That’s fine, but are you really surprised at the reception your thread got? C’mon. Seriously. When you leave people no room for argument by using phrases such as “it’s inarguable that black people are louder than any other races or groups” and “Again, there’s no debate as to the veracity of this.” What do you really expect? Personally, I do not see black business people screaming, shouting, and laughing in inappropriate places. Honestly. I’ve never noticed that, and I had a temping stint in an accounting office in Chicago years ago where I was the only white person in the department.
If you just rode the CTA and visited inner city movie theaters, I wouldn’t be surprised if you came to the conclusion that black people are loud. However, to restate a point I’ve already made, people don’t appreciate it when you take an arguable subjective observation and present it as fact, and have the hubris and arrogance to deem it incontrovertible. That shows all the diplomacy and tact of your favorite president, George Bush.
Are you seriously that socially retarded and intellectually dishonest that you honestly could not have forseen this outcome? Personally, I get the feeling you’re smarter than that and are just fucking with us a little bit, but if I’m wrong, then perhaps you should just reexamine the way you present your beliefs and understand your definition of “fact” does not jive with ours.
Tried to post this like 15 minutes ago, but the fucking “new server” hamsters were apparently on break.
The fault of logic is in assuming that your daily experience is universal and “non-debatable.” It’s big world; your experience of it is beyond infinitesimal.
Redefining a racial stereotype as a “cultural meme” is nothing but a word game. And lampooning racial stereotypes, as SNL does (with limited success) is worlds away from referring to those stereotypes, with a straight face, as non-debatable facts.
As I tried to make clear above, racial stereotypes are seductive, because they’re the perfect case for anecdotal evidence:
Step 1: From limited personal experience, you draw a conclusion.
Step 2: You see someone behaving in such a way as to support the conclusion. “See? I was right.”
Step 3: You see someone *not * supporting the conclusion. You either don’t notice, or you assume that they’re just being quiet at the moment, but you imagine that if they were in a crowded theater watching *Norbit * they’d be louder than you or your relatives. More “supportive” evidence, only it’s imaginary.
It’s not only the political incorrectness that people have a problem with, it’s the logical fallacy inherent in your argument. http://skepdic.com/begging.html
My problem with “Why do — people do —” threads is because they serve no real purpose except to highlight how THEY are different from US. It’s a rhetorical question posing as a non-rhetorical question, in other words.
Assume that black people are objectively louder as a group. What could possibly explain this phenomenon? An intelligent person would see that you really only have two choices.
Some biological factor makes blacks different from everyone else.
OR
Some socio-cultural association makes loudness overrepresented in blacks.
Does VCO3really believe that there is some biological basis for loud blacks? If he does, he’s demonstrating shallow thinking and deserves to be ridiculed.
If VCO3 thinks there’s a cultural basis for it, then what more does he need to know? What’s the point of this thread except just to see people talk about all these loud blacks running around. There is no “why” behind these kind of cultural ticks. They are what they are. Why do Indians eat spicy foods? Um, because they motherfucking like spicy foods. Why do Italians gesture a lot with their hands? Because that’s what they do.
And I repeat that in the context it was used, it made me wince. Perhaps it doesn’t in your experience, but then maybe your experience is more limited than mine.
Here’s the problem. “Most of America” may think Blacks are louder than Whites (although I don’t know where you got that info), but “most of America” is predisposed at least somewhat to think negatively about Blacks. So everytime a Black person does something annoying, “most of America” will notice. And when someone just like you (or maybe even you, yourself) does something annoying, you are less likely to notice, or are less likely to be annoyed by it.
I’m sure others have already brought this up, but I haven’t read the entire thread. At least consider this as a possibility and think about it.
Perhaps. Looking at the post where this complaint started, it still seems odd to me that you blame the term “blacks” for making you wince, and not, rather, the sentiments expessed in the context themselves, but, whatever. I don’t care that much.
That’s going to make answering a lot of questions in GQ much easier.
“Why is chicken pox so bad for adults?” Because it is. Why do you need to know?
