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

[sqweels]

@focusonz

…the hate for the Jewish people and the Blacks started in ill-tempered discussions just as this with a lack of thought and reached such a pitch that it led to oppression and genocide.

Don’t be ridiculous. Prejudice against blacks was/is based on their physical appearance. Prejudice against Jews is based on long-standing suspicions of where their loyalties lie.

Focusonz, you need to understand that the US is in a post-racist era. The terrible discrimination of the Jim Crow era has not merely been suspended, ready to snap back into place in the wake of a few sterotypical remarks. Instead, we’re living in the era of victimhood, where everyone seeks to score political points by accusing their rivals if fixing to impose Jim Crow-style discrimination on them.

[Lemur866]

@Maeglin

Bah, focusonz is an amateur. I manage six condescensions every day before breakfast. My wife is so proud of me.

Awwww. Isn’t Maeglin cute when he condescends like a big boy!

[focusonz]

@sqweels

Don’t be ridiculous. Prejudice against blacks was/is based on their physical appearance. Prejudice against Jews is based on long-standing suspicions of where their loyalties lie

I do not want to discuss these. Just read this
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Hitler_and_the_Nazis_hate_Jews_and_try_to_kill_them
and this
http://www.bsu.edu/learningfromhate/m_birthnation.htm

I just want the hate to get turned way the fuck down! Your statement “Don’t be ridiculous.” served no purpose except to ridicule, deride, mock, taunt mean to make an object of laughter of ridicule implies a deliberate often malicious belittling and in my book that is Scale 1, Anti locution ‘hate speech’.

[Der_Trihs]

@focusonz

I do not want to discuss these.

Posting in a forum called “Great Debates” rather invites debates, you know.

@focusonz

I just want the hate to get turned way the fuck down! Your statement “Don’t be ridiculous.” served no purpose except to ridicule, deride, mock, taunt mean to make an object of laughter of ridicule implies a deliberate often malicious belittling and in my book that is Scale 1, Anti locution ‘hate speech’.

Or, perhaps he/she is just being honest. Calling someone’s claim “ridiculous” isn’t hateful. You are defining hatred far too broadly.

And complaining about people using terms like ridiculous is a bit hypocritical in a thread where you called the side you are arguing against “childish”.

@focusonz

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.

Are you a minority group, all by yourself ?

And when you define “hate speech” that way, you trivialize the concept. Is it wrong to stereotype or bad mouth the Nazis ? The KKK ? The Heaven’s Gate suicide cult ? Sometimes stereotypes are true; sometimes a group really is stupid or evil. “Hate speech” is a concept that’s supposed to apply to claims that are wrong, not just negative.

[dropzone]

@Maeglin

Bah, focusonz is an amateur. I manage six condescensions every day before breakfast. My wife is so proud of me.

So, she manages at least one, herself.

What I want to know is if the OP considers positive stereotypes similarly childish/childlike.

[focusonz]

@dropzone

What I want to know is if the OP considers positive stereotypes similarly childish/childlike.

Yes they are inner childlike stereotypes. Using the word good to describe a personal relationship is grossly inadequate. A jar lid can be good. Be creative and convey to your partner a confirmation of their specific goodness. Take the time to think of a word which will have benefit to the person.

[focusonz]

@Der Trihs

Posting in a forum called “Great Debates” rather invites debates, you know.

Out of a great concern for the well being of my Jewish and Black brethren I don’t want to be the one to open the wound. I only responded in post #34 because from information I gathered elsewhere I learned Larry Borgia was a brethren.

@Der Trihs

Or, perhaps he/she is just being honest. Calling someone’s claim “ridiculous” isn’t hateful. You are defining hatred far too broadly.

I took it as malicious belittling and it served no purpose. It was phrased as an Ad hominem attack. He/she knows very little about me, but the form of the attack speaks volumes about his/her inner childlike nature.

@Der Trihs

And complaining about people using terms like ridiculous is a bit hypocritical in a thread where you called the side you are arguing against “childish”.

See post #32.
To be belittled is not trivial. You can perform the mental calisthenics over all the nazi and kkk, and other stuff in your post. It seems rather like an Ourorboros.

[Der_Trihs]

@focusonz

Out of a great concern for the well being of my Jewish and Black brethren I don’t want to be the one to open the wound. I only responded in post #34 because from information I gathered elsewhere I learned Larry Borgia was a brethren.

You know, I think that blacks and Jews can survive a little discussion on a message board.

@focusonz

I took it as malicious belittling and it served no purpose. It was phrased as an Ad hominem attack. He/she knows very little about me, but the form of the attack speaks volumes about his/her inner childlike nature.

And calling someone “childlike” isn’t insulting ? And since he/she was referring to your argument, they knew as much as they needed to express an opinion on your expressed opinions.

@focusonz

To be belittled is not trivial. You can perform the mental calisthenics over all the nazi and kkk, and other stuff in your post. It seems rather like an Ourorboros.

