Don't bother.

And you don't need to accept that everything is relative.
I'm just saying, that if you'll accept that many people treat things as if they are relative, and you adapt your output and your examination of their input to take this into account - then you'll have a lot less trouble.
You said you have a pragmatics-enhancing condition: I put it to you that the pragmatics I talk about is a linguistic term, referring (f.ex.) to "what is actually the intended message of a statement - regardless of the meaning of its parts".
This I think, is part of what you referred to as "intentional distraction".
Pragmatics is implicit, it's indirect, it's non-semantic (having to do with usage, not with the code, i.e. lexicalized meaning).
"Can you reach the salt" is a classic example, it's hardly ever spoken at face value, it's hardly ever [b]a question about the reach of appendages and their relation to the specific position of the addressee and of the salt shaker[/b]...
If you refuse to participate in (compute) similar displacements of trivial semantics, causing more pertinent pragmatic concerns to fall on their asses, then you're causing a disruption of communication.
And causing a disruption of communication is going to be viewed as an unfriendly act.
Which is why you end up in exasperating quarrels with people who'd otherwise be of no particular opposition to your position.
Being undiplomatic is one thing, but playing by undisclosed and completely unconventional rules - that's another.
Some people can accept the undiplomatic. Few can accept idiosyncratic refusal of common-form communication.

If your intent is to demonstrate that people are hiding behind language, then wouldn't it be appropriate to point out that the common use maybe shouldn't be so common?

Are we to simply accept the way people conceal their real beliefs and intentions behind opaque language? Are we not to try and bring them into the light? To make them face the reality of their actions and not permit them to hide behind their weasel-words.

Seems to me that's what everyone should be doing, but aren't. And that is itself something that causes me great frustration. The fact that we turn a blind eye to certain behaviour that is immoral, unethical, or even inhuman is reprehensible.

One final point. I, for one, often don't want a complete answer, just enough clues to solve the puzzle results in far more satisfaction and often in greater understanding. It's what I want others to do, so it's what I do.

Is one of the things I was thinking of. As far as I'm concerned, there is (should be) no such thing. I believe in a classless society. That doesn't mean I believe it exists, but that it should be the goal of all societies. So if someone is acting as though they have some right to be treated better than others, the right thing to do it to burst their bubble. To put them in a situation where they either have to spell out why they think they are superior or to accept that they aren't.

has nothing to do with how our collective, our culture, has happened to ease our fear of ambiguity...
Social "classes", once institutionalized, now emergent (as they were before institutionalization, too) are simply a way to reduce the number of people we have to take into account. Remember that our natural state (of only 10000 generations back) included connections with around 100 people, maximum. Even 100 generations ago (when Jesus was around) the majority of people only had to deal with between 10 and 200 people in their lives; the ones who lived in cities did have to be around more people, but they already knew to reduce their social liabilities by disregarding the majority for whatever reasons their culture would allow.
Tribal background, for example, or religious/societal roles...

But how we, as individuals choose to deal with others, is entirely our own choice.
Some people are ass-wholes who treat their "equals" as dirt too, some people are humans, who deal squarely with all comers.

But everybody observes more careful use of language (politeness and other pragmatic means) when dealing with people from a distal social class. That's also taking into account the potentially large gap in sociolect, it's simply a necessity.

For your response. I agree, these things are hard to do, and rummaging through the assertions and assumptions is what I'm really getting at. It's something I've done consciously since my early-mid teens, it's the "norm" to me. My automatic reaction is to assume others do the same and to ask questions and respond based upon this assumption.

I accept that this is not the way most people spend their time, but I've always been about individuality rather than conformity. The differences have always mattered more than the similarities. I've always tried to celebrated difference and assumed tolerance. And I truly believe that if more people did so, we (and they) would all be better off.

Now, I know this in itself a contradiction, I assume you're all the same while also saying you are individuals.

I know there are similarities between people, but it's the differences that make us interesting, not the similarities. At least for me.

What I find frustrating is that the attributes people tend to use when "classifying people"(Doesn't that phrase just sound wrong? Sounds like something done in a processing plant) are often not as clear-cut as they think.

"Racial" differences are often less than the differences within races. The very concept of race as it's generally used is almost meaningless in real physical terms. That's actually kind of good. It means it appears to be virtually impossible to create a pathogen targetted at a particular race.

What all this says to me is that classifying people and assuming the members of said classification have some common ground is often going result in injustice. If that's the case, to me, it's black and white, doing this is a fundamentally bad thing and we should fight our own instinct to do this.

