Skip to main content

Astrologists and racists, or this is where the party ends

How are astrologists like racists?  There could be a funny one-liner response to that, I'm sure, but the answer I'm looking for is simple:  They are lazy thinkers.

I'm going to spend a few paragraphs here doing a cursory job of debunking both viewpoints and showing why they are lazy, but I'm not going to go into much detail, as that's not the real point I want to make.

Astrology:  Really?  You honestly think that 1/12th of the human race will have the same general set of experiences based on when they were born?  (This is assuming the "normal" Zodiac, though a similar thing can be said about, for instance, the Chinese Zodiac, and this is ignoring the silliness added in by distinguishing between "Sun signs" and "moon signs.")  Do you realize that these signs were based on people believing some quite inaccurate things about the stars (like virtually anything besides that they are gaseous giants that are light years away)?  Did you know why they control a certain portion of the year (answer: because the sun travels "through" the constellation during that portion)?  Did you know that those dates have shifted?  Did you know anything more about it than you might meet a dark stranger today, and that you should be especially watchful because some other sign is blahdie blah blahing?  I didn't think so.  Astrology doesn't make sense; it didn't when it originated (at least by Roman times), and it makes even less sense now.  Only people who don't think about it, who don't know its history and how it is "supposed" to work, could possibly believe it at all.  And that's why they are lazy thinkers.

Racists:  Really?  You honestly think that someone's melanin count controls their personality?  Racist against black people?  How do you explain the President, Morgan Freeman, or for that matter the vast majority of black people you stand by at freaking Wal-Mart?  More tellingly, the things you supposedly "know" about black people ... Why don't you look at your (I'm guessing white) cousin, or ex, or ... whatever.  Racist against white people?  Think that white people are "the man" and are all secretly racist and hate you because you are black?  Get real.  Think Hispanics are bad?  WHY?  Because they traveled to a country where they thought they could make a better life for themselves, then work themselves to death for less than you would take?  Because they speak their SECOND language only marginally less well than you speak your FIRST language?  The truth is, it's lazy thinking.  It's much easier to push someone down, and to classify them based on the first thing that pops into your mind, than to have to be more nuanced.

So, there's the mini-debunk, and I'm not going to waste my time on trying to prove either wrong anymore.  For whatever reason, there has been a lot of racist stuff thrown near me recently, and ... well ... I'm tired of it.

So, this is where the party ends.  (For those that don't recognize that, please enjoy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQVk6LrJCBM ).  I'm not going to be militant, but I'm going to stop being so nice about it when people say racist things around me anymore.

So, if I'm near you, and you drop an 'N' bomb, I'm going to call you on it.  If you say you are going to go to an organization that is devoted to a certain race, or investigating the problems of a certain race, or is at all race-based ... I'm going to call you on it.  (If you are in an organization that has "White," "Caucasion," "Black," "Hispanic," "Asian," "African-American," etc. in the title, I'm talking to you; find an organization that cares about the underlying issues for everyone, not just the ones that look like you.)

I think most people are partly racist; it's hard not to be (especially here in the South).  But it's time to move on, folks. 

We should all stop being lazy thinkers.  The racist party is over.

Comments

  1. So maybe we should just talk about "lazy thinking?" Surely that would cast a wider net and, perhaps, define the concept a bit more...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to read the Bill of Rights

The legal rights in the Bill of Rights didn't exist until the 20th century Social media has been abuzz with the Bill of Rights, and in particular the 1st Amendment, recently. Many posts, explicitly or implicitly, trace the Bill of Rights to the Founders.  That's wrong and leads to a poor understanding. A proper reading of the Constitution and the law reveals that, while the text was written then, these rights did not apply even on paper to the states until 1868, in fact until the middle of the 20th century, or even into the 21st century for the 2nd Amendment. “It is a Constitution we are expounding.” The Constitution sets out principles and goals, structures and limitations, and we must never forget that . It is law -- the highest law of the land , in fact -- but it is not code , which is detailed and often attempts to be exhaustively complete and explicit. The Constitution was written to provide a framework of balances by a group of  flawed aristocrats trying to rebel from ano

Election 2016: Why Hillary’s conflated scandals are unconvincing #ImWithHer

This is part of a series of posts on Election 2016 . To be honest, I’ve stopped listening to most of the scandals about Hillary. That’s not because I think she is perfect or would never do something scandalous, but because the noise of obvious crap, generated over 3 decades, has made me jaded about spending any time investigating stories by people who think Killary is a fascist Communist. To be clear, I think she is an imperfect human. We don’t subject most politicians to the kind of scrutiny that Hillary has faced – how much do we know about George and Laura’s relationship, or his struggles with addiction, for instance?  But she isn’t perfect.  I think she is a bit paranoid and has a tendency to “circle the wagons” at the slightest sign of problems, and I think she is a fierce competitor that swings first and asks questions later. Like all successful politicians, she is willing to spin the truth to meet her needs, and she comes across, in crowd settings, as a bit fake.  Unlik

Why COVID-19 is MUCH worse than the seasonal flu

This is the second in a series of posts about the COVID-19 pandemic . This installment is discussing why COVID-19 is much, much worse than the seasonal flu. Here it is, in a nutshell : COVID-19 is more contagious, more deadly, already has more known long-term impacts, has no vaccine or truly effective treatments, and has no apparent seasonality. Contagion SARS-COV-2 is much more contagious. The median R0 (average number of people infected by each person when nobody is immune) is 5.7 , or more optimistically 2.5 . For the pandemic to go away, R0 would need to effectively be less than 1.  The estimate of the 1918 novel flu was between 1.2 and 2.4 .  (An R0 of 5.7 means we need over 80% of the population to be immune to reach effective herd immunity .) Beyond that, the incubation period is long, and the number of transmissions before symptoms begin hovers near half those infected . And the duration of being contagious is longer, up to 10 days after the first symptoms. That means people ar