Simplifying the concept of 'group'.

[There are some on this site who think things through and comment in an informative manner rather than striving to 'win' 'or, worse yet, spewing ideological talking points ad nauseum. It's to the former that this post is directed.]

Over the years I've noted how often demagogues have advanced themselves through instilling fear and hate in others. That fear and hate is almost without exception directed at a group. The group can be political, racial, ethnic or what have you. It has often, in years passed, been the path to war and other atrocities. Right now in the United States of America and in certain other nations, the LGBTQ 'group' has been targeted.

How susceptible we are to falling into the fear and hate trap depends upon how we view our fellow h. sapiens. I've come to see us as two, and only two, 'groups'. There are those people whom I've met and therefore, to some degree, know. Then there is the much larger group of those whom I've yet to meet. That's it. Two groups. There's some of each race, ethnicity, religion, political ideology, and more in both groups.

"Yes," someone might say, "but what about criminals? Aren't they a group?" My answer is that some h. sapiens commit criminal acts. I do not confuse or merge actions with people. Some people I know have committed criminal acts. Many who I have yet to meet have also done the same. I have no need for the 'group' called 'criminals'.

This isn't to say that I condone certain actions. I find some actions loathsome and heartily condemn them. I do not, though, let that lead to a blanket condemnation of a group of people. And I have to catch myself, time and again, thinking in the old group way. But I at least do catch myself. This tamps down both hate and fear.

I would appreciate comments.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Kind of reminds one of the poem "First they came for the .... and I did not speak out. Because I was not a.."

Yes, targeting groups, one by one, has been a long standing tactic by insipient dictatorships. And it's up to We The People to speak out while there is still time. But time is not unlimited.

And furthermore, when speaking out, we should not fear being "tagged" as part of a group. Because that is also part of the strategy. To tag anybody who disagrees with them in a group that is already targeted: "You defend Disney free speech because you're a socialist!" or "Teachers want students to read books that have gay characters because they are pedophiles".... In this forum examples of what you describe abound. I do believe that we need to call them out clearly, explicitly and by name.

 

Simplifying the concept of 'group'.

Oxymoron!

Here you go SIMPLE

 

Only for people who believe that describing reality is as "simplistic" as looking it up in a dictionary. But won't work for people who analyze reality in a more profound realistic way.

 

Simplifying the concept of 'group'.

The question was pretty straight forward Golem, why complicate it?

 

What is your point? What, are you saying, is an oxymoron?

 

Hi, Golem.

I think you've gotten hold of the heart of my little OP. We h. sapiens are often rationalizing, as opposed to rational, creatures. When someone makes an appeal to our visceral emotional responses, [Ed.: "What if that was your child?",] we bypass the rational circuitry in our brains and just react.

It takes an act of will to blunt those responses. For most of us, they're hard-wired in place. Note the word blunt. I don't think we can just shut them off. I've tried, through my 'two group' concept, to at least recognize them a goodly part of the time and give my rational brain a chance to function.

In doing so, I sometimes see a different world. I'm a poor fit, I'm afraid, for the lib/can, red/blue, Dem/Rep dichotomy evident on this forum.

Regards, stay safe 'n well, and thank you for responding.

 

Thanks. I don't think you need to be Democrat or Republican to call out authoritarianism in a more specific manner.

Remember the poem I mentioned. Don't be forced later to add to it "Then they came after [teachers, women, liberals, gay people...] And I didn't speak out because I wasn't a ..." By then it will be too late.

 

Disagreeing with the central premise of BLM does not mean that one hates all black people. It merely means they disagree specifically with BLM

Disagreeing with the politics of old-school feminism does not mean that one therefore hates all women. It merely means that one disagrees with the liberal politics pushed by the so-called feminist movement.

Disagreeing with the tactics of the organized LGBTQ+ does not mean that one therefore hates all gay people.


I say all of this to convey that I infer from your words that you are trying to imply that people that are anti-the tactics of the modern LGBTQ+ movement, therefore, hate all LGBTQ people. While there are undoubtedly a small few that do hate all LGBTQ people, as someone that opposes the nonstop drumbeat of LGBTQ agenda that feels like it is being shoved down society's throat, I resent the notion that this means that I hate all LGBTQ people.

