Fwd: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[justin walters]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Mike Reveile 
wrote:

> I can measure a Pineapple... by weight, volume, color, taste, smell,
> ripeness... but none of these numbers are the pineapple. They only help me
> relate to the pineapple. In this way Math itself (and the entire realm of
> computer science) is unreal.



I've always felt that math is simply another language like English or
Spanish. Language is an abstraction
that humans use to convey meaning to other humans. We agreed on common
labels and sounds
to represent things, actions, and ideas. Math is the same. The laws of
physics obviously exist in some sense
because we can observe their effects. We represent these effects with
numbers and symbols. The number 1
could just as well be the number gobbledeegorp. It doesn't matter. The
number one simply represents a single entity
of anything at all. Of course this is all from the narrow field of human
perception. What humans perceive
to be real could, in all possibility, be completely made up in our own
minds. I don't want to get to far into
the "perception is reality" side of things although.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Mike Reveile]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:36:26 PM UTC-7, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 9:36:02 AM UTC+5:30, Mike Reveile wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 9:44:15 AM UTC-7, Rurpy wrote:
> > > On 04/18/2017 04:34 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > >> Chris Angelico writes:
> > > >>
> > <>
> > 
> > Interesting thread... but volatile.
> > I find imaginary numbers to be quite useful for understanding real 
> > problems... but I do not try to make them real. They are simply useful ways 
> > of looking at the real world.
> > I do the same thing when I think of gods and monsters... useful, but not 
> > real.
> 
> 
> Lets call real in the math sense realₘ — ie real-number, imaginary-umber etc
> Lets call real in the ordinary sense realₒ —ie having existence
> 
> History suggests that realₘ was a defiant attempt by mathematicians
> to cock a snook at other mathematicians who contended that the set ℝ was 
> un-realₒ
> 
> Interestingly these arguments led to the establishment of the field of 
> computer
> science: http://blog.languager.org/2015/03/cs-history-0.html
> 
> Personal Note: As a 11-year old reading George Gamov 1-2-3-∞, I had a great
> deal of trouble understanding imaginary numbers.
> Later when studying it in math-class I managed to get along with them by
> playing by the symbol-manipulation rules
> Much later I understood why I did not understand: The word 'imaginary' was 
> cueing
> me — subconsciously of course — 
> This is not real...
> This is not true...
> This is not...
> What the &*^%#% is this??
> 
> And still later... learnt from Dijkstra the term 'lousy-language' and its 
> consequences

I can measure a Pineapple... by weight, volume, color, taste, smell, 
ripeness... but none of these numbers are the pineapple. They only help me 
relate to the pineapple. In this way Math itself (and the entire realm of 
computer science) is unreal.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Mike Reveile]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 9:19:43 PM UTC-7, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 9:36:02 AM UTC+5:30, Mike Reveile wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 9:44:15 AM UTC-7, Rurpy wrote:
> > > On 04/18/2017 04:34 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Ben Finney  wrote:
> > > >> Chris Angelico writes:
> > > >>
> > <>
> > 
> > Interesting thread... but volatile.
> > I find imaginary numbers to be quite useful for understanding real 
> > problems... but I do not try to make them real. They are simply useful ways 
> > of looking at the real world.
> > I do the same thing when I think of gods and monsters... useful, but not 
> > real.
> > 
> > Therefore, I have no problems with any religions or beliefs or unqualified 
> > theories that serve to help one deal with real world issues... until the 
> > believer or adherent becomes an instigator of issues and accuser of errors.
> 
> Thanks for that
> 
> I find this 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154620461548763=a.51095183762.64373.542743762
> funny (and somewhat insightful)
> 
> Some will find it racist, 'religionist'(?) I guess?

That is funny :)
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Rustom Mody]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 9:36:02 AM UTC+5:30, Mike Reveile wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 9:44:15 AM UTC-7, Rurpy wrote:
> > On 04/18/2017 04:34 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > >> Chris Angelico writes:
> > >>
> <>
> 
> Interesting thread... but volatile.
> I find imaginary numbers to be quite useful for understanding real 
> problems... but I do not try to make them real. They are simply useful ways 
> of looking at the real world.
> I do the same thing when I think of gods and monsters... useful, but not real.


Lets call real in the math sense realₘ — ie real-number, imaginary-umber etc
Lets call real in the ordinary sense realₒ —ie having existence

History suggests that realₘ was a defiant attempt by mathematicians
to cock a snook at other mathematicians who contended that the set ℝ was 
un-realₒ

Interestingly these arguments led to the establishment of the field of computer
science: http://blog.languager.org/2015/03/cs-history-0.html

Personal Note: As a 11-year old reading George Gamov 1-2-3-∞, I had a great
deal of trouble understanding imaginary numbers.
Later when studying it in math-class I managed to get along with them by
playing by the symbol-manipulation rules
Much later I understood why I did not understand: The word 'imaginary' was 
cueing
me — subconsciously of course — 
This is not real...
This is not true...
This is not...
What the &*^%#% is this??

And still later... learnt from Dijkstra the term 'lousy-language' and its 
consequences
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Rustom Mody]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 9:36:02 AM UTC+5:30, Mike Reveile wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 9:44:15 AM UTC-7, Rurpy wrote:
> > On 04/18/2017 04:34 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Ben Finney  wrote:
> > >> Chris Angelico writes:
> > >>
> <>
> 
> Interesting thread... but volatile.
> I find imaginary numbers to be quite useful for understanding real 
> problems... but I do not try to make them real. They are simply useful ways 
> of looking at the real world.
> I do the same thing when I think of gods and monsters... useful, but not real.
> 
> Therefore, I have no problems with any religions or beliefs or unqualified 
> theories that serve to help one deal with real world issues... until the 
> believer or adherent becomes an instigator of issues and accuser of errors.

Thanks for that

I find this 
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154620461548763=a.51095183762.64373.542743762
funny (and somewhat insightful)

Some will find it racist, 'religionist'(?) I guess?
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Mike Reveile]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 9:44:15 AM UTC-7, Rurpy wrote:
> On 04/18/2017 04:34 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Ben Finney  
> > wrote:
> >> Chris Angelico  writes:
> >>
<>

Interesting thread... but volatile.
I find imaginary numbers to be quite useful for understanding real problems... 
but I do not try to make them real. They are simply useful ways of looking at 
the real world.
I do the same thing when I think of gods and monsters... useful, but not real.

Therefore, I have no problems with any religions or beliefs or unqualified 
theories that serve to help one deal with real world issues... until the 
believer or adherent becomes an instigator of issues and accuser of errors.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Jan Coombs]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:34:55 +0300
Marko Rauhamaa  wrote:

> Ben Finney :
> >  \ “When people believe that they have absolute
> > knowledge, with no | `\ test in reality, this [the
> > Auschwitz crematorium] is how they | _o__)
> > behave.” —Jacob Bronowski, _The Ascent of Man_, 1973 |
> 
> Genocide is a deplorable facet of humanity, but it has
> absolutely nothing to do with knowledge, testing or Python.

"There are more questions than answers, 
 And the more you find out, the less you know"

Roll this backwards, if you are young, blinkered, or a good
believing nationalist citizen, you can easily believe that you
know everything. 

Then you just get on and do it, regardless.  So don't blame
Hxxler or anyone else, acquire knowledge, and do testing, even
when it's only your view of Python that might change. 

Jan Coombs

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Tim Golden]

On 26/04/2017 08:00, m.n.summerfield--- via Python-list wrote:

Surely it is time to stop the "Robert L." emails?


