4 ms·

I like how in our progressive society it is absolutely frowned upon to invoke any association between observable societal statistics and, say, race/gender, but

I like how in our progressive society it is absolutely frowned upon to invoke any association between observable societal statistics and, say, race/gender, but its okay to bash BMW/audi drivers. So, user civilized, why is it okay for you to generalize? And why exactly you were sorry? (I am aware that this is a tangent discussion to the original post, but it may be an interesting one)

civilized 5y ago
I take care not to violate society's statistical taboos.
- artemonster 5y ago
  Ah, allright, I think I got the pattern. Next time someone wants to: """Everywhere you go, there will be {insert derogatory but also statistically backed pattern} Disproportionately they will be {insert your -ist qualifier}""" You just have to say sorry and it will be okay?
  - civilized 5y ago
    Have you considered what you personally believe is right? Why go around being an enforcer for social rules you don't even know if you believe in?
    - artemonster 5y ago
      I personally believe in statistics and I believe you cannot use them to make derogatory generalizations. I mean racists REALLY love to pull out crime statistics out of their pockets in justification of their views. And, frankly, its not about my beliefs right now and enforcing of societal rules, its about you making derogatory generalizations and thinking that its okay, because "statistics" and because you've said sorry.
      - civilized 5y ago
        Well, I don't believe what you believe. I think you have an overly general moral rule that you think is necessary for consistency, but it's not really, and it's just your personal belief. Your belief implies it is improper to use statistics to describe morally salient human behavior in any way, unless the conclusion is that there is no variation. I think that's silly and intellectually impoverishing. Groups have different average behavior and I don't see the point in blinding myself to that. We all know that averages don't determine an individual, and we all know that some generalizations should be avoided, but that doesn't imply some broad fatwa, completely irrespective of context, against noting broad variations in group behavior. The prosecutor attitude is very entertaining though. Feel free to keep doing that.
        artemonster 5y ago
        I personally dont require that consistency, I was merely asking WHY there is a difference in treatment of the same method (making generalized statements about group behaviour) when applied to different qualifiers. And yes, just as you've said, maintaining that consistency does imply that you suddenly can't use any statistics at all. Point taken on "prosecutor attitude", sorry about that. riding "moral high horse" got to my head.
        civilized 5y ago
        It sounds like you don't believe what you just said you did? I'm genuinely asking what you believe, as opposed to what you assert for the sake of argument. For me, it's not an easy topic but I would say when negative generalizations escalate to exclusion and dehumanization, that's probably where to draw the line. I know some people with Audis and I don't think worse of them or anything like that. It's just a funny thing that's hard to ignore after a while on the road.
        artemonster 5y ago
        Thank you for the insight on where you draw the line, that explains a lot. Still, a hard terrain to navigate on when you can say something and when you can't, even if you make correct statements backed up by data. Just to be clear we're on the same page: I've made absolutely same observation about other bmw drivers. and we, humans, do exactly that: observe and generalize. Regarding my personal beliefs, as I've stated above "I personally believe in statistics and I believe you cannot use* them to make derogatory* generalizations" 1. regarding "use": you cannot use specifically statistics/data to justify any *-ist remark. "I hate bmw drivers because most of them are assholes on the road", an example of that (not what you said!) 2. regarding "derogatory": you can(and should!) use statistics to do (just) generalizations, i.e. in a context of talking about group behaviour. "most of bmw drivers are agressive and dangerous drivers, as shown by this data" is a perfectly fine statement. My problem is that you can say that sort of statements about certain group of drivers, but if you would have pulled up a similar argument and used (for example) PoC and crime rates, you would have been torn to pieces by everyone. And for me, on the surface, the statement and the structure would be absolutely the same (and it is STILL not escalated to exclusion and dehumanization). So whats the difference? And why different treatment? People above are arguing that buying BMW its a choice and using inherent (immutable) properties (i.e. race/gender) is different for the case of stereotyping, but I cannot see the key difference that makes okay to do one and not okay to do another.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
You can choose whether to buy a BMW or not?
- artemonster 5y ago
  but having one does not make you an asshole driver
brnaftr361 5y ago
I do think that's a pretty interesting point. It's a weird move to sweep under the rug. I guess you could argue that having a BMW is a choice, and it has associated stereotypes, which we can infer is sort of like joining a club. race/gender are probabilistic and unalterable, one doesn't necessarily elect to inherit the stereotypes associated with race/gender. You're essentially being delegated expectations that may or may not be in alignment with personal values. There are definitely double-standards in play though, a sort of socio-cognitive warfare, I suppose.
- artemonster 5y ago
