Do people here seriously not understand the concepts of bigotry & collective punishment?

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All racist bigots should be rounded up and punished!

Please define a bit better. So much for the First Ammendment in America.. Ok, then how about this?

All Pedophile Child Rapists parading around as LGBTQ-WXYZ demanding to be married and demanding we worship & recognize their filth by baking them a cake.....

The question is who defines racist bigot in your opinion and who defines LGBTQ-WXYZ in mine?

originally posted by: Stonecutter45
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It was a rhetorical question . I already knew the answer , was just pointing out the hypocrisy of Democrats who love to point out the racism , bigotry and hate of others while hating on an entire group of people themselves .

Ironically you're doing exactly what the OP talked about with democrats.

originally posted by: jessme2
Just once, just one single time I would love to see a single statement against bigotry and judgement and stereotype be able to stand alone on its own merit without someone resorting to the tired old.."'but what about.."

it's just wrong, mmmkay? I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't even be posting this, since I have nothing further to add.

Absolutely 100% correct jess. 100% spot on.

I think one of the biggest problems in this country (see also: world) is that we are all yelling that racism, bigotry, hatred, evil is ALL bad and it NEEDS to stop!

"but my side totally doesn't do that" or "my side maaaaaaay do it but like a fraction your side does."

This craphole system is never going to heal until everyone starts by admitting. I am a therapist. We teach that step one to any resolution is knowing then telling that there is something wrong. That goes from substance use, process addiction, depression, etc. You have to admit and REALLY admit...not just some veiled method of saying "yeah there is a problem" then in fine print saying "the problem is yours not mine."

The thing is if the truly "awake" people were really awake they could see the issue right in their face. How do I know this? Because at almost 36 I FINALLY figured out my own personal BS. So in the efforts of fairness I am going to pick on myself as an example

I loathe Bush Jr. I think he was a horrible POTUS. I loathe the conservative mindset of "no welfare! Except for businesses. And if you don't give my business a tax break on property I will move to India." How pathetic and hypocritical is that? All these anti-gay agenda folk who I admittedly love to find out later just how gay they were. Christians sitting around picking apart a book that has no concrete proof and using it to say that LGBT is why this country is going to die....blah blah blah

It's pathetic

Now...here is the problem I had for a long time. All the while I am spouting the above and I DO believe what I just wrote; I kept thinking...well progressive thinking is the solution! Go ahead...bore yourself and look at my old posts. Socialist this, atheist/pagan that.

But when I open my eyes and remove blinders I can see just how guilty the so called left is. I do admit that overall I espouse liberal ideas. But that's where I failed hardcore. I believed that Bush was all wrong and Obama/Clinton were all right.

Meanwhile, we were forced to use a million page healthcare system that I think one guy read and still didn't understand. Now we have some of my own LGBTer's running around telling Cis, white men that they are evil and sick even if that same guy never harmed a fly. Oh yeah it's perfectly ok to cry fowl and say that they are picking on us because we are gay. True...it does happen. But that somehow makes it ok to label a huge crowd of people evil when you know nothing about that specific person? Then the race issue. Why is it so impossible to pick piece by piece and look at each case to determine right-wrong? Just because the cop was white and the alleged perp was black it is automatically racial? Is it so impossible that some cases were straight up defense? Look at EACH case. Michael Brown (IMO of course) was guilty. Eric Garner? Not so much. And gun control. Us lib folks say less guns! They are the problem and squash any possible retort. All the while I keep thinking..."If Kyo doesn't have a gun, does that mean potential criminal X suddenly doesn't have a gun?"

over and over and over and over

It's enough to make a head explode. Every side, label, group is guilty at some point. But it's so much more comforting to think your (general meaning of your) side is the solution and the rest are the problem. I wish I'd learned it earlier but I don't think it's too late for me.

So to sum up this tiny wall of text...jess you are absolutely correct. The human mind is so bound to its own bias that we just refuse to ever admit that maybe somehow our own belief was wrong too.

Well, let's see...if you live in the projects, have a party and put a brown paper grocery bag on your door, it means, if you are darker than this bag, you are not welcome at my party.
Then there are names for your fellow man...such as 'peanut head' and 'carp face'...
This is how the black neighborhood treats itself...

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Do your sentiments apply to the phenomenon of White Guilt as well?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

" I can not gauge the social values of a nation based solely on the understanding of a single individual"

The premise of your thread is to demonstrate as a society, we can not lay blame on an entire ethnicity, culture, nation, religion, race or creed on the actions of a select few. The act of doing so by your definitions is bigoted and/or racist which may or may not result in collective punishment aka "persecution".

You argue:

People are only accountable for their own actions

and

Our entire system of laws is built on the concept of personal responsibility

While this is correct in simplistic terms, it is not correct on society or nations as a whole. What you describe is merely a myopic understanding of the concepts behind bigotry, stereotypes and what scientists call "empirical generalizations". I will explain later. No, we don't punish all Christians for the act of a few or punish Atheists for China's persecution of Falun Gong but we will tally the results as statistics and use those to benchmark specific patterns among ethic groups. Hence, stereotype.

Ironically, my opening statement coincides perfectly with your premise although our sides are diametrically opposite. I'll explain.

1. You believe we can not judge a nation based on the actions of individuals
2. I believe we can not judge a nation based on knowing one individual

Therefore - we both believe a nation must be judged as a whole, arriving at the same conclusion but from different paths. Wrap your head around that for a moment.

Scientists use a term called empirical generalization as a foundation for scientific theory. They are stereotypes and are used as a base to evolve theories around something. If they were not true, then the theory would not work. For example: Men are taller than women. This is a generalization no? Yet, we know there are many instances of women being taller than men. However, there is no offence to this generalization because men prefer to be taller than women and women like it that way.

If the generalization turns out to be a negative, then suddenly it becomes offensive and considered bigoted. But what is forgotten is, this is purely a subjective point of view and has nothing to do with the reality of the stereotype. For example: Women are fatter than men.

Suddenly there is a shift in the opinion of the empirical generalization. While again, we know this is not always the case, but medically and on a physiological level? Women produce more body fat per body weight than men do. However, it still remains a scientific fact. Just like gravity still being a theory or even evolution, they are facts based on working scientific theories.

So lets talk about generalizations on entire ethnic backgrounds. Let's say I said, "white people are most likely to mass murder than a black people". Statistically, it's true:

According to Wikipedia, 75% of the rampage killings on US record were perpetrated by white males, as were 71% of massacres in schools, and 60% of workplace rampages – a seriously disproportionate number for the number of white males that make up the general population. Clearly, there is more at play here than the advantage of opportunity.

bossip.com...

Am I being negative? I'm a white person and I have just supported a study that suggests that we kill more people en mass over other races. Am I being bigoted against my own kind? No, clearly I'm just supporting the facts objectively instead of subjectively. You see, empirical generalizations are only observations on a particular group, not a set of instructions on how to behave towards that group. If someone out of that group commits a crime, then they are dealt with accordingly but if enough of them do it, then entire group will be examined as a whole.

So back to my opening statement:
" I can not gauge the social values of a nation based solely on the understanding of a single individual"

Therefore, empirical generalization is necessary to develop a working theory on a specific culture. It would be impossible to talk to every single person and form an opinion, be it a bias one or not. Just physically impossible.

Man, y'all have almost made me start cussing again...

I find this particular comment quite telling. You blame the actions of everyone for your anger when previously you said we are all responsible for ourselves. You bolded it and underlined it.

Because it's common sense that people are only accountable for their own actions

Unbelievable! If it wasn't so sad, I would be laughing. No one is laughing.