Whoa there cowboy, lets stick with the conversation at hand. I'm not DaveS and I claim no responsibility for what he is saying- I'm just trying to make my own point. That's why I asked you those questions.... none of which you have answered. Zero. Conversation works both ways, you know. I took the time to thoughtfully respond to your points, and you insulted me by taking no time to respond to mine. So I see no point in continuing until you learn how conversation works. We can't have an intellectual exchange until you do.




You missed the point. Try reading what I wrote again. You don't seem to understand that stereotypes exist, right or wrong, and that there are exceptions to generalizations. You are at a severe disadvantage in this conversation if you don't understand these basic concepts. The fact that you had to look up the definition of 'stereotype' is alarming. Refusing to answer zero of the questions I posed directly to you is evasive if not disrespectful, and doesn't encourage anyone to take you seriously as an intellectual. You said you wanted that, right? Well, I'm trying here- but you gotta do your part too.

Ether, you asserted that some stereotypes are common knowledge and are, hence, true. You gave several examples. Everyone does not know them to be true, and, in fact, by definition, they are not. The observations may be spot on, but the meanings attached to them, i.e., that they are accurate and generalizable comments about various cultures, ethnic groups or subcultures, are not.

Whether stereotypes exist or not is beside the point, and is not an issue on this thread. The issue was whether people generally stereotype all Black, hoodie-wearing youths as thugs, UNIVERSALLY, under all circumstances, and everywhere. They don't. Generally, people are rational and not hysterical. And although they are on the decline, and although they can be whipped into a frenzy of unrest like MSNBC almost single-handedly did, people are still generally rational, logical, reasonable, prudent, and responsible.

Even though DaveS asserted this flawed premise,
he secretly agrees with me, (although he can't resist a good troll), to wit:

Actually no, that's not the issue, for anyone except you. No one else here ever said anything about "universally", "under all circumstances", or "everywhere".



I don't think you're that familiar with what the word "secretly" means.

DaveS: Please stop smoking whatever it is that has obviously damaged or otherwise diminished what little memory you have left. Please also stop trolling my threads and posts. Please fuck off, you dumbass.

I see the problem. You resized the wrong things. You failed to see the negative operators that take scope over every instance of anything universal in anything I wrote, and also failed to notice any of the existential quantifiers. I'll resize them for you so the scope is clear.





Note, this one, by Ether, is clearly intended to be an exaggeration.



This one's controversial, and I did argue against it, but it still says nothing about "universal", "everywhere", or "in all circumstances".


I respectfully decline your request. But thanks for asking nicely.

You're so hopelessly confused now, DaveS, that your thinking is topsy-turvy. The predicate of the point that you made is not what people don't do, it's what people actually do, which is to actually do what you said you either can't (logically, reasonably and rationally) do "for US-based Black people", or what people "don't tend to do with White people". Therefore, your predicate, i.e., the one that is logically consistent with this thread, is:

"People (the subject) just think [your emphasis] ["think" being the operative verb] you can -- i.e., "find traits perceived to be universal to" -- "US-based black people" (the object) -- "and be afraid of that."

And it is this very assertion which is patently untrue, because people generally don't believe in concepts that are factually inaccurate, illogical, irrational, unreliably generalizable from the observed sample to the target group in question, or are unable to be empirically validated. And after receiving much prodding and guidance, you eventually came to understand this (by your own dysfunctional thought process) as "a stereotype of a stereotype" -- at least until you got yourself all fucked inside-out again by confusing yourself with the machinations of your own sophistry -- which is why I would appreciate it if you kindly spent your time pissing up ropes, or whatever you hopelessly arcane, ivory-tower academics do when you're not polluting young people's minds with your useless bullshit.

Try to stay on topic.



I suppose you think "universal to US-based black people" is equal to "under all circumstances" and "everywhere"? Or that "people (the subject)" necessarily means "people generally"?

DaveS, your feeble attempt to spin what an obviously asinine choice of words you made (i.e., in constructing your spurious and fallacious thesis) is only compounding the self-demeaning (and self-defeating) appearance of your foppish, flailing attempts to extricate yourself from the folly of your own serially-generated sophisms.