  I am unsure whether the (im)mutability of a qualifier plays a role. For example, religion is a choice, but making generalized derogatory statements about certain religious groups is not okay either. You can try it with the pattern of "civilized" user: """Everywhere you go, there will be _men hitting their wivers_. Disproportionately they will be ..." and say sorry afterwards. You will be making a statistically correct statement, but you will be flagged and IRL punched in the face for saying that. But somehow saying that about BMW drivers is still allright?
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Religion is a choice in the same way citizenship is a choice. Sometimes it is a choice, often you’re born into it, and you often have to meet qualifications to change it, and some of those may be impossible to meet. And your social environment may impose some significant expectations on you.
    - artemonster 5y ago
      now you're trying to argue about a specifics of the example I've given. Its tangent to the main question: whether stereotyping on something that is a choice or inherent is different? If you say that it is, can you please elaborate?
      - kube-system 5y ago
openknot 5y ago
The comedic term is "punching up" [0]. It's generally more acceptable to make jokes about the (presumably) wealthy owners of BMWs and Audis, versus "punching down" by making fun of people who comparatively face more disadvantages. [0] Urban Dictionary: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Punch%20Up https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Punch%20Up
- brnaftr361 5y ago
  If we use the punching metaphor, in either case one is committing an act of "violence", which I think most people would acede is negative at least in the large scheme of things.
  - openknot 5y ago
    Violence has different definitions, according to the Oxford English Dictionary [0]. One is: "1. a. The deliberate exercise of physical force against a person, property, etc.; physically violent behaviour or treatment; (Law) the unlawful exercise of physical force, intimidation by the exhibition of such force." Another definition is: "4. Vehemence or intensity of emotion, behaviour, or language; extreme fervour; passion." That the first definition is inherently negative is a separate philosophical discussion (as quick counter-examples where violence may not be negative, consider the violence of a fencing or martial arts match). However, it is clear that "punching up" in this case refers to definition four. I believe that most would agree that intensity of emotion or language is not inherently or necessarily a negative behaviour. [0] Current quoted version is paywalled, but older 1989 edition for reference (may have differences from the quoted version): https://www.oed.com/oed2/00277885 https://www.oed.com/oed2/00277885
TheCoelacanth 5y ago
There's a big difference between stereotyping based on something someone was born with and stereotyping based on something they chose to buy.
- artemonster 5y ago
  That is my problem: I don't see that difference. Its still stereotyping. Can you explain how it makes different to stereotype based on choice or some inherent immutable property? Its the majority of asshole careless drivers (inherent immutable property) that _choose_ to buy a BMW that make up a statistic. Still the stereotype selects that group, not by their choice but by and because of their property (being an asshole careless driver).
grogenaut 5y ago
I can afford a BMW, I've chosen not to buy one. In 08, I technically bought one in a Mini. But it was better MPG (very good for the time), fun, and cute. My buddy has a fast BMW, 2x the price. He got real mad when he drove the mini when he realized that the grand tour guys are right, hot hatches are pretty fun. He was blowing through $1500 in tires every year or so as well. I told him he got the bmw cause he's a dbag and a defense lawyer. He agreed that he is a dbag and he needed to show off as a lawyer. Every one of my friends who has a BMW would agree they care about appearences and are a bit of a dbag, I have about 10 from college/highschool/the neighborhood. So I'd be making fun of myself or my friends. Personally I want multiple fun to drive vehicles. But I'd also rather have a CNC mill sharing space a motorcycle in the garage instead of a car I'm wiping with a diaper for the same price. It's also quite common and a source of fun in many communities to make fun of the other brand. Many of these jokes are great at summarizing why people buy a thing. Ford vs Chevy. It can also get bit annoying and detract from what would otherwise be a useful conversation. "Fix Or Repair Daily" isn't very helpful. However "yamaha bike owners ask which valve head shims to buy, bmw owners ask which dealer is the most reputable" is a good description of the mindset for those respective brands, and the what the owners are looking for. Case in point, many BMWs only have an oil low sensor. How low? drain it and measure the volume, no dip stick. This carried over to my mini (bmw made), when the low oil light came on it was at .75 of 4 quarts, basically empty and damaging itself, and the dipstick is almost unreadable except in bright sunlight, but it's sure stylish.
- pwython 5y ago
  Wow. You're all over the place with this comment dude. > "Every one of my friends who has a BMW would agree they care about appearences and are a bit of a dbag, I have about 10..." I would seriously reconsider who is the dbag among your 10 BMW friends. The people that care about what car someone drives are the ones venting about their buddies spending money on tires and quarts of oil online. Unless I missed the part where they made fun of your self-described "cute" Mini Cooper. Some people like quick cars, or cars that look nice.
  - grogenaut 5y ago
    Almost of these comments are from my friend about the his own driving habits with the car. It's his money he can blow through tires if he wants. He's the one calling himself a dbag. I think he's got redeeming qualities and some insecurities, it's why he's still a friend.

