This is an interesting article from Fred Clark of slacktivist, about cause and effect in bigotry:
The Mittens have got me thinking. That would be Shirley and John A. Mittens, of Brooksville, Fla.:
QuoteShirley Mitten, 64, a volunteer at a pregnancy center and a resident of Brooksville, Fla., ... said she does not know if Mr. Obama is a Muslim. "He says he's not, but we have no way of knowing," Ms. Mitten said.
Her husband, John A. Mitten, 64 ... pointed out that Mr. Obama's father was a Muslim.
The middle name Hussein, he said, added to the suspicion. "I guess Obama was named after Saddam Hussein," he said.
So yes, obviously, John A. and Shirley Mitten of Brooksville, Fla., are both A) bigots and B) really, really dumb. But what, exactly, is the relationship between those two things? What is the nature of the relationship between racism and stupidity?
To the extent I'd thought about this before, I think I may have had it backwards. Let me explain. Here is the data, of sorts, with which I've been dealing:
1. I have never met a bigot* who wasn't also stupid.
2. I have known many, many stupid people who were not bigots.
If we were to draw this relationship as a Venn diagram, bigotry would be a smaller circle entirely inside the larger circle of stupidity. The temptation, then, is to think of racism as a particular subset of stupidity, but I think that leads us astray.
The conclusion I had drawn from thinking about this relationship in this way was that stupidity was a necessary, but not a sufficient, cause of bigotry. I was thinking, in other words, that stupidity was the precondition -- that it was the starting point from which one might go on to become a racist.
That seems like a logically sound explanation for the data above, but I now think it's backwards. I think cause and effect flow in the other direction. I think, instead, that bigotry is a sufficient, but not a necessary, cause of stupidity. In other words, I think that bigotry is the precondition -- that it is a starting point from which one inevitably and inexorably goes on to become stupid.
This, I believe, is the dynamic we are seeing at work in the Mittens and in all those terrifying videos of the angry mobs at Sarah Palin rallies. We are not seeing a crowd of naive simpletons being led astray by demagoguery. We are seeing a crowd of people who have chosen to accept unreal ideas, and who are therefore forced to embrace The Stupid.
Racism, bigotry and xenophobia are immoral, of course, but they are also, just as fundamentally, untrue. They are unreal. They provide a theory and a framework for living in the world that cannot be reconciled with the reality of this world. The person who chooses to accept that unreal framework is thus constantly forced to choose between unreality and reality, between the theory and the facts. To hold onto the unreal framework, they must continuously reject reality. And every time they do that, they get a little bit dumber.**
I don't mean for this to be an entirely abstract discussion. I'm interested in the relationship between stupidity and racism because I want to know which is the root cause. This is a matter of both diagnosis and prescription. And I believe there is a prescription. The Mittens may be stupid, but they do not have to remain so. I believe there is hope for them.
The truth is that unreality is simply unsustainable. Maintaining one's belief in an unreal and untrue theory takes too much work. The vigilant rejection of reality has to be, on some level, exhausting. Even the elaborate support structures provided by Fox News and AM radio cannot wholly shield one from the constant intrusions of the world that is. Denying the existence of that world requires more help than even the voluminous right-wing echo chamber can provide.
This, I think, is part of why we're seeing such desperate vehemence at the Palin rallies. The crowd realizes that the unreality it has chosen cannot long survive if the majority of their fellow citizens and neighbors refuse to play along. As long as the entire crowd is choosing to "see" the emperor's splendid new clothes, then it's relatively easy to go along with that choice. But once the crowd reaches a tipping point, once the majority are choosing reality and the truth, then the emperor's nakedness become impossible to deny. For those who have chosen bigotry, racism and xenophobia, this election represents just such a tipping point. They're watching unreality slip through their fingers and they're trying, desperately, to grasp it even tighter.
After this election, part of our task -- yours, mine and our new president's -- will be to find a way to gently invite and welcome these folks back into the real world. My suspicion, or at least my hope, is that eventually, once they are unburdened by the need to constantly choose unreality and therefore stupidity, they will find this a great relief.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
* I'm not here discussing more structural or institutional forms of racism, nor am I talking here about the more general self-justifying mythologies that every privileged people repeats to itself as an apologetic. Set aside here the question of whether or not bigotry is a pervasive, endemic reality in American culture. For the sake of this discussion, let us recalibrate our tools to discount for whatever pre-existing base level of bigotry there may be so that we can here focus on the exceptional bigot -- the sort of person who stands out as more bigoted than the surrounding/underlying culture as a whole.
** At this point you may be suspecting that this post is little more than an elaborate attempt to repackage the argument of the book of 1 John (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:9-11;&version=31;) in non-sectarian terms. Well, yeah. Did it work?