It's not like I don't find myself doing this sort of thing. But, when I do, I try and re-think my beliefs and assumptions, and modify my behaviour. To me, it's about trying to live consciously rather than automatically. I'm sure you know a lot of people who don't think about their actions, they just do the same as yesterday, and if asked why, would struggle to respond. I'm not suggesting these people are stupid or unjust, just that they are not naturally incline to self-analysis or a philosophical view of life. Most are capable of this but for different reasons have learned not to do it.

Perhaps if we can't deal with 6 million individuals justly, we should constrain the effects of our actions to those who we can treat as people rather than categories. As I don't like to assume, the idea that we might need to completely restructure our world is never off the table. It's always an option. Given the way the world (physical and social) is going at the moment, perhaps more people should think this way.

Regarding your comment about limited resources and spreading them thin. "What's the value of the average human being?" Exactly the same as the value of yourself. If you feel valuable, then assume others are as valuable. It sounds simplistic, but if you think about it it's the only reasonable assumption. Perhaps we could also try thinking about how to make our lives better without making other's worse. In other words, we gain only what all gain. That could only be a good thing.

Regards

I.e. a God-given betterness of some, over others - i.e. nobility, royalty and the abuse of Christ.
That's some messed up shilt, that - and I don't blame you for disliking it.
The thing is though, that there's also a real need to organize the way-too-many social entities in our lives.
We're not evolved for city living yet, that might take a couple thousand years still, you know.
So, the thing isn't about classes, but about social distance.
If you're a majority ethnicity male for example, then you need to observe certain practices when addressing a minority ethnicity female, for instance.
Practices that are designed both to alleviate potential affront, as well as safeguard against sociolect conflicts : what's a normal form addressing a person in one sociolect may carry strong negative connotations in another (since sociolects use many of the same words, but with different meaning sets and values).
So, that's why I talk about social distance. Same, in many cultures with young to old, or old to young.

and still, some people would be offended by that, as (from a normal person) it would carry a truckload of assumptions and assertations about what Erdos considers a human peer... i.e. a person might feel belittled or disregarded as a human, because Erdos did not provide in his addressing them, a place to be that they felt they could fill.
It's about unstated expectations, if they're the wrong kind, that's belittlement or disregard.
Whether or not that was the intent (which of course it was not).

for trying to be conscious about what you find yourself doing.

I also liked this bit : [i]"Racial" differences are often less than the differences within races. The very concept of race as it's generally used is almost meaningless in real physical terms. That's actually kind of good. It means it appears to be virtually impossible to create a pathogen targetted at a particular race.[/i]
You're exactly right. We cannot talk about human races (BTW notice how we never speak of "the human species", using instead "the human race"?), instead we could perhaps talk about human genotypes; but if we start on that then we'll find hundreds of protypical human genotypes in europe alone, thousands and thousands within Africa, to say nothing of Asia, and then, in America all the combinations, some of which may have stabilized into new genotypes.
And that's with accounting for a person being of two genotypes or more at once...
And even then, with all that detail, what would be the point? Only in medicine could there be a use for that, identifying which people are more at risk of certain infections f.ex., so that vaccinations can be recommended.

As for the rest, I agree with you, but I strongly warn you not to underestimate the murks of your mind... they're deeper than you are - just like mine are deeper than I.

Priceless, here I was ready to debate, and I'm snorting in laughter instead....priceless.

Simply treat all people, regardless of appearance, the way you would like to be treated. Be polite. Be respectful. Allow them to classify themselves by their behavior. That's the way I was raised, so I find it fairly easy to behave that way.

I get the impression from dogknees' posts that he feels occasionally feels guilty if he has a negative first impression. There's nothing wrong with a negative first impression as long as he doesn't allow that impression to affect his behavior toward that individual. THAT's the hard part.

Sometimes finding things again is a challenge.

Back when I was dating, I used to very consciously judge a man on how he treated the waiter or waitress. I was generally pretty sure that I didn't want to date someone who was rude to a person in a service role.

I wish I could argue the point re: not ignoring behavior that you believe is not in the best interests of others. When I take an honest look at myself, I find that I can't argue it... because I do it too. When I see someone behaving rudely or inappropriately, I do tend to open my mouth about it.

I really like what you have said regarding people possibly having a sense of superiority over others who have less than they do. I agree that this sense is not likely conscious- although I have known people for whom it is entirely conscious. I wonder if there is a tie here to self esteem in any way- I don't know that I have ever seen myself as having "more" than someone else. I will say that I have seen myself as having something more desirable (in my own opinion). I don't think that has resulted in a sense of superiority, but perhaps self satisfaction.

I agree that society certainly has some things that could be improved. Perhaps, in the process of sharing and challenging ideas, we begin to make some of those improvements.