Boards platform for radical opinions, a future consideration?

Fysh

peasant wrote: »

Sorry ...but at least to me ...that is just the slightly more eloquent version of racism. The difference between labelling individuals by skin colour or by "sociocultural background" is just the sound, not the message.

Labelling a whole people with one rubber stamp is pure racism ..no matter how well educated you make the label sound.

peasant wrote: »

Post number 55 ?
number 55?
number?

My (user) name is peasant ...if you want to adress me, have the decency to do so by my name ...I'm not a number.

But statistics are soo much easier to deal with, aren't they? Reduce individuals to numbers and percentages, deny them their individuality.
That's the accountancy version of racism.

From reading your earlier posts in this thread, but specifically the two posts quoted above, I am led to believe that you are unwilling or unable to discern between an unsupported generalisation based on race or nationality, and a statement of probability based on stated sources of information.

Like it or not, it's possible to be shaped by your background such that you conform to a trend that can be analysed on a national level from social, economic, educational and political perspectives. These trends can be of use and merit in informed debate, which a discussion avenue like boards will thrive on, so long as valid and objective sources are cited for any information relevant to the debate at hand.

What boards needs to stamp out is ignorant prejudice; however, denying that there can ever be any behavioural trends which can correspond to any kind of larger grouping (be it based on nationality, gender, sexual preference, ethnic background, political affiliation, or anything else) is to miss the point. The point of stamping out prejudice isn't to stop people noticing the differences between them, but to stop people using those differences as an excuse for giving one person prefential treatment over another.

peasant

Fysh wrote: »

From reading your earlier posts in this thread, but specifically the two posts quoted above, I am led to believe that you are unwilling or unable to discern between an unsupported generalisation based on race or nationality, and a statement of probability based on stated sources of information.

Like it or not, it's possible to be shaped by your background such that you conform to a trend that can be analysed on a national level from social, economic, educational and political perspectives. These trends can be of use and merit in informed debate, which a discussion avenue like boards will thrive on, so long as valid and objective sources are cited for any information relevant to the debate at hand.

What boards needs to stamp out is ignorant prejudice; however, denying that there can ever be any behavioural trends which can correspond to any kind of larger grouping (be it based on nationality, gender, sexual preference, ethnic background, political affiliation, or anything else) is to miss the point. The point of stamping out prejudice isn't to stop people noticing the differences between them, but to stop people using those differences as an excuse for giving one person prefential treatment over another.

First off, I didn't make any earlier posts in this thread.

Above you are talking about the difference between "ignorant prejudice" and "a statement of probability based on stated sources of information."

My point is that there is no difference. As soon as you shove individuals into a generalised group (whatever the defining factor for that grouping may be) you are being dismissive of the inherent individualism that all humans posess. We all do that at times, it makes discussion easier to classify people into "all accountants, all bankers" are like this or that. But it is unfair to the individual and not always helpful to the discussion either.

As soon as you classify by ethnicity it's racist. Simple as that. Whether you do so out of ignorance or based on "science" or statistics doesn't really matter.


An example from the recent past:

It doesn't matter if you call someone "subhuman" because he's a "jew bastard" or because the measurements of his skull fall within the scientifically established parameters for people of judaic background.

The racism is the same ...just the "scientific" one is even more dangerous because it's made to look more substantiated than the sheer ignorant polemics. The "scientific" or "statistical" racism is also so much harder to stamp out.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

peasant

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Funnily enough ...neither do I.

Any action/behaviour worthy of criticism should be critifiable (?) regardless of who commited it.

BUT

The reverse is where the problem is: Stating that certain behaviours/actions automatically (or with a statstical probability of X percent) are to be expected from certain people because of their ethnicity ...that's racism.

K-9

peasant wrote: »

The "scientific" or "statistical" racism is also so much harder to stamp out.

Even if the statistics are relevant?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

peasant

K-9 wrote: »

Even if the statistics are relevant?

Relevant statistics?

Let's make up some then ...you're Irish, so statistically speaking the following applies to you (made-up statistics, no time to do the research, but you get the jist)

You are 29.8 years old, you have 1.7 children, your annual income is 32,576 Euro, you drink 5 standard units of alcohol a week and you will die at the age of 72.4 years.

How much of that is relevant to you?

peasant

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So this explains that Nigeria is a corrupt state. A statement of fact.

