How to speak of large groups like Muslims, Republicans?

Great Debates
1

I have not been participating in the “Ask the Muslim fill-in-the-blank” threads because I can’t think of anything to say to them that will not be immediately countered by “Yes, the Panoonie Muslims of Sexistan may believe that, but I believe this” and “How can you say this of Muslims when there are over a billion of us all over the world with many differing beliefs?”

It’s almost as if “Muslim” doesn’t actually mean ANYTHING, when you start debating along these lines, it’s so generic it’s practically indistinguishable from Protestant Christianity or Unitarianism.

In a sense this is a reasonable objection, yet it renders discussion on the beliefs and actions of Muslims – or of any large group of people – to be almost impossible. I am sure there are very few Muslim beliefs and practices that are universal, and those that are are undoubtedly so vague and unexceptional that they are not worth discussing unless you’re really into minutiae.

In the same vein, there are some Republicans who are racists and who support a racist agenda, but in a thread where I attempted to make the point that supporting a party that truckles to racists and advances their agendas in some ways makes one a racist-by-association, I was hammered repeatedly with the argument that it is unfair to characterize an entire group by the beliefs of a segment of that group, even if in supporting the larger group you also have the effect of advancing the aims of the objectionable minority. People who support other Republican values that the Democrats do not support really have very little choice, it was argued, but to hold their nose on the racism issue and support the Republicans.

Once again, this makes it almost impossible to criticize any large group whose members misbehave or have evil agendas, so long as they aren’t in the majority.

So, what I was thinking might be useful for the advancement of discussion generally on the SDMB is to ask the question: is there any way to discuss the actions and beliefs of members of large groups that makes any sense at all?

Without going into whether or not Republicans are racists or Muslims are sexists, does it make any sense to hold members of a group culpable in any way for the actions of a minority of their members?

What I am hoping this thread can turn into is a thread that can be referenced when these issues are brought up in future arguments, in much the same way that threads that thoroughly hashed out the results of the 2000 election are used on the SDMB whenever a discussion of that topic becomes imminent.

For the sake of argument and because it’s my personal belief, I will advance the notion that yes, members of a large group CAN be held accountable for the actions of their members. Frex, I also started a thread in which I wondered to what extent Dems and liberals can be held responsible for whatever mischief Dubya wreaks on the world in the next four years if he is re-elected, and came to the conclusion that we probably could – we were the people who were in a position to defeat him and prevent more outrages like the invasion of Iraq, and we failed to, however valiantly we might have tried. So the rest of the world can hold us responsible for his re-election, to a certain extent. In short, it works both ways for me. As an American, I have to accept responsibility for the fact that Dubya is President, though I voted against him and encouraged many others, both online and in real life, to do the same.

By the same token, Muslims can be held accountable for their sexist, woman-stoning, terrorist brethren, and Republicans may be held accountable for their Klan Lite faction.

I expect that not everyone will agree on this point. As I said before, a reasonable point, but if you are going to pick and choose which beliefs you support (a la cafeteria Catholics) how can you hold anyone liable to membership in a group with some members whose practices are disgusting, evil, scummy, etc.? How can you even discuss the subject?

The floor is yours.

2

I think it’s possible to talk about a group like “Muslim”, “Republican”, “Christian”, “Straight Doper” or whatever. Groups have an identity and continuty, apart from their members, and you can make statistical statements about them. The problem comes when you assume that because an individual belongs to a group, he has to act or believe a certain way. For example, before the 2004 election, I could have told you with a good deal of certainty that the state of Texas was going to go to Bush. However, if you picked a name at random out of a Dallas phone book, I wouldn’t be able to tell you with any sort of certainty who that person was going to vote for.

And I think that a person can only be responsible for his or her own actions, and what he or she does or fails to do.

3

There are certain defining characteristics of a group. In the case of Muslims, the defining (primary) characteristic is that they believe in one god, Allah, and that Muhammad was his prophet. There are also some secondary characteristics that will hold true, for example the pillars of Islam. There are also tertiary characteristics, and these are where the trouble in generalizations usually start. For example, Muslims don’t eat pork and they don’t drink alcohol. In a general sense, true. In an absolute sense, of course not (just go out to a club in Istanbul).

