Discrimination is supposed to be the ur-sin, right?
How do you tell if the diversity differs if you can't discriminate between this on the one hand and that on the other hand?
Diversity is strictly identical to discrimination. Without discrimination you can't tell the difference; there is no diversity. Everything looks the same. The more discriminating you are, the more diversity you see. God can't even see the similarity between different molecules of water - you can tell, because he doesn't confuse one for another and get them mixed up. They stay where they are. Discriminationliness is next to godliness.
I suppose this is another instance of the form, "Democracy is good, politics is bad." You get this shit when you go all kto kogo and have no principles other than a narrow-scope pragmatic [I get mine]. Apples are fruit when you want an apple and they're treacherous poison temptations when you've had too many apples. Right? Right.
Hey look it's narcissism again. Things defined by what the human thinks about them, rather than being defined by their own existence. Literally unable to conceive of anything outside their own perception.
P.S. Something something American anti-intellectualism. The fact it's mind-bogglingly stupid is one of the biggest selling points, as far as Americoids are concerned. They will only be happier if you somehow made it even more flagrantly idiotic.
5 comments:
>Diversity is strictly identical to discrimination. Without discrimination you can't tell the difference; there is no diversity.
Oh man. I love this and I am stealing it.
The ur-sin is as follows :
If someone wants to play your game, they're competent at the rules and clearly wanting to follow them and you notice they're playing another game that doesn't compete with yours, but that you just don't like, you should not bar them from the game.
Example : Your neighbours kid goes to Harvard with your kid and comes to your barbecues, but you won't give him a job because his skin colour is different to yours.
But as always, humans bastardise language, mostly because they can and its fun and profitable.
The ur-sin is "x discrimination", with "x" being an immutable property of a person which makes no difference to their ability to play your game. "Racial", being the primary archetype of discrimination that's sinful. It's even more complicated than that, because its really "inappropriate racial discrimination" that's the problem. For example, considered perfectly reasonable even today for Chinese restaurants to want to hire Chinese wait staff.
But people are lazy and then the term "inappropriate racial discrimination" gets shortened to "discrimination". And so what happens is, the term "Discrimination" always implies the ur-sin. And if you want to apply perfectly reasonable discrimination, say, you don't want to give credit to people who already have credit defaults, you say yeah, we're discriminating.
And then you think, oh fuck, we're *discriminating*.
And then that piece of magic allows for an inversion of the rules of the original sin. So, finally, the inversion of the original sin completely negates the point of the original sin being a sin in the first place.
And the inversion ends up :
"If someone wants to play your game and you don't want them to play it must be because you have detected they are playing a game that you incorrectly perceiving as incompatible with your game"
Detecting that they are incompetent? MUST be inappropriate racial discrimination!
It's such a clever inversion of the logic and most people can't detect it.
((competent + different race) + deny) = inappropriate racial discrimination
Therefore
((deny + different race) + competent) = inappropriate racial discrimination
It's clever because a persons race and their competence are unrelated, so you can switch them around and no one notices that you've made crazy implications. The maths adds up if you think about it in terms of algebra, because no one really gets that the original sin is actually
if ((competent && different race) && deny)
then (inappropriate racial discrimination)
People are naturally able to calculate probabilities and reason, but when you start to mess with cause and effect it is very hard for them to tell that this has actually happened. (if you're interested in this I have some good personal knowledge, just didn't want to make the post too long.)
So.. yeah. It helps to feed narcissism, since it lets the incompetent, and the lazy, and the dunning-kruger award recipients believe that it's the *other persons fault* that they don't get to play the game.
I shit all over the monopoly board and ate half the pieces, and now you don't want to play? It's because I'm a woman, isn't it!!!!
Quibble: skin colour and competence are only unrelated under very strict and unrealistic conditions. Sure it would be nice if they were, but humanism is false.
For starters, someone with a different colour almost certainly has a different culture. Interfacing across cultures is rewarding for the cosmopolitan, but expensive for most people. Even if they're completely qualified, it's qualified vs. qualified + extra expense.
As a somewhat corrupt example, Euros can be trusted in business contracts more often than not. If you order 50 tons of steel they'll deliver 50 tons of steel, because they implicitly understand that repeat business is better and they'll only get that if you're satisfied.
In China the rules are different. You have to be on watch for fraud, and if you get got, it's considered your own negligence, not the fault of the defector. When an Anglo company deals with China, they have to explicitly remember to add in these non-customary layers. Normally they don't remember, and get got. Whoops. Chinese steel may be cheap, but the cost of avoiding getting instead 50 tons of "steel" swamps the savings. They're only competitive because factories lead to non-left voters, so...
Presumably there's a similar difficulty with Chinamen ordering steel from across the pacific, that I would naturally be less familiar with. Maybe Euros demand a bunch of weird religious rituals and if you forget one they make it more trouble than its worth? They "forget" to complete the order if you say something racist? Sure you can successfully sue them for a refund, unlike the Chinaman, but who wants the hassle?
>Quibble: skin colour and competence are only unrelated under very strict and unrealistic conditions
Hate to echo dumb talking points but correlation isn't causation. Obviously I know the truth, but the skin colour is not the cause of the lower competence. The point stands that the ur-sin is not an entirely unreasonable proposition. You can replace "different race" with literally anything else, "Supports different football team".
>Trading with the Chinese example
I heard someone talk about this before and I cannot for the life of me remember where. Something something theres no quality or volume control and if you complain they shut the factory, government will not help you, cheaper to buy steel from the US in the long run. Interestingly the entire Chinese state apparatus seems to be designed to defect as much as possible on every other country while pretending to cooperate. Smart tactic, they know Westerners are afraid of "discriminating".
>Presumably there's a similar difficulty with Chinamen ordering steel from across the pacific,
I doubt it, because Euros don't discriminate, remember? The Chinese well know this and take full advantage of it. I would bet dollars to donuts that they get better deals if they feel the consultant they were dealing with was "culturally insensitive" :D
The Chinese are fully colonising Africa right now and its totally coincidental that some of the farmers murdered in Sth Africa live on already known mineral deposits. But of course, you can't notice this because then you're quote racist unquote.
Chinamen defect on each other too. Getting an apartment that is what it says it is can be a huge pain in the neck.
The account I read had the landlord using one of the rooms as a spare attic/garage. "Oh yeah this is from the prevoius tenant, it will be gone by the time you move in." Haha, nope. And of course if the tenant threw out the stuff without asking the landlord would have raised a huge stink, trying to play a round of Chicken.
That said I rather suspect the quality-control horror stories you hear about all the time are horror stories precisely because they're rare and in general the fraud-control is already in place. Same way that in low-crime non-slums you see murder in the papers all the time, whereas in high-crime slums murder isn't news.
>the landlord would have raised a huge stink, trying to play a round of Chicken.
That's a power game. You let your tenant know whos the boss- that if they do not cooperate, your first order of business is defection.
Because you're letting the tenant occupy something of yours that is of great value, you have to impress upon them that you will not tolerate bad behaviour. "Can I borrow your car?" "If you scratch it I will break your legs".
>That said I rather suspect the quality-control horror stories you hear about all the time are horror stories precisely because they're rare and in general the fraud-control is already in place.
Yeah, constantly defecting is no way to run a business continually.
Post a Comment