I merely hate the tactics of the LGBTQ lobby. There is an enormous difference. I am not so sure that your OP recognizes that difference. There needs to be a delineation between disliking a lobbying group versus disliking those they represent.

 

The central (and probably ONLY) premise of BLM is that black lives matter just as much as the life of white people. I don't know if you can call disagreeing with that "hate", but it's close.

 

Yes, group think and the "us vs. the others" mentality is easily exploited by power-hungry politicians, who want to install themselves as authoritarians, or worse. I know, I am from Germany, and that particular dark part of our history, i.e. the Arian race against the others, can never be erased from memory. The antidote to this mentality is to travel and live in other countries. As Mark Twain said: "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness,...".

Unfortunately, the ones most likely to succumb to group think mentality are the ones who never left their hometown. I know, because I live in a place like that, where probably 70%+ of the population grew up there and never left. I, as someone who moved there for work reasons, will never be accepted into the "insider" group, who grew up there (not that I try). In their minds, I'll always be a second class citizen. It's very noticeable when watching my son's high school football games. Of course, this is a broad brush, there are always exceptions to the rule, and they are very refreshing. Those are the open-minded people I identify and hang out with at the game.

 

The central premise of BLM is that unarmed blacks are being shot by police in disproportionate numbers due to racism. I disagree with that premise. Regardless, this is off topic from my reply.

To go off on the black lives matter as much as white is to fall victim to their trope. Their true goal is to push the systemic racism angle and in order to do so, they use the blacks lives matter as much as white slogan to push that goal.

 

Unarmed blacks ARE shot by police disproportionately. Study after study, statistic after statistic proves this. ZERO demonstrate the opposite. So it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's a matter of denying reality. And those who promote denying this reality DO hate black people. So it might not be 100% accurate to attribute "hate" to everybody who bought their propaganda. But, as I said, it's not too far off.

That is the one and only "central premise", as you describe it, of BLM. All these "hidden motives" were made up by those who do hate black people for you to hide behind when confronted with facts. If not wanting to see your son dead because a cop thought you were pulling out a gun when you reach for your insurance card and registration is not motive enough for you, then there are a hundred conspiracy theories white supremacists have made up for you. But "hate" cannot be discarded in every case for people who choose to accept them and repeat them.

 

I guess I'd put it another way. Demagogues are expert at exploiting latent feelings of hatred and fear in those who become their followers. But one does not need to be a demagogue to elicit such emotions. Before it became the POT the GOP exploited fear/dislike of people based on race, ethnicity, religion, political ideology, and more for decades.

 

While I have no desire to get too far in the weeds on this off-topic subject...

None demonstrate the opposite? Zero? Are you sure about that?

No racial bias in police shootings, study by Harvard professor shows - Washington Times

Or did you just mean "zero" that you care to read? This is from a liberal black Harvard professor that set out with a hypothesis to prove the opposite. He described this as the most surprising result of his career. This one took all of 5 seconds to find. Now you know.

 

Hi, FAW.

I believe you have not really gotten to the heart of what I wrote. To me, grouping people together as BLM or LGBTQ or whatever is the first step on a very slippery slope to confusing one's disapproval for certain actions with a group of people. The de-humanization of that group has, all too often, followed. I have Dame History as my witness.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Hi, Lee Atwater.

Yup! Playing on the prejudices we've absorbed from our families and friends is part of the demagogue's tool kit. It provides the first toehold. The trick is to somehow inoculate ourselves against it and give our rational minds -- to further the analogy, our immune system -- time to get out of bed, put on its clothes and get to work.

Regards, best wishes to you and yours.

 

I believe that I specifically did get to the heart of what you wrote, and the reason you do not see that is because you have not gotten to the heart of what I wrote.

One can oppose the actions of a lobbying group that purports to represent a group of people, without hating that group of people. They are separate entities. If you want to say that some people take that too far and let their dislike for the lobbying group impact their liking for the individuals, I would agree that sometimes happens, but I resent the implication that you seem to be making which is that if you oppose the actions of the LGBTQ lobby that you therefore dislike LGBTQ people. They are not one and the same.