Pamela whatshername had forged documents. Also a fact.

Pamela is from Nigeria. Another fact.

Therefore it was to be expected that Pamela's documents were forged. That's racism.

It's really simple.

K-9

peasant wrote: »

Relevant statistics?

Let's make up some then ...you're Irish, so statistically speaking the following applies to you (made-up statistics, no time to do the research, but you get the jist)

You are 29.8 years old, you have 1.7 children, your annual income is 32,576 Euro, you drink 5 standard units of alcohol a week and you will die at the age of 72.4 years.

How much of that is relevant to you?

Lol, nice evasion of my point.

Without picking on one section, there was a book about the Travelling community a few years ago that caused huge contoversy. One of the main points was that they had a higher propensity to be involved in criminal activity.

If somebody wanted to point that out, obviously with reasonably accurate statistics, is that a racist statement or is it something that needs to be discussed?*

*Obviously that does not mean all Travellers are criminals!

peasant

K-9 wrote: »

Without picking on one section, there was a book about the Travelling community a few years ago that caused huge contoversy. One of the main points was that they had a higher propensity to be involved in criminal activity.

If somebody wanted to point that out, obviously with reasonably accurate statistics, is that a racist statement or is it something that needs to be discussed?

Statistics are just that. Statistically speaking travellers may have more envolvement in crime than the rest of the population. You can disect that, point it out, discuss it as much as you like.

Provided that you don't make the generalisation from the statistic to the individual.

K-9

peasant wrote: »

Statistics are just that. Statistically speaking travellers may have more envolvement in crime than the rest of the population. You can disect that, point it out, discuss it as much as you like.

Provided that you don't make the generalisation from the statistic to the individual.

Obviously, but I'd say it's extremely important it is discussed if society wants to do anything about it!

People from lower income backgrounds have more of a chance of being sent to prison. Surely not alone is something like that topical and debatable, as a society it must be discussed.

Fysh

peasant wrote: »

My point is that there is no difference. As soon as you shove individuals into a generalised group (whatever the defining factor for that grouping may be) you are being dismissive of the inherent individualism that all humans posess. We all do that at times, it makes discussion easier to classify people into "all accountants, all bankers" are like this or that. But it is unfair to the individual and not always helpful to the discussion either.

As soon as you classify by ethnicity it's racist. Simple as that. Whether you do so out of ignorance or based on "science" or statistics doesn't really matter.


An example from the recent past:

It doesn't matter if you call someone "subhuman" because he's a "jew bastard" or because the measurements of his skull fall within the scientifically established parameters for people of judaic background.

The racism is the same ...just the "scientific" one is even more dangerous because it's made to look more substantiated than the sheer ignorant polemics. The "scientific" or "statistical" racism is also so much harder to stamp out.

I used the phrases "a statement of probability based on stated sources of information" and "it's possible to be shaped by your background such that you conform to a trend" in my post for a reason.

Statistical analysis of behaviour based on groupings such as sexual orientation, ethnicity, political affiliation, religious beliefs, or any other number of facts, can be of use in examining and understanding human behaviour. They are only an indication of a trend, however. So saying "As a male Irish national in the 24-35 age bracket, you are more likely to consume at least 6 units of alcohol a week than a male Bulgarian national in the same age bracket" would be a valid statement (assuming the statistics cited were objective, from a reputable source, etc etc), whereas "You're male, Irish, and 27, therefore you go out on the piss every weekend" is precisely the kind of unjustifiable statistical extrapolation that prejudice is based on.

However, any usage of statistics worth a damn should be talking about probabilities rather than hard fact since that's the entire basis of statistics. On the other hand, the fact that we are individuals and should be treated as individuals does not negate the fact that as members of a highly tribal species we will often display behaviour that matches a trend that can be linked to given factors. The point with any kind of equality legislation or guidelines should always be to treat people equally regardless of their differences, rather than to refuse to even acknowledge those differences.

Jack B. Badd

peasant wrote: »

Post number 55 ?
number 55?
number?

My (user) name is peasant ...if you want to adress me, have the decency to do so by my name ...I'm not a number.


But statistics are soo much easier to deal with, aren't they? Reduce individuals to numbers and percentages, deny them their individuality.
That's the accountancy version of racism.

