I love how wanting people to be courteous and respectful of others is racist. I just want people to realize that they’re not alone in the world, and to please move your cart to the side of the goddamn aisle.
But that’s still a double-edged sword we’re playing with.
If you want to run towards a an “inevitable conclusion” in the one direction (resegregation… undesirable… are you even alluding to genocide?)
I think it’s fair to do the same in the opposite direction too. Is there no lower bound for human interaction and behavior? Is it wrong to set boundaries for how people treat you?
I like how hyper aware people are for things that could be turned into an avenue for bad things. I think that’s actually more than half the battle. Doesn’t always mean you toss the idea outright, you just know that you gotta watch out.
I, for one, am in favor of a minimal demonstrated set of awareness and capacity to operate a motor vehicle. I also am in favor of not letting people drive drunk. Someone might say this will inevitably turn into a tool of racism. And guess what, THEY’D BE RIGHT! But, the solution probably isn’t to ban cars, or to let anyone drive with no rules of the road and drive drunk.
Yeah, the solution is to orient society in such a way where the operation of a deadly, several ton method of conveyance isn’t a requirement to participate in the world. Public transit, biking, and people-oriented spaces. Fuck cars
Yes, because that would be their job and they wouldn’t be excluded from society if they fail to live up to that. They’d just take public transit like anyone else.
I’m saying “systems need to be oriented towards people and how they act, rather than punishing people for being unable to act in a way that they’re not wired for”. This hypothetical grocery store punishes people for being minorly thoughtless to spare other people the indignity of having to say something or silently suffer with the minor inconvenience.
It takes a human interaction with low stakes and turns it into a systemic interaction where harm to people becomes an abstract thing, so harm tends to become more prolific.
I could get behind you on this if the post was saying that all grocery stores must have that limitation. In the subway example, it’d be like saying that the only labour that exists is being a subway driver. The calculus changes when, like you said, it’s mandatory.
If this idea was implemented and had any amount of popularity it would spread everywhere like wild fire cause it’d be one more thing to crush the poor with cater to white people who can’t be fucked to talk to people don’t want to be inconvenienced. People usually don’t have much choice in what stores they have access to (see food deserts)
It’s incredibly one dimensional to say that people wanting to shop in a place where patrons extend basic human decency to one another would be only be popular because people want to … crush the poor.
If your only cognitive tool is a hammer, ever idea is going to sound like a nail.
I feel like you think I’m not understanding your position. I am. I hear it ad nauseum.
I’m challenging you to consider if your approach is so narrow that you can’t even comprehend the premise. “I don’t want to get mashed up by a cart” necessarily translating to “I want to suppress the poor” should be setting off warning alarms that you’re not engaging in the idea or discussion with a full toolset.
Not what I’m fucking saying, but good try. Something being used to justify racism isn’t saying “this is on its face racism” its saying “racists will use the stringent, strict rules of this place to deny people of color access to this space”. All of these complaints are things that everyone does to some extent, you just get frustrated by them when you’re probably already frustrated.
People of color take up more space in white people’s heads, so they get more policing of their behavior even if it isn’t justified. A group of white boys being loud in a grocery store get head shakes and “boys will be boys” comments. A group of black boys being loud in a grocery store get followed around by security and white women clutching their purses.
Also fun how you sidestepped the ableism I brought up in that same sentence. Cause you know there’s no fucking argument there, huh?
I thought both arguments were stupid and so I chose to not continue typing. I guess everything can be used to discriminate against someone, so fuck it, let’s do nothing! Yawn yawn yawn.
Wow, false dichotomy much? I get it, you liked the idea and think me attacking it is like me attacking you. Once you grow up, you’ll realize that not everything is about you.
Yes. I made the choice to be like that rather be perceived as polite. Apologies that that wasn’t clear. I’d rather spend my time thinking through things rather than making my words nice for others. I’m neurodivergent, I’ve spent a lifetime trying to mold myself into the box of etiquette and it drove me mad and made me quiet. I’m choosing now to say what needs to be said in how I need to say it.
Like saying that something would be used to further racism and ableism and then checking the people who don’t like to be confronted with that idea.
Not sure why you felt I attacked you, but that’s fine. We’ve obviously got different opinions on the matter, and that’s okay. If it’s because I called the argument stupid, I didn’t mean for that to be a reflection of you, it’s just the exact kind of false dichotomy you’re accusing me of here, and it’s tired and overused here and on Reddit.
I love how wanting people to be courteous and respectful of others is racist. I just want people to realize that they’re not alone in the world, and to please move your cart to the side of the goddamn aisle.
You’re completely missing the point. The idea can be fine on it’s face, but it will very quickly be used to otherize the undesirables.
That’s entirely true.
But that’s still a double-edged sword we’re playing with.
If you want to run towards a an “inevitable conclusion” in the one direction (resegregation… undesirable… are you even alluding to genocide?)
