerate cannibalism as a cultural practice others didn't, c.) colorblindness is easier for stupid people to understand than "culture."

Moreover, no, the judge's example can't be changed from "darker skin" to "culture," and if you don't get that then you soon should. The criminal motivated by race doesn't know what culture is. He does know what darker skin is. He doesn't think of it in terms of "culture" here. He beat the guy up because he was black and the KKK member lit the cross on fire on his lawn because he was black. Culture never entered into the criminal's mind and if you say that, then he doesn't know what you mean. You can't just swap out a word like that because in this instance it has real meaning and it isn't interchangeable. You start talking about, "You beat him up because of his culture," around the jail and the response you'll get is "you mean cause he was black? (or more likely a derogatory term for black)" Simply the criminal isn't choosing based upon "culture;" he can't see that. He's choosing off skin color, which he can see. I honestly don't know what to say to you if that doesn't make sense, but it's totally true and I've seen it, repeatedly. Next month, I'll probably see it again.

You're dealing with this esoteric invisible concept called "culture." He's a guy who beats the crap out of people he doesn't like, all of whom happen to be black, and takes their money or shoes. Not the same. Explain to him, a man who beats the crap out of people and gets arrested for it, about culture.... Go ahead, try. He doesn't get it. He doesn't wanna get it. Go ahead, as the judge, threaten him with something he doesn't understand. Or, you can just say quit targeting the black people; he'll understand that. See that lack of understanding, thing coming in again?

Did I mention that as the judge you have a dozen more cases to deal with and you're hungry cause you've been sitting there for hours and there are other people waiting for their complex cases so you can't afford to spend time educating or failing to educate this guy?

[Twi]

(12 new replies have been posted!)
:c

In other news.
First post in this topic, and general opinion on 'colorblindness' (make people ignore differences) versus 'multiculturalism' (make people respect differences).
My answer: They're not mutually exclusive in any way. But colorblindness is something you can enforce by law. Multiculturalism seems to be an attitude, more or less, and pretty hard to enforce.. Hell, to some degree, multiculturalism could be defined as 'don't hate the people who aren't like you', which is really applicable to more than just culture. That said, it's entirely possible that people are going to start getting used to things being odd or unknown. It may take a loooong time, but if you put two groups that hate each other together and keep them from doing bad things to each other, I'd wager that they'd drift in the general direction of friendlyness, particularly if you provide some nudges along the way (with education and the like).

Replace two groups with humanity in general, and you see what I'm thinking.

Of course, if I'm wrong, then... D:

[Leafsnail]

The real crux of it between you and I as I see it:
Ideally, you could do that. You could explain to people, exactly as you detail.... I don't think they'll listen, not really. You do.

You see legal sanctions as part of the solution alongside reasoning.
I see legal sanctions as the only thing that'll work because people aren't reasonable.

I've pointed out serious problems that legal sanctions can never do nothing to help.  So either you are being completely defeatist on those issues (something you denied earlier) or you don't think they are problems.

I don't get why you assume people can't respond to a multicultural message.  I mean, the racist BNP was almost completely wiped out in our last election in part due to multicultural initiatives in the towns where they previously had support (turns out a lot of their support came from the disaffected who wanted to find something to blame their situations on, and actually these people weren't too stupid or evil to be educated out of it).

Did I mention that as the judge you have a dozen more cases to deal with and you're hungry cause you've been sitting there for hours and there are other people waiting for their complex cases so you can't afford to spend time educating or failing to educate this guy?

Who the heck said that multicultural messages should be delivered entirely by judges?  This is a really weird strawman.

[lorb]

IANAL but Grutter v. Bollinger seems multicultural to me. And very recent too, it being from 2003.

Depends on how you look at it doesn't it? Lawyers and judges are (in theory) supposed to look at precedent, what came before sets up a standard to be applied and create consistent results.

Your contention is a reasonable one, that this result comes from a multicultural point of view. I disagree entirely and look to history. [...]

If i look to history i see that Grutter v. Bollinger overturned Hopwood v. Texas To me this looks like a decision to step a little back from total colorblindness and allow for a little multiculturalism. At least it states that "student body diversity" is something that should be promoted.

Correct me if i am wrong but to me it looks like those laws are in direct violation of your short quote about cultures and group. So do you think they should be abolished? What happens to a citizen who does not speak the language of the national majority? Is he excluded from participation in national affairs? (elections?) That's not just "encouraging to slowly learn a common language", imho.