Let’s take Republicans. This is a little trickier, since the party has evolved quite a bit in the past 20 years. With some certainy I can say that Republicans would say that lower taxes are generally good, and less government is generally good. Maybe, just maybe, those are primary characteristics. Of course they are also primary characteristics of Libertarians, so we need further definition. Maybe they’d say what’s good for business is best for the country. Libertarians might say what’s best for the individual is best for the country, as a way to differentiate. So you’re starting to get a distinction. But since this is a generalization, it most likely won’t always hold true. For instance, there is a decent sized minority of people who associate with Republicans because they are against all instances of abortion. They may or may not agree with any of the preceding definitions. And then I might say that they aren’t actually Republicans but more of a Republican coalition partner. Sort of like what you get in a Parlimentary (or other multiparty) government.

The point is, that beyond the primary group characteristics, any generalizations are dangerous.

I have another theory: all generalizations are not false.

Americans, in the rush to be more sensitive and diverse, eschew all forms of stereotype and generalization. In some ways, this is good. Judging how someone will act based purely on the color of their skin is just stupid. However, in my experience, there are some generalizations that are better to hold than not. For example, “snarling dogs bite”. Now, this is not true. Some snarling dogs will not bite. But it is prudent to take a wide berth of a dog that snarls. Likewise, people will have some inclination to act, usually most influenced by their cultural upbringing.

For example, I lived in Thailand for a little while. Thailand has a nickname, the Land of Smiles. And this is true. Thailand is the “smilingest” place I’ve ever been. It may be the “smilingest” place on the planet. But this does not mean that everyone there is always happy. They are taught to smile from a young age, and of course smiles in a way are infectious. I smile more when I’m there. But it’s also a sort of Buddhist defense mechanism against inappropriate behavior. The nice young Thai motorcycle taxi driver whom I’ve just unknowingly offended may have a big grin, but perhaps he’s uttering “jai yen yen” under his breath. If I know and understand Thai culture then I know that this guy might be on the verge of exploding. He’s trying not to, and he probably won’t, but I am in peril.

Thai people will, generally tell you a lie that they think makes you feel better than tell you an ugly truth. This is not genetically but culturarly so. And it’s not always true. But it’s the way to bet, so to speak.

We deny and avoid some generalizations at our own peril, often under the guise of “diversity”. These are almost always cultural and not physical in nature, but the physical can often alert me to the potential cultural ramifications. So if I meet a Thai person I might expect them to behave in certain ways. The probability that they’ll behave that way can be mitigated by a number of factors. Were they, like my wife, raised in someplace other than Thailand? Mrs. Shibb is going to generally behave and react more like an American than a Thai, although there are some Thai undertones (she never raises her voice, and if I raise mine she get’s quieter in a sort of Buddhist judo).

I can spot many, but not most Americans when I’m overseas by a) how they’re dressed and b) how loudly they talk. Not all Americans dress the same, nor do they all talk loudly, but if I see someone in Germany wearing jeans, a tshirt and ballcap, who I can hear from several meters away, then they’re probably an American. And I can go over to them and ask, “Excuse me, are you Canadian?” And if they’re by some chance Canadian they’ll be delighted that they weren’t mistaken for an American. And if they’re American they’ll be delighted that they were mistaken for a foreigner. 90 times out of 100.

4

Yeah, but when you talk about those general characteristics they tend to be so vague and wishy-washy that they are practically meaningless. All Muslims worship a Great Sky Fairy called “Allah.” All Christians worship a great sky fairy called “God.” Woo-hoo, tells you practically nothing about the people or their culture. You could not even say, “It is good to be a Muslim” under those circumstances.

So, let’s say you get to particulars. I believe the Koran itself says that atheists are to be converted or killed … although Islam teaches tolerance of other religions, it has no tolerance at all for generic unbelievers.

I and many other atheist Dopers would take exception to that belief. We would say that “It’s stinking bigoted terrorism and any Muslim who stands by it is an bigoted terrorists and Allah is a god of bigoted terrorists!”

