Messages

Cain, the things you read in books I've read always make me feel like I missed something.
It is motivating.
Not to read like you do, but to read a book again to see if I can see what you see.
If that makes any sense.

Ret: if you're trying to say you notice traits like race and gender, but make a conscious effort to avoid judging people based on those traits, you probably don't want to express that by saying you "don't notice" those traits.

That is a good idea.

Thats why I didn't say that.

The closest I came to saying something even vaguely similar was:

Good people notice and remember actions better than looks.

I hope that didn't cause all this fighting because now that I reread that it doesn't read like a proper sentence. Noticing is a yes/no affair, so there is no better.
I apologize for putting up that windmill for people to attack with my badly constructed sentence.

If you would allow me to rephrase:
Good people assign a greater value to your actions than your looks when they judge you.

So that when they start forgetting details of the time they met you(forgetting is unavoidable afaik) they will forget the tilt of your nose before they forget that you rescued a bee from drowning. Unless they think your nose is exceptional in some way and/or they really don't care about bees.

Of course, both ctrl-F and my memory could have failed me, so please point out anywhere in this thread where i said i didn't see race or gender. I'm pretty sure I qualified every one of my statements though.

Just LOOK at all that virtue you're assigning to yourself. And the flip side, the malignment of those terribly shallow people who don't have the virtue of not noticing people's appearance.

I'm quite aware that I am a bad person, I just don't think that my attempts to not judge by appearance is one of the reasons.

If someone sees me sitting there reading, I prefer that they notice that I'm reading and leave me the fuck alone. Why would YOU approach a stranger who is reading? I can tell you why I'm approached while I'm reading 99% of the time, and it isn't because they failed to notice my gender or appearance.

I would want to be left alone as well so I wouldn't approach reading people.
If most approaches while you are reading happen because they assign greater value to your looks than to your book and that annoys you, that means you would prefer people to notice your book? Are you saying that books are more important than looks? Because that would be nice but it doesn't fit the general tone of your other posts.

But please, continue to tell women and brown people why they're lame and shallow to find "I don't see gender" and "I don't see race" facile, disingenuous, and insulting.

Isn't assigning a large value to superficial traits like skin color the definition of shallow?
I'm telling people who assign a large value to superficial traits that they are shallow. That usually hits bigots harder than brown women.
I see skin color just fine, I just don't assign it a large value.

I get the impression we are not fighting on the same battleground, I'm trying to tell you that broad-brush superficial categories don't matter to me and that I hope many other people think that way as well.
You are trying to tell me I am lying because other people tend to lie about that. OK, so you don't believe me. I can accept that. Just don't expect me to be quiet when you call me a liar.

My last attempt at clarifying what I mean:
I think superficial and trivial should have a large overlap so I try to shape my thought processes to make that true.

If someone sees you sitting and reading, would you prefer a question about your thighs hair or about your book?

Really classy brah.

Sorry, is it better like this?

I mean, what if a woman laughed and was like "Oh, LOL, you're a man? I didn't notice!"

Shift the context just a little, and people will take it as an insult. NOT NOTICING who people are isn't flattering, it isn't nice, it isn't post-racism. It's just being a dick, unless you authentically have brain damage or a disorder that makes it difficult for you to perceive physical attributes of individual people.

I wouldn't be insulted by that.
I'm not saying I don't notice who people are, I'm saying I notice what people do sooner than I notice a haircut. Do not assume that my lack of interest in looks only extends to those looks that are different than mine, I don't give a fuck about my own looks either.
I have similar blocks regarding money, I don't notice the price of some rich asshole's clothes, I notice them acting like they are better than other people.

I don't have brain damage, I have self-built mental blocks that keep me from perceiving trivial attributes of people such as minor variations in looks.
People for whom superficial traits are so essential to their identity that they feel insulted if others aren't constantly noticing those traits are difficult for me to understand. Don't these people have hobbies?
Maybe this would help clarify:
If someone sees you sitting and reading, would you prefer a question about your thighs or about your book?

Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine. White men tend to be the worst, because they assume that thinking you're just like them is some kind of compliment, like "Oh, I didn't even notice you were brown or female" is supposed to make me feel GOOD about myself.

No need to apologize, I knew that beforehand.