Well look at that, "victims" and people "left out." Who said anything about leaving people out exactly? You teach that person the national language, but by no means do you rob them of their own and yes this would necessitate printing things off in their native tongue (or else how would they ever learn off something in a language they couldn't read?). You impart skills; you don't take away speech. If they can't learn, then accommodate them as an individual. It may take generations but slowly people would learn the national language. In no way, shape, and/or form would this mean they had to stop speaking their own language. Hell they should be allowed to have their little festivals and whatever and talk in it, or just whatever. Don't care. I ignore that stuff. Do whatever.[...]

So you force them to learn the language of the majority? (i'm especially looking at the part i highlighted) I agree very much that it's more practical to have a single language but it's not what reality is like. (Take a look at the EU for example. All the treaties and whatnot have to be translated into a lot of different languages.) If it takes generations to learn the national language, how will the needs of those generations that have not fully learned the majority language be dealt with?

[Truean]

IANAL but Grutter v. Bollinger seems multicultural to me. And very recent too, it being from 2003.

Depends on how you look at it doesn't it? Lawyers and judges are (in theory) supposed to look at precedent, what came before sets up a standard to be applied and create consistent results.

Your contention is a reasonable one, that this result comes from a multicultural point of view. I disagree entirely and look to history. [...]

If i look to history i see that Grutter v. Bollinger overturned Hopwood v. Texas To me this looks like a decision to step a little back from total colorblindness and allow for a little multiculturalism. At least it states that "student body diversity" is something that should be promoted.

Correct me if i am wrong but to me it looks like those laws are in direct violation of your short quote about cultures and group. So do you think they should be abolished? What happens to a citizen who does not speak the language of the national majority? Is he excluded from participation in national affairs? (elections?) That's not just "encouraging to slowly learn a common language", imho.

Well look at that, "victims" and people "left out." Who said anything about leaving people out exactly? You teach that person the national language, but by no means do you rob them of their own and yes this would necessitate printing things off in their native tongue (or else how would they ever learn off something in a language they couldn't read?). You impart skills; you don't take away speech. If they can't learn, then accommodate them as an individual. It may take generations but slowly people would learn the national language. In no way, shape, and/or form would this mean they had to stop speaking their own language. Hell they should be allowed to have their little festivals and whatever and talk in it, or just whatever. Don't care. I ignore that stuff. Do whatever.[...]

So you force them to learn the language of the majority? (i'm especially looking at the part i highlighted) I agree very much that it's more practical to have a single language but it's not what reality is like. (Take a look at the EU for example. All the treaties and whatnot have to be translated into a lot of different languages.) If it takes generations to learn the national language, how will the needs of those generations that have not fully learned the majority language be dealt with?

If i look to history i see that Grutter v. Bollinger overturned Hopwood v. Texas To me this looks like a decision to step a little back from total colorblindness and allow for a little multiculturalism. At least it states that "student body diversity" is something that should be promoted.

Not multiculturalism; enforcement of colorblindness. "Student body diversity," magic words for, we shouldn't allow people to discriminate and keep diverse people out of schools. Re-characterize it a hundred times. Same thing. You're looking at it like the definitions and common usage of the words mean anything at all.

Suspend your disbelief, the words mean nothing you think they mean. Absolutely nothing you reasonably think they mean.

What is a "compelling" state interest? Does that mean the state is "compelled" to do shit about it? no. Can the state chose to do nothing about it? Yes. So where's the compulsion? Where is something that must be done? It's no where. A "compelling state interest" under the rational basis test means whatever the flying crap the US Supreme Court says it means and nothing else at all. It allegedly means more than a "important state interest," from the next test down from "strict scrutiny,"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny which is intermediate scrutiny but what the hell does that mean?
And it's certainly more than a "legitimate state interest" which is used for rational basis, but what the hell does that mean?

What the hell is the difference between "legitimate," and "important" in that context? Answer: whatever the flying shit the SCOTUS says it is.

You're trying to interpret words as you understand them. This means positively nothing at all. "Student body diversity," does not relate to "multiculturalism" because diversity is whatever to that. In the court's mind, it means you put diverse people in the school to guard against discrimination colorblindness forbids.