LOL, "the Mittens"
But srsly, :mittens:
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2008, 03:16:00 PM
** At this point you may be suspecting that this post is little more than an elaborate attempt to repackage the argument of the book of 1 John (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:9-11;&version=31;) in non-sectarian terms. Well, yeah. Did it work?
Yes, I think so. I certainly didn't spot any religious overtones in what you wrote, and I find it very thought-provoking. In that sense one could say that you've repackaged it in non-sectarian and also non-declarative terms. You're starting a dialogue on the subject, rather than simply declaring X to be true.
Anyway, you might be on to something here. I'll try to add my thoughts once I get a nap in.
Just to point out, everything beyond the first line is in no way mine, it's all Fred Clark.
I didn't use quote tags because it makes the writing all small and stuff.
Oh, right. *facepalm*
Quote from: Cainad on November 04, 2008, 06:34:24 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2008, 03:16:00 PM
** At this point you may be suspecting that this post is little more than an elaborate attempt to repackage the argument of the book of 1 John (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:9-11;&version=31;) in non-sectarian terms. Well, yeah. Did it work?
Yes, I think so. I certainly didn't spot any religious overtones in what Fred Clark wrote, and I find it very thought-provoking. In that sense one could say that he's repackaged it in non-sectarian and also non-declarative terms. He's starting a dialogue on the subject, rather than simply declaring X to be true.
Anyway, Fred Clark might be on to something here. I'll try to add my thoughts once I get a nap in.
Self-fixx0red
Not to beat an old meme, but this has "Once dogma enters the brain, all rational thought ceases." written all over it.
An interesting piece!
Very good article. I had never seen the term unreality before, but it seems to fit very well. Racists almost always live in an isolated little bubble where different ideas are intentionally kept out. They are frightened by things are different in any way. They build up an echo chamber around themselves so they don't even have to hear a differing opinion. It is willful ignorance, plain and simple.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on November 04, 2008, 10:15:35 PM
Very good article. I had never seen the term unreality before, but it seems to fit very well. Racists almost always live in an isolated little bubble where different ideas are intentionally kept out. They are frightened by things are different in any way. They build up an echo chamber around themselves so they don't even have to hear a differing opinion. It is willful ignorance, plain and simple.
Indeed:
Quote from: The Religious Case Against Belief by James Carse, pg 44
...Belief marks the line at which our thinking stops, or, perhaps better, the place where we confine our thinking to a carefully delineated region. Maoists or creationists or jihadists or libertarians take a severely critical view of the world, but they do not step across their created boundaries to take an equally severe view of themselves.
Believers stop their thinking at a designated line only when they refuse to see their shared dependence with disbelievers. They do this even though at some level they are aware that they are doing it--a classic act of willful ignorance. Only by being willfully ignorant do we not acknowledge that, as believers, we have drawn real dialogue with others to a halt. Each of our beliefs is shielded against the damaging scrutiny of others--and ourselves.
This is partly why I think Clark is on to something. Stupidity may not be the reason people confine their thinking to a certain delineated region (in this case, racism and bigotry). Within the confines of what they already believe, they can engage in very deep thinking, as long as their thinking doesn't go outside said region. This is why bigots (and other people with restrictive beliefs) can come up with very elaborate rationalizations for the way they think.
They aren't necessarily stupid to begin with, and they may even do a great deal of thinking within their confining beliefs, but thanks to that confinement they are effectively stupid because they can't/don't think beyond those limits.
Just because their world is small and simple, does that make them bigots? It's kinda cute
Quote from: pinecone on November 05, 2008, 12:56:34 AM
Just because their world is small and simple, does that make them bigots? It's kinda cute
Yeah.. lynch mobs are just so fucking adorable.
:mullet:
I actually find ignorant, insular Midwesterners kind of adorable myself, as long as they're not actively preventing me from getting a job.
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2008, 03:16:00 PM
book of 1 John (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:9-11;&version=31;)
This should be plastered all over the internet. Especially in response to that goddamned Leviticus passage. Why isn't it?
Quote from: Nigel on November 05, 2008, 03:11:37 AM
I actually find ignorant, insular Midwesterners kind of adorable myself, as long as they're not actively preventing me from getting a job.
Oh yeah? What about all those ignorant, insular Mormons and Catholics who funded Prop 8?
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 05, 2008, 08:24:03 AM
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2008, 03:16:00 PM
book of 1 John (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:9-11;&version=31;)
This should be plastered all over the internet. Especially in response to that goddamned Leviticus passage. Why isn't it?
I suspect because most Fundies do not read the Bible, and those who do are usually directed in their studies by batshit crazy pastors. However, your suggestion has merit.
