Skip to main content
Big Brother racism?

There is a storm in a teacup about a contestant Jade Goody who made some remarks on the Big Brother TV series which could be construed as racist. I saw the program in question and she was certainly laying into Shilpa, and she certainly came across as a nasty bully.

Racism is such a sensitive issue, and I'm surprised that none of the other housemates had a word with Jade before ruining her reputation on national TV. However I am really concerned that there are taboo topics, and some things that you aren't allowed to say. Speech should be free. In spite of racism being a real problem, I actually think we should be confident enough to have racist banter, in the same way that we can have sexist banter. It's a shame that we are still too insecure, and too afraid of being labelled racist. We live in a politically correct society.

I have once or twice said things and immediately regretted them. For example I was once talking to a half-Indian whilst drunk, and he asked me what Birmingham was like. I said "I don't mean to sound racist, but there are a lot of asian communities". This was a really silly thing to say, even though this is actually one of the defining aspects of Birmingham. Anyhow the guy, who I was having a really interesting conversation with, walked away and didn't talk to me again.

Back to Jade: in spite of the fact that I don't really have anything in common with her, I think she's just the victim of political correctness gone mad. Of course she's not a racist.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can information theory prove the existence of God?

I recently came across this website by Perry Marshall, which makes a really interesting proof of the existence of God. The argument is basically that DNA constitutes information (a code), yet all information that we know of is the product of a mind. Randomness cannot create information. Therefore, God exists. Lovely argument. Now let's pick some holes. 1) My first observation is that this argument is almost exactly the same as entropy. The argument is that DNA is a low entropy state. Yet randomness always increases entropy. Therefore DNA cannot be the product of random processes, therefore it must be the work of God (or Maxwell's Demon). However this argument is invalid because localised decreases in entropy are perfectly possible, and expected, even though the entropy of the system as a whole increases. Considering that the site claims to make use of information theory, it presumably is aware of information entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy It fo...
3 comments
Read more

Breaking the Article 50 Impasse

Andrew Tyrie overestimates the UK's control over when the UK government can invoke Article 50. As with much of the Brexit debate, hope and aspiration trump cold hard reality. The next few months will see a lot of work by the UK government setting up new departments and policy positions relating to the triggering of Article 50 and Britain's exit from the EU. This is a sensible and necessary delay. However this article by The Independent makes the case that the UK should delay invoking Article 50 until we establish an informal agreement with the EU on our exit terms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-andrew-tyrie-must-manage-unrealistic-expectations-warns-tory-mp-a7220681.html This is very desirable from the UK's perspective, but flatly contradicts statements by the EU (including direct statements by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Cecilia Malmström, as well as official EU policy) that no talks can happen prior to invoking Article 50...
3 comments
Read more

Simulation independence

I recently came across Nick Boström's article about the simulation argument , which goes that there is a non-zero chance that we are actually simulated individuals, and not actually made of carbon at all. It was spun out of The Matrix series of movies, though is a recurring theme right from Descartes and the Brain in a Vat. Key to this idea is the argument of substrate independence , that is, carbon-based cells are not the only possible way of conjuring consciousness. Surely it isn't the carbon-based molecules per se that cause consciousness, but rather their configuration, and the kinds of computation (if that's the right word) being performed. Surely any "computer program" that reproduces the workings of the brain sufficiently well would suffice, since its operation and outputs would be essentially identical to the biological brain. The simulation argument goes that we are not all that far from achieving that level of computation, so therefore there may wel...
3 comments
Read more