Doesn't matter if people don't like it or agree with it. SCOTUS says X is only an "important" government interest and not a "compelling" one. what's the difference? Some Supreme Court Justices thought so. They can explain it kinda but it doesn't add up and you can argue about it forever.

Seriously, this is one of the major ways laypeople screw up horrendously without a lawyer when they represent themselves. "Well your honor doesn't this mean [thing a reasonable layperson would think it means]." No, there's a "legal definition," as it applies in the case at bar. Moreover it means different things in different contexts. "Notice" has more meanings than I can count depending upon exactly what specific situation you're talking about.

No, it didn't take a step back from anything in the slightest damn smidgen, because a certain word was used: "diversity." Unless of course you wanna say Brown v. Board itself was about "multiculturalism," because it made the student body by definition more "diverse" because after that, the school finally had to accept some black people.

Reinforced colorblindness theory of legal action to prevent discrimination under old theories.

If you're doing this for some stupid professor, then put down whatever that moron says, because they grade your paper, but they're wrong. Ignore me for the grade, cause that's what matters in that case if it applies.

So you force them to learn the language of the majority? (i'm especially looking at the part i highlighted) I agree very much that it's more practical to have a single language but it's not what reality is like. (Take a look at the EU for example. All the treaties and whatnot have to be translated into a lot of different languages.) If it takes generations to learn the national language, how will the needs of those generations that have not fully learned the majority language be dealt with?

I expressly said and you quoted me saying, "It may take generations but slowly people would learn the national language. In no way, shape, and/or form would this mean they had to stop speaking their own language. "

Imparting a skill to them is not force.

I also said and you quoted me saying, "yes this would necessitate printing things off in their native tongue,"

What more do you want?

The real crux of it between you and I as I see it:
Ideally, you could do that. You could explain to people, exactly as you detail.... I don't think they'll listen, not really. You do.

You see legal sanctions as part of the solution alongside reasoning.
I see legal sanctions as the only thing that'll work because people aren't reasonable.

I've pointed out serious problems that legal sanctions can never do nothing to help.  So either you are being completely defeatist on those issues (something you denied earlier) or you don't think they are problems.

I don't get why you assume people can't respond to a multicultural message.  I mean, the racist BNP was almost completely wiped out in our last election in part due to multicultural initiatives in the towns where they previously had support (turns out a lot of their support came from the disaffected who wanted to find something to blame their situations on, and actually these people weren't too stupid or evil to be educated out of it).

Did I mention that as the judge you have a dozen more cases to deal with and you're hungry cause you've been sitting there for hours and there are other people waiting for their complex cases so you can't afford to spend time educating or failing to educate this guy?

Who the heck said that multicultural messages should be delivered entirely by judges?  This is a really weird strawman.

Who the heck said that multicultural messages should be delivered entirely by judges?  This is a really weird strawman.

Not a strawman it's a direct response entirely on point to: Also this is just ridiculous. There is no reason one couldn't just change that quote to " Mr. [Name]! I KNOW I'm not going to see you in my courtroom for beating somebody up again just cause they're of a different culture. I'm right aren't I? AREN'T I?" You seem to be under some strange belief that multiculturalism means you can't sue or prosecute someone for unequal actions. This is not true.

Sciver was asking why he couldn't just have the judge yell at the criminal and replace my having him scold the criminal for beating up "different cultures" rather than "darker skin." The explanation is the criminal doesn't know what the hell you mean.

I've pointed out serious problems that legal sanctions can never do nothing to help.  So either you are being completely defeatist on those issues (something you denied earlier) or you don't think they are problems.

I've repeatedly said I don't think you can really change people's minds. You want to call that defeatist, fine. I say it isn't defeatism if it's true that the thing can't be done. It's not possible. Let me tell you about impossible:

Alchemy? Lead into gold? That's nothing. Changing the human heart into anything but stone? That's impossible.

It's not defeatist if victory is impossible. Legal sanctions; not perfect but effective in their way. Teaching people to care... Good luck.

[Leafsnail]

Woah, a quote in italics?  Now I'm convinced.

I know you hate people, but I don't get why you keep asserting that it's impossible to ever change people's minds.  We used to think slavery was completely morally (as well as legally) acceptable, and that attitude has changed.  That didn't happen just because the government decided to change the law one day - it was in part due to a massive campaign by abolitionists to conclusively show that slavery is a moral evil.  That won over enough support to get slavery banned in Britain and the British Empire.  Try telling me that isn't "Changing the human heart into anything but stone".  Can you really so no progress in human attitudes?  If you can, why do you think that we've reached a point where we can never generate any more?

