Are there groups about whom it is okay to sterotype?

[Sunbaneglasses]

Being a southerner, here are my observations: The racism exists mainly among the older generations. There are exceptions, but people of my generation and younger here seem to not really give a crap about anything. You are likely to hear a 60 something giving a diatribe about how illegal immigrants are ruining America and taking jobs, or proclaiming that "Obama is a Muslim" or some other ignorant BS. But younger people that wear their hate on their sleeves are few and far between.

[Avatar]

Yeah, I see quite a bit of that too. The people who can't let go of the past, vs the people who are moving into the future.

--A

[Prebe]

I think it's fair to pick on whitey, and christians, and the USA. Mostly because they don't retaliate, so it gives us a chance to feel big and self righteous without fear of any consequence as a result. But I don't think you can stereotype fanatic muslims, or even admit when they've responsible for certian crimes, because if you speak the truth about them, they'll retaliate. Everyone knows that dead people don't have much opportunity to feel smug and self righteous.

I (and most other lefties) call muslim bombers psychos. I call southern wifebeaters psychos too. I don't fear the consequences in either case.

I (and most other lefties) DON'T call ALL muslims assholes. Nor do I call all male southern US citizens wifebeaters or rednecks.

I don't think that anyone have problems with stereotyping fanatic muslims since, if they are indeed fanatic, they have stereotyped themselves.

Actualy, I fail to see the relevance of your post in this thread. It looks more like an attempt to make the politically correct lefties, who refuse to join the ranks of the ululating anti-islamic choir, look unpatriotic, and to glorify the right that "Can handle the truth!".

Perhaps a new thread, with that title ?

And no, of course the USA does not retaliate. (ROFLMAO)

[Lord Mhoram]

Tjol,

You would win the Strawman of the Month award if one existed. (Perhaps it should.) If I were to write a "satirical" post as a conservative where I self-identified as a fascist and a racist, everyone would be all over me, and rightfully so. And yeah, Prebe beat me to the punch: white people and the United States never retaliate? Don't make me laugh. Tell that to all the countries we bomb.

[Tjol]

I think it's fair to pick on whitey, and christians, and the USA. Mostly because they don't retaliate, so it gives us a chance to feel big and self righteous without fear of any consequence as a result. But I don't think you can stereotype fanatic muslims, or even admit when they've responsible for certian crimes, because if you speak the truth about them, they'll retaliate. Everyone knows that dead people don't have much opportunity to feel smug and self righteous.

I (and most other lefties) call muslim bombers psychos. I call southern wifebeaters psychos too. I don't fear the consequences in either case.

I (and most other lefties) DON'T call ALL muslims assholes. Nor do I call all male southern US citizens wifebeaters or rednecks.

I don't think that anyone have problems with stereotyping fanatic muslims since, if they are indeed fanatic, they have stereotyped themselves.

Actualy, I fail to see the relevance of your post in this thread. It looks more like an attempt to make the politically correct lefties, who refuse to join the ranks of the ululating anti-islamic choir, look unpatriotic, and to glorify the right that "Can handle the truth!".

Perhaps a new thread, with that title ?

And no, of course the USA does not retaliate. (ROFLMAO)

The relevance of my post? Mostly sarcasm on the topic. I know on a few things you make yourself an exception, but I also hope you can read the irony in what I posted. It can only be expected that most lefties would be unhappy at such 'unfair' generalisations. And yet they really don't seem to have problem generalising all sorts of groups based on their perception that those groups are ideological opponents.

Pre-emptive sarcasm of a sort. Too many leftists excuse their own prejudices on the grounds that such prejudices are actually justified. And then they go and accuse people of being Nazis, for being just as pigheaded.

But yes, you, you're not one to do that very often, if you're looking for my approval, lol, which I doubt.

Granted, half of me believes that those leftists who so often engage in referring to inaccurate stereotypes, don't do so because they honestly believe what they say. Leftism kind of revolves around portraying things in a certian light, rather than expressing things as they actually are.

[Lord Mhoram]

Here's a thought, Tjol: how about you stop accusing all sorts of mysterious "leftists" of generalizing and stop generalizing yourself? It's really getting on my nerves.

[Avatar]

Personally, I thought the original post was funny, and meant to be so.

However, I think LM makes a good point in showing that everybody generalises in discussion like this.

--A

[SerScot]

Tjol,

Here's the thing, IMHO. Truth is not relative but individual's perceptions of the truth are relative. Thus, people can in good faith arrive at different solutions to political problems because of those differing perceptions.

