Linux drove me to get a Mac

[Jamon Camisso]

On Jan 12, 2009, at 18:51, E K <ekg_ab-FFYn/CNdgSA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 1/12/09, CLIFFORD ILKAY <clifford_ilkay-biY6FKoJMRdBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org>  
> wrote:
>> From: CLIFFORD ILKAY <clifford_ilkay-biY6FKoJMRdBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org>
>> Subject: Re: [TLUG]: Linux drove me to get a Mac
>> To: tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org
>> Received: Monday, January 12, 2009, 3:31 PM
>> E K wrote:
>>> "you should be able
>>> to understand how people can make sweeping and wrong
>> generalizations
>>> about people of your ancestry, for example. I'll
>> bet you don't like it
>>> when people do that. "
>>>
>>> Does one have to resort to thinly hidden racism to
>> make a point?
>>
>> Oh please. Not the racism card. Perhaps I was too subtle.
>> People who
>> have experienced racism first-hand, as I suspect the
>> original poster may
>> have and I have, should be even more attuned to the folly
>> of making
>> sweeping generalizations about groups of people than those
>> who haven't.
>> That isn't to say that people who haven't
>> experienced racism first-hand
>> can be excused for not being mindful of this or are
>> insensitive. It just
>> means that having experienced the ugliness of racism or
>> hostility just
>> for being a member of some identifiable group, that ought
>> to make one be
>> more careful about not committing the same sins against
>> others.
>>
>
> I disagree. Generalization (a.k.a abstraction) is a very important  
> (actually an essential) aspect of human thinking. Without it no  
> knowledge is possible. So we can not generally condemn generalization.
>
> Of course there are true/correct/helpful generalizations and there  
> are aslo negative and dangerous generalizations. But one  
> generalization to a totally unrelated another generalization is  
> logically absured.
>

I'm not so sure. That's the whole basis of reasoning by analogy,  
another of those things that we're pretty good at.

> Yes, the generalization he made was way off mark and totally  
> ignorant. But that has to do with, if I were to make another  
> generalization, can be ascribed to Windows/Mac users. Race  
> absolutely has no factor in the debate unless you want to racialize  
> the OSes.
>
> I don't think your point was to racialize technology, but to inject  
> racism as a scare tool. That is what made me respond.
>

Another of those "Canadian values" things, where for the most part we  
don't mention race at all. That's not to say race is relevant here,  
but it is a response that is usually within the realm of political  
correctness that goes unquestioned and closes off sometimes fruitful  
avenues of discussion.

>>> The difference here was opinion, preference and
>> belief.
>>
>> Attributing things to "opinion, preference and
>> belief" seems to be the
>> last resort of those who can't make an argument for or
>> against
>> something.
>
> I agree with what you said about attributing things to opinion...  
> But what I meant was the difference was about technological and  
> economical outlooks. Of course, I don't agree with what he is  
> saying. All I can understand from what he is saying is that he has  
> very little understanding of technology and the open source. And in  
> the tradition of the social concervatives (yet another  
> generalization) everything that he does not know is "scary" instead  
> of interesting. But again that has nothing to do with _his_ancestory_.
>
>> You don't have to look very hard on-line to
>> find bigots who
>> say, for example, that "all Muslims are
>> terrorists". They can also hide
>> behind the "opinion, preference and belief"
>> shield but they would be
>> just as ignorant and wrong as someone who labels
>> subscribers to this
>> list as "scary" just because some, perhaps many,
>> of them happen to
>> promote free software.
>>
>
> Why are you talking about Muslims? Why not talk about Jews or blacks  
> or Asians or the indigeneous people? The fact you rant about the  
> "mischaracterization" of  Muslims to Mr. Khan is to remind him of  
> the "characterization" of Muslims. The "mis" looks pretty much like  
> the canadian way of racial slur in a political correct way.
>
>
>> You can argue that the case of the anti-Muslim bigots is
>> worse but that
>> would be arguing over shades of grey. Mischaracterizations
>> of the
>> "other" have historically led to rather
>> unpleasant things and they
>> invariably start with seemingly innocuous things, like
>> labelling the
>> "other" as "scary". In this case, that
>> can have very real and negative
>> consequences if a sufficient number of people who share the
>> same
>> ignorant beliefs as the original poster encourage
>> politicians to pass
>> stinky laws like the DMCA in the U.S. and the contemplated
>> Bill C-61 here.
>>
>>> The conversation and intensity could have happened
>> among any group of
>>> the _same_ancestory_ who happened fanatical about
>> their belief.
>>
>> And it would have been just as stupid and unacceptable in
>> that case.
>>
>
> But then no one would try to scare, condescend the other because of  
> race. My point is you got to refrain from using race to silence/ 
> discriminate in areas where race has absolutely no relevance. Race  
> and religion have unique significance compared to other  
> characterization because of their prevalence, severity and reach. No  
> other form of discrimination has persevered for so long and at such  
> great scale.
>

This is where I just plain disagree. They've prevailed for so long  
because as I said, they go unquestioned, rather like a large off-white  
pachiderm occupying a substantial portion of a room.

>>> It is just a sad reality in Canadian hidden racism
>> that you got first
>>> to check "your ancestory" before you make
>> your inconvinient point.
>>
>> Just like anyone else, the original poster has the right to
>> say whatever
>> he wants, even if he says idiotic things, but I have every
>> right to
>> challenge him if I disagree.
>> -- 
>
> My point was you could and should have disagreed with relevant  
> points about technology rather than calling on _your_ancestors_.  
> That is
> specially easy when you are arguing in favour of superior technology  
> and innovative business model.
>>
>>

Again, and this is just my personal opinion and recent realization,  
thechnology does not stand on its own. It is just as much a product of  
a culture and society as is language and political norms. Consider the  
OLPC, is it not just as much a product of a particular brand of  
cultural imperialism, or at least assumptions about how people should  
learn? (or even that they should for that matter, education bring  
another of those feel good International Development paradigms that  
goes largely unquestioned).

So if the OLPC is a cultural and social construction and artefact  
embodying our "Western" norms and assumptions, what's not to say that  
race or cultural imperialism isn't at play or relevant to the  
discussion as well?

The question, or analogy in this case, at least bears asking.

Jamon
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists