One of the most common biggotted slurs

"I know a person who belongs to your racial/ethnic/religious/cultural group so I can make general statements about you and everyone like you."

I even see this here on DU. Do I even have to explain why this is pure unadulterated bigotry?

And it is also EXACTLY the same thing to say "That group of people representing a minority of those people are supporting this issue, so that ENTIRE group of people feels 'x' way about it."

I'm so damn sick and tired of hearing this broadbrush racist, bigotted, ignorant crap here on DU I could :puke:

If it's too much effort for your brain to conceive of the fact that people are individuals then do the world a favor and forget how to speak and write.

Yes groups within groups do stand up and make statements, but there are factions within factions in EVERY faction humanity has divised to divide people into little cubby holes. I mean look at DU for example. Do all Democrats think and feel the same way for the same reasons? If we did, what would we have to talk about on DU? And FFS this is a forum that attracts people who vote the same for damn near the same reasons! And it's still nearly impossible to make generalizations. This is a voluntary group of people who come together to work for the same causes FFS and we can't even agree!

So please think before you generalise.

We CAN make generalizations about groups or classes of people. It's called fucking sociology, and it's perfectly legitimate. The danger is not in generalization itself, but in the following two methodological mistakes:

1) When you mistake historical contingency for biological necessity (this is racism, or sexism, or whatever other naturalization of historical contingency is at issue)
2) When you mistake a probability based on evidence with necessary determination in every case

DUers have no more beloved activity than yelling "broadbrush! broadbrush! I'M not like that!!!!" This is an ultimately stupid and debilitating pre-occupation, because it prevents systematic social analysis. The fact is that groups and classes of people DO behave in coherent ways that can be identified and even predicted. When we exclude such analyses with universal prohibitions against stating what Durkheim called "social facts," we are excluding perhaps one of the most useful areas of knowledge.

To describe a statistical fact about a group is one thing. To ascribe characteristics to a group based on the actions of a small percentage of that group is COMPLETELY different.

Example: "I have seen a few bad women drivers, therefore all women are bad drivers." WRONG
VS
"Statistically speaking women are more likely than men to be involved in car accidents in which they were at fault." Ok fine but who did the study, with how many participants, did they account for hours of the day that men and women drive on average, and for how much time on average?

---------

I'm certain that you can see the difference, and in general people seem to choose the lazy rout because it confirms their bigotry, and reinforces their feelings of superiority.

duh.

There is a difference between a hasty/unwarranted generalization (as an established category of logical fallacy) and legitimate claims of social behavior. That's obvious. The problem on DU is that most people immediately jump to accuse people of the first when they are stating the second.

because even when I am trying to be positive or supportive is backfires.

That the only way to really do so is through the lense of science... and not just science but good peer reviewed replicated science.

There are differences between groups of people. But it must be recognized that there are far MORE differences between the members of those groups of people. that's the distinction that people fail to make, and that's what makes it bigotry IMO.

And anti-semitic to boot!

I'd hate some of those DUers to have to deal with real racists - I know some of those and they are way worse than I could ever be.

"I am a (member of the group) and you, who are not a member, cannot challenge the way I feel about x," and that your opinion is therefore worthless. Then there is no way to respond unless you happen to know of a member of the group who does not feel the same way about x. This is what proves the group members are individuals.

More intellectual laziness and fear of having to debate ones positions.

I have encountered plenty of "real" racists. And I suspect that most of the people here who broadbrush entire peoples speak in much stronger terms when they are not on a progressive forum.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to add a few words when discussing groups of people like instead of saying "Greenpeople are such and such." why not simply say "In this specific incident a group of Greenpeople led by Bob are doing such and such."

The latter is more accurate, less offensive, and not bigoted. Why is that so hard? :shrug:

...WVON. It advertises as the only all black-owned radio station. I hear people who call in all the time say "White people are this...", "White people are that..."

Do I think they believe ALL white people are this or that? No. I find it easier to think that they aren't all bigots and generalists, but for the sake of discussion and time have cut those qualifiers out of their statements.