I think it’s fair to do the same in the opposite direction too. Is there no lower bound for human interaction and behavior? Is it wrong to set boundaries for how people treat you?
I like how hyper aware people are for things that could be turned into an avenue for bad things. I think that’s actually more than half the battle. Doesn’t always mean you toss the idea outright, you just know that you gotta watch out.
I, for one, am in favor of a minimal demonstrated set of awareness and capacity to operate a motor vehicle. I also am in favor of not letting people drive drunk. Someone might say this will inevitably turn into a tool of racism. And guess what, THEY’D BE RIGHT! But, the solution probably isn’t to ban cars, or to let anyone drive with no rules of the road and drive drunk.
Yeah, the solution is to orient society in such a way where the operation of a deadly, several ton method of conveyance isn’t a requirement to participate in the world. Public transit, biking, and people-oriented spaces. Fuck cars
Fine. The person operating the subway train. Should they be drunk? Should they have needed to demonstrate competency in operating a subway?
Yes, because that would be their job and they wouldn’t be excluded from society if they fail to live up to that. They’d just take public transit like anyone else.
I’m saying “systems need to be oriented towards people and how they act, rather than punishing people for being unable to act in a way that they’re not wired for”. This hypothetical grocery store punishes people for being minorly thoughtless to spare other people the indignity of having to say something or silently suffer with the minor inconvenience.
It takes a human interaction with low stakes and turns it into a systemic interaction where harm to people becomes an abstract thing, so harm tends to become more prolific.
I could get behind you on this if the post was saying that all grocery stores must have that limitation. In the subway example, it’d be like saying that the only labour that exists is being a subway driver. The calculus changes when, like you said, it’s mandatory.
If this idea was implemented and had any amount of popularity it would spread everywhere like wild fire cause it’d be one more thing to
crush the poor withcater to white people whocan’t be fucked to talk to peopledon’t want to be inconvenienced. People usually don’t have much choice in what stores they have access to (see food deserts)It’s incredibly one dimensional to say that people wanting to shop in a place where patrons extend basic human decency to one another would be only be popular because people want to … crush the poor.
If your only cognitive tool is a hammer, ever idea is going to sound like a nail.
I feel like you think I’m not understanding your position. I am. I hear it ad nauseum.
I’m challenging you to consider if your approach is so narrow that you can’t even comprehend the premise. “I don’t want to get mashed up by a cart” necessarily translating to “I want to suppress the poor” should be setting off warning alarms that you’re not engaging in the idea or discussion with a full toolset.
Not what I’m fucking saying, but good try. Something being used to justify racism isn’t saying “this is on its face racism” its saying “racists will use the stringent, strict rules of this place to deny people of color access to this space”. All of these complaints are things that everyone does to some extent, you just get frustrated by them when you’re probably already frustrated.
People of color take up more space in white people’s heads, so they get more policing of their behavior even if it isn’t justified. A group of white boys being loud in a grocery store get head shakes and “boys will be boys” comments. A group of black boys being loud in a grocery store get followed around by security and white women clutching their purses.
Also fun how you sidestepped the ableism I brought up in that same sentence. Cause you know there’s no fucking argument there, huh?
I thought both arguments were stupid and so I chose to not continue typing. I guess everything can be used to discriminate against someone, so fuck it, let’s do nothing! Yawn yawn yawn.
Wow, false dichotomy much? I get it, you liked the idea and think me attacking it is like me attacking you. Once you grow up, you’ll realize that not everything is about you.
Sorry, I meant if you grow up.
You’re really aggressive, man
Yeah, I tend to be perceived that way. I’d rather be seen as aggressive than be a polite asshole
You tend to be perceived that way because you act that way.
Yes. I made the choice to be like that rather be perceived as polite. Apologies that that wasn’t clear. I’d rather spend my time thinking through things rather than making my words nice for others. I’m neurodivergent, I’ve spent a lifetime trying to mold myself into the box of etiquette and it drove me mad and made me quiet. I’m choosing now to say what needs to be said in how I need to say it.
Like saying that something would be used to further racism and ableism and then checking the people who don’t like to be confronted with that idea.
Buddy, neurodivergence isn’t an excuse for aggressive behavior when you acknowledge that you’re knowingly and willingly acting aggressively.
That’s like saying it’s fine for someone with anger management issues to be aggressive instead of expecting them to moderate their behavior.
All of us, neurodivergent or not, have to take how we act towards others into account and tailor our behaviors accordingly.
Accidentally behaving aggressively because you didn’t realize it would come across as aggressive is a different story.
Not sure why you felt I attacked you, but that’s fine. We’ve obviously got different opinions on the matter, and that’s okay. If it’s because I called the argument stupid, I didn’t mean for that to be a reflection of you, it’s just the exact kind of false dichotomy you’re accusing me of here, and it’s tired and overused here and on Reddit.