Example: First, on Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:12 pm you say:


DaveS wrote:
Well, yeah, if you wanna bring reality into it.

But what people don't tend to do with white people, is find traits perceieved to be universal to white culture, but irrelevant to any kind of threat, such as ways of dressing, the music they listen to, and be afraid of that. Maybe it's because it's hard to find such things that are universal to all white people, or even all US-based white people, but absent from other groups. But of course you can't really do it for US-based black people either; people just think you can.

I'm having trouble coming up with a single dress item or style of music even perceived to be universal and unique to US-white culture. The standard jokes usually apply only to a small subgroup, like hipsters, or yuppies, or rednecks, or old-money WASPs.

Then on Thu Apr 05, 2012 @ 6:38 pm you say:
DaveS wrote:
Actually no, that's not the issue, for anyone except you. No one else here ever said anything about "universally", "under all circumstances", or "everywhere".

And when confronted with your weaseling ways, on Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:20 pm you equivocate by saying:

DaveS wrote:
This one's controversial, and I did argue against it, but it still says nothing about "universal", "everywhere", or "in all circumstances".

Really. Stop digging. And now you're resorting to desperate, pathetic denials that no reasonable, marginally intelligent, and scrupulously objective outsider -- especially someone who has access to a dictionary and who has a modicum of reading comprehension skill -- would believe, to wit:

DaveS wrote:
I suppose you think "universal to US-based black people" is equal to "under all circumstances" and "everywhere"? Or that "people (the subject)" necessarily means "people generally"?

u·ni·ver·sal (yn-vûrsl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide: "This discovery of literature has as yet only partially penetrated the universal consciousness" (Ellen Key). [Editorial Note: The reader may substitute the phrase "venue in question" for "entire world", e.g., American society or Western culture, in order to attain the ethnologically/culturally appropriate context for assessing the scope of applicability.]
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration: the universal skepticism of philosophers. See Synonyms at general.
3. Applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations: a universal remedy.
[Emphasis was added to all of the above definitions of DaveS's unfortunately inauspicious and obtuse selection of the word, "universal".]

They're your words! Besides, it's not what I think, it's what the objective outsider who is casually browsing this thread thinks about your ridiculously desperate and pathetic attempts to salvage some negligible remnant of your credibility, which devolved into a series of incorrigibly petulant, impotent, and compulsively-proffered canards, long ago. Worse yet, I shudder when imagining what registered board users will think when they look up your profile. One can only speculate at their profound incredulity.

I never said stereotypes or generalizations are true. You made that up.

Saying that it is common knowledge that people make generalizations is a far cry different than saying, "all generalizations are true." You can't have an intelligent conversation with someone if you aren't willing to listen to what they say. I hate to say it, but I'm actually with DaveS on this one- you don't seem to read what has been written to you whether by me or him or anyone else. I asked very simple questions that you were unable or unwilling to entertain which grinds conversation to a halt. Until you can comprehend what I'm writing, I have a natural disincentive to write responses to you.

Right, you don't approach these boards with the intention of having a conversation. You approach them as establishing for posterity, for all those casual browsers out there, who has credibility and who doesn't.

I don't personally see why you care what all those casual broswers think of *your* credibility, let alone what they think of mine. If they're not even going to respond or show in any other way what they think, then why does it matter to you?


So you admit your only problem with my "thesis" (and that's a ridiculous choice of words on your part) is my choice of words, I guess specifically the word "universal". In context, it should have been clear what I meant (and if you'd asked politely, I would have explained it much earlier):



That is, universal across subcultures. The people in question, the people who believe the relevant stereotypes (and yes they exist, and I never said it was a majority) do not recognize different subcultures of black people the way they recognize subcultures of white people. And it's hard to think of stereotypes that people apply universally to all white subcultures. (In that I disagree with Ether; I think his examples of stereotypes about white people only apply to certain subcultures. But at the same time, they are often given as stereotypes of white people in general, such as in comedy.) It doesn't necessary mean that anyone believes it about every single black person anywhere, in any situation, of any age, of any sex, etc. And that fits perfectly well into your dictionary definition; the members of the class or group can be subcultures, not individual people.

