gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why fewer contributors to GNU? They have to reveal identity and assi


From: Alexandre François Garreau
Subject: Re: Why fewer contributors to GNU? They have to reveal identity and assign copyright
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 03:43:43 +0100

Le mercredi 6 novembre 2019 03:27:01 CET, vous avez écrit :

> * Alexandre François Garreau <address@hidden> [2019-11-06 03:14]:

> > It’s natural to generalize, problem when generalization actually

> > (linearly/

> > monodimensionally) hierarchize people and becomes part of division culture

> > or oppression.

>

> It may be natural and human. But it is not rational,

 

Well, maybe not, because it’s not deduction (what drives logic) but induction. Yet you can naturally reason to the extent that most of our basic knowledge comes first from intuition, induction, and that induction can be logically formalized as a statistical process.

 

> and what I mean

> is statements like:

>

> Black/White people are bad.

>

> Women/man is bad - or - Americans/Russians/Africans/etc. are bad.

 

These are specifically hierarchizing moral generalizations.

 

> Those are generalizations and type of generalization that is of no

> benefit for anybody but hate creators.

 

It might indirectly benefit someone who didn’t stated it but profited of a systemic oppressive context within a particular society’s culture.

 

> If one says that proprietary software is harming people, that is

> objective generalization.

 

That is a generality, but not a *generalization*. It is already general *by definition*, so it is deduction, not induction.

 

> Yes, people tend to generalize, that does not make the world better

> place. From programmers I expect specific statements, not

> generalizations.

 

Induction helps reasoning because to reason you need assertions and lot of assertions and useful thought has to be done about undefined stuff, found only in the material, non-ideal world, yet to be defined… but a posteriori.

 

> When such

> statements are depicting certain class of people being bad for some

> reason, there is no use of such but the creation of hate.

 

Depends if it’s an essential, natural and inherent class or an immanent and changing class. “Compulsive serial killers are bad” is useful generalization, even without hate. However it is to be known that “bad” is a general enough concept to be useful about really scarcely, in very specific and temporary situations.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]