[Truean]

Woah, a quote in italics?  Now I'm convinced.

I know you hate people, but I don't get why you keep asserting that it's impossible to ever change people's minds.  We used to think slavery was completely morally (as well as legally) acceptable, and that attitude has changed.  That didn't happen just because the government decided to change the law one day - it was in part due to a massive campaign by abolitionists to conclusively show that slavery is a moral evil.  That won over enough support to get slavery banned in Britain and the British Empire.  Try telling me that isn't "Changing the human heart into anything but stone".  Can you really so no progress in human attitudes?  If you can, why do you think that we've reached a point where we can never generate any more?

You've no idea just how much I hate humanity, all of it....

I know you hate people, but I don't get why you keep asserting that it's impossible to ever change people's minds.

I hate them because their minds are impossible to change. Personal experience. Their minds; if they told me they changed them; then odds are they didn't. I could say all the right things at exactly the right times, in all the right ways, to all the right people, for all the right results and reasons, and they don't care.

Try telling me that isn't "Changing the human heart into anything but stone".

OK

Slavery? That's the example? Slavery which took a war to end here and many people still deny that war was about slavery while saying it was about "State's Rights" (to... chose whether or not to have... slavery...). All that stuff you said, abolitionists, etc, they couldn't convince enough of the country to take legal action to abolish slavery without a bloody war and the dissolution of the country that only ended with forcible military reintegration. Even after that segregation and discrimination continued for decades thereafter even with Plessy v. Ferguson, which stood as the law of the land until Brown v. Board.

What part of that sounds voluntary and reasonable in changing people's minds. They seemed perfectly willing to kill one another over what they thought, and not to change what they thought. Even after being forced to change by military conflict, discrimination and segregation still prevailed for how many decades? And even then some people still needed the real threat of military force to make them accept things a tad.... Even today it's still not completely 100%....

No no. Most people's minds don't change. They form an idea and then that's set in cement. The next generation might FORM different ideas from their parents. 1st generation thought slavery was great. 2nd did too. 3rd lost the war. 4th reluctantly gave up slavery but thought segregation was great... etc.... etc....

These aren't people changing their minds. This is new generations coming to different conclusions to begin with. Then the old generation dies off. In the US. today, there will be old people who completely and absolutely hate gays and they will NEVER accept them. Things will change a bit when they die and thus can no longer vote.

Any progress we've made was from the old generation dying off and the new generation not following them.

[Leafsnail]

Slavery? That's the example? Slavery which took a war to end here and many people still deny that war was about slavery while saying it was about "State's Rights" (to... chose whether or not to have... slavery...). All that stuff you said, abolitionists, etc, they couldn't convince enough of the country to take legal action to abolish slavery without a bloody war and the dissolution of the country that only ended with forcible military reintegration. Even after that segregation and discrimination continued for decades thereafter even with Plessy v. Ferguson, which stood as the law of the land until Brown v. Board.

The US isn't the only country in the world.  It did not take a war to stop slavery in Britain or the British Empire as I clearly stated.  There was an anti-slavery movement that gradually built momentum until it was so popular that slavery as an institution could not survive.  I'd like you to provide an explanation for how something like that could happen without people changing their minds.

I'd say similarly in the US attitudes changed a lot during the Civil Rights era.  Not all the way, but enough that Civil Rights Acts could be passed and the like.  I don't think generational shift is enough to explain that.

Any progress we've made was from the old generation dying off and the new generation not following them.

Firstly, I feel like some changes have been too quick for this to be true.  Secondly, let's say you're right and it's the new generation who decide change.  Are they just gonna randomly come to a conclusion which cannot be affected in any way, or should we do our darndest to make sure they know about how bad racism is through ideas such as multiculturalism?  If we don't spread that word then the new generation won't be any better than the old one, will it?

[kaijyuu]

I hate them because their minds are impossible to change. Personal experience.

You the same person you were 10 years ago?
Is everyone you know the same person they were 10 years ago?



10 years ago, I was a racist homophobic who though sex was evil. What changed me into the exact opposite? Personal experience.