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2008, 03:16:00 PM
I don't mean for this to be an entirely abstract discussion. I'm interested in the relationship between stupidity and racism because I want to know which is the root cause. This is a matter of both diagnosis and prescription. And I believe there is a prescription. The Mittens may be stupid, but they do not have to remain so. I believe there is hope for them.
This is really interesting, and is getting the gray cells firing.
I can definitely see what Clark is saying about bigotry being the root motivator of stupidity because of the bigot floundering in their own unreality. However, upon reading this my gut instincts started giving off a "chicken and egg" alert. I'm sure that nesting one's self in unreal ideas - bigotry, as it would seem - would be a cause for stupidity, but it seems that sometimes stupidity is just the result of erroneous or incomplete logic, rather than logic relying on falsely held conceptions.
Of course, he does address this in the article by saying:
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2008, 03:16:00 PM
That seems like a logically sound explanation for the data above, but I now think it's backwards. I think cause and effect flow in the other direction. I think, instead, that bigotry is a sufficient, but not a necessary, cause of stupidity. In other words, I think that bigotry is the precondition -- that it is a starting point from which one inevitably and inexorably goes on to become stupid.
A more complete thesis seems, to me, to say that the stupidity-to-bigotry-and-vice-versa-process is bidirectional, that if one begins the process by vesting themselves within erroneous and unreal ideas, they will continue to accept erroneous ideas (ergo, stupidity). Likewise, if someone is not trained in the exercise of critical faculties of thought and the appropriate application of logical and intuitive thinking, they will be more likely to accept ideas about reality which are unreal (ergo, bigotry).
Continuing with my hypothetical line of thought, if this were the case, the implications would be ripe with positive developments. Though both undesirable states would be reachable both initially and as a process of degradation from one state to the other, it would mean that people could be pulled from
both states by the remedy of one or the other. By teaching a person the appropriate faculties of thought to combat stupidity, they would simultaneously gain the critical evaluation skills necessary to stave off bigotry and question their unreal perceptions. Conversely, by being taught to reject convention and investigate assumed beliefs, they would acquire the creative interest to rise above the intellectual ennui that often causes stupidity.
That's assuming, of course, that my chicken and egg hypothesis is correct, and at the moment I cannot think of any concrete examples to support it. As of yet, I just have my intuition to go on which, in itself, might just be an unreal perspective.
I've dealt extensively, I mean, broadly and widely, with bigotry. The men in the town my grandfather grew up in lynched a black homeless man for attacking his mother during WWII. They dragged my 9 year old grandfather to the scene and made him watch it. He refuses to talk about it to this day. There's...a book about it now, written somewhere in the 90's.
Anyway, I grew up here in Southern California, born and bred, and you're either from an immigrant family directly or are one yourself. So you were bound to see someone of a different culture in the stores, in the businesses, in the government, in school, next door, etc. I took different races for granted, though yes, there was some sort of latent "other-ness" of the way my family in California treated people who weren't white, but it wasn't until I was older that I realized it was truly latent and not overt.
In Missouri, where my mother and her parents were born/grew up, yes, it's overt, it's in the streets, it's everywhere. In fact, I came to the conclusion after having the balls to argue with my great uncle (my grandfather's uncle mind you) that the black man was NOT sent to earth by god to tease and torture the white man and steal his jobs and women, that this bigotry over there is TAUGHT, BRED into people.
It's not just ignorance--it's a fashion. It's a cultural attribute. Education goes VERY far to eradicate the majority of it, but it also takes more than that. It takes accommodation and acceptance around you of whatever you see and whoever there is to see.
I got a really good view of what can be even scarier about latent racism when I introduced a Muslim Afghan into my family. My father wouldn't even stay in the same room when my then-boyfriend entered it. Took him at least 6 mos to a year. I don't remember at this point because it was 17 years ago, after all.
My point is that it takes 1) re-education and 2) situation. Stupidity and ignorance, knowledge of that "other-ness" and just how LIKE you those people you look down on and hold prejudice against is not enough when the racism is in the very blood of the people who exercise it.
Anyone ever watch "The Human Stain"? It illustrates the personal trap we set for ourselves when we refuse to acknowledge just how much this shit actually matters in the long run.
Oh, and EVERY culture is biased/bigoted/prejudiced. EVERY one of them. I do not know of one that isn't.
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 05:45:39 PM
Oh, and EVERY culture is biased/bigoted/prejudiced. EVERY one of them. I do not know of one that isn't.
:fnord:!!! :lulz:
Quote from: pinecone on November 06, 2008, 06:32:25 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 05:45:39 PM
Oh, and EVERY culture is biased/bigoted/prejudiced. EVERY one of them. I do not know of one that isn't.