[Cybrweez]

everybody generalises in discussion like this.

--A

heh

[Vraith]

those leftists who so often engage in referring to inaccurate stereotypes, don't do so because they honestly believe what they say. Leftism kind of revolves around portraying things in a certian light, rather than expressing things as they actually are.

At least rightists believe they must portray leftists this way, whether it's how things actually are or not.

This is how things actually are: every single stereotype is, by its very nature, inaccurate.

Here's another how things actually are: People act like the important part of "Muslim Fanatics" is the "Muslim," when the truth is "Fanatic" is what they are and what makes them dangerous...Muslim is just the flavor of the decade.

[wayfriend]

Truth is not relative but individual's perceptions of the truth are relative. Thus, people can in good faith arrive at different solutions to political problems because of those differing perceptions.

It's been my experience that everyone has the same perceptions. They just immediately filter them based on their core beliefs. (One politician is "representing the will of the people"; another, who does the same thing, is "pandering to voters in order to get elected". The only difference is the relation of his party to yours.)

The raw perceptions are soon forgotten; the prejudiced interpretations are what we retain going forward.

Meanwhile ...

You'll find that who people are sentitive about stereotyping and who they blithly smear away has a lot to do with recent events and the fallout therefrom. The Muslim generality has taken heat for the actions of a few: some of us have become sensitive to the real damage done and act protectively; others of us don't care.

While on the other hand, our perceptual filters can take the raw data of "criticising your own country/race/religion", and out can pop either "they think it's okay to stereotype their own kind that way", or "we have a right to speak out about what we don't agree with", depending.

[SerScot]

wayfriend,

Truth is not relative but individual's perceptions of the truth are relative. Thus, people can in good faith arrive at different solutions to political problems because of those differing perceptions.

It's been my experience that everyone has the same perceptions. They just immediately filter them based on their core beliefs. (One politician is "representing the will of the people"; another, who does the same thing, is "pandering to voters in order to get elected". The only difference is the relation of his party to yours.)

The raw perceptions are soon forgotten; the prejudiced interpretations are what we retain going forward.

Meanwhile ...

You'll find that who people are sentitive about stereotyping and who they blithly smear away has a lot to do with recent events and the fallout therefrom. The Muslim generality has taken heat for the actions of a few: some of us have become sensitive to the real damage done and act protectively; others of us don't care.

While on the other hand, our perceptual filters can take the raw data of "criticising your own country/race/religion", and out can pop either "they think it's okay to stereotype their own kind that way", or "we have a right to speak out about what we don't agree with", depending.

I make a sincere and concerted effort to avoid the double standard you describe above. I try, recognizing I will not always succeed, to be as objective as possible about both sides of a given issue remembering I will be biased toward the side I favor.

[Holsety]

Being a southerner, here are my observations: The racism exists mainly among the older generations. There are exceptions, but people of my generation and younger here seem to not really give a crap about anything. You are likely to hear a 60 something giving a diatribe about how illegal immigrants are ruining America and taking jobs, or proclaiming that "Obama is a Muslim" or some other ignorant BS. But younger people that wear their hate on their sleeves are few and far between.

Younger people are finding that it's hard to wear hate for a particular group without being innaccurate. Racism is for the lazy. So is this post.

However, I think LM makes a good point in showing that everybody generalises in discussion like this.

I also thought LM did a good job in this topic.

everybody generalises in discussion like this.

--A

heh

heh

It's been my experience that everyone has the same perceptions. They just immediately filter them based on their core beliefs. (One politician is "representing the will of the people"; another, who does the same thing, is "pandering to voters in order to get elected". The only difference is the relation of his party to yours.)

The amazing thing is how in the last election, I think that the McCain voters got worried about this because McCain wasn't doing a good enough job of pandering to the voters, in their opinion. So instead of arguing that McCain was "representing the will of the people" they mostly criticized Obama for being too good at pandering to "the will of the people".

That's why the McCain side were a bunch of fascists XD

EDIT-Take a look at me. I didn't even vote for Obama and I still default towards making fun of McCain. And Obama is honestly more fun to make fun of too, probably because he actually won.

[Tjol]

Here's a thought, Tjol: how about you stop accusing all sorts of mysterious "leftists" of generalizing and stop generalizing yourself? It's really getting on my nerves.

that's the response I was expecting...but before the clarification.

[Tjol]

those leftists who so often engage in referring to inaccurate stereotypes, don't do so because they honestly believe what they say. Leftism kind of revolves around portraying things in a certian light, rather than expressing things as they actually are.

