Very true. The tone of the post makes up for 57% of the reaction it gets (cite). As has been covered elsewhere, presenting a personal observation as unarguable truth makes for short debates and tall pile ons.
That said, people often resort to short-hand when speaking. If someone says “All people that x do y”, they asked for it, but more often than not, they say “People that x do y”. No “all”. Although I understand why that might upset “people who x but don’t y”, the statement is not meant to be inclusive of all “people who x”. Some gentle prodding to the offending poster might coax the nature of his observation and open the door to debate the stereotype.
Yes they were included to lighten the tone of the post. But also to make a point that groupings are not necessarily based on physical traits. I could just as easily have included soccer moms, computer geeks, fishermen, rugby players or women who wear large sunshades.
Very good way of putting it. Comparisons don’t have to be negative, though.
While you can try to conceal a negative as a positive (saying that “people of non-caucasian origins often excell in activities where leap height is relevant” hoping that nobody notices that you are saying that “white men can’t jump”), there are possible generalizations that are not offensive to anyone.
You could say that “japanese kids are math wizards” (just to bring up a hopefully innocuous and likely baseless generalization but one that is often quoted). That doesn’t have to mean that “swede kids suck at math” or that “japanese kids suck at geography”. You can praise a group without it having to be a stab at the complement.
Uncited it will remain. I am trying to choose innocuous examples to avoid the thread spiraling into a debate about a particular stereotype. My apologies if it somehow offended. I retract the example and hope you can still see the point I am trying to make without that particular case.
My apologies for the multiple post. A minor domestic emergency prevented me from being around for this debate (and they will soon wake up from their afternoon nap).
In the end I think **DSeid ** answers my question (I would have loved the links but I understand that Searching is to be used sparingly these days). Intelligent debate can be had about group perceptions, even if just to dispell them.
Is it necessarily true that group perceptions are always wrong? Isn’t it possible to identify traits on groups that are observable?
Let me choose another hopefully innocuous example (and if it offends someone, please change it with your mind’s eye to something that doesn’t). “Soccer moms drive minivans”. Once we define “soccer moms” and wade past the list of all the “soccer moms” who drive sports coupes and pickup trucks. If we found some statistics that correlate “soccer motherhood” and minivan usage, could we safely say that “soccer moms drive minivans”. Could we say it without offending soccer moms who drive family sedans? Without offending those who DO drive minivans?
Would we be forced to always say “The HSD made a study in 1998 that shows that 52.7% of women with children who play soccer in the 48 contiguous states, drive a minivan”?
True. But the “Why can’t…” formulation is never about praise.
Speaking of praise, it’s worth noting that praising for the wrong, i.e. low-valued, attributes (along the lines of damning with faint praise) is naturally taken as a backhanded slam.
For instance, saying “Black people sure can dance” carries in it a hidden “but don’t expect many of them to be C.P.A.'s.”
Wait, is that true? Noting that people of a certain background seem to excel at an non-negative activity indicates that they are bad at something else? I am not sure I accept your logic.
I do not think noting that African Americans produce a disproportionate number of basketball players indicates anything else about them.
Saying Whites and Hispanics are better at baseball as it is a thinking mans game, would be extremely racist.
Saying Whites and Hispanics are more likely to be professional baseball players as they have more opportunities to play as kids due to socio-economic reasons, would seem to be a valid observation and reasonable deduction.
Where does the “don’t expect them to be CPAs” come from?
:eek: What ever happened to just taking a compliment?. I would never have taken “BPSCD” as an insult to their intellect. Live and learn, I guess. Is this general consensus? I am really out of my mind at this. I now wonder how many compliments I have taken that were really insults. Ignorance can be bliss. Can we have a general show of hands on this?
There are two main reasons: (1) the generalization is often developed inductively, and (2) the traits of groups cannot always be assigned directly to individuals. These two points make any assertion about a group or members of that group suspect.
But these only makes the assertion “All X are Y” logically shaky. What really makes it loaded is the presumed end toward which the statement is aimed. If I assert something as true, I have a reason for saying it beyond just stating a fact. If I tell you “that restaurant is no good,” I’m doing it because I don’t want you to go there. If I say “my house is burning down,” you’d wisely surmise I need some help in putting it out. And if I say “All blacks are lazy,” you’d assume I want you to believe an entire class of individuals share an undesireable social trait, and therefore should be avoided.
This does not mean that all group generalizations are racist/etc. For example, if I were a doctor, and I had an African-American patient that had a problem with their spleen, I might order a test for Sickle-cell Anemia, justifying it as “African-Americans are more likely to have Sickle-cell Anemia.” That is not a racist statement; there is enough objective genetic evidence to back the assertion, and moreover I’m asserting this fact in order to help diagnose the patient’s medical problem, presumably to his/her own benefit. (Please excuse any medical errors in this example; IANA doctor, but I hope my point is understood nevertheless).
The situation is more complicated because even complimentary generalizations–such as “Most Japanese kids are math whizzes”–are often correctly interpreted as patronizing, which will also effectively isolate members of the group.
In summary, a listener will naturally assume the motive for your assertion. Given the shaky logical foundation of group generalizations and their history in promoting bigotry, many folks will assume–unless, as in the medical example, they have good reason to know otherwise–you motives stem from a desire to unfairly isolate members of that social group, either by foventing bigotry or patronization.
Uh…what? I’ve even translated it but I still don’t get how it pertains to what I asked.
That’s because that wasn’t exactly his logic. He was quite clear about his point of “damning with faint praise”. In the context of real life where it’s well known that very little is thought of blacks, “praise” such as “black people can dance” and “blacks are gifted at worship and celebration” are quite insulting - since ultimately such traits are useless.
Now I question the seriousness of your OP. If you wish to compliment someone’s dancing, you normally say “Boy, John/Mary sure can dance.”, not “Boy, white folks/black folks sure can dance.” If you can’t see how that last statement is patronizing, I’m sorry I bothered to respond.
So saying Black people can dance is considered a negative? When someone says Italian woman can sure cook great, should I take offense for the women of my family? I still must be missing the insult, I don’t see it, I cannot parse it.
Who the heck cares if someone can dance, in the end? At least a good cook can please other people with her skill - that’s what gives it some worth. Being able to cook garners respect, universally. “Black people can dance” is about as flattering as “black people can clap really fast”.
I’d comment on why it’s rude to stereotype people, but what’s the point? You don’t want a debate; you want to post a thinly-disguised rant in Great Debates. If you want to rant, go the The Pit.
Well your second example, I would not consider insulting, just a silly generalization. Now according to pizzabrat, silly generalizations are not insulting unless you consider the praise generalization to be worthless. Of course as someone who cannot dance, I have never considered the ability to dance to be worthless.
Cooking is a positive and Dancing is worthless. Of course both have the potential to earn an individual money and both have the potential to increase someones chance to find a significant other. They both seem like worthwhile achievements to me.