The Unfortunate Effect of the Negative Stereotype [ed. title]

[focusonz]

I must be the oldest and wisest poster on the SDMB for me to see the dilemma of all political thread posters.

I started this new thread because my point(s) seem to just get lost in all the noise in the political debates. The thread “Why can’t we all just get long… w/o hating? ” Why can't we all just get long... w/o hating? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
prompts me to speak out clearly and thus the title.

A stereotype is a simplified and/or standardized conception or image with specific meaning, often held in common by people about another group. For individual people there can be both positive and negative effects of a stereotype which is seen to apply to them. The overall effects of stereotyping are seen by many to always be negative.

Possible prejudicial effects of stereotypes are:
Justification of ill-founded prejudices or ignorance
Unwillingness to rethink one’s attitudes and behavior towards stereotyped group
Self-fulfilling prophecy for both stereotyping and stereotyped group
Preventing some people of stereotyped groups from succeeding in activities or fields

I have observed in the threads that proponents of either side of the argument digress to a negative stereotype. They and I do this automatically without thinking. I have not yet mastered my practice. And I have observed that there is a whole lot of debate but not much altering of positions and that is the dilemma of the posters.

Postings can fall along the Allport’s Scale, a measure of the manifestation of prejudice in a society.

Scale 1, Anti locution Anti locution means a majority group freely make jokes about a minority group. Speech is in terms of negative stereotypes and negative images. This is also called hate speech. It is commonly seen as harmless by the majority. Anti locution itself may not be harmful, but it sets the stage for more severe outlets for prejudice.
Scale 2 Avoidance People in a minority group are actively avoided by members of the majority group. No direct harm may be intended, but harm is done through isolation.
Scale 3 Discrimination Minority group is discriminated against by denying them opportunities and services and so putting prejudice into action. Behaviors have the specific goal of harming the minority group by preventing them from achieving goals, getting education or jobs, etc. The majority group is actively trying to harm the minority.
Scale 4 Physical Attack The majority group vandalise minority group things, they burn property and carry out violent attacks on individuals or groups. Physical harm is done to members of the minority group. Examples are lynchings of blacks, pogroms against Jews in Europe, tarring and feathering Mormons in 1800s and British Loyalists in the 1700s.
Scale 5 Extermination The majority group seeks extermination of the minority group. They attempt to eliminate the entire group of people (e.g., Indian Wars to remove Native Americans, Final Solution to the Jewish Question in Germany, Ethnic cleansing in Armenia).

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability.

In the thread **“Why can’t we all just get long… w/o hating? ” **having 47 posts I have identified 17 posts containing “hate speech” which included some anti locution in the OP. Recognizing this the MOD in post #31 went TWEEEEET,.

@tomndebb

TWEEEEET!
Likewise, I see no need for any of the personal shots in this thread that demonstrate the point of the OP without actually discussing the point of the OP.[ /Moderating ]

I have bolded the ‘hate speech’ and I have scaled them according to the Allport’s Scale. I have added comments to explain the scaling. Some posts contain more than one instantiation of “hate speech” . In which case I have scaled the entire post to the level of the highest prejudice found.
You will note that ‘hate speech’ even continued after the TWEEEEET.
Scale 1, Anti locution

@smiling bandit

Something has been bothering me an awful lot in the modern world, and it’s something which has essentially never changed since humans were around. It seems like groups of humans cannot disagree without imputing insanity, smallness of character, gross stupidity, the most flagrant accusations of evil, and . In many of these cases, I think the accuser is either projecting or simply making the worst possible reading.

And yes, that applies both to the “asshole” right and the “pseudo-intellectual” left. This is not a partisanly exclusive problem, although it tends to flow back and forth every 20-30 years. The worst of the worst tend to join one party as it ascends in power, then causes its decline, then some the new jerks go into the other party, dragging it down, and so on.

This thread then devolved into manifestations of prejudice as illustrated below:

Scale 1, Anti locution (HATE SPEECH)

@Jackmannii

I think your political opinions are are moronic and despicable, yet you strike me as an intelligent and decent poster.
Now that we’ve got that out of the way,

Scale 1, Anti locution

@Whack-a-Mole

However I think she is as much a part of the machine that makes** Bush so bad.**

Scale 3 Discrimination (is an attempt to prevent the other from being heard.)

@Der Trihs

One of the problems with “lets stop hating each other”, is that some things and some people deserve to be hated.

