How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm • Hacker News Board

Re: How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm

#121

Post by pessimizer » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 6:35 PM UTC

hderms wrote: post #89

pessimizer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not Hispanic, and don't care at all about soccer, but I imagine it would be aggravating as hell. I'm black, and when white people call me bro, or start speaking in dialect - I honestly start to hate them. For cultural reasons, when a lot of white Americans are talking about getting fighting and getting angry, or partying and having fun, relaxing and being lazy, flirting or getting laid, or one-upping people or hu…

I'm white and grew up in a near-western suburb of Chicago and have also noticed that white people were quick to adopt a black dialect. I'm not sure it was necessarily only correlated with the things you mentioned (partying, anger, etc...) but it definitely existed. People adopted a lot of slang words from the black community too, which can sound really unnatural coming from a rich white kid's mouth. However, I don't…

> However, I don't think it was necessarily a result of people viewing black people negatively, in fact, it often seemed to be admiration

But see, that's still racist. And the contexts in which it comes out makes it seem like an admiration of looseness, coolness, style, toughness, sexiness, grittiness, authenticity... an escape from just being a plain old person. Really, these are qualities involved in the identities many teenagers hope to construct. I'm just a plain old person too, but the culture makes me a repository for fantasy.

I'll go on a tangent here about something that really bothered me yesterday. There was a really interesting and informative article yesterday in the LA Times about an "Asian" propensity towards diabetes - an article which could help people with their health by informing them of something which they may not have been aware of.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-asian-americans-diabetes...

Here's the question:

The article had nothing to do with white people, yet this was the graphic: http://www.trbimg.com/img-571584ce/turbine/la-me-g-asian-ame...

and later: "Asians tend to have less muscle and more fat than Europeans of the same weight and height, studies show. So an Asian who isn't obese or even overweight could have enough fat to be in danger of getting diabetes, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as 'skinny-fat.'"

So how did white people get to be the baseline? The zeros of the world, the people that other people are a divergence from, the people that you have to know to understand? Why is an article about Asian diabetes instead an article about comparative rates of diabetes between Asians and whites? Some liberal arts major might call it a "microaggression", but as a engineering major, I am just literally looking at Asian health being described mainly in relation to the health of whites and trying to figure out the words to explain how that bothers me to white people who can't see it, without them erupting into rage.

Re: How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm

#122

Post by manyxcxi » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 6:44 PM UTC

estefan wrote: post #39

manyxcxi wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some people are just manifestly stupid and/or incompetent Some are. Even more are just plain incorrect for all the many reasons human beings are incorrect. At least in the states, we've spent the last 30 years making people believe that simply because you feel it is so, it must be. That's got to be a huge factor in the degradation of discourse in the same time period- if instead of coming from the classical positio…

You put it so much more eloquently than I did. Yes, this is exactly what I mean.

I recently stumbled on a podcast I found very interesting that relates: The Art of Manliness #189: The Classical Education You Never Had [0] They had an author (Susan Bauer) on discussing topics from her book The Well-Educated Mind: A Guide to the Classical Education You Never Had [1], where they discussed the differences between a classical education and today's modern education (in America).

One of the salient points was where she described today's method of reading literature and stopping every few pages/chapters and discussing what you think/feel about it and your interpretation. She made the argument that these students are being taught to come to conclusions and judge things before getting the full picture, and human nature being what it is, we stick with that judgement even as we learn more. She went on to say that instead of this, a more classical approach would be to read the whole book first, then go back through and discuss those interesting sections and come to conclusions with the whole picture.

I haven't read the book yet, but it's on my list now- the entire episode was very interesting and thoughtful and I'm going to check out more of their podcasts as well.

[0] http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/04/04/podcast-189-the-cla...

[1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039308096X

Re: How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm

#123

Post by manyxcxi » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #61

manyxcxi wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some people are just manifestly stupid and/or incompetent Some are. Even more are just plain incorrect for all the many reasons human beings are incorrect. At least in the states, we've spent the last 30 years making people believe that simply because you feel it is so, it must be. That's got to be a huge factor in the degradation of discourse in the same time period- if instead of coming from the classical positio…

If you watch old political interviews and things like that you can really see how far the state of political discourse has fallen, there used to be genuine public discussion, now politics (at least as shown on TV) largely consists of sound bites and catch phrases.