Alright; since sqweels called your argument ridiculous, I’ll add a little variety and call it incoherent. What in the world do you mean ?

[Larry_Borgia]

focusonz, I really only posted because I felt bad about my childish post #2. I think there’s the germ of an idea in your OP, but for one thing it’s little different from what smiling bandit posted in the thread you linked to, namely, questioning whether we can disagree on political matters without demonizing each other. Also I think you confused the issue with your discourse on “hate speech” which, as I and others have pointed out, is a term with a specific meaning in law and politics. The allport scale simply can’t be applied to people in heated internet debate. It’s like measuring distance with a thermometer.

Again, disagreements with people’s viewpoints; even when such differences become hostile, emotional and abusive; do not constitue hate speech as that term is commonly used. If I call someone an asshole, that’s not hate speech. If I call someone a nigger, that is. Even if I demonize a whole political party, that’s not hate speech. It’s not bigotry and it’s not racism. It may be intemperate and counter-productive, but it’s not like hating people because of genetic factors they can’t control.

I think you think you’ve come upon some profound truth, but you really haven’t. Again, I’m only posting because I felt bad about my first post in this thread. I’m bowing out.

[Jackmannii]

@focusonz

I only responded in post #34 because from information I gathered elsewhere I learned Larry Borgia was a brethren.

@Der Trihs

Are you a minority group, all by yourself ?

No, but Larry is. It must be one hell of a responsibility.

@focusonz

I just want the hate to get turned way the fuck down!

If you direct anger at hate, you only potentiate and feed it. I learned this from a Star Trek episode.

[tomndebb]

[ Moderating ]

At the request of the OP, I have changed the Title, substituting “Unfortunate Effect” for the word “Childishness” as so many replies were focusing on that word while ignoring the intent of the OP.

[ /Moderating ]

[MrDibble]

@focusonz

I learned Larry Borgia was a brethren.

So Larry is a minority all by himself…what with brethren being the plural and all…

@focusonz

I took it as malicious belittling and it served no purpose. It was phrased as an Ad hominem attack.

Calling an argument ridiculous is in no way, shape or form an ad hominem attack.

[Marley23]

@focusonz

I can see how you, a First-degree Mischlinge

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but I was wondering if you could explain your choice of terms here.

[focusonz]

@Larry Borgia

focusonz, I really only posted because I felt bad about my childish post #2.

I truly labored over that 1st post to this thread. I am not to quick on the uptake when it comes to metaphors which evoke warm feelings. I love cats. What you said was what comes out of peoples heads is like what they allow into their heads.

@Larry Borgia

Also I think you confused the issue with your discourse on “hate speech” which, as I and others have pointed out, is a term with a specific meaning in law and politics.

Agreed. I will substitute “hate speech” with “fighting words”. “Fighting words” have a legal precedent, and is a specific limitation of the freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - Wikipedia.

In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that “insulting or ‘fighting words,’ those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are among the “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of…have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.”

Insults to one person who might not mind the derogatory speech may indirectly insult others. Many states and local municipalities enforce prohibitions against rude, offensive or insulting speech, leaving citizens, law enforcement officers and courts to decide what is and what is not an insult.

Tomndebb were making the point that the “fighting words” tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" on the GD

@Larry Borgia

The allport scale simply can’t be applied to people in heated internet debate.

In the thread **“Why can’t we all just get long… w/o hating? ” **having 47 posts I have identified 17 posts containing “fighting words(insults)”. After a review, the scaling is still valid. Remember, Anti locution itself may not be harmful, but it sets the stage for more severe outlets for prejudice.

The word prejudice refers to prejudgment. The meaning now is frequently “any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence”. On the SDMB there are old hands and there are newbies. I, as a newbie, see the “fighting words” as prejudgements, resistant to rational influence. And I have observed that many old hands have come to the conclusion that other old hands are resistant to rational influence.

I can’t accept that any human can be resistant to rational influence except in the case when my inner game to stay in control overwhelms me and results in statements that are prejudgemental. Note how few posters have come here to refute the scaling of their posts. My inner game has not prevented me from leaving my comfort zone because I know that comfort zone is an illusion.

@Larry Borgia

If I call someone an asshole, that’s not hate speech.

It is an insult and is a “fighting word“ in some circles. The word asshole (or arsehole) is used to imply disapproval for the behavior or morals of another, but tends to imply the behavior resulted from a character flaw.

Since the word has two meanings then I don’t use it.

In other words, I have an unjustified tendency to assume that a person’s actions depend on what “kind” of person that person is rather than on the social and environmental forces influencing the person. This is the fundamental attribution error. See Fundamental attribution error - Wikipedia

I think the rule should be, if I would not say something to a persons face (because the words could be interpreted as “fighting words”), then I should not say those words in an Internet discussion.

