|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 30, 2017 2:11:13 GMT
At one time it was normal to generalize about people. Many a famous quote has come from it. Shakespeare etc.
"Ireland has produced some notable individuals, but the aggregate population is a miserable mass of treachery & drunkenness. Savages--confound 'em." HP Lovecraft from a letter written June 4, 1916
We are told never generalize people--that is racist and wrong. Stereotypes.
And yet we generalize nonhuman animals all the time.
If someone knows there is a lion in a cave, and someone advises avoiding the cave since the lion may attack, no one would likely say: "hey that is unfair to lions, this lion may be a vegetarian."
Are generalizations about human populations really bad? Aren't they useful for safety and precaution?
The story goes that Jesse Jackson once remarked that if he was walking alone along a street and hears footsteps behind him, and he turns around and sees it is a white person, he is relieved.
You are stereotyping Jesse!
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jun 30, 2017 3:17:26 GMT
Generalizations are unfair to those that don't fit the generalizations.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 30, 2017 10:52:23 GMT
The danger is where generalisations are taken to be something integral to the group. For instance it's fine to say young black American males are more likely to be involved in crime - that's just noting a trend. But there are those who say that this is evidence that black people are naturally more violent than white people etc when the truth is it's probably more linked to the relative poverty of black communities which has its roots in slavery.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Jul 1, 2017 16:47:07 GMT
I don't know but anyone who would make such a thread is dumb!
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Jul 7, 2017 5:29:04 GMT
Generalizations are unfair to those that don't fit the generalizations. Indeed. I have quite a hatred of generalizations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 20:16:42 GMT
The danger is where generalisations are taken to be something integral to the group. For instance it's fine to say young black American males are more likely to be involved in crime - that's just noting a trend. But there are those who say that this is evidence that black people are naturally more violent than white people etc when the truth is it's probably more linked to the relative poverty of black communities which has its roots in slavery. But your conclusion is still based on a stereotype; you've simply chosen to interpret the data differently (no doubt influenced by your own politics). If the crime rate among black males was negligible, you wouldn't pursue any such interpretation at all. The statistics demand a stereotype one way or the other. Your way stereotypes black people as victims of poverty and slavery. That is no more scientific than stereotyping them as people prone to criminality. Would you make the same determination about men? The vast majority of crime is committed by men therefore... it's because they're poor/oppressed? Seems unlikely.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 14, 2017 13:33:10 GMT
Your way stereotypes black people as victims of poverty and slavery. That is no more scientific than stereotyping them as people prone to criminality. The difference is one view says criminality is inherent to a race. The other says its caused by external factors regardless of race. The latter view allows for us to reduce the crime rate amongst black people by attacking poverty. The former view would make this a hopeless endeavour. And that's where I see a danger in generalisations - if we take them as absolute, we lose all impetus to tackle potential external causes. I would also disagree that the latter view is unscientific. Throughout the world, you say correlations between poverty and crime regardless of the race of those in poverty. You also don't see wealthier black people turning to violent crime. What's more, even if criminality were a racial trait, we could not be sure of that until we removed the variables like poverty. Therefore we should assume that is not the case until those variables are removed. No, but I didn't say poverty and oppression were the only potential external factors at work here. There may be others in the case of men v women.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 15:21:41 GMT
Your way stereotypes black people as victims of poverty and slavery. That is no more scientific than stereotyping them as people prone to criminality. The difference is one view says criminality is inherent to a race. The other says its caused by external factors regardless of race. The latter view allows for us to reduce the crime rate amongst black people by attacking poverty. The former view would make this a hopeless endeavour. And that's where I see a danger in generalisations - if we take them as absolute, we lose all impetus to tackle potential external causes. I would also disagree that the latter view is unscientific. Throughout the world, you say correlations between poverty and crime regardless of the race of those in poverty. You also don't see wealthier black people turning to violent crime. What's more, even if criminality were a racial trait, we could not be sure of that until we removed the variables like poverty. Therefore we should assume that is not the case until those variables are removed. No, but I didn't say poverty and oppression were the only potential external factors at work here. There may be others in the case of men v women. But culture does play a role. The vast majority of crime is committed by men so even when you take poverty into account, you're left with an anomaly (fewer poor female criminals) which can only be explained by the male/female culture. In this instance, culture is just a polite way to avoid saying that it's an inherent trait specific to males though in recent years, even this is being undermined and we're hearing more about "toxic masculinity" demonstrating that for this particular culture at least, the problem being inherent is indeed seen as valid. Yet we don't use this kind of language with black people. We don't talk about toxic black culture being an influence on behaviour and instead run and hide behind the concept of poverty as an acceptable (non-offensive) explanation. This narrative is very popular. More blacks in prison that whites = some kind of innate, unfair treatment of blacks. More men in prison than women = toxic masculinity (whether innate or learned).