It makes you wonder if the sound bite cycle and instant feedback loop with the general public encourages this behavior, even more so than politicians just being more dumb. You'd think that with the educational institutions most of these people come from, they would be capable of significantly more thoughtful and in depth discussions than we see from them. I mean, Ted Cruz in college, by all accounts was a stand out on the debate team at university. I'm no fan of his, but certainly he's proven capable of the type of discussion we (at least, I) would like to see from these people. But if you engage in a classical debate and the masses get bored a la Idiocracy, or you can't engage your opponent because they are just lobbing verbal grenades and non sequiturs, there's nothing you can do. You'll either be the boring person no one listens to, the angry person that seems to be talking down to everyone else, or you just engage at the lowest comment denominator and throw out your own grenades.

Add to that social media blowing up when you say some rhetorical BS (good or bad), which then gets the news channels to talk about the social media, which then feeds back into the social media, you can see why there's no incentive to rise above it all. Being the 'better' person in this case means you get ignored, which means they aren't going to vote for you.

Re: How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm

#124

Post by existencebox » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 7:03 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #115

existencebox wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question, since I don't think I've ever had the opportunity to ask this, but I'm curious where that line sits for you? To provide context while answering something you asked, I grew up in philly. I went to a city high school. I have (and most of the other white kids I associated with have) some parts of a philly accent, which I'm very aware I revert to when I, as you say, start partying/relaxing, but in my cas…

> I can tell you authoritatively, although you may not believe me (or say I should stop anyway, which would beg other questions on my part), that there's no "deep opinion" of black culture or speech in that, in fact, the highschool was unfortunately VERY self segregating and most of the white kids didn't have enough interaction to form deep opinions. (which is part of why I'd be curious to ask now about the accent th…

Fair enough; your last sentence was a reasonable answer to my primary question, since I'm not sure I could differentiate natural vs constructed dialects (I'm tone-deaf enough to have trouble with truly foreign language accent identification) so I err on the side of giving people the benefit of the doubt that it's not malicious, however it seems you were referring to more obvious imitation which I can't speak to, and have to trust your judgement on.

And to your middle question, self segregation of direct interaction doesn't necessarily limit exposure. We sat in the same cafeteria, went to the same classes, rode the same busses, so it seems natural that some aspects of speech cross pollinated out of peripheral immersion. Take "jawns" for example. I'm pretty sure I first started hearing it in... 4th, 5th grade? Had _no_ idea what it meant or the implications of using it, but used it because the people around me used it; nothing more sinister or subversive than that, frankly I don't think I had the social sophistication to motivate that sort of conscious mimicry at that age.

Re: How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm

#125

Post by jules » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 7:57 PM UTC

richmarr wrote: post #111

jules wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems off-topic, can you explain the relevence of this? You said: > Hiring faculty is a very different thing (and subject to different rules and policies) than getting students succesfully to graduation. That's why I mentioned it. > Diverse workplaces are more pleasant to work in If somebody's opinion was that all male workplaces are more pleasant to work in, would you find that a reasonable basis for discriminatin…

You keep dodging the fact that this entire comment thread started from you massively overstating the results of a single study, taking it far past the credible scope of the study. Either knowingly or unknowingly you're abusing both the study's findings and the scientific method as a whole. We can talk hypotheticals or debate the relative merit of affirmative action, or discuss the flaws in specific studies (because l…

I did. How did I misrepresent it, and how am I overstating the results of the study I cited? How am I abusing the scientific method as a whole? When you make these grandiose claims it would have been nice to provide at least some form of accompanying argument, rather than just stating it as fact.

Re: How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm

#126

Post by jules » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 8:13 PM UTC

DougWebb wrote: post #119

jules wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you compare the worst case scenario for hunting (fox hunting) with the best case scenario for slaughter, but often the slaughter isn't fun either. Many animals are very distressed on their way to the slaughter. Even more importantly, the lives they had before that point were probably much worse than the lives of the wild foxes. Farming animals for meat also happens on a scale that is absolutely incomparable to fox…

I'm comparing "hunting for sport" against "hunting for food", and I'm comparing "hunting for food in a cruel way for the challenge" against "hunting for food in a cruel way out of necessity." I don't think it's ok to torture a fox because it had a nice life before the torture started. I don't think it's ok to torture a fox because we kill a lot more cows than foxes. I don't think it's ok to torture animals that we ra…

If you object to inflicting more suffering than you have to, how do you justify not being a vegetarian? In the end this is a trade of a bit of pleasure for you and quite a bit of suffering for the animal. Fox hunting, it seems to me, is precisely the same sort of trade. You could argue that the pleasure you get from eating meat is worth the suffering, but the pleasure the hunters get from fox hunting is not worth the suffering, but it is not clear to me how you would justify such a claim. Firstly, it seems to me not impossible that a hunter derives more pleasure from a hunting trip than from eating a piece of chicken. Secondly, it seems to me not impossible that the total amount of suffering inflicted on a chicken during its farm lifetime including slaughter is greater than the total amount of suffering inflicted on a fox during the hunt, particularly since free range isn't all it's made out to be. Thirdly, even if it were the case that fox hunting is a worse trade than meat eating, it's still unclear why it couldn't be the case that both are still worth it, or neither is worth it.