For example, If I wasa face to face with either Hillary or Bush and I told them that they were bad, the secret service would be on me like stink on shit. And certainly why would I want to preface a dialog with such a separating statement when there is a possibility that I had much to gain. An autograph has monetary value in some circles which I could donate to my preferred candidate.

Restating, 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 fighting words directed at the candidate or anyone?
Do you agree or disagree with my scaling of the manifestation of prejudice for each post?
Is there anything worthwhile in using fighting words?
How do you intend to affirm not to use fighting words in your postings?
What should a poster using ‘fighting words’ expect from you in reply?

[focusonz]

@MrDibble

Calling an argument ridiculous is in no way, shape or form an ad hominem attack.

The way it was phrased “Don’t be ridiculous” is ad hominem. This phrasing says that I am ridiculous. Had he said my claims are ridiculous, I would have said Ok let me show you how your claims are ridiculous and why my may claims aren’t ridiculous.

Yes, yes I can hear it said that I am painting in to broad of strokes or am overly sensitive. But the point is why should I use a word, if taken in an unintended way, can result in me getting punched in the nose.

The second thing that popped into my mind upon reading the statement was that he thought I was someone wearing a beanie with a propeller on top. The first thing that popped into my mind is the statement in the context of this thread.

The whole point is why use fighting words at all. They so much depend on how they are used and they add nothing to establish claims as being true and besides It just tires me to type words that are unnecessary. Hell, I have typed in four paragraphs here and typed the word ridiculous 6 times. Now I consider this effort on my part ridiculous. Oops 7 times. My propeller is spinning.

[focusonz]

As an exercise: Let us agree that whenever a fighting word is used regardless of its phrasing we will always assume that it is not ad hominem. That was easy.

I can’t accept that agreement because it would be easier still to just not use fighting words at all, saving me strain on the eyes and the carpel tunnel.

[Maeglin]

@focusonz

As an exercise: Let us agree that whenever a fighting word is used regardless of its phrasing we will always assume that it is not ad hominem. That was easy.

An ad hominem is only a fallacy when it attacks the speaker in a way that is irrelevant to the claims he is making. When the attack is relevant, it is not a fallacy.

If you were to say, “don’t believe anything Maeglin says about social graces since he is an asshole, a social boor, and has no friends” it would be a personal attack, yes, but not an ad hominem.

I hope that this helps, but I doubt it.

[sqweels]

@focusonz

I just want the hate to get turned way the fuck down! Your statement “Don’t be ridiculous.” served no purpose except to ridicule, deride, mock, taunt mean to make an object of laughter of ridicule implies a deliberate often malicious belittling and in my book that is Scale 1, Anti locution ‘hate speech’.

Some statements provoke an immediate scoffing. The purpose was to make you feel foolish for making the kind of statement that you did in hopes that you’ll think twice next time.

Your claim seems to be that if the current debate between liberals and conservatives (etc.) gets any more heated, there is a risk that genocide or other highly organized violent oppressio–like in Nazi Germany or the Jim Crow era South–will result. I find this to be absurd because those situations are very different from our own.

Your cites were unconvincing. The vicitms in those cases were seen as aliens, subject to suspicion and scapegoating, and were helpless minorities. They weren’t simply cases of “ill-tempered discussion” getting out of hand.

I agree that we need to tone down the rhetoric, but it only borders on bigotry the way conservatives play the game. They’re the ones who need to clean up their act. I will brook no turnabouts.

[mswas]

@Maeglin

An ad hominem is only a fallacy when it attacks the speaker in a way that is irrelevant to the claims he is making. When the attack is relevant, it is not a fallacy.

If you were to say, “don’t believe anything Maeglin says about social graces since he is an asshole, a social boor, and has no friends” it would be a personal attack, yes, but not an ad hominem.

I hope that this helps, but I doubt it.

Actually it’s still an ad hominem. You yourself provide the perfect example. You are an asshole, a social bore and have no friends despite having an above average knowledge of social etiquette. So if in good faith you were treating us to a discussion of proper form, we may actually learn something quite useful, even though you yourself choose not to apply it in your own life.

An ad hominem attacks the argument that is being made on the basis of the identity of the person, rather than their argument. So for instance, I might say 2+2=4, but because I failed Algebra II in HS, someone won’t listen to me. It doesn’t matter whether I am actually good at math or not, if I am right and the argument is sound, then that’s all that matters. Even if the attack on my character is perfectly relevant, such as evidence of a poor showing in math in the past.

All an ad hominem requires is making the argument about the person rather than about the argument. It doesn’t matter how relevant the attack on the identity is.

[Maeglin]

@mswas

All an ad hominem requires is making the argument about the person rather than about the argument. It doesn’t matter how relevant the attack on the identity is.

No, this is factually incorrect.

This is a handy reference:

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Where the character of the person does have some bearing on the claim being made, then the attack is not a fallacy ad hominem, it is just a personal attack.