We're currently blocking the "Robert L." emails through the list 
gateway. And -- barring one, which was passed through by mistake -- I've 
not seen any hit the list itself lately. They'll still appear on Usenet, 
which will include Google Groups.


If you think the filter isn't working please drop a line to the list 
owners: python-list-ow...@python.org


TJG
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Ben Finney :
>  \ “When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no |
>   `\ test in reality, this [the Auschwitz crematorium] is how they |
> _o__) behave.” —Jacob Bronowski, _The Ascent of Man_, 1973 |

Genocide is a deplorable facet of humanity, but it has absolutely
nothing to do with knowledge, testing or Python.


Marko
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Ben Finney]

"m.n.summerfield--- via Python-list"  writes:

> I don't know if this list has a code of conduct, but maybe it is time
> it did?)

This forum is provided to the Python community by the Python Software
Foundation, and as such it is encompassed by the Python Community Code
of Conduct .

-- 
 \ “When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no |
  `\ test in reality, this [the Auschwitz crematorium] is how they |
_o__) behave.” —Jacob Bronowski, _The Ascent of Man_, 1973 |
Ben Finney

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[m.n.summerfield--- via Python-list]

Surely it is time to stop the "Robert L." emails? And any others that follow 
using a different alias but use the same technique of seemingly asking a 
genuine technical question for the clear purpose of adding the vile contents of 
their signatures to this list (and therefore to our community's public record).

(At PyCons nowadays there's always a code of conduct: if someone came to a 
PyCon wearing a T-shirt printed with one of these signatures would it be 
considered acceptable? I don't know if this list has a code of conduct, but 
maybe it is time it did?)
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[breamoreboy]

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:41:11 PM UTC+1, Rhodri James wrote:
> On 25/04/17 15:26, Rustom Mody wrote:
> >
> > Astrology is bunk…
> >
> > Or is it 'fake-news' ?
> >  
> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/can-a-full-moon-really-affect-our-behavior/2016/01/15/8de3018e-b940-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html
> >
> > Maybe the idea that tides are controlled by the moon
> > and that people awake and sleep with the sun is also fake?
> >
> > The influence of Jupiter, Saturn, etc is — for astrology-buffs at least — 
> > just a
> > refinement of the influence of the sun, moon
> 
> Mostly it's irrelevant.  Kindly stop.
> 
> -- 
> Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd

I'll second that, people come here to discuss Python specifically and computing 
generally, not this kind of complete dross.

Kindest regards.

Mark Lawrence.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[breamoreboy]

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 4:19:25 PM UTC+1, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 04/21/2017 06:33 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> > On 04/21/2017 03:38 AM, breamoreboy wrote:
> 
> >> Talking of signatures another of Robert L's beauties landed three or so 
> >> hours ago.  He really is a right little
> >> charmer :-(
> >
> > Not on the Python Mailing List.
> 
> I see one of them made it through.  My apologies (human error).
> 
> --
> Python List Moderator

The only person who never makes a mistake is the person who never does anything 
:)

Kindest regards.

Mark Lawrence.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Gregory Ewing]

Rustom Mody wrote:

The influence of Jupiter, Saturn, etc is — for astrology-buffs at least — just a
refinement of the influence of the sun, moon

>

Maybe the idea that tides are controlled by the moon
and that people awake and sleep with the sun is also fake?


There's a huge difference, though. We have a very good idea of
exactly *how* the sun and moon affect the earth, plus overwhelming
observational evidence supporting those ideas. If it's fake news,
somone has done a heck of a lot of faking!

--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Rhodri James]

On 25/04/17 15:26, Rustom Mody wrote:


Astrology is bunk…

Or is it 'fake-news' ?
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/can-a-full-moon-really-affect-our-behavior/2016/01/15/8de3018e-b940-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

Maybe the idea that tides are controlled by the moon
and that people awake and sleep with the sun is also fake?

The influence of Jupiter, Saturn, etc is — for astrology-buffs at least — just a
refinement of the influence of the sun, moon


Mostly it's irrelevant.  Kindly stop.

--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Rustom Mody]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 1:20:05 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 22-04-17 om 13:17 schreef Rustom Mody:
> > On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:38:08 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> >> Op 20-04-17 om 17:25 schreef Rustom Mody:
> >>> But more importantly thank you for your polite and consistent pointing 
> >>> out to
> >>> Ben Finney that his religion-bashing signature lines [many of them] and 
> >>> his 
> >>> claims to wish this list be welcoming are way out of sync.
> >> I don't know. I think a concept like welcoming is too complex, to draw such
> >> simple conclusions. First of all we have to make a choice about the public 
> >> we
> >> want to be welcoming to. I'm rather confident we can agree we don't want to
> >> be welcoming to bigots on this list.
> >>
> >> ...
> > Generally agree
> > [though I wonder how you will decide what constitutes a 'bigot'. Look at the
> > suggestion in the very subject of these threads]
> 
> Well that's a tough one off course since research seems to suggest we are all
> bigots to some degree. So if I see behaviour that looks biggoted, I tend to
> wait to see how the person reacts after others have pointed out the possible
> problematic nature of his behaviour.
> 
> Of course there is the problem of how sensitive we should all be. Is it so
> problematic if I use an idiom like: "How could I have been so blind". Is
> such an idiom really a slight vs blind people?
> 
> >> Do you think critising any idea in one's signature is enough to conclude 
> >> that
> >> this person doesn't wish this list to be welcoming?
> > Lets try a thought-experiment:
> > A: Islam is glorious
> > B: Religion is garbage
> > C: Christ is the best
> >
> > Will these statements get equal treatment as spam/as censure etc if they 
> > appear
> > on this list?
> 
> That doesn't seem to be fair, since only one is being critical.
> 
> What about:
> D: Homeopathy/Astrology is bunk.

Astrology is bunk…

Or is it 'fake-news' ? 
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/can-a-full-moon-really-affect-our-behavior/2016/01/15/8de3018e-b940-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

Maybe the idea that tides are controlled by the moon
and that people awake and sleep with the sun is also fake?

The influence of Jupiter, Saturn, etc is — for astrology-buffs at least — just a
refinement of the influence of the sun, moon
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 22-04-17 om 13:17 schreef Rustom Mody:
> On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:38:08 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 20-04-17 om 17:25 schreef Rustom Mody:
>>> But more importantly thank you for your polite and consistent pointing out 
>>> to
>>> Ben Finney that his religion-bashing signature lines [many of them] and his 
>>> claims to wish this list be welcoming are way out of sync.
>> I don't know. I think a concept like welcoming is too complex, to draw such
>> simple conclusions. First of all we have to make a choice about the public we
>> want to be welcoming to. I'm rather confident we can agree we don't want to
>> be welcoming to bigots on this list.
>>
>> ...
> Generally agree
> [though I wonder how you will decide what constitutes a 'bigot'. Look at the
> suggestion in the very subject of these threads]

Well that's a tough one off course since research seems to suggest we are all
bigots to some degree. So if I see behaviour that looks biggoted, I tend to
wait to see how the person reacts after others have pointed out the possible
problematic nature of his behaviour.

Of course there is the problem of how sensitive we should all be. Is it so
problematic if I use an idiom like: "How could I have been so blind". Is
such an idiom really a slight vs blind people?

>> Do you think critising any idea in one's signature is enough to conclude that
>> this person doesn't wish this list to be welcoming?
> Lets try a thought-experiment:
> A: Islam is glorious
> B: Religion is garbage
> C: Christ is the best
>
> Will these statements get equal treatment as spam/as censure etc if they 
> appear
> on this list?