I believe there are some educated Muslims who would say that they do not accept the notion that all atheists should be converted or killed … and some others that would. So, despite the fact that the Koran calls on Muslims to convert or kill atheists, it would be wrong and inappropriate for me to call Muslims in general to account for that belief, because not all Muslims accept it.

Just as the Bible has some strong words about homosexuals that has led to a certain amount of bigotry, yet it would be SO WRONG to call Christianity in general for that belief, because SOME Christians choose to interpret those beliefs … generally with a LOT of intellectual contortion … as not condemning homosexuals.

At some point, it seems to me, we should be able to call a spade a spade.

5

I would maintain that the primary cahracteristics of Muslims and probably many of the secondary characteristics are so generic and inoffensive that they don’t give rise to debate. I don’t believe in any Great Sky Fairies myself, but I recognize others’ rights to believe in them. And the Rules of General Goodness that often constitute secondary characteristics of groups like Muslims and Republicans are generally so inoffensive they are almost meaningless. As you say, it’s when you get to tertiary characteristics that objectionable beliefs and actions tend to come creeping in.

My point would be that very often those tertiary beliefs are much more tolerated by the larger group and tend to get promoted along with the rest should that group achieve economic, political or social power in a culture. But whenever one attempts to say, “We must oppose Group X unless they absolutely abjure Subgroup Y!” people say, “I absolutely abjure Subgroup Y, and I must say you can’t go around condemning Group X because Subgroup Y’s beliefs/behaviors are so vile!”

Whereas I think it’s a perfectly valid thing to do.

6

But what I’m saying is that, even assuming arguendo that you’re right (and I think you’re oversimplifying), it doesn’t allow you to say that Joe Smith, a specific Christian, thinks that homosexuality is wrong, or that Mohammed err…Smith, a specific Muslim thinks that atheists should be killed. So, “all atheists must be killed” might be stinking bigotry, and people who believe that might be stinking bigots, but if I’m a Muslim, that doesn’t neccesarily make me a stinking bigot.

7

But it kinda makes you … part of the League of Stinking Bigots, who advance the interests of Stinking Bigots … even though YOU PERSONALLY have no interest in Stinking Bigotry. Why should I make that distinction? Is it not a difference that makes no difference? (That is, you don’t care for Stinking Bigotry at all, but by your membership in the League of Stinking Bigots, you effectively advance its interests. Why should I make an exception for your claims of personal moral rectitude?)

8

Because, for one thing, the only way that an organization’s beliefs can change is if people with different beliefs stay in that organization and try to change them.

9

That’s because it’s not your ox being gored.

The problem, as Shib and Captain Amazing are trying to explain, is that large groups like “Muslims” and “Christians” and “Democrats” and “Republicans” usually boil down to one sentence descriptors, of which half of that sentence will be wrong for any given description. Christians are those who believe that Christ was the Son of God, and that the Bible is the Word of God. Except for those who believe that certain parts of the Bible are not inerrant. And those who interpret even the sections they agree are inerrant in different ways. And some even aren’t real sure on the whole divinity-of-Christ thing.

10

Perhaps because I have no control over who calls themselves what? The fact that Polycarp, for example, calls himself a Christian has nothing to do with what other people who call themselves Christians believe; it has everything to do with what Polycarp himself believes calling himself a Christian means. The fact that someone else calls himself a Christian for reasons that Polycarp considers abhorrent- should that mean Polycarp must declare himself not a Christian?

11

If I understand you correctly, you are looking for a way to properly employ the fallacy of Division? I dont think there is a way to properly stereotype or hold culpable individuals in the way that you seek.

12

I agree. This is a reasonable point, as I said in the OP. It is not something I am trying to slide around, it’s something I want to confront directly by pointing out that if you accept this line of reasoning, you can’t talk meaningfully about groups of human beings larger than about, say, ten. Because to be TRULY REASONABLE, you can’t hold Joe Schmo responsible for Jane Dough’s beliefs, even if they are members of the same fill-in-the-blank. You cannot speak meaningfully of groups, even large groups, at all, unless you are willing to commit the Fallacy of Division – unless you are willing to ascribe to some members of the group beliefs/attributes which they may not have.

