4 ms·

What did you last slave die of? I'm not sure whether there's something you actually disagree with - or you just want to "be right" by creating unreasonable bur

What did you last slave die of? I'm not sure whether there's something you actually disagree with - or you just want to "be right" by creating unreasonable burdens of proof. If so - here: you're right, I'm just a random dude making baseless affirmations, please ignore me. > Aren't you stereotyping here? Yes I am. I thought you're a supporter of the idea that stereotypes are true more often than not? [edit] And to clarify, because it seems to be needed: by 'harmful', I mean harmful to the victims of the stereotype. If you discriminate someone, you're not necessarily harmed - but the other one may be. This isn't a "slavery was harmful to ranch owners" argument - it's not even a "slavery was harmful for the US society" argument. It's just a "slavery was harmful for black people" argument. I'm honestly flabbergasted that someone would honestly demand proof for that sort of statement.

mpweiher 9y ago
> stereotypes are true more often than not Yes, more often than not. Sometimes they're wrong. For example, the now common stereotype that stereotypes are mostly wrong is wrong. > Slavery What does slavery have to do with it, except nothing? Let's give a more realistic example: Say there's a woman walking alone at night. She notices a large man walking behind her. She crosses the road. Now she knew nothing of this man, so she just used her stereotypes (large men=possibly dangerous) and the situation (late at night) to inform her decision. Evil stereotype or prudent decision? Has he been "victimized" by the (almost certainly) incorrect assumption of her's that he is a danger?
- virgilp 9y ago
  > What does slavery have to do with it Analogy - I was hoping that might help you understand what I meant by "harmful" (ie "who is the one being harmed?"). I didn't mean that you were harmed by it. > Let's give a more realistic example But I never stated that all stereotypes are harmful, or all create victims, or whatever. I stated that SOME do, and gave a specific example that you challenged. And now you move to a different example to prove.... what?
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    OK, so you agree that stereotypes are largely accurate and largely beneficial. Good, glad we cleared that up (it wasn't clear from your previous posts). You still haven't at all expanded how you got from a stereotype about the Romani, which others in the thread have noted is quite useful, to slavery. Do you think slavery was the result of inaccurate stereotypes and implicit bias? I think you would find it very hard to reconcile that hypothesis with the actual history of slavery.
    - virgilp 9y ago
      > and largely beneficial. In some circumstances. While being incredibly harmful to some people/ in some other circumstances. These are not mutually exclusive!! You know, kinda' how atomic energy can be beneficial while at the same time being incredibly harmful. These properties can be simultaneously true. > You still haven't at all expanded But I did... again, in the message you are replying to. Here, I'll try again to convey the same message, without analogy this time: Do you believe that the stereotype "gypsy = criminal" would/should be perceived as "largely accurate and largely beneficial" for a (honest) person of Roma ethnicity? Because that's what you were challenging me to dis-prove. Slavery was indeed "largely beneficial" to the slave owners. Even to some empires/ nations. Seldom to the slaves. See how "largely beneficial" has multiple facets? That's what I meant, I was hoping that for slavery you wouldn't find it hard to believe that it was NOT largely beneficial, for the slaves themselves.
      - mpweiher 9y ago
        "Nicht alles was hinkt, ist auch ein Vergleich" So your analogy was "something that is beneficial to one side but not to the other"? Nothing to do with stereotypes at all? Because that is so distant that I don't see how it is an analogy of anything. So "being stabbed in the gut is not beneficial to the stabbee, so don't you see that stereotypes are harmful"? We all operate with stereotypes that are largely accurate and largely beneficial, not to single groups (as you seem to imply), but to everyone (obviously different stereotypes etc.). In fact, without stereotypes (=generalizations) we would not be able to function and the world would be a terribly dangerous place. Now are they all upside with no downside? Of course not. But that's a straw man, because what thing is there with no downsides? And I also don't see that you've actually supported your assertion that the stereotypes you mention are "incredibly harmful" to those negatively affected. Because the research shows that that is not the case, meaning the real data about the individual replaces the stereotype very quickly. Do you have evidence that this is incorrect?

mpweiher 9y ago

> stereotypes are true more often than not Yes, more often than not. Sometimes they're wrong. For example, the now common stereotype that stereotypes are mostly wrong is wrong. > Slavery What does slavery have to do with it, except nothing? Let's give a more realistic example: Say there's a woman walking alone at night. She notices a large man walking behind her. She crosses the road. Now she knew nothing of this man, so she just used her stereotypes (large men=possibly dangerous) and the situation (late at night) to inform her decision. Evil stereotype or prudent decision? Has he been "victimized" by the (almost certainly) incorrect assumption of her's that he is a danger?

virgilp 9y ago
> What does slavery have to do with it Analogy - I was hoping that might help you understand what I meant by "harmful" (ie "who is the one being harmed?"). I didn't mean that you were harmed by it. > Let's give a more realistic example But I never stated that all stereotypes are harmful, or all create victims, or whatever. I stated that SOME do, and gave a specific example that you challenged. And now you move to a different example to prove.... what?
- mpweiher 9y ago
  OK, so you agree that stereotypes are largely accurate and largely beneficial. Good, glad we cleared that up (it wasn't clear from your previous posts). You still haven't at all expanded how you got from a stereotype about the Romani, which others in the thread have noted is quite useful, to slavery. Do you think slavery was the result of inaccurate stereotypes and implicit bias? I think you would find it very hard to reconcile that hypothesis with the actual history of slavery.
  - virgilp 9y ago
    > and largely beneficial. In some circumstances. While being incredibly harmful to some people/ in some other circumstances. These are not mutually exclusive!! You know, kinda' how atomic energy can be beneficial while at the same time being incredibly harmful. These properties can be simultaneously true. > You still haven't at all expanded But I did... again, in the message you are replying to. Here, I'll try again to convey the same message, without analogy this time: Do you believe that the stereotype "gypsy = criminal" would/should be perceived as "largely accurate and largely beneficial" for a (honest) person of Roma ethnicity? Because that's what you were challenging me to dis-prove. Slavery was indeed "largely beneficial" to the slave owners. Even to some empires/ nations. Seldom to the slaves. See how "largely beneficial" has multiple facets? That's what I meant, I was hoping that for slavery you wouldn't find it hard to believe that it was NOT largely beneficial, for the slaves themselves.
    - mpweiher 9y ago
      "Nicht alles was hinkt, ist auch ein Vergleich" So your analogy was "something that is beneficial to one side but not to the other"? Nothing to do with stereotypes at all? Because that is so distant that I don't see how it is an analogy of anything. So "being stabbed in the gut is not beneficial to the stabbee, so don't you see that stereotypes are harmful"? We all operate with stereotypes that are largely accurate and largely beneficial, not to single groups (as you seem to imply), but to everyone (obviously different stereotypes etc.). In fact, without stereotypes (=generalizations) we would not be able to function and the world would be a terribly dangerous place. Now are they all upside with no downside? Of course not. But that's a straw man, because what thing is there with no downsides? And I also don't see that you've actually supported your assertion that the stereotypes you mention are "incredibly harmful" to those negatively affected. Because the research shows that that is not the case, meaning the real data about the individual replaces the stereotype very quickly. Do you have evidence that this is incorrect?