I don’t think it is begging the question. You have already admitted that some people are bigots, whereas you have never admitted that the underlying bigotry is ever based on fact.
If some people are bigots it follows that at least some opinion samples over some populations will reflect their bigoted and (I do not dispute) factually wrong opinions. For example I could survey a bunch of rednecks and establish as a fact that rednecks tend to hold X bigoted opinion - without ever admitting or implying that X is factually correct.
No, that is not my point. The fact relied upon would have to be that customers are more likely to prefer white salesmen over Black saleswomen - thus making the salesperson’s individual qualifications irrelevant to the fact relied upon for discrimination. Is it still bigotry?
I don’t think that’s a good example. A man can have a feminine voice, and theoretically you might find a deep-voiced woman who would satisfy those interested. So that’s not necessarily discriminating against a person’s gender; it is discriminating against their vocal style, which really is the most fair way to hire a voice actor.
Yes. Why do customers prefer white salesmen? Either they themselves are bigoted or there’s a societal bigotry that says that white men are better salesmen or more trustworthy or whatever. By only hiring white salesmen, you’re either catering to the bigotry of your customers or perpetuating societal bigotry.
If you were to survey people 50 years ago and ask if white male doctors were more trustworthy or better than female doctors, I have no doubt you’d find that they were, even in unimpeachable studies. That doesn’t mean that white male doctors are better or more qualified than women, and if you reran the study today, you’d likely get very different results.
I have found that many people consider discrimination against feminine traits to be a form of sexism.
Yes, exactly. Either catering to bigoted customers, or a bigot yourself. My question is specifically whether catering to bigoted customers, when (business) rational, is still bigotry on the business’s part.
Yes. Real estate agents, especially back in the 70s, would not show houses in white neighborhoods to Black families, because doing so would very likely bring down housing prices of other houses they had for sale in the neighborhood. Even if the real estate agents were themselves not bigoted, refusing to show houses in certain neighborhoods to Black families was still bigotry.
If I own a restaurant and refuse to serve Black customers because it will cause me to lose business with my regular white clientele, that’s still bigoted, even if I myself consider Black people to be my equal in every way, even if my wife were black, and, yes, even if some of my best friends were Black.
I think we have established that in at least some situations, bigotry can be factually justified but still hurtful and unfair. It then follows that some bigotry can be hurtful without being factually wrong.
Notwithstanding @Babale’s excellent post #375 on the transgender question being nonfactual. I am of the personal and amateur opinion that the entire field of psychology is one of useful heuristics rather than an exact science, destined to go the way of the four humors as the fields of neurology, endocrinology, &etc. advance.
That got confusing. I agree there are some situations where it would be advantageous to discriminate, but it’s still morally wrong to do so. As for labelling it bigotry, who knows? The meaning seems to change every year.
Not really. You’re talking about studies about how people perceive each other (and that will be influenced by the media, implicit bias, all kinds of things) and I think that DemonTree was talking about studies that showed actual genetic differences in abilities by race or gender or whatever.
I wanted to congratulate you on your thread about the justification of anti-vaccination mandates. It started off badly, but it’s actually got people giving their best suggestions rather than the usual chorus suggesting pantomime villain explanations.
I think the problem is starting with the framing that we need to try to absolutely prove if anything that can be characterized as bigotry is axiomatically false, and if there is ever a bigoted idea that is true or may be true that pro-bigotry arguments therefore have some sort of validity until refuted.
I think trying to figure out a hard and fast rule that ignores all context is just going to fail in practice. In reality, there are certain arguments that have been coopted by bigots and message boards like this are extremely flawed at refuting them point-by-point.
As an example, I’m Jewish. If I went on a message board to make some observation about Zionist conspiracy morons, and I was challenged to first prove that the Zionist conspiracy theory is wrong before drawing further conclusions about the morons I was commenting on, and then tried to refute bits and pieces of my argument against the Zionist conspiracy and was clearly not going to take no for an answer, I would probably just leave that message board. I’ve seen that movie before, I “know it when I see it” and it’s not worth the risk that I’m running away from a community that might just be really serious about the socratic method rather than just a bunch of anti-semites (or even just one anti-semite who was stinking up the board and ruining it for me).
There’s always going to be a line somewhere, but “where do you draw the line” is a reason to try to be careful about drawing the line, not to have some blanket rule where any bigoted statement must be taken seriously in any discussion and refuted as though it were any other argument.
Yeah, I think it’s possible to have a good conversation on almost any subject here as long as the OP is in good faith, tries to avoid poisoning the well, and stays engages in a positive manner.
Actually, in some places the segregation went both ways - the agent wouldn’t (or be really reluctant to) show a house in a “black neighborhood” to a white family. Cite: my parents buying a house in the 70s.
According to that John Oliver segment, this still happens. They had people undercover looking at houses with realtors, and one realtor told the white couple (but not the black couple) that before they buy the house in that neighborhood they should go to the grocery store in the evening and see ‘what sort of people’ shop there. She even says something like, “I have to be really careful with what I tell you, so just go look for yourself and make a decision”.
Pretty much what our realtor told us when we were moving to the Boston area about 15 years ago. She said we might not be comfortable with certain towns that on paper looked good to us. We ended up moving into a town that was 99+% white and some of our neighbors weren’t too happy about an Asian family moving in!
Well the town we are in now has gone from 99.8% white in 1980 to 97.0% now. The rest are almost entirely Asian. People are absolutely freaking out about the “historical semi-rural character” of the town being changed by all these “new” people moving in.
Immigrants from Ireland and former Yugoslavia have been moving here for decades by the hundreds. No one freaked out about them changing the character of the town. There was a hilarious(?) incident at the high school graduation. The co-valedictorians were a Russian boy who had immigrated at age 12 and has a distinct accent and a girl whose grandparents were all born in the US but one of them is Japanese American.
Yobbos were complaining about the immigrants coming in and dominating the school with their fanatical focus on academics. Pretty soon it became apparent that they were talking about the girl who was 1/4 Asian, not the actual immigrant.