At least rightists believe they must portray leftists this way, whether it's how things actually are or not.

This is how things actually are: every single stereotype is, by its very nature, inaccurate.

Some are less inaccurate than others though. And if you get your bet right 80% of the time, you can afford to lose 20% of the time.

Here's another how things actually are: People act like the important part of "Muslim Fanatics" is the "Muslim," when the truth is "Fanatic" is what they are and what makes them dangerous...Muslim is just the flavor of the decade.

See, but that's the thing, you can acknowledge muslim is the flavor of the present (not the whole flavor of course, but it's the most noticeable of the flavors in the mix for the moment). Most on the left will bend over backwards to omit muslim from the mix, the preference for creating a certian perception rather than portraying the truth.

Now if people on the left did it because they simply wanted to give everyone a fair chance to prove themselves to not be of the head-sawing persuasion, I'd agree with them wholeheartedly. However, what I see instead, is that while the left wants to prevent the words muslim and fanatic from ever being seen side by side; they have no concern with making false accusations of racism, violence, and even stageing racism and violence so that they can point their finger at all the bad things the right is doing. Such inconsistency excludes the liberal desire to 'be fair' and leaves me to the conclusion that ideological loyalties are at play more than 'being fair'.

You can't have missed how many politicians in the last couple of weeks have said 'It's Unconstitutional. No I haven't read it. I wouldn't sign a law like that. No, no I haven't read it.' Is there really a desire to be 'fair' or just a desire to continue playing at polemics?

Tjol,

Here's the thing, IMHO. Truth is not relative but individual's perceptions of the truth are relative. Thus, people can in good faith arrive at different solutions to political problems because of those differing perceptions.

No doubt. I know you're new here, and it's been a while anyways since I've said it; my beliefs and my experiences are resolved in the little bits of phenomenology I've read. I've known good people that are atheists, I have good friends that are wiccan and agnostic and buddhist. And metaphysical matters are a more passionate thing to disagree on than politics. One of my best friends voted for Kerry, and I'm pretty sure about half of my other friends have as well. My sister is more liberal than leftist, but I'll count her in the some of the people I most respect are liberals category.

While I disagree with the idea of relative truth, I've always agreed with the ability for people to believe in different truths with equal sincerity. But when LA City Council members suggest that Arizona's headed down the road of Nazi Germany... that can't be sincere. That can only be the kind of cynical manipulation of people's fears that politicians have practiced for years on end.

[Avatar]

everybody generalises in discussion like this.

heh

Including me.

Some are less inaccurate than others though. And if you get your bet right 80% of the time, you can afford to lose 20% of the time.

Except the accuracy is usally reversed. And if you're right only 20% of the time...

--A

[wayfriend]

muslim is the flavor of the present

they have no concern with making false accusations of racism, violence, and even stageing racism and violence

Prejudgement going into the argument makes it easy to draw the conclusion you aim for, doesn't it?

[Cybrweez]

Except the accuracy is usally reversed. And if you're right only 20% of the time...

--A

Bah, both numbers are complete generalizations. Or at least, complete guesses.

But I agree that stereotyping is ususallly for purposes just to help your case, like the topic we had awhile ago about the violence of the right, and how it just doesn't exist on the left. Remember that? By using a few examples? Good times.

[wayfriend]

like the topic we had awhile ago about the violence of the right, and how it just doesn't exist on the left. Remember that?

Well, there was a thread about how violence on the right is promoted by the demogoguery at it's top, which the right leaning members of this forum derailed into a topic about which party had more violence ... that one?

[Vraith]

You can't have missed how many politicians in the last couple of weeks have said 'It's Unconstitutional. No I haven't read it. I wouldn't sign a law like that. No, no I haven't read it.' Is there really a desire to be 'fair' or just a desire to continue playing at polemics?

No, I didn't miss it. And it is mostly liberals doing it. There was a possible constitutional issue in its original form, there isn't now as far as I can tell. But every side plays at junk thinking, all the time. But the real problem, on this and the Muslim Fanatic thing is that people ignore the reasonable, literal [yes, there are groups of fanatical terrorists causing problems, yes at this point in time the Islamic ones seem most active, organized, dangerous.] and replace it with stereotypical thinking...the Arizona law will lead to race-based actions, whether properly written/enacted or not.
History shows it over and over.
To oppose that result, it is necessary to confront the thought-shift wherever it is seen, argue against it, point out the errors, point out the real causes [Mexicans come here because we freakin pay them to: punish the companies, send the bosses to jail].