Ignorant liberal politically correct idiot put down a whole race of people without knowing it

[xbuzzerx]

This thread started off a discussion.

But it is degenerating down into plain personal bitching.

Don't worry, it will soon arrive at a level where you will feel right at home.

 

[bankside]

Particularly when the original post talks about intercultural perspectives, it is useful to define "liberal" with more than one dictionary, for the reason that Americans (and their dictionaries) mean something different by "liberal" than the rest of us. Particularly in politics. It is a known problem of translation.

So, for additional clarity, from Oxford:

adjective
1 willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas:
liberal views towards divorce

• favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms:

liberal citizenship laws​

• (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform:

a liberal democratic state​

• (Liberal) relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party:

the Liberal leader​

• Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

2 [attributive] (of education) concerned with broadening a person’s general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training:

the provision of liberal adult education​

3 (especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal:

they could have given the 1968 Act a more liberal interpretation​

4 given, used, or occurring in generous amounts:

liberal amounts of wine had been consumed​

• (of a person) giving generously:

• Sam was too liberal with the wine

noun
a person of liberal views:
a concern among liberals about the relation of the citizen to the state

• (Liberal) a supporter or member of a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.

 

[pat grimshaw]

Some people can smell the whiff of blood.

They hone in.

And then they bite.

 

[zombiekiller]

If insisting on treating people as the individuals that they are makes me an ignorant liberal idiot...then I will take it as a compliment coming from you.

Well, no one is denying that it is a good thing to treat people as individuals. Having said that, there are certain general facts that hold true as well. Not every general statement is a stereotype.

Again, do you or do you not deny that "people in England speak English" is a correct general statement?

There are 2 issues here. The first is general statements, and whether it can be used without negative connotations at all.

The 2nd is whether something is a negative stereotype or not.

I maintain that general statements can be used to categorize correctly as well as stereotype groups of people. Failing to see this and simply assuming all general statements as stereotyping people in a negative light is lazy thinking.

I also maintain that there is absolutely nothing wrong with consuming a lot of rice. To state that the Asian population consume a lot of rice is not a negative statement at all, because it is a fact.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Well, no one is denying that it is a good thing to treat people as individuals. Having said that, there are certain general facts that hold true as well. Not every general statement is a stereotype.

Again, do you or do you not deny that "people in England speak English" is a correct general statement?

It's a correct general statement but you didn't make a general statement, you made a statement that did not indicate any exception.

So someone is perfectly correct to respond to you with "Not everyone does."

 

[opinterph]

A wonderful general diatribe which failed to address anything specific in discussion.

As best I recall, members of the tribe of Dia are known for their specificity.

SOME [self-described Liberals] DO have their own politically correct biases [and] often do take political correctness to the point of absurdity

Perhaps “true” PC helps all of us to better recognize these problems and work with one another to make our world a better place?

And the fact of the matter remains that there is nothing wrong with eating rice everyday. [xbuzzerx is] the one that kept bringing it up with negative connotations.

I don’t see those negative connotations in his remarks.

[The person responsible for the "space"] was treating the act of eating rice everyday as something really really bad, bad enough to ask me to leave. He said I shouldn't put down people like that. In other words, he considered eating rice as somehow really really bad. That's the point of my post.

The person responsible for the space may have been overreacting to the stimulus you interjected into the discussion. Even so, I wonder if maybe your input included an element of challenge or sarcasm?

making a stereotype statement about a whole group of people is not a good idea. It tends to reflect lazy thinking.

In some cases, I think it’s probably little more than force of habit.

It's just the way I write. I don't even think about it.

---

Say what you mean and mean what you say, don't expect everyone else to be able to reach into your brain and know what you really meant when you're too lazy and belligerent to just say it correctly the first time and leave no room for misunderstanding.

Ouch.

A little compassion goes a long way. I think maybe that’s what PC is really all about. It should not be used as a weapon. It is simply a way to help each of us better understand and respect the other (if we care enough to do so).

Ignorance is the enemy of progress.

 

[zombiekiller]

It's a correct general statement but you didn't make a general statement, you made a statement that did not indicate any exception.

So someone is perfectly correct to respond to you with "Not everyone does."

No, it was you who interjected the word "all" into it. At no point did I ever say "all people" this and that. It was you that kept putting it in.

Again, in common English when people make a statement without a numerical value, it is best to use your common sense. Only an idiot would assume every living soul in Eastern Asia eat rice all the time. Just like only an idiot would assume every living soul in a region speaks the exact same language all the time.

