Racism in the media

Probably not, as the disproval of the Malthusian catastrophe showed; some new technology might be invented that will keep things running or else some horrible thing might happen (9-11 for instance awakened many people to the outside world) that will make us realize we have to put a new system in place.

But wouldn't it be nice, instead of waiting for the future, to actually prepare ahead of time instead of using the moment to bask in smugness and pride?

Nah, that wouldn't be American.

Curbing (my exact word was "help" and solutions are two different things. I am not a hippie.

I respectfully disagree. I think you are simply describing tribalism. If humans were simply able to look at other humans and say; "Wow, there is another human, maybe I should say 'hi', he or she looks like they could used some food or drink", etc, rather than thinking, or worse yet saying; "Wow. His or her skin is different than mine, and some people of his or her skin color have murdered other people, so I will assume he or she is also up to no good." That's not learning. That is a refusal to learn. That is stagnation.

I think you inadvertantly said more or less what I was saying with the comment about trees all beng lumped together as trees. They have their own individual names, yet we call them trees. On that same token, I wish humans could just call each other humans. It's when people start labeling people for negative reasons that I walk away. That, in my opinion doesn't make me egotistical. I think it means that I can see through the smokescreens that governments and religions have been putting up for ages untold. We, as a race, are doomed if we continue to hold onto this primitive type of behavior.

Hm. I'm just using "learning" in a different fashion than you. Assuming from your tone of the above post, your idea of learning applies only to positive results. But I don't think learning is a result, it is the process that leads to the result. The results themselves are called "knowledge." I was using "learning" referring to the process of association and judgment of data irrespective of negative or positive connotations (and even "knowledge" that is incorrect is still "knowledge".

Judgment and discernment has a very real-world use. For instance, imagine this scenario: You are a police officer patrolling a rich, predominantly white community that is bordered by a poor black ghetto. One day, during a national fuel crisis, you see a black man riding a bicycle through the middle of the rich, predominantly white community carrying a gasoline can and a siphon. Based on what you have learned as being common in the your environment, you make the assumption that that the cyclist is most likely a poor black man so you pull over to investigate what he is doing in the neighborhood with that equipment. Now, maybe it turns out he is really a young black lawyer who just moved to the rich neighborhood and his SUV ran out of gas a mile away and since the nearest gas station is 10 miles away, he decided to take his bicycle off his SUV and head one mile home to siphon a little gas off his mercedes. -But that's a more unlikely scenario given the environment and extreme price of gasoline at the time. If you were a cop that only exercised "positive" judgment and you gave him the benefit of the doubt, and he was really a poor thief, and it led to violence when someone discovered him stealing gasoline from them- you would be very irresponsible.

It's a process of association, and therefore a learning process. It might lead to incorrect results- mistakes are part of the learning process, after all. You might find it negative because it is racial profiling, but it is still useful (even if the police are wrong).

Stagnation wouldn't be making a wrong or right decision, it would be doing nothing. Keep in mind that I'm arguing my point from a primarily structuralist standpoint, not a moral one.

As for tribalism, I don't understand your use of the term. Webster:
Main Entry: trib·al·ism
Pronunciation: -b&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : tribal consciousness and loyalty; especially : exaltation of the tribe above other groups
2 : strong in-group loyalty

It seems to be about loyalty to a group that someone belongs to, but maybe you could explain what you mean so I could see it from your view.

Rethink that idea, because most of your previous and subsequent arguments are based on a similar assumption, and it ain't necessarily so.

The aim of language is to create or recreate reality, irrespective of what exists external to ourselves. Nothing more, nothing less. But the implications, omg, the implications....

Creating or recreating reality is analogous to grasping in the sense that I meant. Reality can never really be apprehended and language only really relates to itself so the reality we think we have is entirely a creation. Unless you can show me an example where our functional interaction with the world isn't governed by a semiotic system, I think my argument is sound (as sound as an argument can be using language which can never really prove anything with finality because the signifier is not the same as the signified). We consciously or unconsciously use our particular semiotic systems to try to grasp reality because they empirically work (mathematics, physics (even children and animals learn a sense of physics), chemistry, etc) in producing consistent responses from our interactions with our perceived environments.

The only exception I can think of to when it ain't necessarily so is when language refers specifically to other constructs of language that have no perceptual significant (such as an idea). For example, "God."

I think it's possible that you agree with me and are just getting hung up on "grasp," but if you don't, please elucidate further.

