About “minorities”.

In a reply to Mycroft I used “minorities” without the quotes. Usually I don’t, because the word bugs me. The idea bugs me.

Philosophically, there’s “us” and “me”. We, the human race, are the only consciously aware beings we know. Well, progressives seem like poorly written Turing programs. Increasingly they appear to not possess self-awareness. But they still pass for human in the courtroom, so I don’t recommend deactivating them for casual reasons.

Anyway, that’s “us”. Can we, philosophically, sub-divide “us”? Certainly. “We” are comprised of seven billion “me”s. Seven billion individuals.

“Us” and “Me” are fine. But “Us” and “Them” is as stable as an alkali and a halogen sitting side-by-side. It’s perfectly safe!  As long as there’s no interaction.

When someone loses an arm, we don’t consider him 19/20’s of a person.  He’s no less an individual than before.  And defining your entire persona as, say, “African-American” seems equally crazy to me.  You’re purposefully dividing the human race into “Us” and “Them”.

Stop that.

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to About “minorities”.

  1. I too would like it if folks didn’t use ethnicity labels. It’s always bothered me, because if I tried to do it, well that would sound ridiculous: “Hungarian-British-American.”

    So if it’s ridiculous for me, why isn’t it ridiculous for everyone?

    The only problem comes when you need to physically describe someone. I think that “African-American” should be described in shades of brown, and “caucasian” by shades of beige. Asians and Middle Eastern are a little harder to de-ethnify in physical description . . .

    • wormme says:

      Labels would be fine, shorn of the baggage. In fact they could be fun.

      Suppose I sorted gals by flower rather than color. You might be a “lily” and Zoe Saldana an “orchid”.

      Should you be insulted? Should Zoe?

      Like James Tiberius Kirk, I’d enjoy more color variety in the fairer sex, not less.

      • I love this idea. Flowers certainly come in enough shades to cover all the skin hues. What about guys, though? Maybe just plain old crayola colors would suffice, Burnt Sienna, etc . . .

      • wormme says:

        Or we could stay with botany and classify guys according to what kind of weed they are.

        I vote “poison ivy” for progressive males. They give everyone else a rash.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s