So, the only reason you decided to interject the word "all" into my statement and purposely misunderstand my statement was to put me in the worst possible light. And you were the one that brought up academic debate. I'm telling you now. In college I was president of the philosophy debate club. We always made it clear to people that if they can interpret a statement several ways, try to avoid assuming the statement that puts the person who made the statement into a complete idiot.

Case in point. Obama gave a speech on businesses having to rely on roads and bridges to make their businesses prosper. And many of his political opponents interpreted it in the worst possible light to say that he was actually putting business owners down. I know because I owned a business at the time this happened. I watched that speech and knew exactly what he was talking about, that business owners rely on the nation's infrastructure to prosper.

You are doing exactly what Obama's opponents were doing. You intentionally interpreted my statement in the worst possible light, making me sound like a complete idiot. It was you who interjected the word "all" into my statements.

Anyway, I'm done about making this point. You obviously won't admit this. You will obviously continue to make the worst possible interpretation of people's statements when you can. I will simply agree to disagree.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You still haven't answered why you refuse to simply be specific and add a one-word qualifier like "some" or "most" or "often" or "usually" before you describe a practice and assign it to a race of people.

Someone who doesn't know you, as I don't know you very well, is quite likely to not know what you are inferring or what is behind what you are saying when you simply make an unqualified statement that you INTEND to be general but refuse to make general verbally.

Problem's your communication. Simple as that.

 

[zombiekiller]

You still haven't answered why you refuse to simply be specific and add a one-word qualifier like "some" or "most" or "often" or "usually" before you describe a practice and assign it to a race of people.

Someone who doesn't know you, as I don't know you very well, is quite likely to not know what you are inferring or what is behind what you are saying when you simply make an unqualified statement that you INTEND to be general but refuse to make general verbally.

Problem's your communication. Simple as that.

It's not that I refuse to be specific regarding that. I will try to be more specific with you from now on, knowing you like to interpret a statement in the worst possible light. What I've been trying to tell you is I reserve the right to not have to be careful and watch my back all the time. When people talk in normal English, they don't expect to be nitpicked. And they expect to be given the benefit of the doubt, not be interpreted in the worst possible way.

See? You still refuse to acknowledge that you purposely made me look like an idiot by insisting on putting the word "all" into my statements.

And the bit about not knowing me. Think about it. Do you honestly think I am such an idiot that I would say every single person on the planet this and that? Does it make sense that I would purposely say every single person in EAst asia eat a lot of rice with absolutely no exception whatsoever? The only way you would interpret my words like that is you purposely wanted to make me look like an idiot. Simple as that.

But again, I agree to disagree. And it's ok if you answer yes, that you think I'm an idiot enough to say every single person in a group is this or that. I don't care anymore.

Added by edit.

And no, I'm not angry. Just frustrated that you keep missing the point. Don't really care anymore. Keep thinking I'm an idiot if you want.

ADded by edit again before 15 minutes are up.

I just noticed your last sentence. So, you say that you don't know me. So, you look at what I say and assume the worst possible interpretation of my statement.

Am I the only one who sees how cynical this is? You just assume everyone you don't know has malice or is an idiot. That's kinda sad if you ask me.

 

[xbuzzerx]

No one who doesn't know you and can't possibly be expected to magically crystal ball up your actual meaning is under any obligation to come to the right conclusion on their own about what you say when you don't express yourself properly.

If you choose to see that as a problem with absolutely everyone else, that's your choice, but it's completely unproductive.

 

[Alnitak]

This reminds me of the bar I did my laundry in in Alaska once.

 

[zombiekiller]

No one who doesn't know you and can't possibly be expected to magically crystal ball up your actual meaning is under any obligation to come to the right conclusion on their own about what you say when you don't express yourself properly.

If you choose to see that as a problem with absolutely everyone else, that's your choice, but it's completely unproductive.

Again, you're still missing the point. I don't expect people to guess and then arrive at the right conclusion. I do, however, expect people not to assume everyone they don't know is an idiot.

This would make it the dozenth time I pointed this out, and you ignoring it. You interjected the word "all" into my statements, making my statements utterly ridiculous. In other words, since you said you didn't know me, you decided to add a word into my mouth that makes me an idiot. Do you deny this or not? Just answer the question. I've already admitted that I wasn't specific enough, leaving room for you to nitpick at will. My issue now is that you aren't willing to admit you assumed the most ridiculous interpretation of my words. And in order for you to do that, you added the word "all" into my statements. In other words, you went beyond just interpreting the words of someone you didn't know. You went out of your way to add a word that makes me look ridiculously idiotic.