:fnord:!!! :lulz:
I only said that because the OP was about American culture. But truth be told, I've encountered more outright bigotry in my husband's culture. I'm talking, getting out of a car and loudly proclaiming in English, "THERE'S SO MANY MEXICANS HERE! LOOK AT ALL THE MEXICANS THERE ARE!" at a swapmeet near the Mexican border. And my father-in-law, who's been here since 1970, saying, "Oh, you're Mexican? The guy who does my gardening is Mexican," to one of our friends in my kitchen at my kid's birthday party.
It's innate in them, I think. And hard to root-out, because they truly believe there's nothing wrong with thinking Iranians put poo in their food, and Arabs kill their women ritualistically because, well, they're Arabs, they just do that over there.
It's rather sickening and sad to listen to.
And you don't want to hear what they say about gays.
So how do we invite them to get over The Stupid?
Bigotry, I think is the easiest thing to change in our current situation.
My grandma was racist. She was very, very racist. When my Mom studied with a black guy after school one day, Grandma had my Uncles beat the kid.
A few years ago I was visiting grandma and she shocked me. One of her daughters had married a redneck asshole that beat her, beat the kids, did hard and expensive drugs, spent most of his time unemployed etc. Grandma's best friend has a daughter the same age. She married a black guy and has had a wonderful marriage. Grandma went on and on about this guy and how she wished that my Aunt would have married a 'good black man' rather than Uncle Larry.
Bigots, tend to fear what they don't know and they lose that fear once they gain knowledge that contradicts their bigotry. Believers, on the other hand, well, there's nothing anyone can do to prove that abortion isn't murder (hell, it might be, I dunno)...
The whining that he's Muslim, black, etc etc will disappear, I think. The whining that he's a liberal bent on destroying the Moral Fiber of God's Own Country... that may not disappear so easily.
If you were Obama, how would you plan on getting most of the country back together after what we've been through?
Well, education and RE-education are always part of the process. After all, I married an Afghan Muslim who's a DOCTOR. But, you know, he could have just as easily been a gas station worker or prison guard. ETA because that comment needs explaining--it was EASIER on my dad's part to accept my husband as my husband since he's educated and comes from money--but eventually his "otherness" is also eradicated just by getting to know him as well...being a doctor and rich just made it that much faster a process, I guess.
The point is, re-education also takes some willingness to re-learn what is innate in a cultural setting. The "deep South" as we call it has "deep roots," and digging those out requires a will to do so. I don't see a lot of movement that way amongst the older generations without a lot of accommodation first. And even then, they'll do so grudgingly and not always irreversably.
I was Obama, I'd make sure education was the penultimate priority for this country. After that, health care.
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:25:34 PM
I was Obama, I'd make sure education was the penultimate priority for this country. After that, health care.
:mittens:
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:25:34 PM
I was Obama, I'd make sure education was the penultimate priority for this country. After that, health care.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: OK, Jenne, you know I like you so I hate to say this... but you should look up "penultimate" and then re-read what you said, 'cause it's TEH FUNNAY.
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:25:34 PM
I was Obama, I'd make sure education was the penultimate priority for this country. After that, health care.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: OK, Jenne, you know I like you so I hate to say this... but you should look up "penultimate" and then re-read what you said, 'cause it's TEH FUNNAY.
Her statement is still syntactically sound. Maybe she was really talking about her view of priorities :D
(Sorry, Jenne; hope you don't mind me razzing you a bit)
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 06:50:49 PM
Quote from: pinecone on November 06, 2008, 06:32:25 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 05:45:39 PM
Oh, and EVERY culture is biased/bigoted/prejudiced. EVERY one of them. I do not know of one that isn't.
:fnord:!!! :lulz:
And you don't want to hear what they say about gays.
Don't stop now
Woops--I meant the opposite of penultimate, obviously.
Though, Nigel, remind me to go around to every one of your goddammed posts and make fun of you when I'm feeling bitchy. Gotta feel comfortable around here again, and YOUR recent posts are making my ass twitch.
I say this with all the love in my heart, of course.
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 06, 2008, 07:54:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2008, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 06, 2008, 07:25:34 PM
I was Obama, I'd make sure education was the penultimate priority for this country. After that, health care.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: OK, Jenne, you know I like you so I hate to say this... but you should look up "penultimate" and then re-read what you said, 'cause it's TEH FUNNAY.
Her statement is still syntactically sound. Maybe she was really talking about her view of priorities :D
(Sorry, Jenne; hope you don't mind me razzing you a bit)
No, it's fine. It's what one comes to expect around here. I usually use my words my carefully, but I was a little het up yesterday in sharing that about my family...it's the elephant in the living room about my great-grandmother's incident and the man who was murdered by a whole town for it.
