Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
10 years ago
I thought about adding this to the "Prejudice" thread in the Back Alley, but I decided to start a new one here in Random Babble instead in hopes that people will save their vitriol, ad hominem and otherwise, for there and not put it here. So, Kevin, I'd ask that you keep the threads separate. (Obviously, if people cannot resist the temptation, feel free to combine/delete/whatever.)

Anyway, I have three observations.

First, that the concept of race itself is, arguably, itself intrinsically racist. What is the purpose of the classification? Seriously? It is to say these people are "different" in their humanity than these other people. Well, I'm sorry, but that isn't the case.

Oh, people may be culturally different by virtue of how they have been socialized to deal with others because of the particulars of their tribal/ethnic/national/religious background. But the notion that somehow human character is going to be correlated with skin pigmentation, lip shape, hair curliness, or any of the other indicia we might use to separate "race" from those other categories, well, that strikes me as silly if not ludicrous. It seems to me that if you distinguish Joe #1 from Joe #2 because #1 is "black" and #2 is "white", you are making a racist distinction. And that is true, whether you yourself happen to have dark skin or light.

Or to put it another way, we're all racists (since we've all made that sort of distinction). Which brings me to ...

Second, talking about race is useless and counterproductive unless one is simply counting the distribution of physical characteristics (e.g., figuring out how to deal with sickle cell anemia); its not helpful, at all, in getting anywhere on the questions of human character and human quality. Insofar as there are "group" characteristics we might be able to use to distinguish good people from bad people, ethically sound people from ethically suspect from moral from amoral from immoral from evil people, those group characteristics are already going to be accounted for by the other sub-categorizations of societies and cultures: ethnicity, religion, age, political affiliation, and the like.

And so ...

Third, the real question for discussion is when each of those traditional group divisions is legitimate to use as a way of separating people of one sort of character from people of another. When, if ever, is it legitimate to prejudge an individual who possesses the characteristics of the anthropological category called "Hispanic" or "Jew" or "American" or "Republican" and say they have a particular characteristic of moral character?

I think there are times when it is okay. I do not believe all cultures are equal. Some human constructs are badder than others. And if I see a middle-aged person who has spent all his/her life in a culture I consider "worse" or "more wrongheaded" or "more likely to commit bad acts", I'm going to pre-judge that person and require him/her to affirmatively demonstrate how, despite having spent his entire 50 years of life in that culture, his individual character fails to share its evils.

Call that a prejudice of mine, if you will. Personally, I prefer Habermas' slightly less argumentative term, "prejudging," because I don't believe it is possible to avoid some of those prejudices; we can't survive if we assume everyone in a culture is an exception to every bad cultural feature. To my mind the question isn't whether we are prejudiced against this group or that one. It isn't whether we are anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic or anti-Muslim or anti-Hispanic or anti-American or anti-African-American or anti-German or anti-whatever. It is when we prejudge in one of those ways.

And, that, I submit, is a really hard thing to determine. And, unfortunately, it is a thing where it is very easy to "go too far" in one's prejudgings.

I have no solution that I can guarantee works in all cases. I do have some rules of thumb I try to live by:

1. I tend to believe that I should treat people as individuals as the default, and let my knowledge of an individual's behavior, even if that knowledge is of a very small sample of their history, shape my prejudging of their character.

If a student acts like a whiner or manipulator or spoiled in the first week or so of class, I'm going to be more likely to prejudge him as a whiner/manipulator/spoiled until such time as he proves otherwise by a longer term pattern of conduct, regardless of whether I know anything about his life prior to or outside of my class. However, I'm not going to assume that all my students are whiners/manipulators/spoiled from day one even though I believe many of today's students are.

2. I tend to be more likely to prejudge people, and impose on them a greater burden of rebuttal, who have been in a culture I consider "bad" or "inferior" longer.

If I meet a Muslim who has been living in Iran since the Revolution of 1978, I'm much more likely to prejudge him as likely to be a Shi'a who buys into the teachings of the Ayatollah Khomeini, teachings which I consider reprehensible than I would one of my Muslim-American students who has lived all his life in Southern California. It is not that the person who lives in Iran all his life is necessarily going to be a terrorist or more likely to be violently anti-Christian; it is that the person who remains in a place run by such ideas for 35 years is more likely to be at least a silent collaborator (since otherwise it's a high probability he'd have been dead by now).