As we are moved beyond the specific and are now dealing witht the general, I mentioned the post number specifically to draw the distinction between the post's contents as representative of wider attitudes and you, the poster.
Your post highlights the issue of unthinking reaction which may fan the flames of an argument and not necessarily to the benefit of the discussion. If I am to be faced with an unthinking response, I would prefer that it be of the order of "Drawing any distinction between individuals based on race or sex is wrong" than "All members of race A are inherintely inferior". However, I would much prefer to be faced with an informed, thoughful and thought-provoking response, as exemplified by donegalfella's posts, that will benefit the discussion.

The_Minister

I've been mega-busy, so I haven't replied to this in detail yet, but I think that what Fysh is referring to is Rational Discrimination.

peasant

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

As we are moved beyond the specific and are now dealing witht the general, I mentioned the post number specifically to draw the distinction between the post's contents as representative of wider attitudes and you, the poster.
Your post highlights the issue of unthinking reaction which may fan the flames of an argument and not necessarily to the benefit of the discussion. If I am to be faced with an unthinking response, I would prefer that it be of the order of "Drawing any distinction between individuals based on race or sex is wrong" than "All members of race A are inherintely inferior". However, I would much prefer to be faced with an informed, thoughful and thought-provoking response, as exemplified by donegalfella's posts, that will benefit the discussion.

Kudos for the most eloquently phrased personal insult I've had the honor of being on the receiving end of.

ShooterSF

Peasant are you equally outraged at Car insurers' prejudice against all young male drivers based on statistics?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

peasant

ShooterSF wrote: »

Peasant are you equally outraged at Car insurers' prejudice against all young male drivers based on statistics?

There is more than one outrage going on in the insurance industry, and yes, I think it is basically unjust and unfair. (My wife, on a provisional licence with no driving experience paid less insurance than me with a full licence and 10 years NCB, for example) ...but that's a separate discussion.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agreed. I was't talking about/to you personally but about the principle.

It takes a lot of conscious effort NOT to generalise when faced with "juicy" statistics that support ones argument/way of thinking. Few people bother to make that effort in a heated discussion.

Fysh

peasant wrote: »

It takes a lot of conscious effort NOT to generalise when faced with "juicy" statistics that support ones argument/way of thinking. Few people bother to make that effort in a heated discussion.

What exactly are these "juicy" statistics? Statistics are either based on a suitably sized sample group or not; the conclusions they draw can either be clearly understood based on a correlation demonstrated from the sample group data or not. Yes, statistics can be manipulated, but that does not mean they're inherently suspect. Hence my emphasis on discussing statistically-based probabilities of behaviour rather than rigidly defined digital states.

You seem to be saying that it's impossible to ever trust any kind of statistical analysis or examination of trends. In an ideal world, we would have the time required to analyse an entire group rather than using statistical samples and attempting to extrapolate from there, but we are not. As such, the options we have are either:

• a) to bury our heads in the sand completely and refuse to acknowledge that any issues of human behaviour can ever be usefully analysed in the context of factors pertaining to individuals (thus also refusing to ever discuss such issues of human behaviour no matter how important or relevant they might be), or
• b) to accept that the inherently limited method of statistical analysis and extrapolation is what is available to us and try to make use of this as best we can, always bearing in mind the limitations of such a system.

For example, the suggestion was made earlier in this thread by Jack B. Badd to restrict discussion of subjects that "are not innately contentious but tend to lead to confrontational exchanges" to fora such as Politics and Humanities where the level of discussion and standards of debate are significantly higher than they might be in the more recreational areas such as AH. Would you agree with this suggestion?

peasant

A statistic is a statistic ...more or less well researched facts and figures.

It becomes "juicy" when its findings support your point of view and tempts you into generalising its results onto all of its subjects as if they were gospel and universal.

A temptation you must resist, if you don't want to fall into the generalisation/racism pitfall.

Fysh

peasant wrote: »

It becomes "juicy" when its findings support your point of view and tempts you into generalising its results onto all of its subjects as if they were gospel and universal.

What you appear to be saying is that a statistical analysis of a population or sample is changed in some way by an undisciplined thinker selectively using statistical information to support an otherwise untenable conclusion.

