I don’t think that follows. If you are watching TV and you go off on a racist rant upon seeing MLK on the screen, you aren’t victimizing MLK; he is dead. Unless you are a necromancer, you are incapable of victimizing him. But you are still being racist against MLK.
That’s arguable. What’s not is you are being racist against black people, even if no one is in earshot. The victims of your racism are African Americans. When you are racist against a group that group is the victim of your racism.
No, that’s a bad argument. I can guarantee you that there are millions of people all over the world right now saying hateful shit about Jews. I don’t let myself be victimized by that. They are Anti-Semitic, but I am not a victim.
Now, if I was physically attacked by antisemites, or specifically targeted by them verbally in person, that would make me a victim. But if they’re just out there, being hateful? I’m not going to let myself be victimized by that.
I don’t know exactly how to answer that, but I know that what JR_Delirious is talking about is a real problem that I’ve had to train out of my kids, just casually saying “that’s racist” for anything that’s mildly critical or unfair or judgmental.
I assume that’s probably what the OP’s sister was on about. Not so much a sincere accusation of racism, more of “your behavior is bothering me and I can’t really explain why.” It would bother me, not because I really care about the AI’s feelings, but because hearing a vituperation like “fucking clanker” makes me feel like I’m in the room with an abuser who feels they’ve found a socially acceptable outlet for their tendencies. It’s creepy.
Saying that black people and gay people are both members of groups that are the target of prejudice is not the same as saying black people and gay people are the same thing. You’re still recognizing that they are members of two separate groups (although there are some people who are members of both groups).
On a separate note, it just occurred to me that bigots are demanding two opposing standards for blacks and gays. They want to deny black people the right to marry people outside their group and they want to deny gay people the right to marry people inside their group. Which demonstrates that bigots are irrational idiots.
Is that “robot” with a hard ‘r’?
“What did you call me?”
“A Robo. You know, a robot-hobo.”
“Ohhh, I thought you said ‘Romo’.”
No but that’s not what “equating” means. It’s not saying they are exactly identical in every way it’s saying that two things are “regarded as equal, equivalent, or comparable”. When you equate oppression of gay people to that of black people you are saying the oppression of one group of humans is comparable to that of another. That’s a perfectly reasonable uncontroversial statement.
When you claim someone is being racist against AI you are equating the “oppression” of that computer program to the very real oppression of actual human beings. That’s a completely unreasonable absurdly ridiculous statement, saying those two things are comparable is offensive.
Nope, I am not going to get into another debate over the definition of a word. I’ve already been involved in two of them and they’re inexplicably the most emotional topic I’ve seen on this board.
And at this point in time I cannot “oppress” my AI system, a virtual tool, any more than I can oppress my hardware toolbox.
Now, though, if I make a habit of smashing pieces of gear while yelling curses at them, I may have an anger management problem, and how I express it may have imications.
Is it? I think it should be pretty fucking controversial because it’s very clearly untrue. The oppression faced by gay people and black people was and is quite different. Unless I missed the chapter in history class where gay people were enslaved and made to work on plantations?
Both forms of oppression are wrong, they violate the liberal principles that (when held to) make this country worthwhile, and they should be fought against. But the historical background behind them and the way they manifest in practice is super different.
You see what you did there? You COMPARED the oppression of black people to the oppression of gay people. So you agree they are COMPARABLE, and so by the literal Miriam Webster dictionary definition you just EQUATED them. It doesn’t mean they are exactly the same in every way, that’s not what that word means. Equating two forms of human oppression is not controversial or debatable in any way, it’s just a statement of fact. Equating human oppression to disliking a computer program is.
Literally everything is comparable to something else, in the sense that you are able to compare and contrast the two things. That’s not to say that they are COMPARABLE, or able to be LIKENED to one another.
Tickling and water boarding are COMPARABLE in that you can compare one to the other. They are not COMPARABLE in the dictionary definition of the word COMPARABLE:
“(of a person or thing) able to be likened to another; similar.”
You can compare my running to Usain Bolt, so in the sense you used above, my sprinting is comparable to Usain Bolt’s. In the sense that the word “comparable” is typically used, that’s not the case.
What on Earth are you saying? Equating a white woman who is mad about being called a Karen to the enslavement of black people in the Americas is “not controversial or debatable in any way, it’s just a statement of fact”?
Yes exactly my point! Those two things ARE not comparable. It is not reasonable to equate a white Karen complaining to the manager as she had to wait 15 minutes for her table, to centuries of black enslavement. Not only that, is its offensive to equate them.
But at least Karens are in fact human beings and able to be oppressed even if waiting 15 minutes for their table is not in fact oppression.
So it’s even more offensive to equate disliking a computer program to actual oppression of real human beings.
Naah. Definitely actually parody racism. Make racists a laughing stock. That is good.
Don’t use “parody” as a cover for your actual racism.
Yes, I know, it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference for a lot of people. Persevere.
Frankie Boyle is my favourite stand -up and he does parodies of racism all the time. But the actual targets of his parodies are the bigots - and anyone who has seen a full standup by him, or seen his political panels, would know this.
The hell? I posted that like, this morning.
So, by your own logic:
You see what you did there? You COMPARED the oppression of black people to the oppression of gay people white women. So you agree they are COMPARABLE, and so by the literal Miriam Webster dictionary definition you just EQUATED them.
But also by your own logic, it is offensive to equate them?
You keep contradicting yourself.
No and you pointed out exactly why….
Both forms of oppression are wrong, they violate the liberal principles that (when held to) make this country worthwhile, and they should be fought against.
This has certainly turned into a battle counting angels on pinheads.
Seems like some people want to use the narrowest possible definition(s) of their term(s) while others want to use wider one(s). It’s a decent bet there is no resolution to that one; the Language Uncertainty Principle ensures that.
Why are you so racist against angels?