That doesn't seem to be fair, since only one is being critical.

What about:
D: Homeopathy/Astrology is bunk.
E: Faith healing endangers the lives of children.
F: The earth is not flat.

There are people who may feel somewhat targetted with these
statements in someone's signature. Should we discourage people
from having such statements in their signatures?

Should such a statement be a reason to remove the message from
the mailing list?

> Note that from certain pov, religion-bashing or atheism-lauding are as
> much pushing some belief-system as pushing an (un)conventional religion
>
> More to the point will an anti-semitic view be treated with equal
> harshness to an anti-Islam/Palestine one?
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2017-April/720532.html
>
> Overall, even though it may be a blunt weapon: Why not just keep out utterly
> unrelated-to-python stuff?

I don't know, there seems to be a lot of unpythonic stuff to be going on
in the messages themselves. If that doesn't seem to be a problem, a
signature with unpythonic contend shouldn't be a problem.

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Rurpy via Python-list]

On 04/22/2017 05:17 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:38:08 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 20-04-17 om 17:25 schreef Rustom Mody:
>>> But more importantly thank you for your polite and consistent pointing out 
>>> to
>>> Ben Finney that his religion-bashing signature lines [many of them] and his 
>>> claims to wish this list be welcoming are way out of sync.
>>
>> I don't know. I think a concept like welcoming is too complex, to draw such
>> simple conclusions. First of all we have to make a choice about the public we
>> want to be welcoming to. I'm rather confident we can agree we don't want to
>> be welcoming to bigots on this list.
>>
>> Then feeling welcome is not a boolean, people can feel welcome to a different
>> degree and there are many factors at work. If people tend to react in a 
>> friendly
>> manner to there co-participants, people generally should feel welcome. A 
>> statment
>> in a signature that isn't addressing anyone personnaly may give rise to some
>> irritation but shouldn't make this list feel unwelcome to someone.
> 
> Generally agree
> [though I wonder how you will decide what constitutes a 'bigot'. Look at the
> suggestion in the very subject of these threads]

As the author of that subject, I'm not sure what point you are
trying to make but let me point out that "bigot" does NOT appear 
in the subject line.  I distinguish between "bigotry", an expression 
of intolerance and prejudice and "bigot", a person who repeatedly 
and knowingly makes bigoted statements.

It also seems to me that "bigot", like "racist", has very little 
intellectual value having been degraded by use to little more than
a stronger more emotive form of "asshole" or "dickhead".

>> Do you think critising any idea in one's signature is enough to conclude that
>> this person doesn't wish this list to be welcoming?

I have to agree Antoon here.
I think there is a distinction between a signature that expresses
an opinion (even an offensive one to some) and the use of prejudice 
and bigotry directly in a message and used to attack a person or 
idea rather than a reasoned refutation of the idea itself.

After all, listening to and understanding (though not necessarily)
agreeing with) opinions that differ from our own is surely something
not to be discouraged?

c.l.p:
  Me: I think python strings should be mutable.
  Someome: That's stupid.  You sound like a typical Rurplandian 
who we know have IQ scores 15 points lower than us.
  [It's true that we have lower IQ scores.]

vs. a sig:
  --
  Because of the stupidity of its people, Rurplandia should not
  be admitted to the UN.

I would find the former offensive and objectionable, the latter
offensive but acceptable.

That being said, there are certainly sigs that are offensive enough
to community standards as to be unacceptable.  But the bar for sigs
should be much higher than for bigotry directed towards a person 
in a discussion. 

And the point of my first post remains: whatever that bar is should 
be applied evenhandedly, with regard to both the poster and to the 
politics expressed.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Rustom Mody]

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:38:08 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 20-04-17 om 17:25 schreef Rustom Mody:
> > But more importantly thank you for your polite and consistent pointing out 
> > to
> > Ben Finney that his religion-bashing signature lines [many of them] and his 
> > claims to wish this list be welcoming are way out of sync.
> 
> I don't know. I think a concept like welcoming is too complex, to draw such
> simple conclusions. First of all we have to make a choice about the public we
> want to be welcoming to. I'm rather confident we can agree we don't want to
> be welcoming to bigots on this list.
> 
> Then feeling welcome is not a boolean, people can feel welcome to a different
> degree and there are many factors at work. If people tend to react in a 
> friendly
> manner to there co-participants, people generally should feel welcome. A 
> statment
> in a signature that isn't addressing anyone personnaly may give rise to some
> irritation but shouldn't make this list feel unwelcome to someone.

Generally agree
[though I wonder how you will decide what constitutes a 'bigot'. Look at the
suggestion in the very subject of these threads]

> 
> Do you think critising any idea in one's signature is enough to conclude that
> this person doesn't wish this list to be welcoming?

Lets try a thought-experiment:
A: Islam is glorious
B: Religion is garbage
C: Christ is the best

Will these statements get equal treatment as spam/as censure etc if they appear
on this list?

Note that from certain pov, religion-bashing or atheism-lauding are as
much pushing some belief-system as pushing an (un)conventional religion

More to the point will an anti-semitic view be treated with equal
harshness to an anti-Islam/Palestine one?
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2017-April/720532.html

Overall, even though it may be a blunt weapon: Why not just keep out utterly
unrelated-to-python stuff?
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Ethan Furman]

On 04/21/2017 06:33 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:

On 04/21/2017 03:38 AM, breamore...@gmail.com wrote:



Talking of signatures another of Robert L's beauties landed three or so hours 
ago.  He really is a right little
charmer :-(


Not on the Python Mailing List.


I see one of them made it through.  My apologies (human error).

--
Python List Moderator

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[breamoreboy]

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:33:03 PM UTC+1, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 04/21/2017 03:38 AM, breamoreboy wrote:
> 
> > Talking of signatures another of Robert L's beauties landed three or so 
> > hours ago.  He really is a right little charmer :-(
> 
> Not on the Python Mailing List.
> 
> --
> ~Ethan~

I'm seen one message this morning via gmane.comp.python.general but that and a 
few more can be seen on GG.  I'm pretty thick skinned but I find the signatures 
completely revolting.  Keep him out please!!!

Kindest regards.

Mark Lawrence.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Ethan Furman]

On 04/21/2017 03:38 AM, breamore...@gmail.com wrote:


Talking of signatures another of Robert L's beauties landed three or so hours 
ago.  He really is a right little charmer :-(


Not on the Python Mailing List.

--
~Ethan~

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[breamoreboy]

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 10:08:08 AM UTC+1, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 20-04-17 om 17:25 schreef Rustom Mody:
> > But more importantly thank you for your polite and consistent pointing out 
> > to
> > Ben Finney that his religion-bashing signature lines [many of them] and his 
> > claims to wish this list be welcoming are way out of sync.
> 
> I don't know. I think a concept like welcoming is too complex, to draw such
> simple conclusions. First of all we have to make a choice about the public we
> want to be welcoming to. I'm rather confident we can agree we don't want to
> be welcoming to bigots on this list.
> 
> Then feeling welcome is not a boolean, people can feel welcome to a different
> degree and there are many factors at work. If people tend to react in a 
> friendly
> manner to there co-participants, people generally should feel welcome. A 
> statment
> in a signature that isn't addressing anyone personnaly may give rise to some
> irritation but shouldn't make this list feel unwelcome to someone.
> 
> Do you think critising any idea in one's signature is enough to conclude that
> this person doesn't wish this list to be welcoming?
> 
> -- 
> Antoon.

Talking of signatures another of Robert L's beauties landed three or so hours 
ago.  He really is a right little charmer :-(

Kindest regards.

Mark Lawrence.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 20-04-17 om 17:25 schreef Rustom Mody:
> But more importantly thank you for your polite and consistent pointing out to
> Ben Finney that his religion-bashing signature lines [many of them] and his 
> claims to wish this list be welcoming are way out of sync.

I don't know. I think a concept like welcoming is too complex, to draw such
simple conclusions. First of all we have to make a choice about the public we
want to be welcoming to. I'm rather confident we can agree we don't want to
be welcoming to bigots on this list.

Then feeling welcome is not a boolean, people can feel welcome to a different
degree and there are many factors at work. If people tend to react in a friendly
manner to there co-participants, people generally should feel welcome. A 
statment
in a signature that isn't addressing anyone personnaly may give rise to some
irritation but shouldn't make this list feel unwelcome to someone.

Do you think critising any idea in one's signature is enough to conclude that
this person doesn't wish this list to be welcoming?

-- 
Antoon.

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Rurpy via Python-list]

On 04/20/2017 01:46 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>[...]
> I am not obliged to address every point of every post, and the absence
> of comment on any particular point is not generally to be read as full
> assent.

Certainly anyone is free to choose to ignore bigotry on the list,
because one agrees with it, or does not want to oppose the poster, 
or any other reason; that is a perfectly valid individual decision.

But that does not apply to an entire community.  When members of the 
community en masse react that way, and a few even laud the bigotry,
and still no protest, that is a condemnation of a community's ethics
and pretty indisputable proof the CoC is a tool, to be dragged out 
when convenient to repress unpopular opinion or posters and ignored 
when it interferes with propagating the popular view.

>>   "if you are going to have a CoC, it must be applied even-handedly."
> 
> I agree entirely with that.

Sadly, agreement is meaningless if ignored in practice.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Ben Finney]

Like most people here, I think this thread has long ago served whatever
usefulness it will have. I'm not interested in continuing it.

I'll just respond to some direct questions, but don't take any lack of
response on particular points as agreement.

Rurpy via Python-list  writes:

> Rereading your post, I agree, you did not say anything at all about
> the old-people-cant-learn stereotype.
>
> So I apologize for saying you were ok with that.

Thank you, apology accepted.

> So at this point, you made a single attempt to claim there was no
> stereotyping based on national origin, a claim I refuted here [*1] and
> perhaps more clearly here [*2] neither of which there was a reply to.

And now we've both stated our cases, and others can judge the merits.
This particular debate isn't one I'm interested in pursuing further.

> And you explicitly acknowledge effectively a "no comment" response
> regarding an offensive a stereotype based on age? Is that a fair
> statement?

No. Simply not responding at all, since the charge was not even
addressed to me.

I am not obliged to address every point of every post, and the absence
of comment on any particular point is not generally to be read as full
assent.

We have to focus our responses, or they become even more lengthy and
unreadable than has already shown to be the case. That necessarily means
not responding to every point, even at the cost of omitting an objection
we might like to make.

>   "if you are going to have a CoC, it must be applied even-handedly."

I agree entirely with that.

-- 
 \“If the arguments in favor of atheism upset you, explain why |
  `\they’re wrong. If you can’t do that, that’s your problem.” |
_o__) —Amanda Marcotte, 2015-02-13 |
Ben Finney

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Rurpy via Python-list]

On 04/20/2017 09:25 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
>[...]
> No one seems to have noticed who Rurpy is defending : Ranting Rick and Bart.
> Sheesh!
> A rhinocerous would have gossamer skin compared to these 'gentlemen'
> Sheesh² !

You are mistaken.  I am not defending Rick or Bart both of whom I am 
well aware are capable of speaking for themselves.

As I said in my first post, 
  "if you are going to have a CoC, it must be applied even-handedly."

> Also the obligatory Voltaire quote is: “I disapprove of what you say, but I 
> will 
> defend to the death your right to say It”

As I said (not that I am comparing myself to Voltaire)

| This is why you cannot create a forum where no offense is given 
| to anyone.  The best you can try to do is try to find some *tradeoff*
| that *balances* freedom of expression and offense.

If you think the current balance should be changed, fine.

My point is simply that whatever balance is chosen, it should apply
to all participants equally.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Rurpy via Python-list]

On 04/19/2017 08:27 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Rurpy via Python-list  writes:
> 
>> You and Chris refused to find any fault with the use of the two
>> stereotypes under discussion one of which was "unable-to-learn old
>> people".
> 
> I expressed absolutely nothing on that topic, so I didn't “refuse to
> find any fault”. To claim “you said that is okay” is a bald untruth, I
> said no such thing.
> 
> You are pointing to *absence of a statement* on a topic and claiming
> that it is a “refusal to find any fault”.

Rereading your post, I agree, you did not say anything at all about
the old-people-cant-learn stereotype.

So I apologize for saying you were ok with that.

> By that logic, you have also “refused to find fault with” my neighbour's
> mistreatment of their child. How horrible of you!

No, not by that logic at all.  Never once did you mention your
neighbor or their child in the thread offering me the opportunity
to comment.  I mentioned both stereotypes in every post I made 
(at least where I mentioned either one explicitly).

> Except, that's not a claim I would make of you. I'll thank you not to do
> the same of others.

Yes, I will try to be more careful in the future.

So at this point, you made a single attempt to claim there was 
no stereotyping based on national origin, a claim I refuted here [*1]
and perhaps more clearly here [*2] neither of which there was a reply to.

And you explicitly acknowledge effectively a "no comment" response 
regarding an offensive a stereotype based on age?  Is that a fair 
statement?

So is it not fair to conclude that bigotry through the use of 
stereotypes in contravention of the CoC/Diversity statement is ok
here at least under some circumstances:

 * When the offender is a frequent or popular participant
 * When the stereotype agrees with a prejudice of most of participants
   here.

I repeat what I said in my first post [*3]:

  "if you are going to have a CoC, it must be applied even-handedly."


[*1] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2017-April/721281.html
[*2] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2017-April/721388.html
[*3] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2017-April/721233.html
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

RE: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Deborah Swanson]

And the moral to the story is:

Don't worry. Be happy. And reach fot the stars (while still being
mindful of those around you).

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Rustom Mody]

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 5:11:58 AM UTC+5:30, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 04/19/2017 03:58 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Ethan Furman writes:
> >
> >> […] asking that you be courteous to those who come here to discuss
> >> Python.
> >
> > On that we can agree. Let's be courteous to people here, and keep
> > discussing Python.
>

> Will you be filtering your signature lines, then?  Because you
> cannot simultaneously be courteous to someone and mock their
> beliefs.


Thanks Ethan; firstly for not taking cognisance of this ludicrous complaint
against Steven
[
No one seems to have noticed who Rurpy is defending : Ranting Rick and Bart.
Sheesh!
A rhinocerous would have gossamer skin compared to these 'gentlemen'
Sheesh² !
]
Also the obligatory Voltaire quote is: “I disapprove of what you say, but I 
will 
defend to the death your right to say It”


But more importantly thank you for your polite and consistent pointing out to
Ben Finney that his religion-bashing signature lines [many of them] and his 
claims to wish this list be welcoming are way out of sync.