“Why is my bone china stained and squeaking?” Because it is. What more do you need to know, Einstein?
“Why sail with the tide?” Because that’s what you do.
“Why does ketchup have 0% vitamin c?”. Because it has no vitamin C.
“Why do some people save egg cartons?” Because they do. It’s none of your damn business why they do it.
"Why do fur garments hold onto the fur so well? " Because they do.
OK, I’m not defending the OP’s lazy reasoning, but in the interest of support for behavioral economics, there could be another possibility. If being black and being loud do indeed have some kind of unusually high correlation, and we can pretty easily rule out anything biological, we might learn that the trait causing a propensity for loudness is caused by another high correlation with black people. Perhaps, residing in an area of high population density, having a larger family, or being poorer, (and I’m not saying any of these necessarily correlate with blacks) correlate, or even cause, a tendency to be loud.
These observations would be interesting to a social scientist. For better or worse, skin color is more observable than most other factors.
I recall that in one of my journalism courses (back in the dark ages of the early 90’s), when we were going over what terms were acceptable/to be avoided in newswriting, one student was flabbergasted that “Jew” was a perfectly acceptable term, interchangeable with “Jewish person.”
The professor assured her that it was not an offensive term and was perfectly fine to use. I think that that student probably had the same issue with “Jew” that lowbrass appears to have with the term “blacks”— namely, a reflexive mental association with the term used insultingly, perhaps preceded by “you dirty…” or “look at those goddamned…”
No, because lowbrass isn’t the only one who understands that “blacks” is reductive and dismissive.
Language evolves. I’m not sure why, in the Jewish community at large, “Jews” is a perfectly acceptable usage. Perhaps it’s because there’s a consensus that it’s a term of pride; that it is, fact, the very essence of who they are, and more than just an adjective. While “black” is just a color, and is ultimately irrelevant to who the person is. Again, I don’t know. But a people should be given the right to name itself, and if Jews don’t mind “Jews,” who am I to tell them that’s wrong?
But I don’t think many blacks have any problem with being referred to as “blacks”. And like I said, “black person” is precisely as reductive and dismissive as “black”; it’s just more wordy about it.
It’s not like the Jews allowing themselves to be called “the Jews” is some idiosyncracy; same thing happens with Christians, Arabs, redheads, transvestites, firefighters, … . Sure, I could say “Christian person”, “Arab person”, “redheaded person”, etc. But what’s the point? Nobody really thinks that if I say “There are a lot of redheads in my class”, I’m reducing their entire personality to nothing more than the color of their hair, as if they have no personhood beyond that. And I don’t think many people feel that way about “blacks” or “Britons” or “albinos” or what have you either.
I have been on a plane and am now at my hotel room and decided to check this thread.
sigh well, I suppose it doesn’t matter because VC03 has “quit this thread” - not to mention that many of you did a great job explaining exactly how VC03 achieved his dickitude. So there is nothing for me to add.
Well, except maybe this: VC03, you seem like you are reasonably intelligent - you think about interesting topics and can string together sentences in a reasonable fashion. But I wish you had the slightest idea of how arrogantly immature you sound. Quit being a baby - if you want to raise interesting topics with grown-ups, then frame them in a thoughtful manner and be open to actually listening to the comments you claim to be asking for.
If all you want to do is Pronounce, please do it elsewhere - I can find arrogant children who think they’re geniouses and dismiss everyone else’s point of view at my kid’s school.
Actually none of these questions are anything like asking why blacks are louder than everyone else. These all can be answered factually, using empiricism and deductive reasoning.
“Why” questions about cultural differences have as much worth as asking why lions roar instead of bark. Lions roar because…lions roar. There is no “why”. Why should we expect a lion to bark? The question presumes that barking is what is normal. The outcomes of evolution don’t have to have a “why”. Cultural habits are products of evolution, too, just on a behaviorial level.
If I asked “why do white girls say ‘like’ so much?” what else can be said to answer the question besides the obvious? White girls say “like” because other white girls say “like” and white girls want to be like other white girls. Wash and repeat and what you see is a whole bunch of white girls saying “like”.
