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.
I feel like you don’t understand the position because there is nothing in what you’re saying that implies that you do.
I’m going to play this conversation as it occurred from my perspective to see if you see what I mean.
Your first response is “you’re taking an absurdist position, so I’ll take the opposite absurdist position to demonstrate the problem. Could we eliminate all racist rules, of course not. Car rules can be racist, but we can’t just not have car rules”
I reply “yeah, but we can not have cars. Cars aren’t a requirement for society”
You reply “but rules would still apply to those who do the not-car transport”
I reply “yes, but that wouldn’t exclude them from society. They would still be able to participate, unlike those kicked out of the hypothetical store”
To which you reply “but the grocery store wouldn’t apply to everywhere”
And I retort “no, but if they had any popularity, they would expand in order to deny disadvantaged people groceries at these ‘better’ stores”
And then your latest reply, which I can’t summarize without it becoming a straw man (my failing, not necessarily yours).
This grocery store isn’t “people extending basic decency” it’s “people not inconveniencing others on threat of permanent removal”. One is a social contract extended by and agreed to by others (basic decency) and the other is a threat enforced by the system, in this case the grocery store. You’re arguing that systems need rules. I’m arguing that using systems when it could just be standard human interaction is insane. Do you see the disconnect now?
Systems should be built to accommodate humans, not replace human interaction. Jane paying with a checkbook isn’t a reason she be barred from a public service. Christ on bikes, man.
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.
I feel like you don’t understand the position because there is nothing in what you’re saying that implies that you do.
I’m going to play this conversation as it occurred from my perspective to see if you see what I mean.
Your first response is “you’re taking an absurdist position, so I’ll take the opposite absurdist position to demonstrate the problem. Could we eliminate all racist rules, of course not. Car rules can be racist, but we can’t just not have car rules”
I reply “yeah, but we can not have cars. Cars aren’t a requirement for society”
You reply “but rules would still apply to those who do the not-car transport”
I reply “yes, but that wouldn’t exclude them from society. They would still be able to participate, unlike those kicked out of the hypothetical store”
To which you reply “but the grocery store wouldn’t apply to everywhere”
And I retort “no, but if they had any popularity, they would expand in order to deny disadvantaged people groceries at these ‘better’ stores”
And then your latest reply, which I can’t summarize without it becoming a straw man (my failing, not necessarily yours).
This grocery store isn’t “people extending basic decency” it’s “people not inconveniencing others on threat of permanent removal”. One is a social contract extended by and agreed to by others (basic decency) and the other is a threat enforced by the system, in this case the grocery store. You’re arguing that systems need rules. I’m arguing that using systems when it could just be standard human interaction is insane. Do you see the disconnect now?
Systems should be built to accommodate humans, not replace human interaction. Jane paying with a checkbook isn’t a reason she be barred from a public service. Christ on bikes, man.