Frex, I may say, “Muslims believe atheists should be killed or converted.” Joe Schmo says, "I’m a Muslim, I don’t believe that, Fallacy of Division. It’s just those damn Panoonie Muslims that buy into that shit. Then Jane Dough says, “I’m a Panoonie Muslims, and I don’t care for atheists, but I don’t think atheists should be killed or converted. It’s just those damn RADICAL Panoonie Muslims that buy into that shit.” Then Harry Dick comes along and says, “I could be described as a radical Panoonie Muslim, and I do think atheists should be subject to some social strictures, but I don’t think they should be KILLED for Allah’s sake. It’s just those damn OUTLAW radical Panoonie Muslims who think things like that.”

Hence you have reduced the Muslims who think atheists should be killed or converted to about a dozen guys in the fringes of Sexistan. When in reality there may be a huge prejudice against atheists in general among Muslims, and they might just go along with killing atheists if the radical outlaw panoonie Muslims make enough noise, because they don’t care for atheists in the first place, but you CAN’T say most Muslims might want to kill or convert atheists if they were in power in America, even if that’s a true fact, because … Fallacy of Division.

To my mind, this is a problem that repeatedly has stifled debate on this board, by hijacking the debate into yet another Fallacy of Division iteration. It happens repeatedly. I don’t think it’s either fair or reasonable.

13

Except it’'s not a true fact, in the scenario you set up. Only the dozen guys in Sexistan want to kill or convert atheists, right? Everybody else either doesn’t have an opinion or wants to see them live.

14

I guess the way to phrase it would be, “If the Muslims get in power here, atheists would be forced to undergo conversion, on pain of death.” It’s a true statement under my scenario, even thought MOST MUSLIMS aren’t really all that crazed for it.

15

What I 'd settle for in this isntance would be some kind of intellectual counter to the “Division Fallacy” argument when a thread is being hijacked by said fallacy argument. Something along the lines of “Difference That Makes No Difference Is No Difference” rejoinder.

16

The thing is, the facts that you’ve laid out don’t establish it as a true statement. Under your scenario, the only people who advocate that are the Muslims of Sexistan. All you’ve established is “they might just go along with killing atheists if the radical outlaw panoonie Muslims make enough noise”. You don’t know that they will.

If you’re just saying that, in any organization, the people who set the agenda are the people who yell the loudest, I agree with you there.

17

Um. Bullshit.

Your OP mentioned more than once racism and it was all directed towards Republicans. And it went further on trying to paint all GOP members as racist. To that I say “Fuck you”. Why didn’t you mention Robert Byrd if you’re truly concerned about racism? He was a biggie in the KKK.

Oh, I know why. He’s your little ox being gored. The only people accusing Republicans of having sole propriety over racism are Democrats. Give it a rest. Go outside and play.

18

The people who set the agenda ARE OFTEN the people who yell the loudest. And when you allow the Fallacy of Division to hijack debates and somehow make it seem as if the opinions of a minority, however loud and pugnacious, is unimportant, you harm the quality of the debate. As has REPEATEDLY happened on the SDMB.

19

I can see how you may be frustrated when a discussion hits a standstill and it turns to talk of the fallacy of division, however I think this is reasonable. Are you suggesting that this fallacy is not valid? It appears that you are trying to concoct a way in which this fallacy would not apply. I contend it is a logical fallacy because it will always apply, and is especially pertinent in the example you gave of the particular sects of Muslims.

20

Let us speak of gored oxen, then. I think that most Dems aren’t that emotionally interested in gay marriage. The gay Dems clearly are, but they’re in a minority. However, I DO think it is fair to say that if the Dems are in political power, the chances of gays getting legal marriage status goes way up. But if any Republican were to dare say such a thing, I could respond: “Fallacy of division: most Dems aren’t gay and don’t care about that issue, it is unfair to make such generalities about the Democratic Party.”

Even if they are true.

Of course, you find this completely fair, right Duffer?