3. I strive to be open to any evidence that would rebut my prejudging of a particular individual.

My standard for rebuttal vis-a-vis an individual member of a group is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," it is not "clear and convincing evidence". It is not even "preponderance of evidence". Those are standards for a courtroom, for those situations where our "unwritten codes of reasonable conduct toward our fellows" have already broken down or come into actual and specific conflict. If one is in court, choices have already been made by someone with respect to someone else that may be actionable at law. Legalistic standards are for actual disputes that the parties cannot resolve themselves; they are not for our everyday dealings with individuals.

No, my standard about "relaxing the prejudging" is not a legalistic one. It is merely, "believable positive evidence." Is there evidence, provided by the person's interaction with me or with those who I trust, that leads me to believe this person is an exception. If there is, then I strive to eliminate the role the prejudging would otherwise play.

Do I always succeed in applying these rules of thumb correctly? Of course not. But I believe I do better for admitting that I will sometimes prejudge than by idealistically claiming "we should never be prejudiced against people because they're in a group. I don't think that's possible. And expecting the impossible, of others OR of myself, simply leads me to more condescension, sanctimoniousness, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
dhpackr
10 years ago
you're writing with some form of common sense, which is fine. You're not racist, so the concept is unfamiliar to you.

There is a individual here that is completely opposite of your line of thinking.

I am as white a new snow storm. Blond hair, blue eyes...Basically Prussian, German, Irish. However, because I posted a few guys responses were extremely offensive, one guy instantly came to the conclusion I was of a certain ethnic background and proceeded to make one violent threat after another, hurl insults , call names, and I am not even from the ethnic background he was sure I was from.

This shows the ignorance of a true racist who spreads nothing but hate.
So if you meet me Have some courtesy, Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse, Or I'll lay your soul to waste
DoddPower
10 years ago

you're writing with some form of common sense, which is fine. You're not racist, so the concept is unfamiliar to you.

There is a individual here that is completely opposite of your line of thinking.

I am as white a new snow storm. Blond hair, blue eyes...Basically Prussian, German, Irish. However, because I posted a few guys responses were extremely offensive, one guy instantly came to the conclusion I was of a certain ethnic background and proceeded to make one violent threat after another, hurl insults , call names, and I am not even from the ethnic background he was sure I was from.

This shows the ignorance of a true racist who spreads nothing but hate.

Originally Posted by: dhpackr 



LOL, the jumping to conclusions was hilarious, although in an unfortunate way.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
10 years ago
Wade I will have to read your novelette when I have an extra hour or two. It looks very interesting.

From a sports perspective I am always shocked (well surprised) when I learn of a persons ethnicity. I just don't think about it. They play for my team so they are "green" is they are a Packer. They are "red" if they play for St Louis.

I will say that I do enjoy speaking to people from different cultures. I ask a lot of questions. It is a lot cheaper than traveling to their different countries or the different parts of this country.

My dad was German and my mother Italian. I was brought up to be proud of my heritage so I naturally want to know what other people can tell me about theirs. I never would have thought it would get me into trouble but there are those who would think my asking people where they come from is based on racism. So I have to think about how I word my questions and who I ask.


UserPostedImage
4PackGirl
10 years ago

I was born & raised in small town America with one black family in our entire town.
I absolutely detest prejudice - it literally makes me sick to my stomach.
I have no idea how this happened because it would've been easy for me to be a bigot but I inherently believe the good in my fellow man.
I don't see color - I see people - I see someone who came into this world exactly the same way I did.
I am adopted & maybe that's part of why I feel the way I do.
I guess I feel that I could have easily ended up the way a lot of other people have but for the grace of God, I was adopted by amazing people who love me.
I am thankful for the blessings I have but not for the things I have.
I feel sorry for people who don't feel the same way I do.
Sure I've had some really crappy things happen in my past but I have my health, my family, & in the end, they are all that really matter.
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

I thought about adding this to the "Prejudice" thread in the Back Alley, but I decided to start a new one here in Random Babble instead in hopes that people will save their vitriol, ad hominem and otherwise, for there and not put it here. So, Kevin, I'd ask that you keep the threads separate. (Obviously, if people cannot resist the temptation, feel free to combine/delete/whatever.)

