On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 2:52 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/6/2014 4:34 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 7 August 2014 08:56, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> I refuse to play this game where you get to knock down such >> generalization with partial edited posts, pretending they are held by >> anybody here in these strong forms, >> > > PGC posted, "Assume some emergence phenomenon and you risk reductionism at > fundamental problem of identity, and the usual fascisms of discrimination > can follow. Assume some universal person and you aren't a step further > dealing with problems of evil and difference." > > I thought saying that "the usual fascisms of discrimination can follow" > was blaming reductionism as a component of racial discrimination...which > seemed like a stretch. > Liz feels similar it would seem; but assuming we or I got it wrong, with a nod to the author of the body language post I can't recall (Kim, I think...too lazy to search) concerning posts/communication problems on the net via text in general: No, I don't blame our tendency towards reductionism across the board: just the idiotic usual suspects. Obvious, but if I have to: It's scientifically, creatively, theologically useful when appropriate. By contrast, reductionism to range of features worked into politics/law that pragmatically/conveniently confuses possible with necessary dangers appears to multiply idiotic assignments. It's more a stretch to assume "they (unwarranted discrimination acts/violence)" don't follow ill-defined threat theologies of fuzzy secular or materialist orientation because not only "can" they follow, they appear to do so: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/08/05/watch-commander/ Like some major religions, the secular or materialist position does not provide protection from idiotic persecution/politics. Especially given our thirst for large data, even assuming factual inaccuracy, hyperbole, exaggeration of the link; it's naive to think this kind of phenomenon isn't ballooning size, scope, and cost of similar needlessly discriminatory acts (profiling leading to targeted advertising; Google snooping everybody's mail for law enforcement increasingly etc) + institutions and industries they spawn. And yes, holistic postures can also be abused for propaganda. What makes one stance inherently stranger than another, when majorities are fuzzy and mute on such question? Negation space bunny teapotism? Majorities, secular, religious, nationalist etc. have also been known for this stupidity from time to time. Additionally, somebody sporting the banner of some interest/country doesn't always mean they buy the banner (hesitant soldier examples, whistleblowers etc.) which weakens my original post's positions quite considerably. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