civilized 5y ago

I take care not to violate society's statistical taboos.

artemonster 5y ago
Ah, allright, I think I got the pattern. Next time someone wants to: """Everywhere you go, there will be {insert derogatory but also statistically backed pattern} Disproportionately they will be {insert your -ist qualifier}""" You just have to say sorry and it will be okay?
- civilized 5y ago
  Have you considered what you personally believe is right? Why go around being an enforcer for social rules you don't even know if you believe in?
  - artemonster 5y ago
    I personally believe in statistics and I believe you cannot use them to make derogatory generalizations. I mean racists REALLY love to pull out crime statistics out of their pockets in justification of their views. And, frankly, its not about my beliefs right now and enforcing of societal rules, its about you making derogatory generalizations and thinking that its okay, because "statistics" and because you've said sorry.
    - civilized 5y ago
      Well, I don't believe what you believe. I think you have an overly general moral rule that you think is necessary for consistency, but it's not really, and it's just your personal belief. Your belief implies it is improper to use statistics to describe morally salient human behavior in any way, unless the conclusion is that there is no variation. I think that's silly and intellectually impoverishing. Groups have different average behavior and I don't see the point in blinding myself to that. We all know that averages don't determine an individual, and we all know that some generalizations should be avoided, but that doesn't imply some broad fatwa, completely irrespective of context, against noting broad variations in group behavior. The prosecutor attitude is very entertaining though. Feel free to keep doing that.
      - artemonster 5y ago
        I personally dont require that consistency, I was merely asking WHY there is a difference in treatment of the same method (making generalized statements about group behaviour) when applied to different qualifiers. And yes, just as you've said, maintaining that consistency does imply that you suddenly can't use any statistics at all. Point taken on "prosecutor attitude", sorry about that. riding "moral high horse" got to my head.
        civilized 5y ago
        It sounds like you don't believe what you just said you did? I'm genuinely asking what you believe, as opposed to what you assert for the sake of argument. For me, it's not an easy topic but I would say when negative generalizations escalate to exclusion and dehumanization, that's probably where to draw the line. I know some people with Audis and I don't think worse of them or anything like that. It's just a funny thing that's hard to ignore after a while on the road.
        artemonster 5y ago
        Thank you for the insight on where you draw the line, that explains a lot. Still, a hard terrain to navigate on when you can say something and when you can't, even if you make correct statements backed up by data. Just to be clear we're on the same page: I've made absolutely same observation about other bmw drivers. and we, humans, do exactly that: observe and generalize. Regarding my personal beliefs, as I've stated above "I personally believe in statistics and I believe you cannot use* them to make derogatory* generalizations" 1. regarding "use": you cannot use specifically statistics/data to justify any *-ist remark. "I hate bmw drivers because most of them are assholes on the road", an example of that (not what you said!) 2. regarding "derogatory": you can(and should!) use statistics to do (just) generalizations, i.e. in a context of talking about group behaviour. "most of bmw drivers are agressive and dangerous drivers, as shown by this data" is a perfectly fine statement. My problem is that you can say that sort of statements about certain group of drivers, but if you would have pulled up a similar argument and used (for example) PoC and crime rates, you would have been torn to pieces by everyone. And for me, on the surface, the statement and the structure would be absolutely the same (and it is STILL not escalated to exclusion and dehumanization). So whats the difference? And why different treatment? People above are arguing that buying BMW its a choice and using inherent (immutable) properties (i.e. race/gender) is different for the case of stereotyping, but I cannot see the key difference that makes okay to do one and not okay to do another.

JKCalhoun 5y ago

You can choose whether to buy a BMW or not?

artemonster 5y ago
but having one does not make you an asshole driver

brnaftr361 5y ago

I do think that's a pretty interesting point. It's a weird move to sweep under the rug. I guess you could argue that having a BMW is a choice, and it has associated stereotypes, which we can infer is sort of like joining a club. race/gender are probabilistic and unalterable, one doesn't necessarily elect to inherit the stereotypes associated with race/gender. You're essentially being delegated expectations that may or may not be in alignment with personal values. There are definitely double-standards in play though, a sort of socio-cognitive warfare, I suppose.