They (republicans) clearly aren’t interested in the country as a whole, don’t grasp the concept of good statesmanship, and are as a group firmly in the camp of people who can’t be gotten along with.

Scale 3 Discrimination (is an attempt to prevent the other from being heard.)

@RedFury

But of course, smiling bandit, we could obviously all get along if we’d only agreed with your paternalistic, nationalistic, rah rah USA #1, political outlook – as in supporting the status quo via the shameless McSame. But that’s beyond naive. Stop the wholesale butchering, torturing and invading nations for no other reason than you can, and then we’ll talk civics and morality. You (in the general sense) are really in no position to ask for any sort of universal accord for as long as you act that way.

Scale 1, Anti locution (Replacing We’ve with I’ve then there would have no anti locution)

@Onomatopoeia

We’ve become so cynical that we automatically expect, and have come to accept, the worst in everything and everyone, especially our leaders, so much so that we ridicule idealism and scoff when someone says, with a straight face, that we can be better.

Scale 3 Discrimination

@Der Trihs

To be blunt, I see no reason to even suspect, much less believe that the Republicans in Congress care in the slightest about any of those things.

Scale 3 Discrimination ( De Milo agreed with Trihs)

@Intravenus De Milo

Well, granted,

Scale 1, Anti locution (Replacing We’re with I’m then there would have no anti locution)

@Love Rhombus

Honestly, I think it’s because we’re animals at heart, and the first instinct of an animal is self-preservation.

Scale 5 Extermination (hanged)

@elucidator

It isn’t merely that I disagree with the people who have buggered our country for the last eight years, it is that I despise them. I have ample reason. Jesus will forgive them, no doubt, but I’d prefer to wait until they are hanged.

Scale 5 Extermination (If it is evil it must be exterminated according to Judeo-Christian-cultural expectations)( Should we exterminate politics? What would be its replacement?)

@bump

Basically, politics is a necessary evil, and it taints those who get caught up in it, regardless of their beliefs.

Scale 2 Avoidance (I should have said west coast and candidate to not be prejudiced. I apologize for my lack of mastery of my practice.)

@focusonz

the left coast cities,
Emotional investment in Obama

Scale 2 Avoidance

@Zoe

I would still save Bush and Cheney if a bulding were on fire, but they would be the last ones – right after Charles Manson and Rush Limbaugh.

Scale 5 Extermination (If it is evil it must be exterminated according to Judeo-Christian-cultural expectations)

@Shodan

**“It’s not just rhetoric - your candidate really is evil, and if you won’t admit that, then you must be evil too!” **

The demonizing process is happening mostly on one candidate, because that candidate is running against the SDMB’s Chosen One.

And so on, and so on, world without end, amen.

Scale 1, Anti locution

@Hamlet

I think many Americans have become emotionally stunted; never growing out of the emotional stability of a 3 year old.

Scale 2 Avoidance

@Oy!

But then, the press is driven by the tastes of the people, who seem to enjoy World Wide Wrestling and want the general technique to be extended throughout society.

it never seemed to have iinfected the regular people so much as now.

Is there anything so satisfying as that feeling of “Gotcha!” that tells you that not only are you correct, but you are morally right?

Scale 2 Avoidance

@smiling bandit

In the US, I generally think essentially every idea a Democrat espouses on, say, trade or economics is going to be counterproductive and flawed from the start. (Republicans are only 90% always counterproductive and flawed from the start! )

The questions for discussion are:
Is the point of the political debate of the threads to alter a political position?
Has anyones political position been changed by any poster using hate speech?
Do you agree or disagree with my scaling of the manifestation of prejudice for each post?
Is there anything worthwhile in being prejudiced?
How do you intend to affirm not to use hate speech in your postings?
What should a poster using ‘hate speech’ expect from you in reply?

[Larry_Borgia]

My cat’s breath smells like cat food

[Bosstone]

I knew the thread title and opening sentence seemed familiar…

[focusonz]

In the thread **“Why can’t we all just get long… w/o hating? ” **having 47 posts I have identified 17 posts containing “hate speech”.

Therefore, 44% of the of that thread on GD was noise. I am of the opinion that turning hate speech way the fuck down would go a long way toward fighting ignorance and this one member of the teaming masses might possibly be convinced to vote democratic.

You can attract more flies with sugar than with vinegar.

[Ale]

@focusonz

You can attract more flies with sugar than with vinegar.

Unfortunately, shit works even better.