Re: How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm

#127

Post by vilda » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 9:15 PM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #50

vilda wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is seen as a problem, the point is that it's not taken seriously enough than the opposite imbalance. There are way worse examples: Male students are getting a whole one level worse marks than female students with the same knowledge [1] (Czech). Theoretically, each parent has an equal right to the custody of the child when they separate. In reality, with a whooping 85-90% the custody is resolved according to…

I don’t know enough about Czech grades to comment, and I generally agree with you about the common unfairness of custody disputes, but the rest of your claims seem a bit shaky. Your point #2 (along with other reasons for a child to more commonly live with a single mother, e.g. the father isn’t known, is in prison, or runs off) partly explains your points #4 and #5. From the document you cite, 27% of abuse victims wer…

I showed only few examples. While we may discuss individual points, I believe the whole imbalance has been clearly shown.

By arguing that the level of abuse by man and woman is roughly the same you are actually enforcing the point, not making is weaker. And if we are looking at the whole picture, presenting totals makes complete sense. We don't need detailed statistics to point the imbalance. There's no question that the type of abuse differs among men and women.

Re: How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm

#128

Post by dxbydt » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 9:25 PM UTC

manyxcxi wrote: post #122

estefan wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You put it so much more eloquently than I did. Yes, this is exactly what I mean.

I recently stumbled on a podcast I found very interesting that relates: The Art of Manliness #189: The Classical Education You Never Had [0] They had an author (Susan Bauer) on discussing topics from her book The Well-Educated Mind: A Guide to the Classical Education You Never Had [1], where they discussed the differences between a classical education and today's modern education (in America). One of the salient poin…

Thank you so much for posting this!

Re: How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm

#129

Post by DougWebb » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 9:32 PM UTC

jules wrote: post #126

DougWebb wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm comparing "hunting for sport" against "hunting for food", and I'm comparing "hunting for food in a cruel way for the challenge" against "hunting for food in a cruel way out of necessity." I don't think it's ok to torture a fox because it had a nice life before the torture started. I don't think it's ok to torture a fox because we kill a lot more cows than foxes. I don't think it's ok to torture animals that we ra…

If you object to inflicting more suffering than you have to, how do you justify not being a vegetarian? In the end this is a trade of a bit of pleasure for you and quite a bit of suffering for the animal. Fox hunting, it seems to me, is precisely the same sort of trade. You could argue that the pleasure you get from eating meat is worth the suffering, but the pleasure the hunters get from fox hunting is not worth the…

Easy: I have to eat meat, and I'm not a reductionist.

I don't eat meat for pleasure, particularly, and certainly not as recreation. Fox hunting is purely recreation.

Re: How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm

#130

Post by thaumasiotes » Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 9:43 PM UTC

pvaldes wrote: post #24

petewailes wrote: post #3

I suspect a large part of this is down to 1. People defaulting to the nuclear option constantly, in their reactions, and 2. People not wanting to accept that some issues are complex, and that a blanket approach doesn't work. The latter of these is the real issue. People love being outraged over the lack of women in STEM fields, and how those that are are treated, but few people talk about the lack of men in teaching…

> The most outspoken people against both aren't from the countryside, have never kept cattle or been on hunts, don't understand (or want to think too much) about the issues involved, but know that badgers and foxes are cute. You have your point, but is a common and too simplistic interpretation. We need to repeat this more: To have cattle or being able to shoot a rabbit is irrelevant and not a guarantee at all to und…

> Radically new ideas (like for example that wolves will generate money and provide basic services valued in millions of dollars, or that if you kill the alpha wolf in a pack there is an increase, not a decrease to cattle damages, or that to cull badgers will spread faster the cattle diseases that you want to stop and thus is a questionable investment of public money)... all those knowledge is generated normally in universities, placed in big cities, after years of painfully slow research done by experts

Actually, the big agricultural research universities are generally not located in big cities, because that makes it difficult for them to do their research.