Do you admit this or not?

My goodness.

Edit.

Ok, let me make this easy for you. Which one of the two of us added the word "all" into my statement? It's as simple as that. Between the two of us, which one added that word into my statements?

Edit again.

Haha, someone sent me this link a long time ago.

http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/nitpick.htm

 

[zombiekiller]

Who do you think are the people who made the word into Ni? I know people call me chink plenty of times with neither me suffering in pain nor anyone else thinking much about it.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Indeed I do.

Raised in South Arkansas, my hometown is roughly 60% Black, 35% White, 5% Other. The Black and White number were roughly the reverse during my upbringing.

There isn't any idolization of the N-word there, although it is appropriately taboo, but not enshrined as some unrepeatable magic that can never be used in academic discussion or other non-epithet application.

The suggestion of the word being too painful to be endured is an affectation of comical degree comparable to the Knights Who Say Ni. Blacks whom I know are not viscerally recoiling at the mention of the word as if it represents unbearable pain. They are not made of spun glass.

During my upbringing the term was already taboo, even for those of us who were poor whites, often lumped in with the Snopeses by those outside cultural carpet-baggers who feel empowered to describe a region they are wholly unfamiliar with.

There are no words that are unspeakable in academic/historic/descriptive discussions. To suggest so is to impose a presumed monstrosity that the American slave experience that exceeds those of other races/nationalities. There is not a unique suffering to this tragedy that exceeds other similar oppressions.

Man is consistently capable of atrocious acts to his fellow man. It is not unique to America, nor the agricultural center that evolved to exploit it more than the industrial. Injustice, grinding poverty, gross imbalance of human rights are found the world over. Apartheid was not less obnoxious, and we don't have an A-word. The Jews were systematically targeted for extinction by our good European cousins, and I haven't heard them asking for a J-word. The Chinese were dehumanized and ground into grit building the railroads of the Great West, but "Chink" hasn't become unspeakable.

The uttering of a word is not an offense in itself. The repetition of it to denigrate would be. There are no magic words -- not for good, not for ill. It is a matter of language, not copyrights of terms by a cultural group or its supposed champions.

You allude to some universally-enforced code of silence that doesn't exist.

The n-word was used in non shortened form regularly in some of my classes while discussing this subject in college.

I think what's "ludicrous" is this assertion that society has somehow all but inserted microchips into people that physically stops them from being able to use the word in any context, and that liberal idiot P.C. people have somehow perpetrated this on everyone.

There are many words that are not just completely stupid but completely lacking regard for other people to casually throw around in a mixed company in an unqualified context though, and chink is in that list every bit as much as the n-word.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Again, you're still missing the point. I don't expect people to guess and then arrive at the right conclusion. I do, however, expect people not to assume everyone they don't know is an idiot.

For someone who rails about anyone else making any assumption, you make plenty of rules and assumptions for how everyone else should act and think.

For example, I default to thinking people are idiots until proven otherwise in many situations, including but not limited to:

Youtube comment pages
Yahoo comment pages
The comment pages under online news articles
Facebook status comment replies

In none of those locations would I see someone throwing around lazy remarks about race or minorities and feel compelled in any way to assume they were intended in the best possible light when they didn't bother to be clear that they weren't being prejudicial in their remarks.

In before the next "you're still missing the point" response.

 

[zombiekiller]

For someone who rails about anyone else making any assumption, you make plenty of rules and assumptions for how everyone else should act and think.

For example, I default to thinking people are idiots until proven otherwise in many situations, including but not limited to:

Youtube comment pages
Yahoo comment pages
The comment pages under online news articles
Facebook status comment replies

In none of those locations would I see someone throwing around lazy remarks about race or minorities and feel compelled in any way to assume they were intended in the best possible light when they didn't bother to be clear that they weren't being prejudicial in their remarks.

In before the next "you're still missing the point" response.

*Blink* You did not just say that did you?

Even when it's written right here in this thread, you still deny it.

Fact: I made a statement without a numerical value (few, some, most, all).

Fact: The statement is regarding dietary consumption in a particular region of the world.

Fact: You could have assumed few, some, or most. But instead, you assumed "all".

Fact: "All" happens to be the worst assumption in this case, because it makes my statement into a ridiculous statement. It makes the statement refer to every single living breathing soul in that region of the world.