Its a difficult job… If you find those lines objectionable and wear your mod-hat
to act on this, maybe you are misusing your position because you personally
dont like such stuff

OTOH if you refrain from wearing your mod-hat and say nothing, 
others could also silently hurt maybe unknown to anyone

So yes its tough and I commend your efforts

Since I believe Ben's anti-religion footers are OT, irrelevant,
unnecessary and possibly hurtful to some, some further thoughts on
this…

Firstly I find some of his footers useful/funny/insightful and have on occasion
thanked him for the same.

Not the (anti)religious ones which the following elaborates on.

Personally, I am not offended but mostly only amused because the area under the 
triangle:
Jerusalem-Bethlehem-Mecca is about 1/1000 the area of the globe
And the implied/explicit suggestion:  Religion=Christianity, or at best 
Religion=Abrahamic-faiths is correspondingly
about that ratio in narrowness of perspective of what constitutes religion in 
full generality

In short (to me, an oriental) its just silly

But to someone else
- it could be offensive — which is ok
  Nothing wrong in being offended!
  A big factor that backlashed into Trump as POTUS is just this that
  leftie-libbie-liars  (L³) think that their offendedness, usually at imagined 
trivia (see this
  thread?) is the centre of the universe
- it could be hurtful — less ok... But still possible to cry a bit, brush it off
and get on

But it could be much worse.

Unfortunately the L³ called secularism has taken away even
our language to talk of this:

If I may be permitted the one-off non-PC act of quoting the Bible there is a 
fairly precise and exact rendering of this principle:

The sin against God is tolerated, and the sin against the Son also. But the sin
against the holy ghost cannot be tolerated
[Mat 12:32, Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10]

In short, messing up someone's deepest faith is tantamount to the killing of 
the soul

And since the L³ will speak up for all sorts of 'identities' real and imaginary
except people who sincerely follow (mainstream) religion, I felt called upon to 
say something of it.
[Number of subsets of a 6 billion set is 2^(6 billion), thats the number of 
identities that can be concocted]

So let me end with just briefly saying why the L³ called secularism is the root 
of the problem

Secularism (= worldliness) divides the one world arbitrarily, high-handedly
and ignorantly into two: sacred and profane

The world is real… and profane
The other half is sacred… and unreal

This makes sanctity of anything an unreal property by definition

Hence all this mess.

If the sanctity of a human being were (1) a fact and (2) not negotiable these 
discussions and interminable threads would not be necessary

PS.
To be fair to Ben, the Oscar Wilde quote: “Prayer must never be answered: if it 
is, it ceases to be prayer and becomes correspondence.”
does not belong (for me) in the objectionable set. OTOH it is funny, precise, 
and even religiously respectful in a left-handed sort of way
[And now I guess the left-handed identity has been abused? Ball in your court  
(Mr.) Rurpy! Go for it!]
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

RE: The belief that learning is more difficult for older people (was: Bigotry (you win, I give up))

[Deborah Swanson]

Poor souls. It isn't pretty when the mind lets go. Maybe it sounds cold,
but these people did make the choice every day of most of their lives to
not bother themselves about the why of things, to not pay attention to
this, to let someone else worry about that, etc.

The sad thing is that this ad is likely for prescription drugs, which
may restore rudimentary mental function, but they won't restore your
mind. Especially if you never cultivated one to begin with.

At 65 years old, I'm surrounded by these people, many of whom I've known
all my life, and I know how they've lived.


Rustom Mody wrote, on Thursday, April 20, 2017 5:48 AM
> 
> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:51:55 AM UTC+5:30, Ben Finney wrote:
> > "Deborah Swanson"  writes:
> > 
> > > But this bit caught my eye because I hold the opposite 
> opinion about 
> > > old people's ability to learn.
> > >
> > > It is a choice.
> > 
> > The topic is complex, and both "It is entirely determined 
> by your own 
> > choices" and "It is in no way determined by your own choices" are 
> > false.
> 
> 
> 
> Received this today
> 
> 
> 
> What is A.A.A.D.D.  ? It is  
> Age Activated Attention Deficit Disorder. 
> 
> This is how it manifests:
> 
> I decide to water my garden.
> As I turn on the hose in the driveway,
> I look over at my car and decide it needs washing. 
> 
> As I start toward the garage,
> I notice mail on the porch table that
> I brought up from the mail box earlier.
> 
> I decide to go through the mail before I wash the car. 
> 
> I lay my car keys on the table,
> put the junk mail in the garbage can under the table,
> and notice that the can is full. 
> 
> So, I decide to put the bills back
> on the table and take out the garbage first.
> But then I think,
> since I'm going to be near the mailbox
> when I take out the garbage anyway,
> I may as well pay the bills first.
> 
> I take my cheque book off the table,
> and see that there is only one cheque left.
> 
> My extra cheques are in my desk in the study,
> so I go inside the house to my desk where
> I find the can of Coke I'd been drinking. 
> 
> I'm going to look for my cheques , 
> but first I need to push the Coke aside
> so that I don't accidentally knock it over.
> 
> The Coke is getting warm,
> and I decide to put it in the refrigerator to keep it cold.
> 
> As I head toward the kitchen with the Coke,
> a vase of flowers on the counter
> catches my eye--they need water.
> 
> I put the Coke on the counter and
> discover my reading glasses that
> I've been searching for all morning.
> 
> I decide I better put them back on my desk,
> but first I'm going to water the flowers.
> 
> I set the glasses back down on the counter,
> fill a container with water and suddenly spot the TV remote. 
> Someone left it on the kitchen table.
> 
> I realize that tonight when we go to watch TV,
> I'll be looking for the remote,
> but I won't remember that it's on the kitchen table,
> so I decide to put it back in the den where it belongs,
> but first I'll water the flowers.
> 
> I pour some water in the flowers,
> but quite a bit of it spills on the floor.
> 
> So, I set the remote back on the table,
> get some towels and wipe up the spill.
> 
> Then, I head down the hall trying to
> remember what I was planning to do. 
> 
> At the end of the day:
> 
> the car isn't washed
> 
> the bills aren't paid
> 
> there is a warm can of Coke sitting on the counter
> 
> the flowers don't have enough water,
> 
> there is still only 1 cheque in my cheque book,
> 
> I can't find the remote,
> 
> I can't find my glasses,
> 
> and I don't remember what I did with the car keys.
> 
> Then, when I try to figure out why nothing got done today,
> I'm really baffled because I know I was busy all day,
> and I'm really tired.
> 
> I realize this is a serious problem,
> and I'll try to get some help for it,
> but first I'll check my e-mail
> 
> Do me a favour.
> Forward this message to everyone you know,
> because I don't remember whom I've sent it to.
> 
> Isn't you yet? You are young... And your day is coming!
> -- 
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> 

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: The belief that learning is more difficult for older people (was: Bigotry (you win, I give up))

[Rustom Mody]

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:51:55 AM UTC+5:30, Ben Finney wrote:
> "Deborah Swanson"  writes:
> 
> > But this bit caught my eye because I hold the opposite opinion about
> > old people's ability to learn.
> >
> > It is a choice.
> 
> The topic is complex, and both “It is entirely determined by your own
> choices” and “It is in no way determined by your own choices” are false.



Received this today



What is A.A.A.D.D.  ? It is  
Age Activated Attention Deficit Disorder. 

This is how it manifests:

I decide to water my garden.
As I turn on the hose in the driveway,
I look over at my car and decide it needs washing. 

As I start toward the garage,
I notice mail on the porch table that
I brought up from the mail box earlier.

I decide to go through the mail before I wash the car. 

I lay my car keys on the table,
put the junk mail in the garbage can under the table,
and notice that the can is full. 

