The case of the racist blackcurrant drink

Earthhorse wrote: »

So, under the criteria you have outlined can you give me an example of something which could legitimately be described as weird?

Slime Mold Give the entire world of flora and fauna - Slime Mold is genuinely weird in many ways.

There should not be too many things that deserve the term. That is kinda inherent in what the word means. It is one of those words that the more we use it - the less it actually means. In fact one dictionary definition of it is "suggesting something supernatural; unearthly.". Bizarre is defined as "very strange or unusual" neither of which a mistake in a drinks order strikes me as being. For something to be weird or bizarre to me it would have to be that - or be something that defies explanation maybe.

But sure it is subjective. What is "weird" to one person might be entirely normal to another. There was a guy on Joe Rogan recently living in extreme environments off grid - by our standards his situation is pretty weird. He probably finds it entirely normal.

But as I said it not _really_ the use of the word that is the problem. But why - and what people do off the back of it.

Earthhorse wrote: »

The "something else must be going on here" came before the word was used. You are confusing cause and effect.

I think it is more parallel cause and effect there. Each is leading to and justifying the other. Unless more evidence comes in this event sounds like a case of "nothing to see here" and it is pretty much _only_ by pretending it is weird and bizarre that the attempts to ascribe further narratives to it - or demand more complex explanations for it - are to be justified.

Earthhorse wrote: »

If you're point is that memory is sparked by events that wasn't clear from your earlier posts.

No my point is the reason that you do not hear about such events more is possibly connected with the fact most people do not think to mention such mundane things - and often entirely forget about them unless given genuine reason to recall them. Such as - with me - the anecdote becoming relevant in a given context. Had this event never happened I likely would never have recalled it let alone discussed it as an event. Errors in drinks orders are so common in the world - there is little cause to be bothered mentioning them.

You are ascribing weirdness based on not hearing about these kinds of events often. And I am suggesting that perhaps the expectation that you _should_ hear about them - is not a well founded expectation in the first place. I am suggesting that unlike your expection that if it is common you should hear about it more - that it is in fact the case that the _more_ common something is - the less likely someone is to mention it. I saw a bird today - I never mentioned it to anyone because it is not weird. I only mention it now _because_ it is not weird. And in fact I can not recall the last time anyone I know mentioned seeing a bird. Nothing in me suggests I should be thinking "Well if this is happening all the time - I should be hearing about it!". The exact opposite in fact.

Ready4Boarding wrote: »

End of?! What type of person wouldn't be embarrassed to write that?

Me. And quite a few other people out there who don't have any time or patience with this nonsense. Collective guilt is simply retarded, as is passing guilt on to someone for something that happened before they were born.

To be honest, I'd say anyone who promotes such collective guilt is showing signs of being a genuine racist.

That's irrelevant. We have benefited from them for a century.

Sure we have. So too did everyone under colonial rule. Or the Romans. Or the Chinese. In the broad scheme of things. It doesn't matter than many people were killed, tortured, and starved to death... in the broad scheme of things, all former conquered peoples tended to benefit from the advancements left behind when their oppressors are killed off or kicked out.

I won't get into a debate about the Famine - the popular narrative is simplistic and reinforced by prejudice - but, as bad as it was, it doesn't compare to the plundering of a contentment and the enslavement of millions.

It doesn't. But then neither does placing the whole continent of Africa under the whims of the colonial empires either, or ignoring their own history of slavery, genocide, and resettlement. Where do you think the Egyptians got their slaves from? Yup. In Africa, sold to them by other Africans.

The truth is that civilisations conquer, and enslave others to various degrees. You can see it across human history around the whole world. The Aztecs, the Incas, The Romans, The Chinese, The Mongols, etc etc etc.

If they had gained technological advancement, and explored further before the Europeans, they would have done so. And they would have dominated the Continent themselves in a similar, if not worse, manner than the Europeans. African cultures in terms of tribalism, and superstition, back then was far more similar to the Mongols than to the Europeans. And the Mongols once in a position of power exterminated whole races and demolished civilisations. But no, the British and other European nations were worse. No. They were just the last to do it.

This crusade to feel and demand guilt from others about colonialism or the behavior of European nations is idiotic. It ignores the behavior of other peoples and how they treated those different from them. Many cultures go through periods where they're more barbaric, warlike, superior, moralistic, etc. Placing the responsibility on white people is ignoring history and reality.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Okay, let me be more specific. What human experiences can legitimately be described as weird?

Very few I think - we just often like to think our experiences are weird or unique. But very little in average human experience appears to actually be much of either any more. Which is hardly surprising given just how many of us there are - and have ever been. There is _billions_ of us. All having many 1000s of experiences. Given a sample set that large - my expectation of finding the weird or unusual is quite low.

If a gun were put to my head and I had to think of an example or die though? I suppose having a genuinely world transforming scientific insight is relatively weird in human experience. Weird enough that we tend to remember long into posterity the few individuals who have had or facilitated them.

But the human brain did not evolve that way. It has a way of pulling single events out of a set of events - and being convinced it is more special or unique or weird or significant than it actually is. And our penchant for narrative leaves us then yearning even demanding the explanation for it scale in significance too.

By such are conspiracy theories born - or ideas about being psychic - or on threads like this intricate tales of contrived malice.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not really, because before I used the word, people were already questioning the hotel's explanation.

That is what I meant though. That narrative - and the language used to justify it such as pretending something pretty mundane is bizarre or unusual - is kind of co-occuring on the thread.

Earthhorse wrote: »

it's the type of error and rarity of it that makes it worth mentioning.

But it is not an interesting type or rare. That is my problem. Errors in drinks orders happen all the time in our world. Of course they do. How many 1000s of drinks are order per day in our entire world - often in busy high pressue environments - by flawed human beings to other flawed human beings?

You are declaring it to be weird or rare or unique and I am just not seeing why other than anecdote - not even anecdote - negative anecdote which I did not even realise was a thing until now

Earthhorse wrote: »

As I've already stated, people share common mundane things with each other all the time.

And as I already stated - while this is true and I agree with it - there also appears to be a threshold of mundane above which people tend to share mundane things. It is not that I think you are wrong therefore - just incomplete. I am not saying people do not share mundane things - I am saying they do not seem to share extremely mundane things. They have enough already mundane things to be going on about

So if people in your experience are not mentioning something that mundane this is not a testiment to such events being rare or weird. It is a testimant that perhaps you - the common denominator in your anecdotes (or in this lack of them) - attract people into your circles that are at least slightly interesting people who have enough relatively less mundane things to be going on about If I did not have better things to think and talk about in my life - I probably would have bored all and sundry with my potato anecdote too

Earthhorse wrote: »

So even seeing a bird can be remarkable given the correct context.

My point exactly! You are making my point for me now. The context is unique not the event in your example. A bird in your house - unique. An error in a drinks order - in a busy bar room environment - not so much. Neither the event _or_ the context is interesting there. So you are not comparing like with like.

Now if a bird got your drinks order wrong or if you were giving the drinks order in your own house - that would be more worth the mention because at least the context renders it interesting

But if the event _and_ the context are both common and mundane - I am genuinely struggling to see your point here.