Oh, relevant! I would notice your skin and gender because it is a large part of your self-image. I would still care more about your study books and be more likely to remember titles of your books than the length of your hair a few days (or even minutes) later.
If that is generally considered offensive, I still won't change that part of me. I am an anti-social bibliophile and a boorish bastard.

That is the correct stance on race.
And that is what (i hope all but at least some) people mean when they say they don't see skin color. It is like seeing a nose. Sure, it can be all different kinds, but the general idea is the same and it doesn't really matter.

Given the actual world we live in, when most people say they don't see skin color, they're lying, and what they mean is "my ideals would make my life easier if I couldn't see skin color".

Is it all the same? No. Any child can see that one butt is brown and another butt is light. Unless you have literal brain damage, you can see color. The difference is the social value assigned to it.

Well... in that case most people suck!
Gah! 

I can never wrap my mind around the fact that almost everyone sees such superficial things as IMPORTANT THINGS.
Good people notice and remember actions better than looks.

Example: in-game chat conversation with a new acquaintance, despite her mentioning her name and describing her looks I had no idea who she was until she mentioned that we worked together for 10 minutes on restocking some shelves near the end of the LAN party where we met. (it was held in a food-bank/supermarket building, proceeds went to support the food-bank.) Though that may just be my crappy memory :P

That is the correct stance on race.
And that is what (i hope all but at least some) people mean when they say they don't see skin color. It is like seeing a nose. Sure, it can be all different kinds, but the general idea is the same and it doesn't really matter.

Pfah! kids these days. I learned English from watching BBC cartoons and that was good wholesome education, this vidyagamestuff will just rot their minds!

Wasabi mayonnaise?  What is this wonderful sorcery?

Terrible demon-craft you mean? That poor wasabi....



No, that actually sounds like it probably the best thing that could happen to mayonnaise. And I can't say I never eat it, it just has to be in a manner that I don't realize I am eating it. It does sound intriguing though. Certainly better than the sadness that is baconnaise.

It adds something that mayonnaise was missing.

Taste.

Haha, that would definitely be an improvement and I could see that working well. If I ever cross paths with this wasabi mayo, I may have to give it a try

Stop insulting mayonnaise!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikd0ZYQoDko&feature=youtu.be

Not what you think from the title or opening words.  Stick with it.

Wow, that got damn good.

WTF?   I posted this in open bar.  I swear.

I knew I saw it before you posted it here!
I though I was going mad.

Did it accidentally get moved here?

3 months so far working this desk job. I hate it mostly for the lack of being active. I come home too tired, and too lazy to do something at home. Looking into a warehouse job I could care less about making $1/hr less. The fact I get to walk around for 8hrs/day feels great versus being a fat fuck at working on the phone.

I hear ya.

Well, instead of comparing Russia during communism to Russia before and after communism to determine the effect of communism on russia's quality of life they instead compare Russia under  communism to a completely unrelated country, ie. the USA

Thanks, that clears up what the propositions are.
Now, who are the persons?

I'm still not clear if you are commenting on Demolition Squid vs. the Capitalism/Communism debate or on Capitalism vs Communism.
Or maybe you mean Common sense vs Capitalism? I just can't tell.

<snip>
As the people who wrote the thing in the first place noted in their paper, in addition to dog faces and eyes, the google imagenet model seems to have an obsession with tropical birds, pagodas, waterfalls, and gothic cathedral latticework. In fact, the architectural features are a little bit more prevalent; these images are all the result of a starting image that's just randomly colored pixels:
<snip>

But, people tend to take pictures of people and animals. And, correctly recognizing organic shapes associated with animals, deepdream proceeds to overfit the definition and make animal faces look more like its conception of an average animal face (which appears to be equal parts cat, dog, and human) and make animal orifices look like its conception of the average animal orifice (an eye).

Thanks for the info.

The Cold War is basically a strawman argument. Russia was a shitty place to live before the Soviet Union and it's still kind of a crummy place to live now.

I can see several ways of interpreting that statement.
Could you expand on it a bit?

Here is the Straw man structure.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

    Person 1 asserts proposition X.
    Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

When you say the Cold War is a straw man argument: Who is person 1, what is their proposition, who is person 2, what is their false proposition?