[focusonz]

Are you making a commentary that hate mongering on the SDMB GD will secure more votes for the candidate than will rational discussion?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Holding a political opinion does not make a person a member of a “minority” as that term is defined in relation to the phrase “hate speech.” Thus your entire premise is faulty. Attacking an opinion is not hate speech, and some opinions actually are stupid and/or evil. Racism, for example, is both stupid and evil. People who are mocked or criticized for expressing stupid and/or evil opinions are not being persecuted and are not victims of hate speech. Your entire thesis is specious and smacks of whining. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

[Mosier]

I’m just here to challenge your assertion that not much changing of opinions is happening in Great Debates. What you’re noticing is a lack of Sudden Massive Opinion Change (SMOC).

SMOC is an elusive phenominon which I have seen occur only in dramatic productions like Shakespear’s Julius Caesar, when the crowd is swayed to violence and hatred because someone spoke eloquently and sarcastically to them.

Real people don’t experience SMOC. Opinions are fluid, and it is not easy to change the direction that fluid flows. You can’t make it flow in the opposite direction by sticking a big argument-wall right in the middle of it’s path. It takes a lot more time than that, and by the time an argument has sunk in and a person has had time to reflect on a new position and compare it to their experiences and memories, the discussion that spawned the argument has long since been buried in new topics and is no longer relevant.

I have had my opinion changed partly because of arguments in Great Debates. I’m sure plenty of others have, too.

[Maastricht]

I just wanted to thank the OP for bringing the Allports Scale to my attention. I knever knew where to put " avoidance" in with discrimination, but that theory makes a lot of sense.

[MrDibble]

The OP could start the love by not dissing negative stereotypes with the “hate speech” word “Childishness” in the title. This would satisfy the “Judeo-Christian-cultural expectation” of looking for the beam in your own eye first.

[Ale]

@focusonz

Are you making a commentary that hate mongering on the SDMB GD will secure more votes for the candidate than will rational discussion?

No, I´m making the commentary that, as for the recent past in the US, flinging feces*, peddling bullshit** and blowing hot air*** has been the methodology of choice for cattering to the masses for the porpouse of gaining (and destroying) political power. At least on a greater degree that I can recall in past years and generations.

Just for a sample:

• Smear campaings.
  ** Outrigt, outrageous, lies.
  *** Double faced, hipocritical platitudes.

[Khadaji]

@focusonz

In the thread **“Why can’t we all just get long… w/o hating? ” **having 47 posts I have identified 17 posts containing “hate speech”.

Therefore, 44% of the of that thread on GD was noise. I am of the opinion that turning hate speech way the fuck down would go a long way toward fighting ignorance and this one member of the teaming masses might possibly be convinced to vote democratic.

You can attract more flies with sugar than with vinegar.

Who wants to catch flies? And what do you do with them when you are done?

[Marley23]

@focusonz

In the thread **“Why can’t we all just get long… w/o hating? ” **having 47 posts I have identified 17 posts containing “hate speech”.

Do you think it’s somewhat ironic that you’re passing judgment on your fellow posters this way - even going so far as to catalogue and grade their “hate speech” on its level of hatefulness? [Not to mention your continuing trumpeting of your own wisdom.] Talk about not catching flies with sugar!

Also, I believe you have mischaracterized a couple of posts - Shodan’s most prominently; I think you should back off and apologize to him for missing some very obvious sarcasm - and I don’t think you’re offering any insight that many other posters have not provided in the past.

[jjimm]

@Bosstone

I knew the thread title and opening sentence seemed familiar…

Is it a bot, d’you think?

Anyway, I don’t think there’s a single post above that constitutes even “anti locution”.

Turing test: FAIL

[focusonz]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Holding a political opinion does not make a person a member of a “minority” as that term is defined in relation to the phrase “hate speech.” Thus your entire premise is faulty. Attacking an opinion is not hate speech, and some opinions actually are stupid and/or evil. Racism, for example, is both stupid and evil. People who are mocked or criticized for expressing stupid and/or evil opinions are not being persecuted and are not victims of hate speech. Your entire thesis is specious and smacks of whining. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Holding the opposite political opinion is in the minority on the SDMB. You are right attacking is not hate speech. The form of the attack does employ prejudice hate speech as bolded in the OP.

@Shodan

“It’s not just rhetoric - your candidate really is evil, and if you won’t admit that, then you must be evil too!”