So, I decide to put the bills back
on the table and take out the garbage first.
But then I think,
since I'm going to be near the mailbox
when I take out the garbage anyway,
I may as well pay the bills first.

I take my cheque book off the table,
and see that there is only one cheque left.

My extra cheques are in my desk in the study,
so I go inside the house to my desk where
I find the can of Coke I'd been drinking. 

I'm going to look for my cheques , 
but first I need to push the Coke aside
so that I don't accidentally knock it over.

The Coke is getting warm,
and I decide to put it in the refrigerator to keep it cold.

As I head toward the kitchen with the Coke,
a vase of flowers on the counter
catches my eye--they need water.

I put the Coke on the counter and
discover my reading glasses that
I've been searching for all morning.

I decide I better put them back on my desk,
but first I'm going to water the flowers.

I set the glasses back down on the counter,
fill a container with water and suddenly spot the TV remote.
Someone left it on the kitchen table.

I realize that tonight when we go to watch TV,
I'll be looking for the remote,
but I won't remember that it's on the kitchen table,
so I decide to put it back in the den where it belongs,
but first I'll water the flowers.

I pour some water in the flowers,
but quite a bit of it spills on the floor.

So, I set the remote back on the table,
get some towels and wipe up the spill.

Then, I head down the hall trying to
remember what I was planning to do. 

At the end of the day:

the car isn't washed

the bills aren't paid

there is a warm can of Coke sitting on the counter

the flowers don't have enough water,

there is still only 1 cheque in my cheque book,

I can't find the remote,

I can't find my glasses,

and I don't remember what I did with the car keys.

Then, when I try to figure out why nothing got done today,
I'm really baffled because I know I was busy all day,
and I'm really tired.

I realize this is a serious problem,
and I'll try to get some help for it,
but first I'll check my e-mail

Do me a favour.
Forward this message to everyone you know,
because I don't remember whom I've sent it to.

Isn't you yet? You are young... And your day is coming!
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Nathan Ernst]

I've likewise mostly been ignoring this thread as it has gotten out of
control.

At a few jobs ago, I was nearly daily involved with interviewing
candidates. Initially, I was point on "culture fit". i.e. how would the
potential employee react to having a phone thrown at them (it happened - I
worked at a trading shop). Best response to that was "I'd firstly duck,
then pick it up and throw it back" - I gave that candidate a go.

But, back to the point, when I was doing technical interviews, regardless
of the technology/language, I had a single goal: to get the candidate to
admit they did not know the answer. The reasoning is simple. I don't want
the candidate that thinks they know everything. I want the candidate that
knows what they don't know. In the interview, there were tons of bonus
points for speculation & what the candidate would do to resolve the
question (this is what I was looking for) - a flat I don't know didn't
suffice.

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Deborah Swanson 
wrote:

> > Rupee via Python-list  writes:
> >
> > > I don't think stupid black people or senile old people should be
> > > allowable because those are not choosable *behaviors*. But is
> > > unable-to-learn old people a choosable behavior? You said that's ok.
>
> I've mostly been ignoring this thread and its predecessors, and I
> probably won't read all the recent posts to it.
>
> But this bit caught my eye because I hold the opposite opinion about old
> people's ability to learn.
>
> It is a choice. Your noggin doesn't just conk out at a certain age, or
> stage in the aging process. There are plenty of examples of scholars and
> authors (and many others) who've kept their wits sharp and their minds
> fully functional. Some till the day they died, others didn't quite last
> the whole way.
>
> There's two paths to keeping the mind forever alive ("forever" meaning
> at least till death, we don't know what comes after that). Both are
> almost purely physical.
>
> One is to use the mind all one's life, and the principle is identical to
> "use it or lose it", more commonly heard in athletic circles. But the
> mind is like muscle, the more you use it the stronger it gets. And vice
> versa. And I'm living proof that if you use your mind hard all your life
> (since I was about 3, in my case), you can let it coast for at least a
> decade and it will still be there, and it can still learn. Of course
> there's a lengthy stage of bringing it out of mothballs, but it can be
> done.
>
> The other path I'm living proof of is the food you eat. The brain
> responds badly to chemicals that enter the body, and particularly ones
> you ingest in food. And the brain is blood thirsty. It particularly
> craves grassfed and pastured red meat, the rarer the better, and organ
> meats. I eat all forms of it, but the prize goes to wild red meats -
> antelope, venison & wild boar. I'll spare you all the reasons why and
> the evidence, but they are very good reasons.
>
> I've also had university math and science professors who swore by heavy
> daily exercise regimes, but I haven't done it and neither have aged
> scholars who still had their good minds very late in life, so rigorous
> exercise is not a requirement. I have no idea whether it's sufficient to
> sustain and grow the mind either, but no doubt it helps.
>
> So, it is a choice of how you live your life, and how important it is to
> you to have a mind worth keeping. I see no reason to accord those people
> who didn't care all their lives any special status.
>
> Oh, and I think it's also a choice whether you are stupid or not,
> barring physical abnormalities of the brain. Regardless of age, gender
> or race.
>
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Ben Finney]

Rurpy via Python-list  writes:

> You and Chris refused to find any fault with the use of the two
> stereotypes under discussion one of which was "unable-to-learn old
> people".

I expressed absolutely nothing on that topic, so I didn't “refuse to
find any fault”. To claim “you said that is okay” is a bald untruth, I
said no such thing.

You are pointing to *absence of a statement* on a topic and claiming
that it is a “refusal to find any fault”.

By that logic, you have also “refused to find fault with” my neighbour's
mistreatment of their child. How horrible of you!

Except, that's not a claim I would make of you. I'll thank you not to do
the same of others.

-- 
 \   “I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as |
  `\   my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer |
_o__)  figure out how to use my telephone.” —Bjarne Stroustrup |
Ben Finney

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

The belief that learning is more difficult for older people (was: Bigotry (you win, I give up))

[Ben Finney]

"Deborah Swanson"  writes:

> But this bit caught my eye because I hold the opposite opinion about
> old people's ability to learn.
>
> It is a choice.

The topic is complex, and both “It is entirely determined by your own
choices” and “It is in no way determined by your own choices” are false.

The NIH article _Regulation of Cerebrovascular Aging_ is a good one on
the topic .

In brief: there *are* inevitable processes that advance further as the
human body ages, which tend to make learning more difficult. And there
*are* choices that most people can make, which can improve that
prognosis but not stop it.

> So, it is a choice of how you live your life, and how important it is
> to you to have a mind worth keeping. I see no reason to accord those
> people who didn't care all their lives any special status.

That simply isn't supported by the evidence. Human brain function tends
to deteriorate past early adulthood.

Not everyone is in possession of the precise knowledge at the right
stage of life to slow that decline; and of those who do have that
knowledge, many are not in a position to effectively take those actions;
and of those who do take such action, not all of them will certainly be
effective.

There are many actions a person can take throughout their life that
*may* improve, statistically, the likelihood of slowing the
deterioration of brain function in later life.

But merely knowing that a person is (a) advanced in age, and (b)
experiencing difficulty learning new things, does not justify concluding
that person's conscious choices are to blame. How can you dismiss the
possibility of forces beyond their control – bad dietary options, bad
education options, bad genetic inheritance, bad luck generally – as
causing their situation?

You cannot reasonably dismiss those factors beyond their control. So no,
I'd say it is not acceptable to draw the general conclusion that
people's own choices are entirely responsible for how much decline in
learning ability they experience.

> Oh, and I think it's also a choice whether you are stupid or not,
> barring physical abnormalities of the brain. Regardless of age, gender
> or race.