Anyway, I have three observations.

First, that the concept of race itself is, arguably, itself intrinsically racist. What is the purpose of the classification? Seriously? It is to say these people are "different" in their humanity than these other people. Well, I'm sorry, but that isn't the case.

Oh, people may be culturally different by virtue of how they have been socialized to deal with others because of the particulars of their tribal/ethnic/national/religious background. But the notion that somehow human character is going to be correlated with skin pigmentation, lip shape, hair curliness, or any of the other indicia we might use to separate "race" from those other categories, well, that strikes me as silly if not ludicrous. It seems to me that if you distinguish Joe #1 from Joe #2 because #1 is "black" and #2 is "white", you are making a racist distinction. And that is true, whether you yourself happen to have dark skin or light.

Or to put it another way, we're all racists (since we've all made that sort of distinction). Which brings me to ...

Second, talking about race is useless and counterproductive unless one is simply counting the distribution of physical characteristics (e.g., figuring out how to deal with sickle cell anemia); its not helpful, at all, in getting anywhere on the questions of human character and human quality. Insofar as there are "group" characteristics we might be able to use to distinguish good people from bad people, ethically sound people from ethically suspect from moral from amoral from immoral from evil people, those group characteristics are already going to be accounted for by the other sub-categorizations of societies and cultures: ethnicity, religion, age, political affiliation, and the like.

And so ...

Third, the real question for discussion is when each of those traditional group divisions is legitimate to use as a way of separating people of one sort of character from people of another. When, if ever, is it legitimate to prejudge an individual who possesses the characteristics of the anthropological category called "Hispanic" or "Jew" or "American" or "Republican" and say they have a particular characteristic of moral character?

I think there are times when it is okay. I do not believe all cultures are equal. Some human constructs are badder than others. And if I see a middle-aged person who has spent all his/her life in a culture I consider "worse" or "more wrongheaded" or "more likely to commit bad acts", I'm going to pre-judge that person and require him/her to affirmatively demonstrate how, despite having spent his entire 50 years of life in that culture, his individual character fails to share its evils.

Call that a prejudice of mine, if you will. Personally, I prefer Habermas' slightly less argumentative term, "prejudging," because I don't believe it is possible to avoid some of those prejudices; we can't survive if we assume everyone in a culture is an exception to every bad cultural feature. To my mind the question isn't whether we are prejudiced against this group or that one. It isn't whether we are anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic or anti-Muslim or anti-Hispanic or anti-American or anti-African-American or anti-German or anti-whatever. It is when we prejudge in one of those ways.

And, that, I submit, is a really hard thing to determine. And, unfortunately, it is a thing where it is very easy to "go too far" in one's prejudgings.

I have no solution that I can guarantee works in all cases. I do have some rules of thumb I try to live by:

1. I tend to believe that I should treat people as individuals as the default, and let my knowledge of an individual's behavior, even if that knowledge is of a very small sample of their history, shape my prejudging of their character.

If a student acts like a whiner or manipulator or spoiled in the first week or so of class, I'm going to be more likely to prejudge him as a whiner/manipulator/spoiled until such time as he proves otherwise by a longer term pattern of conduct, regardless of whether I know anything about his life prior to or outside of my class. However, I'm not going to assume that all my students are whiners/manipulators/spoiled from day one even though I believe many of today's students are.

2. I tend to be more likely to prejudge people, and impose on them a greater burden of rebuttal, who have been in a culture I consider "bad" or "inferior" longer.

If I meet a Muslim who has been living in Iran since the Revolution of 1978, I'm much more likely to prejudge him as likely to be a Shi'a who buys into the teachings of the Ayatollah Khomeini, teachings which I consider reprehensible than I would one of my Muslim-American students who has lived all his life in Southern California. It is not that the person who lives in Iran all his life is necessarily going to be a terrorist or more likely to be violently anti-Christian; it is that the person who remains in a place run by such ideas for 35 years is more likely to be at least a silent collaborator (since otherwise it's a high probability he'd have been dead by now).