The failure point of the discussion comes when the jump is made from “your policies are bad” to “you are bad”. And on the SDMB, this point happens usually in the first three sentences of an OP (not yours, smiling bandit). On the SDMB, it happens mostly on one side, because it is mostly a one-sided board. The demonizing process is happening mostly on one candidate, because that candidate is running against the SDMB’s Chosen One. If and when that candidate drops out or is finally defeated, then the same process will be invoked against the opponent in the general election. And so on, and so on, world without end, amen.

Regards,
Shodan

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9779218&postcount=38

Not whining just facts and evidence rationally presented. If you can’t read a recipe your concoction will more than likely taste just awful and may even be poisonous.

[Shodan]

Perhaps you could read my response in the other thread.

Regards,
Shodan

[Ludovic]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Holding a political opinion does not make a person a member of a “minority” as that term is defined in relation to the phrase “hate speech.” Thus your entire premise is faulty. Attacking an opinion is not hate speech, and some opinions actually are stupid and/or evil. Racism, for example, is both stupid and evil. People who are mocked or criticized for expressing stupid and/or evil opinions are not being persecuted and are not victims of hate speech. Your entire thesis is specious and smacks of whining. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Why do you love the government?

Hate speech is hate speech no matter who the target is, unless you believe the government can define how words may be used in everyday conversation. Indeed, there is much I agree with in both the OP’s referenced scale and the possible targets of the speech, if almost all of the quoted instances in the other thread are specious or hyperbolized.

[tomndebb]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Holding a political opinion does not make a person a member of a “minority” as that term is defined in relation to the phrase “hate speech.” Thus your entire premise is faulty. Attacking an opinion is not hate speech, and some opinions actually are stupid and/or evil.

Actually, since this is not an example of U. S. Law, where “protected minority” is an explicit phrase with (nearly) explicit meaning, the use of “majority group” and “minority group” are, indeed, used appropriately in the OP. Further, depicting people on the Right as grasping dunderheads who would sacrifice their children and rape the environment to get next quarter’s profits up by .001 point or people on the Left as dithering fools who would sacrifice their entire families to terrorists simply to avoid giving offense to some tiny number of (probably bad, anyway) people are hardly examples of attacking an opinion. We see examples (to degrees slightly less than my exaggerated portrayals) on the SDMB all the time.

= = =

As to the other quibbles about the OP, (and I am not claiming they are invalid, per se), I would still like to see some discussion based on the questions at the end of the OP. (Then I would like to see that discussion result in a genuine change in some behavior.) As I noted in this post in the recent Pit thread about religious discussion in GD, in too many instances, the quality of debate has fallen in GD and I would like to see it improve.
I am not about to set stricter limits based on (my interpretation of) “hate speech” in this Forum and I am not going to make a general practice of declaring certain challenges or expressions to be off limits in threads up and down the Forum. It would, however, be nice if a few posters on every occasion and all posters on some occasions actually paid attention to actions that made this Forum less interesting, even if it does not amount to some definition of “hate speech.”

[Burton]

@Ale

No, I´m making the commentary that, as for the recent past in the US, flinging feces*, peddling bullshit** and blowing hot air*** has been the methodology of choice for cattering to the masses for the porpouse of gaining (and destroying) political power. At least on a greater degree that I can recall in past years and generations.

Just for a sample:

• Smear campaings.
  ** Outrigt, outrageous, lies.
  *** Double faced, hipocritical platitudes.

I believe this is the true nature of politics and has ever been so.

[Marley23]

In light of tomndebb’s excellent post, I’ll revisit the OP here:

@focusonz

Is the point of the political debate of the threads to alter a political position?

Frequently they’re started to condemn or express outrage. Sometimes they are about altering positions, but I think it’s more common for Great Debates to focus on exploring an unfamiliar point of view.

Has anyones political position been changed by any poster using hate speech?

Doubtful.

Do you agree or disagree with my scaling of the manifestation of prejudice for each post?

No. As I said, I think you mischaracterized a few posts, missed humor in some, and even if you were correct I don’t think it’s productive to rate posters this way. The scale itself may have some merits.

Is there anything worthwhile in being prejudiced?

It saves time, which I say only partly as a joke.

How do you intend to affirm not to use hate speech in your postings?

I don’t recall taking any affirmation to avoid using words that fit your definition of hate speech. But I try to consider both sides of the issue and avoid it, because once the vitriol in a discussion starts rising, the odds of anybody achieving understanding or learning anything starts decreasing rapidly.

What should a poster using ‘hate speech’ expect from you in reply?

I think what they usually get is rapid disengagement.