But whatever, ha ha hee hee ho ho away.
Quote from: Jenne on November 07, 2008, 03:02:57 PM
Woops--I meant the opposite of penultimate, obviously.
Though, Nigel, remind me to go around to every one of your goddammed posts and make fun of you when I'm feeling bitchy. Gotta feel comfortable around here again, and YOUR recent posts are making my ass twitch.
I say this with all the love in my heart, of course.
Now, now, I only made fun of ONE of your posts! And you have to admit, your unintentional miswording WAS funny.
The rest of the stuff, the political stuff, hopefully you don't take personally. I do have very strong opinions on both political and religious proselytizing, and I've butted heads with people over it here before. I am not going to sit quietly while idealists insist they have the One True and Only Right Way.
Also, I was in a particularly good mood yesterday. :)
Also, if you can't go back four generations and find an ugly bigoted incident in your family somewhere, you're doin' it wrong. People are terrible creatures, and they do terrible things to each other. Everyone thinks their history is unique and special, but the horrible thing is, it isn't. Speaking as a minority woman most of whose immigrant ancestors (which was a little over half of them) arrived in this country several centuries ago, I am not particularly impressed by your personal family connection to a lynching a century ago.
Oh, but speaking of family ties to ugly bigoted violence, if you want to play the "I have an emotional reason to take bigotry personally" card, my brother-in-law, who was also my close friend, was attacked and beaten nearly to death in his apartment about eleven years ago. He was not expected to survive: he was in a coma for several weeks. His skull was broken in several places, he had severe brain damage, most of his teeth were knocked out, his cheekbones were pulverized. He was unrecognizable. In the end, he survived for eight more years and had numerous reconstructive surgeries to try to give him back a face. He lost one eye and the hearing in one ear. The brain aneurysm that killed him may or may not have been related to the beating.
The punchline? It was his boyfriend who did it, and the reason he tried to kill him was that he hated himself for being gay, and blamed Jim.
Simple cultural ignorance is so much easier to deal with than the bigotry of insecurity and self-loathing. The two are related, yes, but it's also true that it's a lot more complex than "bigots are dumb, lol".
Agreed, on your last paragraph Nigel. I like to refer to it as a complex situation. Some bigots are stupid. But what do we make of men of science and philosophy, who nevertheless being certifiable geniuses, are otherwise bigoted in some quite nasty ways (anti-Semitic philosophers, the crude assertions of superiority by Enlightenment thinkers, scientists who support the worst sort of eugenics, etc)
That's why I like this exploration of the relationship. As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I'm like a cultural anthropologist of the conspiracy subculture. And it is very interesting to watch how otherwise rational people with somewhat kooky beliefs generally lose contact with reality and descend into the sort of world where they end up advocating atrocities based on their own prejudices, by coming up with the most tenuous and mind-numbingly stupid links between disparate persons and events.
Again in terrorism we can see this disconnect. Lots of terrorists are highly intelligent, more so than the average population. However they become socialized to certain prejudices as part of their radicalization.
Quote from: Cain on November 07, 2008, 04:56:00 PM
But what do we make of men of science and philosophy, who nevertheless being certifiable geniuses, are otherwise bigoted in some quite nasty ways (anti-Semitic philosophers, the crude assertions of superiority by Enlightenment thinkers, scientists who support the worst sort of eugenics, etc)
I was wondering when this was going to be pointed out in this thread. (i didn't want to step in it though) That is to say; bigotry is not inherently linked with stupidity. It's always complicated.
As an aside, what does one make of intolerance for racial separatists?
Quote from: Iptuous on November 07, 2008, 08:07:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 07, 2008, 04:56:00 PM
But what do we make of men of science and philosophy, who nevertheless being certifiable geniuses, are otherwise bigoted in some quite nasty ways (anti-Semitic philosophers, the crude assertions of superiority by Enlightenment thinkers, scientists who support the worst sort of eugenics, etc)
I was wondering when this was going to be pointed out in this thread. (i didn't want to step in it though) That is to say; bigotry is not inherently linked with stupidity. It's always complicated.
As an aside, what does one make of intolerance for racial separatists?
The intolerance(s) held by racial separatists or the intolerances toward racial separatists?
Quote from: Cain on November 07, 2008, 04:56:00 PM
Agreed, on your last paragraph Nigel. I like to refer to it as a complex situation. Some bigots are stupid. But what do we make of men of science and philosophy, who nevertheless being certifiable geniuses, are otherwise bigoted in some quite nasty ways (anti-Semitic philosophers, the crude assertions of superiority by Enlightenment thinkers, scientists who support the worst sort of eugenics, etc)
You mean like Richard Nixon?
Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2008, 10:13:26 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 07, 2008, 04:56:00 PM
Agreed, on your last paragraph Nigel. I like to refer to it as a complex situation. Some bigots are stupid. But what do we make of men of science and philosophy, who nevertheless being certifiable geniuses, are otherwise bigoted in some quite nasty ways (anti-Semitic philosophers, the crude assertions of superiority by Enlightenment thinkers, scientists who support the worst sort of eugenics, etc)
You mean like Richard Nixon?
He could be an example. Though to be honest, his example reminds me more of H L Mencken, who had some very nasty things to say about Jews in private, yet was among the first to demand that the USA take in all Jewish refugees fleeing Europe. Nixon was also horribly antisemitic in private, yet his closest advisor on foreign policy was Henry Kissinger, an American-German Jew. I have no idea as to how intellectual Nixon was, though clearly he was clearly not stupid man.
Quote from: Cain on November 07, 2008, 10:19:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2008, 10:13:26 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 07, 2008, 04:56:00 PM
Agreed, on your last paragraph Nigel. I like to refer to it as a complex situation. Some bigots are stupid. But what do we make of men of science and philosophy, who nevertheless being certifiable geniuses, are otherwise bigoted in some quite nasty ways (anti-Semitic philosophers, the crude assertions of superiority by Enlightenment thinkers, scientists who support the worst sort of eugenics, etc)
You mean like Richard Nixon?
He could be an example. Though to be honest, his example reminds me more of H L Mencken, who had some very nasty things to say about Jews in private, yet was among the first to demand that the USA take in all Jewish refugees fleeing Europe. Nixon was also horribly antisemitic in private, yet his closest advisor on foreign policy was Henry Kissinger, an American-German Jew. I have no idea as to how intellectual Nixon was, though clearly he was clearly not stupid man.
All right, likening him to a "certifiable genius" was a bit of hyperbole. But yes, although he privately expressed anti-semitic views, he was careful not to let them affect his public policy. He had a good number of Jews on staff, including his chief economical advisor, Herb Stein, was Jewish, as was his campaign manager, Murray Chotiner. I can't deny the anti-semitism, but one thing that is also definitely true is that he was an intelligent enough man to know that it would be wrong to let it affect his leadership.
And then he went batshit insane.
Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2008, 04:21:28 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 07, 2008, 03:02:57 PM
Woops--I meant the opposite of penultimate, obviously.
Though, Nigel, remind me to go around to every one of your goddammed posts and make fun of you when I'm feeling bitchy. Gotta feel comfortable around here again, and YOUR recent posts are making my ass twitch.
I say this with all the love in my heart, of course.
Now, now, I only made fun of ONE of your posts! And you have to admit, your unintentional miswording WAS funny.
The rest of the stuff, the political stuff, hopefully you don't take personally. I do have very strong opinions on both political and religious proselytizing, and I've butted heads with people over it here before. I am not going to sit quietly while idealists insist they have the One True and Only Right Way.
Also, I was in a particularly good mood yesterday. :)
Also, if you can't go back four generations and find an ugly bigoted incident in your family somewhere, you're doin' it wrong. People are terrible creatures, and they do terrible things to each other. Everyone thinks their history is unique and special, but the horrible thing is, it isn't. Speaking as a minority woman most of whose immigrant ancestors (which was a little over half of them) arrived in this country several centuries ago, I am not particularly impressed by your personal family connection to a lynching a century ago.
I think I'll just ignore you for a while.
Kthx.
Ignorance != Stupidity
Bigotry is based primarily on ignorance, and an unfamiliarity with other cultures. An insulated culture can maintain that ignorance to the point that it becomes institutional.
Some people can be educated and will no longer be bigots. Some people will refuse to be educated and cling to their own beliefs out of habit and comfort - hate can become very comfortable - even in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary. Some people just want to blame someone else for their ills. So, I'd say bigotry can make you stupid.
A friend of mine recently suggested to me that anyone who spends their life in just one culture is basically crippled - this would be one of the ways in which that is so. It will be interesting to see if the effects of the internet on global youth culture minimize this effect - probably not by much though, as much as I'd like to think otherwise.
However, Bigotry != Racism
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2008, 03:16:00 PM
Racism, bigotry and xenophobia are immoral, of course, but they are also, just as fundamentally, untrue. They are unreal. They provide a theory and a framework for living in the world that cannot be reconciled with the reality of this world. The person who chooses to accept that unreal framework is thus constantly forced to choose between unreality and reality, between the theory and the facts. To hold onto the unreal framework, they must continuously reject reality. And every time they do that, they get a little bit dumber.**
Racism may be immoral to you, but it isn't to the racist - they simply value members of their own tribe higher than those of another. They may or may not support those values for reasons based in ignorance (e.g. racial superiority in general) or they may not, but it isn't accurate to call it "untrue" or "unreal". Hells, if you're the majority it is even be effective and useful - it made some people rich at the expense of others deemed of lesser value.
