Well... here's an interesting starting place for this board.

Because it only took Viking-Sensei three years (and the approaching end of Errant Story) to come up with a better name for "General Discussions"
User avatar
Imp-Chan
Not Yet Dead
Posts: 1407
Joined: August 10th, 2007, 11:03 am
Twitter @: ImpChan
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Contact:

Re: Well... here's an interesting starting place for this board.

Post by Imp-Chan »

Ghost in the Shell wrote:I have personal experience in talking to people following some kind of fundamentalism (racism and anti-immigrant minded opinions). It was one of the worst experiences I have ever made, but it clearly showed me that it's nearly impossible to change their minds with things as punishment. You only give them the feeling to be some weird kind of martyrer and in their groups, they probably are.
Having been a target of a frighteningly large number of people who held similarly militantly fundamentalist views for the majority of my time in high school, I can offer the following information:

1) Subsequent to inquiries about my particular beliefs, I attempted reasonable discourse with these individuals, but was not, in my estimation, truly heard. I was instead told that I was factually inaccurate, and doomed for being so. No amount of "proof" that I offered, or logical arguments that I attempted, in any way convinced them to change their minds or consider my opinion as either valid or at least a mistake I was entitled to make. Rather, they offered the argument that unless they could reform me, they too were doomed. This impasse continued until graduation. (As a note, I once considered myself a Christian, and to this day these individuals are why I will never call myself one again, despite a continued willingness to believe in Christ and his teachings).

2) I was made to fear physical violence from these individuals on more than one occasion. Additionally, several of the students made an effort to punish me in less physical ways. No amount of effort on my part to address this through the school was even remotely effective.

3) This was not limited to students, teachers also used intimidation tactics and bad logic to argue with me, particularly on the subject of 9/11. I was the only student in the school arguing the futility of a war on terror, and was literally ordered not to voice that opinion in one teacher's classroom, and had to sit in silence while the discussion continued lest I be punished. I did not take that well.

However... this does not mean that all people with fundamentalist views would behave similarly. This does not mean that all Christians are bad. It just means that I had bad experiences with a few hundred people who all fit a fairly tight grouping, and if I'm really honest I suppose that I gave them plenty of ammunition because I was just as determined not to back down on what I believed. It took time for me to realize that and to understand it, and even so I still feel genuine fear when I see small rural churches, or any overtly fundamentalist sentiment on a bumper sticker or something, or anyone wearing a cross.

It is much, much easier to believe bad of people than to believe good of them, probably because our tendency to classify started as a defense mechanism. I had enormous difficulty overcoming my fear of Christians even as much as I have, and I had the benefit of having been raised to value an open mind and to view and value people as individuals as much as possible (also, having been raised as at least a nominal part of the group I feared). But... what about all those individuals who weren't taught that, and were instead taught by words or example that a group of people is inferior, or not to be trusted, or dangerous? If there's already a teaching in place that a group of people are bad, it may take only one bad experience (if any) to prove that "true," while it might take countless examples to prove it isn't.

It is all well and good for us to say that we want to prevent bigotry and prejudice, but in doing so we must realize that we are passing a negative judgement on a group just as surely as any racist. Perhaps, rather than combatting bigotry or prejudice, we need to first focus on combating the tendency to ACT on such beliefs? That is the true source of the social problem, afterall... the interaction based on those beliefs. If there is a set standard for interaction despite the beliefs, and that standard is clearly defined and taught to us and enforced from childhood, then we might start seeing some social change even without actually preventing the classification that has been argued here as fundamental to human nature.

In fact, I think that even by something as simple as creating and enforcing rules for interaction in society (once called manners and taught without requirement), we can establish a remarkable shift in paradigm... one that teaches children to think in terms of, "You're entitled to believe anything you want, but your beliefs do not excuse you from treating your fellow man with courtesy and acceptance. Behaving in a courteous and accepting way is a requirement for participation in this society. You don't have to mean it, but you do have to do it because society depends on your good behavior to function." Imagine how drastically different this world would be if courtesy were once again valued above individual satisfaction?

^-^'

Edit: Oh hey, that new paradigm sounds remarkably familiar... maybe because it paraphrases the first rule on this board? ^-^'
Because scary little devil girls have to stick together.
Image
User avatar
Graybeard
The Heretical Admin
Posts: 7180
Joined: August 20th, 2007, 8:26 am
Location: Nuevo Mexico y Colorado, Estados Unidos

Re: Well... here's an interesting starting place for this board.

Post by Graybeard »

Forrest wrote: Though, I suppose it does seem rational to trust the statements of your friends and family, even when not backed by evidence; but then, it's also intellectually virtuous to test your assumptions. So if you were raised in an all white community to believe that all black people were violent and dangerous, and had never seen a counterexample, then it would be rational (though incorrect) to assume that all black people are violent and dangerous. But it would be irrational to maintain that belief in the face of meeting non-violent, harmless black people, and it would be good of you, before you act on your culturally ingrained assumptions, to go out and meet some black people and see if the prevailing opinion really is correct.
Sounds reasonable enough. Now tell me: if for "black people" you substitute "parolees who had served prison terms for raping people of your own age and gender," would you be as hot to go out and see what they (the parolees in the hypothetical analogy, not black people!) are really like, for the sake of heading off a possibly unfounded prejudice?

Lofty statements of principle have a nasty way of crashing into reality, particularly in situations where if you happen to misjudge the way things really are (as a result of your lofty principles), "it's your ass, Sunshine" (to borrow a term from the boxing world, due to Thomas Hearns I think). Many people holding prejudices have been given abundant practical reasons to believe their prejudices are correct. Self-preservation is a pretty powerful reason to perpetuate those prejudices, and lofty statements of principle are pretty feeble reasons for questioning them.

Slamlander, where are you in all this? I'd be interested in a European view of the things arising here, for reasons I'll come back to if the conversation heads in that direction.
User avatar
Forrest
Finally, some love for the BJ!
Posts: 977
Joined: August 21st, 2007, 12:49 pm
Location: The Edge of the Earth
Contact:

Re: Well... here's an interesting starting place for this board.

Post by Forrest »

Graybeard wrote:Sounds reasonable enough. Now tell me: if for "black people" you substitute "parolees who had served prison terms for raping people of your own age and gender," would you be as hot to go out and see what they (the parolees in the hypothetical analogy, not black people!) are really like, for the sake of heading off a possibly unfounded prejudice?
Well, there's two answers to this. One of them is that being a criminal convicted of a violent crime very well counts as good evidence in itself that someone would be a violent person, so the prejudice would not be so weakly based as just popular opinion. If someone told me "blonds sunburn more easily", I could see the logical connection there (blond hair usually accompanies fair skin, as I know from my own experience; and fair skin burns more easily). If people say "blondes are stupid", well, that connection is not so clear; I don't see why being blonde would in itself indicate stupidity, so if I was to do something significant that took blonde = stupid as a premise, I might want to test that first, go meet some blonde people. Likewise, black = violent is not an equation I see any analytic necessity to... why would skin color have any effect on your behavior? So if the only reason I had for thinking black people were violent was popular opinion, that might be something to double check. On the other hand, being convicted of a violent crime is by itself pretty suggestive that someone might be violent...

The other answer is to say that just because something would be virtuous, isn't to say that it would be easy, or something I would happily do. There are plenty of good things that I could do, but don't, because I'm not a shining paragon of virtue, but a pretty meager human being who does his best not to be a total jackass. Just because I think I know what virtue is or is not, doesn't mean I'm virtuous myself. I could know a whole lot about diet and exercise and human metabolism and still be a weak-willed lazy glutton in horrible shape. In fact, that's not too far from the truth either...

I should go now before I depress myself again.
User avatar
Graybeard
The Heretical Admin
Posts: 7180
Joined: August 20th, 2007, 8:26 am
Location: Nuevo Mexico y Colorado, Estados Unidos

Re: Well... here's an interesting starting place for this board.

Post by Graybeard »

Forrest wrote:
Graybeard wrote:Sounds reasonable enough. Now tell me: if for "black people" you substitute "parolees who had served prison terms for raping people of your own age and gender," would you be as hot to go out and see what they (the parolees in the hypothetical analogy, not black people!) are really like, for the sake of heading off a possibly unfounded prejudice?
Well, there's two answers to this. One of them is that being a criminal convicted of a violent crime very well counts as good evidence in itself that someone would be a violent person, so the prejudice would not be so weakly based as just popular opinion.
Well, that's kinda my point. Many holders of prejudices view the foundations of those prejudices as absolutely factual, something that no rational person would dispute. In fact, there are those who would view the workings of the judicial system that convicts and jails rapists as less persuasive than the racial "facts" that they have handy, because of a belief that the judicial system protects some people and screws others. Do you think that belief has a basis in fact? If not, I wish I inhabited the same universe that you do...

Once again, paging Slamlander. A European view of the roots of prejudice might shed some different and entertaining light on the issues here.
User avatar
Boss Out of Town
Team Captain
Posts: 1051
Joined: August 20th, 2007, 8:49 pm
Location: Near where the Children of the Corn go to school

Re: Well... here's an interesting starting place for this board.