Statistics are just numerical descriptions of the sample groups which are analysed. Statistics may reveal pleasant or unpleasant trends about the sample groups they relate to, but obfuscation and falsehood only happens when those statistics are misrepresented by a person attempting to prop up an argument which does not otherwise withstand scrutiny.

Once again I feel compelled to point out that you are talking about making generalisations about a population based on a statistical sample (cf "Because you are Irish you also meet these criteria") whereas I am talking about probabilities based on statistical analysis of a sample group (cf "As an Irish national there is a probability of blah% that you also meet criteria X"). Unless you see no difference between a statement of fact and a statement of probability, I don't understand why you are so concerned about the introduction of statistical information into discussions on potentially contentious subjects.

peasant

Fysh wrote: »

Unless you see no difference between a statement of fact and a statement of probability, I don't understand why you are so concerned about the introduction of statistical information into discussions on potentially contentious subjects.

That's the issue. Statistics state facts and facts only. Probabilities cannot be derived from them other than on a purely mathematical/theoretical level.

Simple example:

Statistically speaking every German drinks 100 Liter of beer per head per annum; every Irish person only 50 liters. Also according to (my made up) statistics when going out, 5% of Germans binge drink whereas in Ireland it's 50%.

So, now for probabilities: as a German in Ireland do I drink 100 Liters and binge drink, drink 50 Liters and binge or drink 75 and don't binge?

Actually it's neither of the above because beer is too dear here and I drink about 25 liters max and never binge.

So how many blah percent of beer fit into x binge in my case?

Fysh

OK, at this point I'm completely lost as for where you're going with this. Statistics and probabilities are always mathematical in nature. They give us tools with which to consider single instances within a group. Like it or not, humans sometimes exhibit behaviour based on certain groupings.

At this stage, I have no idea why you think that discussing the statistics of German beer consumption (for example) would implicitly lead to racist statements. I also have no idea what you make of the suggestion made earlier in the thread of restricting such discussion to the more stringent discussion fora. In fact, the only thing I do have an idea on is that we're now dragging the thread significantly off-topic, so I'm going to bow out because I'm not interested in arguing the validity of statistical analysis with you.

K-9

peasant wrote: »

A statistic is a statistic ...more or less well researched facts and figures.

It becomes "juicy" when its findings support your point of view and tempts you into generalising its results onto all of its subjects as if they were gospel and universal.

A temptation you must resist, if you don't want to fall into the generalisation/racism pitfall.

It doesn't make the statistic any less of a fact and any less worthwhile of debate.

How you use the information is up to the individual. I just seen a statistic that 13% of foreign national Child benefit cases investigated by the SW were fraudulent. In certain minds that means they are all at it, in mine it means 87% are claiming what they are entitled to.

The information in itself is not dangerous, how people interpret it is.

peasant

K-9 wrote: »

It doesn't make the statistic any less of a fact and any less worthwhile of debate.

The information in itself is not dangerous, how people interpret it is.

That sort of is my point :rolleyes:

Of course one can discuss statistics. The thing is to stick with the facts and the facts only and also not to infer that any single member of the statistical group is/behaves exactly as the statistic implies.

But in the age of broad strokes with the big brush very few people are able to make that distinction.

K-9

peasant wrote: »

That sort of is my point :rolleyes:

Of course one can discuss statistics. The thing is to stick with the facts and the facts only and also not to infer that any single member of the statistical group is/behaves exactly as the statistic implies.

But in the age of broad strokes with the big brush very few people are able to make that distinction.

Very few? I think that's harsh. A vocal minority IMO.

It still is an important statistic and shows in that case, that it's being investigated when many make the claim it isn't and people are getting away with fraud.

It may actually inform and change opinions! God forbid!

Terry

Ok. Let's just cut through the bull**** and get to the point.

Should boards be a platform for radical opinions?
No. It shouldn't.

Why? Because radicals fall into one of two categories.
1. They hate everyone who isn't like them and will spew racist bile.
2. They are hippies who think everyone should love each other, when that is an impossible thing for humans to do. They will then preach to you if you don't follow their ideals.

Either way, both groups are generally full of idiots who have no place in modern society.
The first group have Storm Front.
The second group live in trees.

We don't need them.

DeVore

We havent gotten past the "let the Moderators decide" option then? Because I dont think we can come up with a litmus test for when something is racist or not... or can we?

DeV.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DeVore

If you were me, what would you decide?

DeV.