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 14, 2017 16:37:39 GMT
But culture does play a role. The vast majority of crime is committed by men so even when you take poverty into account, you're left with an anomaly (fewer poor female criminals) which can only be explained by the male/female culture. In this instance, culture is just a polite way to avoid saying that it's an inherent trait specific to males though in recent years, even this is being undermined and we're hearing more about "toxic masculinity" demonstrating that for this particular culture at least, the problem being inherent is indeed seen as valid. I personally don't use the term "toxic masculinity", but in my understanding of the term, it's held to be a social construct, not innate. It is also often brought up as something that is harmful to men as opposed to harmful to women. Not sure that's quite true. Ghetto culture and the glorification of gangs (in rap music for instance) are often criticised. You could perhaps say that people tread more carefully around these issues than they do around toxic masculinity for fear of being accused of racism. I think it's fine to acknowledge culture plays a role. But cultures don't spring up out of nothing. There are reasons that ghetto culture became a thing. There are reasons toxic masculinity became a thing. They are symptoms rather than causes.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 18, 2017 10:07:54 GMT
Because they're all morons?
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 20, 2017 6:33:12 GMT
Because you can't assume to know the thoughts of an individual simply based on a group they belong to.
Well, I guess you can... if you're stupid.
That's why the groups claiming to speak for all gay people, black people, white people, whatever.. are all full of shit.
They're using the fact they are part of a certain group to turn around and claim that gives them the right to speak for every person in that group. The motivation is always ugly.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 23, 2017 6:57:08 GMT
Because you can't assume to know the thoughts of an individual simply based on a group they belong to.
Well, I guess you can... if you're stupid. That's why the groups claiming to speak for all gay people, black people, white people, whatever.. are all full of shit. They're using the fact they are part of a certain group to turn around and claim that gives them the right to speak for every person in that group. The motivation is always ugly. Politicians do this all the time, as though the people are coming from where they are coming from. It is about control and manipulation for self-serving agendas.
When we generalize, we are in a sense making blind assumptions, but by that same token stereotypes do exist as well. I know I don't care to be a part of the LGBT community, yet as a gay guy, I would be automatically lumped into this compartmentalized notion of what they appear to represent by most. For starters, I don't want transgendered people representing a minority of people that are in tune with their homosexuality and DO enjoy and embrace the gender they are born into. What twisted message are they serving us on a tarnished platter by this?
I wish we could put everyone in one giant group that encompases so much diversity and embraces such weirdness that everyone would be included. It would be same as having no groups, and simply treating people with tolerance and gentleness on an individual level. People can say 'This is me, this is what I like' but that's it. You don't get to say 'That person is has the same gender/skin color/religion/sexuality as me so I get to speak for them too'.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 23, 2017 7:23:29 GMT
I wish we could put everyone in one giant group that encompases so much diversity and embraces such weirdness that everyone would be included. It would be same as having no groups, and simply treating people with tolerance and gentleness on an individual level. People can say 'This is me, this is what I like' but that's it. You don't get to say 'That person is has the same gender/skin color/religion/sexuality as me so I get to speak for them too'. Acceptance is an important factor; but human nature as it is, being idealistic about what diversity could represent is not being realistic. There are way too many personal agendas and differences and conditionings that play such a big part in things. I don't have an issue with TG people, I just don't want them representing homosexuals. I then also have an issue with heterosexuals who are bigoted against homosexuality, when they are the ones doing the breeding and then having scorn and disdain for something they are ignorant about.
Racism also operates on a different dynamic to sexuality. If one is black and gay, are they then dealing with a double whammy of bigotry and prejudice? It is one massive conundrum and I don't see anything getting resolved. It is how each individual deals with the cards they are dealt with and attempts to do the appropriate and proper thing by others and themselves. Even those that we love the most, are never completely on our side.