Well, all deterioration of brain function is in some sense due to
“physical abnormalities of the brain”, because normal brain function is
healthy by definition.

A surprising – and uncomfortably fuzzy-bordered – amount of people's
current personality is due to the state of their brain, beyond their
conscious control, today and in their past. That control is only ever
partial, in varying degrees.

An honest response to that fact is to apportion responsibility only for
those choices we know the person has control over, to the extent they
actually have that control.

To people who experience a decline in learning ability as they age, I
say: Welcome here, and please keep learning at your own speed.

-- 
 \“You don't change the world by placidly finding your bliss — |
  `\you do it by focusing your discontent in productive ways.” |
_o__)   —Paul Z. Myers, 2011-08-31 |
Ben Finney

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Rurpy via Python-list]

On 04/19/2017 01:56 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Rurpy via Python-list  writes:
> 
>> I don't think stupid black people or senile old people should be
>> allowable because those are not choosable *behaviors*. But is
>> unable-to-learn old people a choosable behavior? You said that's ok.
>
> No, I didn't say that's okay, and I'm not aware of Chris saying it.

You and Chris refused to find any fault with the use of the two
stereotypes under discussion one of which was "unable-to-learn 
old people".  You defended a poster's use of those stereotypes.
That is fairly described as "being ok with".

> At this point you've been reading far too much into what isn't there,
> and now you're just flatly stating untruths.

Per above it was not an untruth and you are flatly stating an 
untruth by claiming it was.

>> Again, I'd really appreciate it if you could clarify.
> 
> Bigotry against people for innate traits is not okay.'

That's not clarifying, that's repeating.  I asked some specific
questions that you are not answering, for example, which of the 
stereotypes in the list I gave are you ok with and which are you 
not?

Nor is your criteria a very useful given that for many "traits" 
there is not widespread scientific consensus on whether they are 
innate (genetic?), cultural, or consciously adopted.  
The boundary between cultural and conscious is also very fuzzy.

> Demanding special respect for a class of ideas is not okay.

People are not distinct from their ideas.  People internalize 
ideas and their ideas form part of their identity.  When deeply
held, we tend to call them beliefs rather than ideas.
Thus disrespecting or attacking some ideas is tantamount to 
attacking the person, at least in the person's view if not your's.

This is why you cannot create a forum where no offense is given 
to anyone.  The best you can try to do is try to find some tradeoff
that balances freedom of expression and offense.

Using stereotypes greatly increases the likelihood of offense.
I gave a number of reasons why previously and which I refer you 
back to. [*1]

One particular one I'll reiterate: it doesn't help to say "I 
mean only the bad ones", the stereotype WILL get applied far 
beyond the scope you may intend.  When you say "ugly americans", 
the "americans" part creates an implicit contrast with other 
nationalities and implies that somehow americans are more 
ugly than people of other nationalities.  Yet you have no 
real evidence of that.  There does not even exist a definition 
of uglinesss in a quantitative sense let alone any metrics 
of the number of uglies of any nationality.[*2]  So you 
accuse millions of people of an offense with nothing to 
back it up other than some generalized (and informed by bias) 
feelings it is true.  Given that most americans, like people 
of any other nationality, don't see themselves as ugly, you 
offend a large number of people some of whom will dispute your 
claim.  Do you want that discussion on the Python list?

This is also why I drew the parallel to the African-American 
criminal stereotype which, at least in the US, is widely 
recognized as racist and harmful the entire African-American 
community even though there are some (disputed) statistics 
defenders of the stereotype can resort to.  In your case, you 
don't even have that.
 
Now I'm the one who is starting to repeat things so I will
leave it at that.
 
> Wringing your own impression out of people's words, and then claiming
> that's what they said, is not okay.

We've established above that that did not happen.
 
> I hope that clarifies.

No, sorry.


[*1] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2017-April/721281.html
[*2] I am sure there is research that addresses this issue but 
 I doubt there is widespread consensus on its consistency or 
 applicability.  Regardless, research is seldom used validly 
 in the employment of stereotypes and even less so in the
 understanding of the stereotype by the recipients.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Ethan Furman]

On 04/19/2017 05:11 PM, breamore...@gmail.com wrote:


This is getting ludicrous.  Ben has been using these signatures for years and 
nobody has said a word.


Just because it was challenged before does not mean it was, or is, right / 
courteous / respectful .


Why is it that somebody deliberately starts a thread to cause trouble when 
there is nothing at all to discuss, the

> moderators leap in

Do you mean me?  Because I'm not wearing my moderator hat.


but when people like the RUE keep spewing their crap it takes years to get 
something done?


I wasn't a moderator then, and the other moderators for this list (there are 
three or four of us) are more tolerant.


Please don't give me the nonsense about "the RUE wasn't directly attacking 
anybody".  He was attacking the entire

> community with his highly insulting dross, and especially the person 
responsible for writing PEP 393 and its
> inplementation.

I agree.  I think I even wrote to the moderators about the RUE a couple times.

> By the way he's still at it.

Not on the Python List he isn't*.  The moderators have no control over the usenet portion, so if that's where you get 
your posts from then you'll still see him.


And as a general bulletin:  If you have an issue you want the moderators to 
know about, the email address to use is

  python-list@python.org

with a "-owner" after the "python-list" part.

--
~Ethan~

*At least, I haven't seen the RUE lately -- let us know if he's back at it.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Ben Finney]

Ethan Furman  writes:

> Will you be filtering your signature lines, then? Because you cannot
> simultaneously be courteous to someone and mock their beliefs.

I disagree. Beliefs are courteously mocked in this forum every week, and
the forum and this community is healthier for that.

-- 
 \  “Actually I made up the term “object-oriented”, and I can tell |
  `\you I did not have C++ in mind.” —Alan Kay, creator of |
_o__)Smalltalk, at OOPSLA 1997 |
Ben Finney

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[breamoreboy]

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 12:41:58 AM UTC+1, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 04/19/2017 03:58 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Ethan Furman writes:
> >
> >> […] asking that you be courteous to those who come here to discuss
> >> Python.
> >
> > On that we can agree. Let's be courteous to people here, and keep
> > discussing Python.
> 
> Will you be filtering your signature lines, then?  Because you cannot 
> simultaneously be courteous to someone and mock 
> their beliefs.
> 
> --
> ~Ethan~

This is getting ludicrous.  Ben has been using these signatures for years and 
nobody has said a word.  Why is it that somebody deliberately starts a thread 
to cause trouble when there is nothing at all to discuss, the moderators leap 
in, but when people like the RUE keep spewing their crap it takes years to get 
something done?  Please don't give me the nonsense about "the RUE wasn't 
directly attacking anybody".  He was attacking the entire community with his 
highly insulting dross, and especially the person responsible for writing PEP 
393 and its inplementation.  By the way he's still at it.

Kindest regards.

Mark Lawrence.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

RE: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Deborah Swanson]

> Rupee via Python-list  writes:
> 
> > I don't think stupid black people or senile old people should be 
> > allowable because those are not choosable *behaviors*. But is 
> > unable-to-learn old people a choosable behavior? You said that's ok.

I've mostly been ignoring this thread and its predecessors, and I
probably won't read all the recent posts to it.

But this bit caught my eye because I hold the opposite opinion about old
people's ability to learn.

It is a choice. Your noggin doesn't just conk out at a certain age, or
stage in the aging process. There are plenty of examples of scholars and
authors (and many others) who've kept their wits sharp and their minds
fully functional. Some till the day they died, others didn't quite last
the whole way.