Chance, you may be missing the whole point of what I am saying.

It's this simple, I do not believe that if someone murders someone else that it's healthy or constructive to then turn a suspicious eye to others who may share that person's skin color, religion, or what have you. It's profiling, and it's dangerous business. If you believe in transferring guilt to others who share some of the same attributes as the perpetrator that's your business, but I will be damned if I accept your label of being egotistical just because I don't follow your logic, especially when that logic is based on age old mistakes that the human race keep making over and over and over.

Chill out, Nolan. I don't think I ever labeled you egotistical. But just to cover the bases, everyone is egotistical. Happy? When I was discussing the propensity of a person's ego to convince itself that it knows what reality is, I wasn't trying to imply an unnatural amount of conceit on your part in particular. I was just noting that all people, even (especially?) me, must cling to their outlook out of necessity but quite often that grip is a little too tight.

I don't think I missed what you were saying, which is why I noted that you stress the positive (as opposed to the fact that I am not so concerned about good and evil, thus my opinion is coming from an entirely different perspective), and also included the caveat "I'm arguing my point from a primarily structuralist standpoint, not a moral one." Judging by the fact that you bring up subjective terms like healthy (+), constructive (+), dangerous business (-), and a strong moral stance (again), I think I undertood where you were coming from originally. I'm not accusing you of being a bad guy, just that you might not be considering why it is that such things like labeling exist and that stopping labeling is probably not feasible considering that it is hard-wired... even in animals (which we are). Look up how dogs or horses learn for some concrete examples of associative learning- I think Torley posted something about the latter in the past.

EDIT* Addendum:

Also, you said "transferring guilt." I never once spoke of guilt. Guilty is a verdict rendered after a crime has been proved. I am just talking about erring on the side of caution. If you were boarding a plane in the month following 9-11, would you rather have the nation's security forces give the same amount of security check to a 90-year old Irish woman as to an Arabian man wearing a turban and speaking only Arabic, or would you feel better having them give him a little more thorough check just in case?

I think you need to pull the stick from your ass. Is this an example of your thoughtful, intelligent labeling?

Me chill out?

All that I said was, that in the case of murder, I don't feel its's responsible to start racially profiling other people that may share some background or physiological similarities.

I know it was not direct, but you implied that folks who think the way I do are egotistical, idiots, and predjudiced, and as you put it with a bit of a backpeddle, "we all are". Then why say it? I think we both know why. The largest ego I see in this thread is you telling most everyone else why they are wrong. I've stated what I believe, and won't wear the label you want to assign me. You can meander for pages in some non-speak, pseudo-psychological manner, I reject your rejection of my initial post, and that isn't going to change. Labels beget more labels and create divisions, divisions beget misunderstanding, xenophobia, murder, war, genocide, and the like. It saddens me that after 1000s of years of it, there are still people who would try to define differences and focus on infinitesimally minute genetic differences, rather than focusing how similar we all are.

You have guaranteed in your last post that you won't lure me to engage you any longer. The irrationality and irony of telling those who would like to do away with negative stereotyping, profiling, and flat out prejudicial labeling, that they are prejudging, is ludicrous. Ciao.

The other way around.



I may be a self-centered misanthrope, but I'm honestly not trying to get your goat. You're projecting all kinds of emotional tones onto what I'm saying. I just don't think things are as black and white as what you are saying and I'm trying to explain why. If you want to write me off as a bad guy, I suppose that's just the way it is. I have no problem with that label.

No, it's sarcasm. And it's stuck really deep in there.

Ok, hows about this:

How many minority female minors are abducted in the U.S.?
Do you EVER hear about them?

Now, if ever a little cute blonde girl gets nabbed again, notice how EVERY news source goes non-stop coverage?

Not that it's wrong to follow a minor's kidnapping story, but how about some parity in who gets the benefit of national exposure.

They get coverage here in LA. I remember when those two girls, one hispanic, one black, got nabbed by that parolee and raped and the cops caught up to the guy just minutes before he was going to murder them and they gave him a lead salad. Then there are all those amber alerts, usually for minority kids.

But I know what you're saying, why did J. Benet Ramsey get so much coverage? That seemed to be on every 15 minutes, and I'm sure there were many other important things that could be given coverage.

ok, Sorry Chance. I suspect the very academic discussion (learning, knowledge, perception) went a little over my head and I missed the finer points

Please carry on without concern for further hijacking on my part.

Champie