I spend my time thinking as little as possible. All that outside stuff is like a mess of soup to me, all swirling around. I get involved if I need to, but I can only really help myself. Keeping the mind still in the eye of the hurricane is a worthy endeavor IMO. Training the elephant. I've started writing things down, it's a good outlet. Gets things out of the head.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 23, 2017 7:49:20 GMT
I spend my time thinking as little as possible. All that outside stuff is like a mess of soup to me, all swirling around. I get involved if I need to, but I can only really help myself. Keeping the mind still in the eye of the hurricane is a worthy endeavor IMO. Training the elephant.
I've started writing things down, it's a good outlet. Gets things out of the head. Wow sam! Yes, you are absolutely correct, but it is difficult to not get too opinionated about things, especially on a chat thread. I guess when we stop analyzing things and turning them over in our monkey minds, things are just what they are. I'm lucky I live in a relatively safe place. I don't have to worry about food, shelter or staying warm. I'm lucky to have a job where all I try to do at work is help people, and I can learn about myself through the process. I meet a lot of people who are at the lowest point in their lives. Some have behaviors that are maladaptive and could push others away, I go towards them. I have learned that judging is futile, because when I hear the life stories of the people I meet I realize on a fundamental level that if I was born that person then I would be them today.
|
|
|
Post by theauxphou on Jul 29, 2017 16:55:13 GMT
Everyone who generalises is extremely retarded.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Aug 13, 2017 18:53:30 GMT
At one time it was normal to generalize about people. Many a famous quote has come from it. Shakespeare etc. "Ireland has produced some notable individuals, but the aggregate population is a miserable mass of treachery & drunkenness. Savages--confound 'em." HP Lovecraft from a letter written June 4, 1916 We are told never generalize people--that is racist and wrong. Stereotypes. And yet we generalize nonhuman animals all the time. If someone knows there is a lion in a cave, and someone advises avoiding the cave since the lion may attack, no one would likely say: "hey that is unfair to lions, this lion may be a vegetarian." Are generalizations about human populations really bad? Aren't they useful for safety and precaution? The story goes that Jesse Jackson once remarked that if he was walking alone along a street and hears footsteps behind him, and he turns around and sees it is a white person, he is relieved. You are stereotyping Jesse! because not every member in a group is horrible.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Aug 13, 2017 19:10:06 GMT
because not every member in a group is horrible. Not every lion is a meat eater. There are vegetarian lions (famous one in the 1930s Little Tyke) so why stereotype them? Secondly, what matters more--avoiding stereotypes or protecting populations? Case in point, Emmet Till was killed for some altercation with a white woman who was married. Till's father raped and murdered a woman in Italy. The media never reported this fact. If they had reported it, and white women were more cautious around black men--why is that bad? Their safety matters less than political correctness?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 13, 2017 19:54:30 GMT
Case in point, Emmet Till was killed for some altercation with a white woman who was married. Of course, it is consistent with your vile racism that you would describe his alleged flirting (which said white woman latter admitted was a made up lie) as an "altercation". No doubt, had you been in the town when it happened, you would have been in the mob that killed him or at least cheered them on. That's because any credible journalist, and anyone with more than a few IQ points, would know this information was absolutely irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Aug 13, 2017 20:04:01 GMT
That's because any credible journalist, and anyone with more than a few IQ points, would know this information was absolutely irrelevant. Oh you mean like the fact that the guy named Marc LePIne who massacred over a dozen women in Canada in 1989 was born Gamil Rodrigue Liass Gharbi? They withheld that information for 20 years. It IS relevant. As is the fact Till's father was executed for murder. The case is long over and yet the media reports on him for decades after it never mentioned this, even as "interesting trivia."
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Aug 13, 2017 20:12:56 GMT
because not every member in a group is horrible. Not every lion is a meat eater. There are vegetarian lions (famous one in the 1930s Little Tyke) so why stereotype them? Secondly, what matters more--avoiding stereotypes or protecting populations? Case in point, Emmet Till was killed for some altercation with a white woman who was married. Till's father raped and murdered a woman in Italy. The media never reported this fact. If they had reported it, and white women were more cautious around black men--why is that bad? Their safety matters less than political correctness? but not all black guys are rapists? not to mention anybody can be prone to that. its psychological, not colorful.
|
|