There's two paths to keeping the mind forever alive ("forever" meaning
at least till death, we don't know what comes after that). Both are
almost purely physical.

One is to use the mind all one's life, and the principle is identical to
"use it or lose it", more commonly heard in athletic circles. But the
mind is like muscle, the more you use it the stronger it gets. And vice
versa. And I'm living proof that if you use your mind hard all your life
(since I was about 3, in my case), you can let it coast for at least a
decade and it will still be there, and it can still learn. Of course
there's a lengthy stage of bringing it out of mothballs, but it can be
done. 

The other path I'm living proof of is the food you eat. The brain
responds badly to chemicals that enter the body, and particularly ones
you ingest in food. And the brain is blood thirsty. It particularly
craves grassfed and pastured red meat, the rarer the better, and organ
meats. I eat all forms of it, but the prize goes to wild red meats -
antelope, venison & wild boar. I'll spare you all the reasons why and
the evidence, but they are very good reasons.

I've also had university math and science professors who swore by heavy
daily exercise regimes, but I haven't done it and neither have aged
scholars who still had their good minds very late in life, so rigorous
exercise is not a requirement. I have no idea whether it's sufficient to
sustain and grow the mind either, but no doubt it helps.

So, it is a choice of how you live your life, and how important it is to
you to have a mind worth keeping. I see no reason to accord those people
who didn't care all their lives any special status.

Oh, and I think it's also a choice whether you are stupid or not,
barring physical abnormalities of the brain. Regardless of age, gender
or race.

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Ethan Furman]

On 04/19/2017 03:58 PM, Ben Finney wrote:

Ethan Furman writes:


[…] asking that you be courteous to those who come here to discuss
Python.


On that we can agree. Let's be courteous to people here, and keep
discussing Python.


Will you be filtering your signature lines, then?  Because you cannot simultaneously be courteous to someone and mock 
their beliefs.


--
~Ethan~
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Ben Finney]

Ethan Furman  writes:

> […] asking that you be courteous to those who come here to discuss
> Python.

On that we can agree. Let's be courteous to people here, and keep
discussing Python.

-- 
 \“Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Wuh, I think |
  `\   so, Brain, but burlap chafes me so.” —_Pinky and The Brain_ |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Ethan Furman]

On 04/19/2017 01:36 PM, Erik wrote:

On 19/04/17 21:25, Ethan Furman wrote:



Asking that you not denigrate non-Python ideas on the Python list is not
asking for "special respect",


I have no idea what you just said! :D


Yeah, I try to avoid negative checks in code.

How about this?

special_respect = False
be_courteous = True

ideas = [
('socio-economic', 'capitalism rules!'),
('spiritual', 'religion rules!'),
('political', 'left-wing rules!'),
('python', 'spaces rule!'),
]

for area, opinion in ideas:
if area != 'python' and be_courteous:
continue
else:
print(opinion)

print('non-Python ideas/opinions easily omitted without Special Respect!')

--
~Ethan~
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Erik]

On 19/04/17 21:25, Ethan Furman wrote:

Asking that you not denigrate non-Python ideas on the Python list is not
asking for "special respect",


I have no idea what you just said! :D

This is why I dislike code such as:

  if not no_results(data) != not_valid:
 pass

... and I've seen lots of that sort of thing (but mostly not in Python 
code, thankfully).


E.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Ethan Furman]

On 04/19/2017 12:56 PM, Ben Finney wrote:


Demanding special respect for a class of ideas is not okay.


Asking that you not denigrate non-Python ideas on the Python list is not asking for "special respect", it is asking that 
you be courteous to those who come here to discuss Python.


--
~Ethan~
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Ben Finney]

Rurpy via Python-list  writes:

> I don't think stupid black people or senile old people should be
> allowable because those are not choosable *behaviors*. But is
> unable-to-learn old people a choosable behavior? You said that's ok.

No, I didn't say that's okay, and I'm not aware of Chris saying it. At
this point you've been reading far too much into what isn't there, and
now you're just flatly stating untruths.

> Again, I'd really appreciate it if you could clarify.

Bigotry against people for innate traits is not okay.

Demanding special respect for a class of ideas is not okay.

Wringing your own impression out of people's words, and then claiming
that's what they said, is not okay.

I hope that clarifies.

-- 
 \“It's all in the mind, you know.” —The Goon Show |
  `\   |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Bigotry (you win, I give up)

[Rurpy via Python-list]

On 04/18/2017 04:34 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Ben Finney  
> wrote:
>> Chris Angelico  writes:
>>
>>> The charge has been examined and dropped. Steven did not violate the
>>> CoC. Please stop talking as if he has. He *was accused of* violating
>>> it, and then found innocent.
>>
>> Which post are you referring to (can you provide a URL)? I'd like to see
>> who came to that conclusion, what their wording was, and what their
>> authority was to do so.
> 
> I was referring to your post, in which a fairly solid argument was
> made for there being no guilt. Maybe you don't have any specific
> authority, but until someone actually acts in a moderatorial role,
> solid arguments are plenty authoritative enough for most of us.
> Particularly for the newsgroup people, where there is no central
> authority at all.

Hey Ben and Chris, 

Forget that last post of mine.  On thinking things over I can see 
now the "judgment" that has been made by your solid arguments and 
the weakness of my counter arguments.  I'm ready to accede to your 
judgment and I hope you bear me no grudge because oue my failure to
see your point immediately.  But I am still a little unclear on a 
couple things which I humbly request you straighten me out on...

Is it only the two stereotypes that were discussed, "ugly americans" 
and "too old to learn" old people that are acceptable?  Or are any 
stereotypes ok?

We all know that Jews stick together and accumulate lots of money.
(Not all of them of course, maybe not even a majority or plurality 
of them, I just mean just the ones that fit the stereotype.) Can 
I use that stereotype?  And obviously not to attack or criticize 
Jews, I would never do that because I am not a bigot.  I mean, use 
it only to point out objectionable behavior like avarice to someone.  
It's now ok if I call him a "greedy Jew", yes?  (And only if he 
is acting/speaking like one!  I know this is not a carte blanche 
to hurl around ethnic slurs.)

Of course there are many, many more stereotypes than just those
so if you could give us an idea how to decide which stereotypes 
are ok and which aren't, I'd really appreciate it.  Maybe you 
could make a list and post it here?

This is only scratching the surface but maybe you could use 
it as a start?
  culturally insensitive americans
  rude french people
  money-hungry jews
  terrorist moslems
  criminal or stupid black people
  unable-to-learn old people
  senile old people
  math, science and programming-inept women
  emotional women
  racist conservatives
  racist misogynist violent Trump supporters
  silly emotion-driven liberals
  rapist immigrants
  weak-willed fat people
  egotistical narcissistic buff people
  japanese people with bad teeth
  backward anti-science catholics
  dirty chinese people

I don't think stupid black people or senile old people should 
be allowable because those are not choosable *behaviors*.  
But is unable-to-learn old people a choosable behavior?  You
said that's ok.  And emotional women, that's a tough one.  
Are they emotional because of choice or hormones?

Also, I'm assuming we can all use stereotypes now but maybe 
that's wrong.  Could it be that only Steven is allowed to use 
them?  Or Steven, Ben, Chris and some other thought-leaders 
of this group?  Or maybe it's only people who have been members 
for a certain length of time or a certain number of posts?  
Again, I'd really appreciate it if you could clarify.

I apologize for all the questions and sorry for sounding like 
a silly emotion-driven liberal before!
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list