I asked you why you interjected the word "all" in there when you could have interjected another word that made more sense. Your answer was you didn't know me.

Conclusion: Since you didn't know me, you decided to make the worst possible assumption about me.

There, I just laid it out as simply as I could.

Added by edit.

Ah, I see you're still in college. I know kids your age never admit you were wrong. I was like that, too. Makes more sense now.

I've found that children who don't have much to contribute like to nitpick. Haha, this is great. I've been trying to point out the bleeding obvious to a an angry teenager.

Anyway, continue.

Edit.

FYI, I don't have a facebook account. I don't have a youtube account. Don't have any yahoo commenting account, although I have a yahoo mail. You were the one that brought in academia as a standard for debate, and when I pointed out that in academia we always assume the best, not the worst, in people's statements, you backtracked and went to social media. Sorry, but I'm not familiar with social media. I've no twitter account or any of that. You got me there.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You're not getting it. If you're going to make widespread comments about entire racial groups, and do not wish to be understood as stereotyping, then be careful with your choice of words.

It's as simple as that. You're making it into some personal flaw in everybody else, while you refuse to use a single extra word in what you choose to say to avoid predictable misunderstandings.

This is a major disconnect on your part.

 

[rareboy]

Don't worry, it will soon arrive at a level where you will feel right at home.

Oh well served...well served.

 

[Pcp3t3]

So, most of you guys here are westerners, so this will be hard to adequately explain. But let me try.

(1) Yes, making a stereotype statement about a whole group of people is not a good idea. It tends to reflect lazy thinking.

However, considering ALL general statements as stereotypes is also lazy thinking. Why? Because not all general statements are stereotypes. Some don't necessarily apply to every single member of the group of people, but it's pretty damn close.

An example is people speak English in England. That's a general statement about a group of people that is true for the most part but of course does not apply to every single member of the group.

(2) When people think something is bad, they try to avoid saying it. The most obvious example is the n-word. Or even "gay". One time I attended a gathering with my "girlfriend". It was actually my faghag, but she always acted like we were together. A couple came up to us and we began a conversation. That girl and I really sounded like a couple. We were just used to it. So, at the end of the conversation, the woman said that funny that we met like this because someone told her I was "that". Looking puzzled, I asked her what she meant. She proceeded to quietly say "you know, that". You get the point.

(3) If anything, politically correct ignorant liberal idiots bother me just as much as the culturally insensitive idiot.

Having said all of that, the other day I had to go into the city for my final interview. So, on my way home I thought I'd stop by the gay community center in the city to pay a visit. All new faces, of course. It's pretty much a place where gay men and women could come, hang out, talk, whatever.

The conversation that was going on at the time was stereotypes. There were people who insisted that all general statements are stereotypes.

This was when I weighed in. I said that not all general statements are stereotypes. They're just facts. For example, East Asian people eat rice on a daily basis.

At this point, the person responsible for the "space" got on my case and said I was ignorant with my statement and I shouldn't put down a whole race of people like that.

Think about it.

(1) It is a fact that East Asians do eat a lot of rice, like on a daily basis. I know this is hard to understand, because people on the west don't ever eat anything the same everyday, not even bread. Any Asian person will tell you this. We grew up eating rice everyday with other things. It is the main dietary supplement for us.

(2) That ignorant liberal idiot just told me and everyone else without knowing it that he thought there was something wrong with us eating rice everyday. He treated that statement like the n-word. He was this close to asking me to leave, and he told me this because he "wanted everyone to feel safe there".

(3) That ignorant liberal idiot just told me and everyone else how ethnocentric he was. His cultural perspective told him eating the same thing everyday is bad, so he assumed everyone else think that as well.

Now, this is not to say I'm not guilty of inadvertently offending people. One time I made a joke with the masturbating gesture in front of 4 women who were sign language interpreters. But this was back when I was like 17 and an idiot LOL.

Don't lose your cool over rice.

 

[zombiekiller]

8

You're not getting it. If you're going to make widespread comments about entire racial groups, and do not wish to be understood as stereotyping, then be careful with your choice of words.

It's as simple as that. You're making it into some personal flaw in everybody else, while you refuse to use a single extra word in what you choose to say to avoid predictable misunderstandings.

This is a major disconnect on your part.

ive already admitted several times that I could be more specific with my words. I dont think anyone can doubt it when I say im willing to admit when im wrong.

Im just annoyed that after all this time you still wont admit you asummed the worst possible interpretation, the interpretation that makesmthe least sense.

sorry my laptop ran out of battery.