/ignore DaveS <enter>

Petulant, pointlessly-sophistic douche bag rejection complete.

Troll-free environment restored.

<duplicated above>

It was a reasonable inference based on what you wrote. Apparently that was not what you meant by your subsequent qualification below.


I will admit to making my interpretation with undue haste, and, hence, failing to consider an alternative more favorable to you. My skeptical and critical evaluation method is to focus on whether an argument, as found in the context in which it is written, can withstand rigorous scrutiny; i.e., if any of the pillars of its foundation are so faulty that once kicked the argument fails, then I must dismiss it in view of a larger, more poignant, or more salient point to be made. Unfortunately, my interpretation of what you said did not seem inconsistent with your line of argumentation. Perhaps also, the general vein of argumentation on this thread colored my perception of what yours was, as they seemed to be parallel.

One must endeavor to write in such a manner so that another cannot reasonably misinterpret you.


Indeed it is, and that qualification was not sufficiently evident in your former assertion. I simply misunderstood your point. Regardless, just because it is true that people stereotype, it does not mean those individual stereotypes are pervasively shared, i.e., common knowledge. Perhaps what you meant was that it is common knowledge that some people do stereotype, and perhaps a paltry number of stereotypes are common knowledge, but generally speaking, alleging that most stereotypes are common knowledge is a dubious assertion of doubtful credibility. And perhaps you did not intend to intimate that position either, but, again, it was unclear from your post.

Regardless, simply because it is true that some people do stereotype others, that does not mean that such views are either predominate, pervasive or anything more than a social phenomenon that tends to be grouped in with the same character traits that have a greater tendency to include parochial mindsets, superstitiousness, gullibility, poor critical analysis skills, irrational fears, religious dependence, and a constellation of other perceptual and conceptual deficits that generally accompany underdeveloped intellects and ignorance, generally.

Moreover, observations about the lack of representation of black people in certain activities cannot be logically attributed to, or associated with, a cultural trait unless there is a very logical and TESTABLE explanation.

Example: Blacks are far disproportionately less likely to be associated with bondage and discipline, at least in public settings, due to cultural stigmas and aversions associated with 18th and 19th Century slavery. The same could be said of camping, now that you mention it. Whereas before I would have attributed such observations to proximity with locations and with economic disparity, rather than anything cultural.

Blacks have historically been disproportionately represented in the ranks of poverty and squalor, particularly in the poor, rural south, where both hot and cold running water and either gas or electric stoves were disproportionately less pervasive in Black households than in White households up until the 1950's. So it's more likely to be culturally adverse for them to go camping where they would be forced to repeat or relive that lifestyle. Indeed, while we're at it, ice fishing may likewise be culturally explainable insofar as prior to the Great Migration, Blacks were predominantly settled in the deep south, where there were insufficient needs or opportunities to motivate significant engagement in ice fishing by them.


While we may miscommunicate, DaveS is a completely disingenuous troll, an admitted sophist and a liar, to wit: viewtopic.php?f=20&p=102688#p102688

Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:36 pm:

With the new pics & eye witnesses supporting George Z it's looking pretty bad for Jessse Jackson & Al Sharptons attack on the 2nd ammendment.

The frenzied rush to judgement by lawyers & "community activists" has done plenty to damage justice, but if the facts come out proving Hispanic George Z was indeed getting his brains bashed in & acted in self defense... we could see more "stand your ground" laws across the land.
It's kind of sad that SyG isn't just the law of the land actualy, isn't self preservation what this country & freedom all about? More guns = less crime. Pretty simple stuff!

No comment about the details of the case; we'll see. But in no way does SyG follow the spirit of "self-preservation". It says you can attack if you just "feel threatened". No burden of proof to show that you *were* threatened. Makes no sense. And as for "more guns = less crime"... Simple? Yes, but so is "more guns = more crime". Same number of letters. But which one is simpler is not the point. The question is which one is *correct*.

Wow, this is looking better and better for zimmerman:



No wonder the mainstream news has dropped this like a hot potato! certainly doesn't help the anti stand your ground folks.

More cops and witnesses that support zimmermans claims today. I wonder if the case may get thrown out now? Why has crusty gone silent?