Bigotry and Semantics (or Gaddmanned Frogs)

Great Debates
21

Suppose green people are disproportionately likely to commit crimes?

Suppose they are disproportionately represented on the welfare rolls?

Suppose most of their children are born out of wedlock, and this causes all sorts of social pathologies?

Is it bigoted then to mention these facts? Is it bigoted to be more afraid of green teenagers than blue ones?

Suppose the NBA is 90% green? Is it bigoted to say that green men tend to be better at basketball than orange ones?

What is a reasonable response to this?

22

There is no reasonable response, because it is not a reasonable post.

You’re perpetuating false stereotypes (I’m not going to tell you which ones are simply factually false; do your own research and cite backup for your claims) that are a product of prejudice, and trying disingenuously to convince others of the opposite, that the prejudice is a product of your “facts.”

You–and often, Scylla–are trying to justify an oversimplified view of the world around you that necessitates lumping people together in vast artificial collectives, at the expense of acknowledging the individual humanity of the people you refuse to stand close enough to see: you refuse to see the trees for the forest.

23

opinion of a lurker

I appreciate and understand Scylla’s attempt to try to flesh out his understanding of semantics as it relates to bigotry in light of his other threads. I don’t think it really is beating a dead horse but rather an honest attempt to explore his thoughts and feelings on the issue.

I’m not sure about anybody else, but I find that I sometimes think and feel contradictory things. I also find that it helps to flesh out the nuances and complexities of these feelings and thoughts by discussing them with other people. That is because it forces me to thoroughly explore my positions and to shore up a weak argument or discard a falsity.

I think that it is gracious of Scylla to admit his mistakes and to try to explore the cause of them.

As you can see from the above post, I am not as eloquent or clear-speaking as many of the posters here.

In a nutshell, I think that this kind of self-exploration is a good thing. I also believe that there are very few of us who would, under close scrutiny, prove to have no conflicts of thoughts/words/and or deeds.

24

Esprix said:

“Good luck.”

Thanks.

Lissener:

That is an interesting point, and thoughtfully put. Of course, you are right; one needs to judge each individual event based on its own merits, the people, and the dynamics involved. There can be no cut and dried rules.

Some situations may be common. Of course it would be dangeous to judge a new situation by an old one that only seemed similar.

However, there must be common pitfalls and common common ground.

An example might be a car salesman. After 20 years selling cars a car salesman might be a true expert in that narrow rubric of human behavior (if he’s any good.) To him the buying process might seem to be a very compartmentalized formula. I would guess again that in a good salesman overlying that formula and superseding it would be sensitivity compassion and a true desire to see his clients happy (Obviously we are talking about an exceptional car salesman here.)

Granted, buying cars and reacting to bigotry are two different things, but I would like to proceed in that spirit if I can.

If you still think it’s a bad idea, than I will more than likely cease, but I’d like to try.

Then too, I have another reason for wanting to do this. I’ve received three emails since Thursday. In each case I’ve asked the mailer to post his e-mail. I don’t feel it appropriate to take that liberty.

Two of those emails didn’t seem to understand what happened in the last thread. They were upset that I “gave up.” The third was quite different, and I hope it gets posted. It made my day.

So that’s why I’m also doing this. It’s important to me to get it “right” (whatever the hell that is.)

Let me know what you think.

25

Scylla

I am not too far off but you are right – I guess I was using hyperbole to hammer home a point.

Excellent point, not all greens are of one mind, nor are all non-greens – this just happened to be a hot-button with some members of both sides – which exactly leads to my point….

As stated in my original comment: You are now good friends with several greens, your kids regularly play with them, you support many of their political candidates and causes, and generally enjoy good standing in the green community because of your acknowledgement that past bigoted attitudes were wrong and your acceptance of their race, religion, physical handicap, sexual orientation, nationality

Yet it is the greens who are unfairly grouping a particular non-green in with all the extremist non-greens; actually, lumping all non-greens into one category. In effect, creating an ‘us and them’ where none previously existed.

The issue is irrelevant – it is the behavior that is in question.

Aaaahhhhhh …….Lissener articulated the exact notion I was trying to convey but was unable.
I think everyone is guilty of : ….trying to justify an oversimplified view of the world around you that necessitates lumping people together in vast artificial collectives, at the expense of acknowledging the individual humanity of the people you refuse to stand close enough to see: you refuse to see the trees for the forest.

I’ll partially agree – what I am against is one set of rules a group uses when it is beneficial for them and a completely different set that is used when the tables are turned – in effect a double standard. I’ll hold accountable you to my rules but I won’t live up to them myself.

Interesting thread BTW.

26

Shodan:

You said:

"Suppose green people are disproportionately likely to commit crimes?

Suppose they are disproportionately represented on the welfare rolls?

Suppose most of their children are born out of wedlock, and this causes all sorts of social pathologies?

Is it bigoted then to mention these facts? Is it bigoted to be more afraid of green teenagers than blue ones? "

Suppose the NBA is 90% green? Is it bigoted to say that green men tend to be better at basketball than orange ones?"
I’m going to treat these as if they were reasonable questions.

Crime, welfare, and the NBA. These are really the same question. You are asking what if there are real material differences among groups. Is this correct?

Let me use an analogy. Go to the park and look at the grass. You will probably notice that there are pockets of grass that are a deeper green than others. You will notice pockets of grass that are taller, thicker, and lusher.

Now it is possible that you might honestly think that these pockets of rich thick grass might be genetically superior or different to the rest. To think this is a valid hypothesis. It is probably not the best choice, but it’s a valid thought.

As a reasonable person you owe it to yourself and others to prove potentially harmful hypotheses before you go touting them as doctrine, and harming perfectly good grass, don’t you?

It would seem to me that it would be more reasonable to assume that the grass in different areas entertains different qualities because of differences in the environment, not because of differences in the grass. For example, that rich thick man-shaped area of grass over there might indicate that Jimmy Hoffa is buried there providing good fertilizer. The area where the grass is thin and weak looking might indicate shade and rocky soil preventing the grass from growing properly.

I might also add that most white NBA players come from the Midwest, and especially Indiana. As an idle thought, I see no harm in this. Is it a particularly useful piece of information? No. Does it tell you anything about the innate quality of the makeup of the people that live in Indiana? You would only think so if you are foolish and unreasonable.

It also appears that you didn’t read the OP, since I covered just this kind of thinking, specifically in the driving example.

Children out of wedlock causing social prolems is an issue for another thread. You would need to PROVE (that’s a tough word) cause and effect, though for you to draw any reasonable conclusions, and it still wouldn’t say anything about green people.

I think it is reasonable to point out these problems. I think you are doing it the wrong way though.

Consider your field of grass. Do you say “Look at that low quality shitty grass over there.” or do you say “We need to fertilize in some spots, and clear out those rocks.”

27

It goes without saying (hopefully) that you would tend to treat people at least as good and give them as much of a benefit of the doubt as you would a field of grass. Maybe even a little bit more.

28

Opengrave:

Still thinking.

29

The OP is missing the understanding that the green/amphibious/chlorophyllically endowed take pride in pointing out that they’ve got green skin to the extent that they, as a group, view orange qualities as unbecoming.

“Are the greens lobbying for a “Frogy day” National Holiday? Are they arguing that only greens should be allowed to carry guns? Are they arguing for equal pay?”

None of these pieces of legislation would be deleterious to the orange community assuming the orange community has their own holiday, can carry guns and equal pay. To be against this is certainly unfair and might be bigotted or it might just be genuinely taking advantage of someone. How about a resolution dictating that people should be hired/promoted based on thier skin color rather than their ability? This being a Green Party issue would it be bigotted to be against it? That may be better left for a different thread however.

30

Inertia:

I would think that the idea that ONLY green people be allowed to carry guns (which is what I wrote) coulds be reasonabley beleived to be deleterious to all non greens.

31

Opengrave:

You wish to posit a generic example of true green reverse discrimination.

Certainly Overzealousness could cause this to occur. People in generally of course will behave badly on occasion, and I’m trying to assume that just like in the real world, both greens and non greens will be prone to mistakes, misunderstanding, and general shitty behavior.

So what are your choices here?

To me, the issue would be important, but since you would like to be generic, and metaphor fails me at the moment, lets dive in:

  1. Do nothing. These are your friends and neighbors after all, and if you genuinely like and admire them, you will do so in spite of their foibles. The issue is obviously important to them. You can choose not to let it be a “green” issue for yourself. If your neighbor cuts down a tree that happens to be on your side of the property line, you can choose to make a big issue about or you can let it go becuase you value the neighbor. You can treat this the same way. My father used to say “You better be sure that hill is worth dying on before you go charging up it.”

  2. You can choose the biggest asshole extremist on the other side of the issue and get into a vicious and mean-spirited dispute over the whole thing that will become divisive and petty. It might be fun! Ultimately though you will probably become an asshole and an extremist as well. Everybody will know it and your life will suck.

  3. Realizing the matter is touchy and potentially dangerous, you can argue with compassion and conviction. You must show why the issue at hand is not a “green” issue and successfully seperate the issue from the cultural identity of the greens. You may be suspect at first, but if you don’t respond to aggression, if you always keep in mind anothers feelings, and if you are careful not to corner somebody but leave them an honorable route to capitulation, than I would like to think that ultimately you will be successful. Your class and goodwill will shine through.

Here’s why:

On the green side of things (remember you made this an opposing issue,) the simple fact that times are better and you enjoy good relations with green folk doesn’t mean that it is that way everywhere. In order to achieve recognition, respect and their basic rights the green people will have had to fight every step of the way issue by issue. Green solidarity will have been and will continue to be an important issue to this group. Indeed, it may be essential and part of their identity.

In order for the green movement to continue, they will need to choose their issues as carefully as you, lest like the boy who cried wolf they begin to lose credibility by their pettiness. It is incumbent upon them to be essentially self-policing. Assholes will abound on both sides, and a reasonable green person should be equally as loud in his denouncement of unreasonable green, as he would anybody else. Perhaps even louder, since like Caesar’s wife you must be above suspicion if you are fighting for something as important as basic rights. In order to have been succesful the green movement will have had to take extremists into account. They cannot have been successful if they eliminate their strongest potential allies.

Now in the short run, assholes will prevail from time to time. That’s life.
(damn that’s preachy of me)

32

Scylla, I think you win the prize for the longest and most complex OP! :wink:

That’s just an observation, I appreciate the time, thought, effort, and energy that must have gone into it. I’m not sure I have much to contribute just now (I’m a little overwhelmed by this thread so far and I still have work to do tonight :().

lissener: I think Scylla’s exploration of this situation shows considerable concern, thought, and admirable dedication. For some people, your approach may work perfectly well. Perhaps for Scylla and others, his (her?) approach works as well if not better. The exploration of these hypotheticals in considerable detail may prove useful and bring up points and issues that an approach which sacrifices detail for brevity would never get to address. Also, I’m not sure anything in this thread indicates that the Scylla is unwilling to look at people as individuals. It just seems that the OP is intended to address the way people treat others belonging to identifiable groups where there isn’t a long-standing personal relationship. It isn’t intended to depersonalize anyone.

33

Scylla,

I agree with your whole last post - to me this thread is what the Straight Dope is all about, Fighting Ignorance.

Its taking longer than we expected

34

This thread did not sprout, entire, without context; it’s kind of the bastard child of several different previous threads.

And I would agree with you that Scylla is not unwilling to look at people as individuals. I would say, though, that it’s my accumulated impression that he finds it difficult to do so. I do admire his apparent willingness to examine this, but the post wherein he attempts to justify stereotypes is a clear indication for me that it may be his habit to attempt to find a pattern and, for his own emotional and intellectual convenience, categorize people according to those perceived patterns. Unfortunately, his practice of approaching a problem by breaking it down into its mathematical parts actually helps to perpetuate the very habit of he is trying to examine and, one would hope, overcome. (Clumsy sentence, but perhaps you get my meaning.)

In other words, it may be his very paradigm for examining a problem that is making it so difficult for him to see the problem.

A comics writer some of you will no doubt know (Scott something) wrote once about the importance, in comics, of the space between the frames: the frames themselves show us what is happening in the story, but only as artificially static moments. The movement and the story happens between one frame and the next, and in our imagination. I suggest that Scylla’s approach acknowledges only the static moments, and not the story.

35

Scott McCloud, In Understanding Comics. I just finished his latest, Reinventing Comics, last night.

36

Do you have anything at all to back this up, by the way?

37

Gaudere, a friend of mine who’s a comics fanatic is a huge fan of that book and bought from McCloud the original artwork for the “between the frames” page and has it signed and framed on his wall.