Post by Boss Out of Town »

Imp-Chan wrote:In fact, I think that even by something as simple as creating and enforcing rules for interaction in society (once called manners and taught without requirement), we can establish a remarkable shift in paradigm... one that teaches children to think in terms of, "You're entitled to believe anything you want, but your beliefs do not excuse you from treating your fellow man with courtesy and acceptance. Behaving in a courteous and accepting way is a requirement for participation in this society. You don't have to mean it, but you do have to do it because society depends on your good behavior to function." Imagine how drastically different this world would be if courtesy were once again valued above individual satisfaction?
Yer' preachin' to the choir here, sister. I've been saying that for years, but quietly, as one thing Left and Right seem to agree on in this country is that rude is good, bullying is better, and manners are for losers. All we have now as approximations are the phrases "inappropriate behavior" and "professional conduct," because schools and business are two facets of our society that cannot function without manners.
User avatar
Boss Out of Town
Team Captain
Posts: 1051
Joined: August 20th, 2007, 8:49 pm
Location: Near where the Children of the Corn go to school

Re: Well... here's an interesting starting place for this board.

Post by Boss Out of Town »

Graybeard wrote:Sounds reasonable enough. Now tell me: if for "black people" you substitute "parolees who had served prison terms for raping people of your own age and gender," would you be as hot to go out and see what they (the parolees in the hypothetical analogy, not black people!) are really like, for the sake of heading off a possibly unfounded prejudice?
Well, lessee . . . people on parolee for felony rape are, allowing for flaws in the criminal justice system, people who have already committed a violent crime. That is, you would be perfectly justified in assuming they are at least potential threats because they would not be in this group if they were not.

On the other hand, there is no valid rational reason why being African-American in appearance should be considered equivalent to being a criminal. Classifying someone as a "probable" criminal because of their ethnic appearance is considered racist in our modern American culture. A friend of mine once asked if she was being a racist if she crossed over to the other side of the street when she met a black man after dark. All I could tell her was what she did on her own time and in her own mind was her own concern. Of course, if she acted on that fear in her day jobs--as an accountant or realtor--she would be in conflict with the law and common rules of courtesy.
Graybeard wrote:Lofty statements of principle have a nasty way of crashing into reality, particularly in situations where if you happen to misjudge the way things really are (as a result of your lofty principles), "it's your ass, Sunshine" (to borrow a term from the boxing world, due to Thomas Hearns I think). Many people holding prejudices have been given abundant practical reasons to believe their prejudices are correct. Self-preservation is a pretty powerful reason to perpetuate those prejudices, and lofty statements of principle are pretty feeble reasons for questioning them.
As I noted above, "abundant practical reasons" is a good enough answer for matters not affecting other people. On the other hand, if you were a sheriff who refused to let a lot of sick, exhausted, hungry people over a bridge because your "abundant practical reasons" told you their suffering was less important than the possibility that they might damage property in your village, you would be in violation of the law, standards of professional conduct, and simple principles of human decency. The parable of the Good Samaritan does not include a racial stereotype exclusion clause.
User avatar
Forrest
Finally, some love for the BJ!
Posts: 977
Joined: August 21st, 2007, 12:49 pm
Location: The Edge of the Earth
Contact:

Re: Well... here's an interesting starting place for this board.

Post by Forrest »

Boss Out of Town wrote:The parable of the Good Samaritan does not include a racial stereotype exclusion clause.
In fact it's quite the opposite, as the Jews considered Samaritans an inferior, impure ethnicity. The parable of the Good Samaritan was to illustrate that while all these "pure" classes of people wouldn't deign to help a poor man in need, the "dirty" Samaritan was willing to do a good deed.
User avatar
Boss Out of Town
Team Captain
Posts: 1051
Joined: August 20th, 2007, 8:49 pm
Location: Near where the Children of the Corn go to school

Re: Well... here's an interesting starting place for this board.

Post by Boss Out of Town »

Forrest wrote:
Boss Out of Town wrote:The parable of the Good Samaritan does not include a racial stereotype exclusion clause.
In fact it's quite the opposite, as the Jews considered Samaritans an inferior, impure ethnicity. The parable of the Good Samaritan was to illustrate that while all these "pure" classes of people wouldn't deign to help a poor man in need, the "dirty" Samaritan was willing to do a good deed.
Ah . . . reading over your comment, I think you're actually agreeing with me rather than disagreeing. Maybe.
User avatar
Forrest
Finally, some love for the BJ!
Posts: 977
Joined: August 21st, 2007, 12:49 pm
Location: The Edge of the Earth
Contact:

Re: Well... here's an interesting starting place for this board.

Post by Forrest »

By "it's quite the opposite", I meant to say that not only is the parable of the Good Samaritan not racist, it is explicitly anti-racist. So yes, I'm agreeing with you and adding emphasis of my own.
Post Reply