But yeah, building up your own tribe as being better than the other one? Common as dirt. And if you only ever exist inside that tribe, it is not only easy, it is hard to escape.
(All in all the OP comes across as a little elitist. NTTAWWT.)
Quote from: Jenne on November 07, 2008, 11:52:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2008, 04:21:28 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 07, 2008, 03:02:57 PM
Woops--I meant the opposite of penultimate, obviously.
Though, Nigel, remind me to go around to every one of your goddammed posts and make fun of you when I'm feeling bitchy. Gotta feel comfortable around here again, and YOUR recent posts are making my ass twitch.
I say this with all the love in my heart, of course.
Now, now, I only made fun of ONE of your posts! And you have to admit, your unintentional miswording WAS funny.
The rest of the stuff, the political stuff, hopefully you don't take personally. I do have very strong opinions on both political and religious proselytizing, and I've butted heads with people over it here before. I am not going to sit quietly while idealists insist they have the One True and Only Right Way.
Also, I was in a particularly good mood yesterday. :)
Also, if you can't go back four generations and find an ugly bigoted incident in your family somewhere, you're doin' it wrong. People are terrible creatures, and they do terrible things to each other. Everyone thinks their history is unique and special, but the horrible thing is, it isn't. Speaking as a minority woman most of whose immigrant ancestors (which was a little over half of them) arrived in this country several centuries ago, I am not particularly impressed by your personal family connection to a lynching a century ago.
I think I'll just ignore you for a while.
Kthx.
Sounds easy. :)
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2008, 03:41:53 AM
Quote from: Jenne on November 07, 2008, 11:52:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2008, 04:21:28 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 07, 2008, 03:02:57 PM
Woops--I meant the opposite of penultimate, obviously.
Though, Nigel, remind me to go around to every one of your goddammed posts and make fun of you when I'm feeling bitchy. Gotta feel comfortable around here again, and YOUR recent posts are making my ass twitch.
I say this with all the love in my heart, of course.
Now, now, I only made fun of ONE of your posts! And you have to admit, your unintentional miswording WAS funny.
The rest of the stuff, the political stuff, hopefully you don't take personally. I do have very strong opinions on both political and religious proselytizing, and I've butted heads with people over it here before. I am not going to sit quietly while idealists insist they have the One True and Only Right Way.
Also, I was in a particularly good mood yesterday. :)
Also, if you can't go back four generations and find an ugly bigoted incident in your family somewhere, you're doin' it wrong. People are terrible creatures, and they do terrible things to each other. Everyone thinks their history is unique and special, but the horrible thing is, it isn't. Speaking as a minority woman most of whose immigrant ancestors (which was a little over half of them) arrived in this country several centuries ago, I am not particularly impressed by your personal family connection to a lynching a century ago.
I think I'll just ignore you for a while.
Kthx.
Sounds easy. :)
NIGEL ARE YOU MAKING UP FACTS AGAIN?!?!?!
my great grandmother woke up one morning as a child to see her backyard full of dead soldiers. around the year1915, in the Ukraine somewhere.... is that unique and special?
I apparently make up FACTS all the time!
Wade, do YOU think your grandmother's experience was unique? If so, why?
Quote from: wgeorgew on November 08, 2008, 05:24:45 AM
my great grandmother woke up one morning as a child to see her backyard full of dead soldiers. around the year1915, in the Ukraine somewhere.... is that unique and special?
everyone is unique and special. you are a unique snowflake.
don't go missing the snowflakes for the blizzard, now.
You are a beautiful and unique snowflake, just like everybody else.
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2008, 06:50:51 PM
You are a beautiful and unique snowflake, just like everybody else.
This is true. You can look at it either in a negative or positive light.
Quote from: Kai on November 08, 2008, 07:40:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2008, 06:50:51 PM
You are a beautiful and unique snowflake, just like everybody else.
This is true. You can look at it either in a negative or positive light.
Yeah - in the same way you get that "can't see the forest for the trees" thing, many people can't see the snowflakes for the blizzard. It's easy to forget too.
ok, ok. i just like my damn analogy, i'll quit flogging it now
My point was simply that claiming you are unique in order to lend weight to your argument only works if you have a kind of uniqueness that you can logically expect very few other people to have.
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2008, 11:31:14 PM
My point was simply that claiming you are unique in order to lend weight to your argument only works if you have a kind of uniqueness that you can logically expect very few other people to have.