38

Whether it adds anything to the discussion or not, please note that I did not say that I believed that green people are genetically inferior.

Responses to my post, however, partially answer one of the questions I did* ask.

Is it bigoted to point out common differences between green people and blue ones?

Unfortunately, for many people, green and blue alike, it is considered bigoted to point out any differences in behavior that might explain the relative disadvantage in socio-economic status between green people and blue ones. Anyone who says ‘Gee, maybe there is a reason that green people are more often on welfare than you would expect from their numbers in the general population. And maybe that reason has nothing to do with discrimination.’

It is unpleasantly common for this to be interpreted as evidence that the speaker is a bigot, and is making the kind of statements I have already denied (that green people are inferior).

Gresse Grackson, the famous green politician, for instance, speaks of the shame he felt when he felt he was being followed by a teenager, turned around - and was relieved to see that the teenager behind him was blue, not green.

It is like the question of racial profiling. If green people are more likely than blue ones to commit crimes, is it racist to keep a closer eye on green teenagers than blue ones? Is it wrong for green taxi drivers to be at least as reluctant as blue ones to pick up green passengers in predominantly green parts of town? Or is it racist for blues but OK for greens to behave so?

39

While it is, of course, always preferable to deal with people on an individual basis, that is not always possible. Shodan’s taxi question is a perfect example. In this case, the only thing the driver can possibly know about the person is his color. There is no opportunity to know him personally. If the cabbie knows that, in this neighborhood, 90%+ of all assaults on cabbies are committed by greens, is he justified in not stopping for a green passenger?

Also, can we assume that all greens will vote for Ralph Nader? :slight_smile:

40

Opengrave:

Thanks. You got me where I was going faster than I intended.

Gadarene:

No. It just seems that way. It’s fallacious assumption is meant to obviously highlight the fallacy of the assumptions implicit in Shodan’s post. I took into account that it might be misinterpreted, but discounted that as unlikely, perhaps in error.

Lissener:

you said:

“but the post wherein he attempts to justify stereotypes…”

Would you show me that post, so I may reexamine it.

“Unfortunately, his practice of approaching a problem by breaking it down into its mathematical parts actually helps to perpetuate the very habit of he is trying to examine and, one would hope, overcome. (Clumsy sentence, but perhaps you get my meaning.)”

I understand. You’ve said it before, and I recognize the possibility that it is correct.

Sometimes though I think you state your conclusions as fact. That your stance is well thought out I don’t doubt, but it makes it difficult and frustrating to try to understand your conclusions.

That in certain circumstances (analyzing the stock market, the flow of photons through a slit, the weather, etc.) the laws of large numbers make group analysis meaningful.

Though, it’s potentially dangerous, the idea that some people react and behave similarly, and have similar traits is undeniably true.

The fallacy as I see it is in applying these generalizations to individuals. This is a difficult thing not to do, because making assumptions is an almost automatic function of a human being.

If I may make a case in point without implying offense:

Shodan’s post certainly seemed unreasonable. His questions certainly seemed deliberately offensive. You reacted appropriately based on those assumptions.

But what if those assumptions were wrong?

What if it was a poorly put but legitimate question asked by someone who was truly puzzled, and looking to understand?

I almost surely agree that it wasn’t.

But, you didn’t know for sure.

You had to make an assumption. Based on that assumption you placed the post, (and Shodan) into an artificial category, that of one unworthy of a detailed polite answer.

Based on four short sentences you placed him into another category:

"You–and often, Scylla–are trying to justify an oversimplified view of the world around you that necessitates lumping people together in vast artificial collectives, "

Again, you’ve categorized based on assumptions. I will not argue the validity of it.

It’s frustrating that you point it out in me, while doing it yourself at the exact same time.

I don’t fault this because I think it’s impossible not to make some assumptions. Assumptions are all we have.

Assumptions concerning groups that SEEM correct may not apply to individuals, and vice-versa.

I have not read the book, but I understand the “between the frames” metaphor. It’s an apt one and it may apply. An alternate explanation can be gleaned from Zeno’s paradox of motion, which if I stretch a metaphor might suggest that there is NOTHING between the frames (Or everything (it IS a paradox, what do you expect?)

I will try to be open to both possibilities as well as anything in between.