I have no idea what dame history means.

 

Just sayin'.

Researchers are raising red flags about a recent study on race and deadly encounters with police in the United States, highlighting the difficulties in measuring racial bias. The study claimed that white police were no more likely than their nonwhite colleagues to shoot minorities. But now, other researchers say the study was flawed and that it adds little to the debate over whether minorities have a greater chance of getting shot by police than white civilians.

"It's just a completely indefensible conclusion to draw from the data that's available," says Dean Knox, a political scientist at Princeton University who published a critique of the study this month. To begin to justify such a claim, he says, researchers would need to know how often black and white civilians encounter police officers—something the authors of the original study did not consider in the paper.
https://www.science.org/content/art...ce-no-more-likely-shoot-minorities-draws-fire

 

So you mean that leftists criticized a Harvard study that didnt push the narrative they wish to push?

Color me shocked! (sarcasm)

This sort of reminds me of how the Washington Post endeavored to document a database of police shootings by race, until they realized after a few years that the data being produced ( especially by unarmed being shot) was not supporting their narrative, so they opted to end it. If it had supported their narrative, it is safe to say they would be touting it at every turn.

 

Perhaps it’s a function of thinking things through too thoroughly, but I’m often baffled by posts like this. The OP begins with setting precise parameters creating two distinct groupings of individuals but later introduces the premise only two (distinctly different) groups exist in their thought processes. It leaves me wondering if I’m supposed to subscribe to the second premise or not as it was intentionally violated in the opening statement premise.

But I’ll address the second premise anyway…

Absolutely, demagogues use emotions of fear (and fear generated hate) to advance their agendas. On everything from gay marriage to drug prohibition to gun control. Fear is a POWERFUL motivator. And if enough fear of a thing can be drummed up, eventually hate will follow.

So do you fear the group you have not met/do not know more or less than the group you have met? If the answer is there is no fear of either, why create the groups?

That’s fine I guess until one wishes to invoke science to guide their beliefs. Science uses observations of distinct groupings to make conclusions about reality.

That’s the key in my opinion. As long as one can address individuals one on one as equal humans with intrinsic value, groupings are irrelevant except for what we can learn through application of the scientific method to groups. Just as important as personally seeing individuals is avoiding the tendency to mistake criticism of individuals as equal to criticism of groups.

It’s all about seeing EVERYONE as an individual with intrinsic value independent of what groups they may or may not belong to.

 

ZERO!!!! You have to read the study, not just the headline. It's not accurate that the study showed no bias. It didn't find evidence of bias in shootings in 10 specific precincts within a specific range of dates. Anybody familiar with studies will tell you it's not the same. The former simply indicates that more studies are needed. However, it DID find bias in use of force against black people.

And more studies HAVE been carried out. Using a much broader sampling. And I have provided dozens of links. They HAVE been getting worse since the year the study you quote was published.

You are correct that it's off-topic here. However, it's not off topic in those. Here is one, for example.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-does-critical-race-theory-teach.589535/

Here are a few more done a a nationwide basis (not "10 precincts"), not mentioned there

https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/
https://jech.bmj.com/content/75/4/394

OR



https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/

As I said, denying facts just because they don't fit an agenda is... "hate"? I don't know. But it has to be something similar.

 

Hi again, FAW.

Thank you for the clarification.

'Dame History' is nothing more than a literary device.

Regards, best wishes to you and yours.

 

Ten precincts should give a pretty good overall representation.

Face it. Blacks tend to resort to violence more often than whites. There is one single statistic which is overwhelming. Even with only about one seventh the population of whites, blacks kill approximately the same number of blacks that whites kill whites. White people tend not to kill black people and black people tend not to kill white people. It is likely this same predisposition towards violence carries over towards encounters with police. In addition, it is practically taught by such people as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who preach how bad the police are.

 

You said zero. None.

You are wrong. Demonstrably.

MergedFile (nber.org)

"On the most extreme use of force – officerinvolved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account"




....maybe you can protest just enough so that it will confuse someone just glancing at this exchange? I have observed you long enough to know your tactics.