By the very definition of 'unique', it would have to be something that very few other people have. Otherwise it wouldn't be unique.
Quote from: Kai on November 08, 2008, 11:40:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2008, 11:31:14 PM
My point was simply that claiming you are unique in order to lend weight to your argument only works if you have a kind of uniqueness that you can logically expect very few other people to have.
By the very definition of 'unique', it would have to be something that very few other people have. Otherwise it wouldn't be unique.
Call it "category" of uniqueness, then.
Quote from: Kai on November 08, 2008, 11:40:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2008, 11:31:14 PM
My point was simply that claiming you are unique in order to lend weight to your argument only works if you have a kind of uniqueness that you can logically expect very few other people to have.
By the very definition of 'unique', it would have to be something that very few other people have. Otherwise it wouldn't be unique.
By very
strict definition, unique would be something that
no one else has.
</language schmuck>
Quote from: Cainad on November 08, 2008, 11:44:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 08, 2008, 11:40:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2008, 11:31:14 PM
My point was simply that claiming you are unique in order to lend weight to your argument only works if you have a kind of uniqueness that you can logically expect very few other people to have.
By the very definition of 'unique', it would have to be something that very few other people have. Otherwise it wouldn't be unique.
By very strict definition, unique would be something that no one else has.
</language schmuck>
THIS.
I think what you are going for Nigel is whether that unique character or set of characters makes a person interesting.
Quote from: Kai on November 08, 2008, 11:46:12 PM
Quote from: Cainad on November 08, 2008, 11:44:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 08, 2008, 11:40:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2008, 11:31:14 PM
My point was simply that claiming you are unique in order to lend weight to your argument only works if you have a kind of uniqueness that you can logically expect very few other people to have.
By the very definition of 'unique', it would have to be something that very few other people have. Otherwise it wouldn't be unique.
By very strict definition, unique would be something that no one else has.
</language schmuck>
THIS.
And the great thing is, I have no idea what's going on ITT.
For example, take Wade: most likely none of OUR great grandmothers woke up in the Ukraine one morning as a child to see their backyard full of dead soldiers. However, her experience was not very likely to be the only one where a child woke up, in the Ukraine or elsewhere, to see dead soldiers in their vicinity. So is he unique? Absolutely. Is his grandmother's experience categorically unique? Nope.
If you are going to claim uniqueness to lend weight to an argument, it only adds weight if the uniqueness holds up. For instance, if you are in an argument about homosexuality, and you wish to add weight to your side of the argument because you yourself are gay, you will only look foolish if you are arguing with people you met in a gay bar.
Quote from: Kai on November 08, 2008, 11:47:52 PM
I think what you are going for Nigel is whether that unique character or set of characters makes a person interesting.
Nope, not it.
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2008, 11:51:04 PM
For example, take Wade: most likely none of OUR great grandmothers woke up in the Ukraine one morning as a child to see their backyard full of dead soldiers. However, her experience was not very likely to be the only one where a child woke up, in the Ukraine or elsewhere, to see dead soldiers in their vicinity. So is he unique? Absolutely. Is his grandmother's experience categorically unique? Nope.
If you are going to claim uniqueness to lend weight to an argument, it only adds weight if the uniqueness holds up. For instance, if you are in an argument about homosexuality, and you wish to add weight to your side of the argument because you yourself are gay, you will only look foolish if you are arguing with people you met in a gay bar.
Oh, so you aren't arguing from the standpoint of uniqueness, but from differences in relativity to your....fuckit, I don't even know how to word it.
Edit: Nevermind. You are talking using a claim based on uniqueness. It only works if that character is unique for a given set of conditions (for example, the only straight man in a gay bar). If the character is not unique for the given set of conditions (for example, being gay is not unique for Joe the gay man as a member of the human race. There are other male humans who are gay) then it is not valid as an argument
Also, by level of uniqueness you mean the SIGNIFICANCE of the unique characters in relation to the given conditions.
For example, whether the uniqueness of one person makes them "special".
Quote from: Kai on November 08, 2008, 11:58:53 PM
Edit: Nevermind. You are talking using a claim based on uniqueness. It only works if that character is unique for a given set of conditions (for example, the only straight man in a gay bar). If the character is not unique for the given set of conditions (for example, being gay is not unique for Joe the gay man as a member of the human race. There are other male humans who are gay) then it is not valid as an argument
YESSSSS exactly, you nailed it!
If I remember correctly, the evidence for the OP supports education level as a factor but it also is strongly linked to social class, the local economy, and relationships between population density.
I'll post the article and related text sometime in the next 24 hours depending on how soon I can get to my resources.
Lots of relevant information here:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7LCBELRG
If you want to look at the references just ask.
edit: smaller file size