3. I strive to be open to any evidence that would rebut my prejudging of a particular individual.

My standard for rebuttal vis-a-vis an individual member of a group is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," it is not "clear and convincing evidence". It is not even "preponderance of evidence". Those are standards for a courtroom, for those situations where our "unwritten codes of reasonable conduct toward our fellows" have already broken down or come into actual and specific conflict. If one is in court, choices have already been made by someone with respect to someone else that may be actionable at law. Legalistic standards are for actual disputes that the parties cannot resolve themselves; they are not for our everyday dealings with individuals.

No, my standard about "relaxing the prejudging" is not a legalistic one. It is merely, "believable positive evidence." Is there evidence, provided by the person's interaction with me or with those who I trust, that leads me to believe this person is an exception. If there is, then I strive to eliminate the role the prejudging would otherwise play.

Do I always succeed in applying these rules of thumb correctly? Of course not. But I believe I do better for admitting that I will sometimes prejudge than by idealistically claiming "we should never be prejudiced against people because they're in a group. I don't think that's possible. And expecting the impossible, of others OR of myself, simply leads me to more condescension, sanctimoniousness, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Excellent Post. Some of that - especially your 1, 2, and 3 - were similar to what I posted in the Back Alley thread with similar name.

Nowadays, a lot of people take for granted prejudice against the good things - the close to home things. They see others spitting on the Bible and Christian teachings or bad-mouthing America, and ho-hum, they think nothing of it. Yet somebody say anything even a little bit bad about the bad things or anything basically that ISN'T us, and oh, so terrible, shame on the person who said it. And so many shout RACISM without even knowing what RACE means.

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR RACISM - prejudice on the basis of race - one of the three races - Black, White, and Asian (I would call it "Mongoloid", except that term alone has negative implications. None of these actual RACES have anything in their overall history or background to merit need for "rebuttal" as you state it above. Various ETHNIC GROUPS, RELIGIONS, Groups practicing whatever behavior, etc., yes, then that rebuttal thing comes into play, but as you say, the standard shouldn't be all that tough to rebut.

Talking about race WOULD BE counter-productive if it wasn't for the need to counter the huge amount of false information/propaganda/whatever put out by those pushing political correctness and/or trying to CHANGE things in this country i.e trying to drag us down.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
DakotaT
10 years ago
All I want to know is why is the back alley locked up? Did you Nimrods go to far again?
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
10 years ago

All I want to know is why is the back alley locked up? Did you Nimrods go to far again?

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



yes. Kevin put it away for at least a while.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
10 years ago

yes. Kevin put it away for at least a while.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



If he'd just run one jackelope off, lots of problems would end.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
10 years ago
We actually are all ONE race, "mankind". It's the idiots that insist on labeling us by skin color.
The funny part is, all it amounts to is skin pigmentation. Some have more, some have less.
I honestly believe that Adam and Eve were more of an "inbetween" skin color. Not real "white", not real "black".
That's why we can have so many various levels of skin colors.
If they had been white, we only would have white people today. Same as if they were black,alll we would have is black.
There are "racists" in all colors, white, black, you name it.
Usually, it is used to try to get some kind of advantage.

UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
dfosterf (8h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (15h) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (16h) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (16h) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (20h) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (22h) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (22h) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (22h) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (22h) : Against tbd
dfosterf (22h) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (22h) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (22h) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (22h) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (22h) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (22h) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (23h) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (23h) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (23h) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
beast (25-Mar) : Simply fined in the week to follow
beast (25-Mar) : I agree with one NFL official, it'll probably be like some of the helmets hits, not really called by the refs on the field but simply fined
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Hip drop is not. Super confusing. Referees job is harder
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Swivel hip drop is banned
dfosterf (25-Mar) : The hip drop enforcement will be in the form of fines, etc. Not flags
dfosterf (25-Mar) : A major foul will be enforced on the offense if there are offsetting penalties in a change of possession situation
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Teams will receive a 3rd challenge if 1 was successful. Previously, it took 2
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20h / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.