5 ms·

If I were a muslim girl getting discriminated against for wearing a hijab, I'd stop wearing the hijab. So you would, I guess, also suggest that Sikhs should st

• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• guylhem 14y ago
  Excellent point. But "if the result of happiness_from_identification_with_current_religion + happiness_from_how_people_make_me_feel" is negative, maybe a) you are unhappy, b) it's not an untractable problem because c) there is something you can change in the equation, and there is something you can't change. You know the saying - you can't change the others, only yourself.
  • icebraining 14y ago
    Some things are worth being unhappy about. "The more we gave in, the more we complied with that kind of treatment, the more oppressive it became."
    • guylhem 14y ago
      I guess it all depends on one's utility function. If you think that in life, suffering is a good thing, or that some things are more important that your own happiness, yes they are.
      • ktizo 14y ago
        Perhaps there is a bit more to life than a 'utility function'.
        • YuriNiyazov 14y ago
          No there isn't. That's the beauty of a 'utility function' - it _is_ the "what there is to life".
          • ktizo 14y ago
            Only from a very narrow set of perspectives. There are many perspectives on life and for many of them a 'utility function' would seem nonsensical at best. Economics is not as all-encompassing a discipline as some people would like to make out.
            • YuriNiyazov 14y ago
              Would you care to come up with such a "perspective on life"? I bet that for any actual, constructed perspective (rather than an a-priori incompatible one like "a perspective on life such that it doesn't admit a utility function") a utility function can be defined.
              • ktizo 14y ago
                Just because a utility function can be defined for a given perspective doesn't mean that it automatically makes sense from within that perspective, given that defining a utility function is choosing to view things from an economic perspective and even in economics there is a difference of opinion of what that actually means, with some economists viewing it as something abstract that is only used to discuss more fundamental things and with others saying that utility functions are in themselves fundamental. Saying that utility functions are the "what there is to life", is a bit like 42 being the answer to life, the universe and everything in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. What meaning you can draw depends totally on what question you are asking, or what perspective you are looking at it from. For instance, if you are a squirrel, then an economist might be able to calculate a utility function for your behaviour, however the concept of utility functions themselves have no bearing (as far as we know) on "what there is to life" from the squirrel's perspective.
      • icebraining 14y ago
        Even if you only consider personal happiness as important, you should reflect on the quote I posted. Some temporary unhappiness and struggle may be preferable in the long run.
  • wpietri 14y ago
    Right, and this is basically saying that we should be aware of how much anti-Muslim prejudice sucks to experience, so that we can start changing ourselves.
  • ktizo 14y ago
    I'm not sure I agree with that saying. There would seem to be overwhelming evidence against it for one thing.
• supersaiyan 14y ago
  Its a matter of psychological dissonance; when you're under that much pressure, you either change your thought (ignore the haters) or change your actions (stop wearing Hijab), it's a subjective thing, no point on arguing whats right or wrong here.
• Jach 14y ago
  > So you would, I guess, also suggest that Sikhs should stop wearing turbans, Jews should stop wearing a kippah, nuns should stop wearing habits, pagans should stop wearing pentangles, etc. Only if said individuals of the group are uncomfortable with their experience of discrimination. Others have thicker skins and ignore it, and some don't face any discrimination at all. Some want to rebel against society like a teenager and knowingly do stuff that gets them disapproval. My advice is an obvious solution to a specific problem, it does not generalize to "all members of X".
  • ktizo 14y ago
    So you are saying that if you are uncomfortable with your experience of discrimination then you should change your appearance to appease your persecutor? Do you make this crap up yourself, or does it get sent to you through the mail as part of your subscription to Batshit Monthly?
    • wpietri 14y ago
      I believe it actually comes in Privileged Young White Dude Fortnightly.
      • ktizo 14y ago
        Many people do, the dirty minx.
• B3nder 14y ago
  I think that is indeed what he is saying. No it is not idiotic, because: 1) Religion is foolish and anti-progressive 2) Religion has a diminishing place in American culture 3) Everyone in America knows it, espeKorany the enlightened among us 4) Traditions of religious origin are silly, especially if they cause difficulty in one's life 5) We (the majority) do not care that much if your feelings are hurt because of a choice you make. Deal with it and move on 6) Stop dressing like people that scare the shit out of us by trying to kill us all... men women and children 7) The world's conservative Islamic community has brought this upon themselves... by being or supporting murderous psychopaths, by promoting mostly bullshit religious dogma that may not actually be part of the koran, and by being some of the most Xenophobic of all cultures the world has ever seen.
  • ktizo 14y ago
    You could also change the last line to: "7) The world's conservative Christian community has brought this upon themselves... by being or supporting murderous psychopaths, by promoting mostly bullshit religious dogma that may not actually be part of the bible, and by being some of the most Xenophobic of all cultures the world has ever seen." And it would make as much sense. Which is not a lot really, as from your argument it is surely also fine to persecute people dressed even slightly like americans, in those countries which america has attacked, if it is fine to persecute people wearing headscarves, for an extremist attack over a decade ago. Also, if you want to round up the litany of death from dogma, athiest states have been just as destructive as religious ones over the past hundred years or so. [edit] I have personally have found that generic religious/philosophic affiliation (Buddhist, Athiest, Christian, etc) seems to have very little bearing on if someone will be a dickhead, and also that all large affiliations seem to have their fair share of them. Claiming rationality about the lack of evidence for god, for instance, does not make people necessarily any more rational in other spheres, and also it doesn't automatically make them any nicer.