artemonster 5y ago
I am unsure whether the (im)mutability of a qualifier plays a role. For example, religion is a choice, but making generalized derogatory statements about certain religious groups is not okay either. You can try it with the pattern of "civilized" user: """Everywhere you go, there will be _men hitting their wivers_. Disproportionately they will be ..." and say sorry afterwards. You will be making a statistically correct statement, but you will be flagged and IRL punched in the face for saying that. But somehow saying that about BMW drivers is still allright?
- kube-system 5y ago
  Religion is a choice in the same way citizenship is a choice. Sometimes it is a choice, often you’re born into it, and you often have to meet qualifications to change it, and some of those may be impossible to meet. And your social environment may impose some significant expectations on you.
  - artemonster 5y ago
    now you're trying to argue about a specifics of the example I've given. Its tangent to the main question: whether stereotyping on something that is a choice or inherent is different? If you say that it is, can you please elaborate?
    - kube-system 5y ago

openknot 5y ago

The comedic term is "punching up" [0]. It's generally more acceptable to make jokes about the (presumably) wealthy owners of BMWs and Audis, versus "punching down" by making fun of people who comparatively face more disadvantages. [0] Urban Dictionary: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Punch%20Up https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Punch%20Up

brnaftr361 5y ago
If we use the punching metaphor, in either case one is committing an act of "violence", which I think most people would acede is negative at least in the large scheme of things.
- openknot 5y ago
  Violence has different definitions, according to the Oxford English Dictionary [0]. One is: "1. a. The deliberate exercise of physical force against a person, property, etc.; physically violent behaviour or treatment; (Law) the unlawful exercise of physical force, intimidation by the exhibition of such force." Another definition is: "4. Vehemence or intensity of emotion, behaviour, or language; extreme fervour; passion." That the first definition is inherently negative is a separate philosophical discussion (as quick counter-examples where violence may not be negative, consider the violence of a fencing or martial arts match). However, it is clear that "punching up" in this case refers to definition four. I believe that most would agree that intensity of emotion or language is not inherently or necessarily a negative behaviour. [0] Current quoted version is paywalled, but older 1989 edition for reference (may have differences from the quoted version): https://www.oed.com/oed2/00277885 https://www.oed.com/oed2/00277885

TheCoelacanth 5y ago

There's a big difference between stereotyping based on something someone was born with and stereotyping based on something they chose to buy.

artemonster 5y ago
That is my problem: I don't see that difference. Its still stereotyping. Can you explain how it makes different to stereotype based on choice or some inherent immutable property? Its the majority of asshole careless drivers (inherent immutable property) that _choose_ to buy a BMW that make up a statistic. Still the stereotype selects that group, not by their choice but by and because of their property (being an asshole careless driver).

grogenaut 5y ago

I can afford a BMW, I've chosen not to buy one. In 08, I technically bought one in a Mini. But it was better MPG (very good for the time), fun, and cute. My buddy has a fast BMW, 2x the price. He got real mad when he drove the mini when he realized that the grand tour guys are right, hot hatches are pretty fun. He was blowing through $1500 in tires every year or so as well. I told him he got the bmw cause he's a dbag and a defense lawyer. He agreed that he is a dbag and he needed to show off as a lawyer. Every one of my friends who has a BMW would agree they care about appearences and are a bit of a dbag, I have about 10 from college/highschool/the neighborhood. So I'd be making fun of myself or my friends. Personally I want multiple fun to drive vehicles. But I'd also rather have a CNC mill sharing space a motorcycle in the garage instead of a car I'm wiping with a diaper for the same price. It's also quite common and a source of fun in many communities to make fun of the other brand. Many of these jokes are great at summarizing why people buy a thing. Ford vs Chevy. It can also get bit annoying and detract from what would otherwise be a useful conversation. "Fix Or Repair Daily" isn't very helpful. However "yamaha bike owners ask which valve head shims to buy, bmw owners ask which dealer is the most reputable" is a good description of the mindset for those respective brands, and the what the owners are looking for. Case in point, many BMWs only have an oil low sensor. How low? drain it and measure the volume, no dip stick. This carried over to my mini (bmw made), when the low oil light came on it was at .75 of 4 quarts, basically empty and damaging itself, and the dipstick is almost unreadable except in bright sunlight, but it's sure stylish.

pwython 5y ago
Wow. You're all over the place with this comment dude. > "Every one of my friends who has a BMW would agree they care about appearences and are a bit of a dbag, I have about 10..." I would seriously reconsider who is the dbag among your 10 BMW friends. The people that care about what car someone drives are the ones venting about their buddies spending money on tires and quarts of oil online. Unless I missed the part where they made fun of your self-described "cute" Mini Cooper. Some people like quick cars, or cars that look nice.
- grogenaut 5y ago
  Almost of these comments are from my friend about the his own driving habits with the car. It's his money he can blow through tires if he wants. He's the one calling himself a dbag. I think he's got redeeming qualities and some insecurities, it's why he's still a friend.