Election meaningless unless we change for the better

User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4055
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Election meaningless unless we change for the better

Post by pugchief » Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:59 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:09 pm
Mountaineer wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:57 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:39 pm
pugchief wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:39 pm

I generalized it that way because that's the way it is. People who can afford to live in nice neighborhoods typically want to keep the neighborhood nice by keeping up their properties, keeping crime to a minimum and having the best schools.
It's not the generalization of the people in the neighborhood that is problematic. It was the generalization of the "lower class" that is. This very generalization, and the subconscious though process behind it, can cause you to discriminate and oppress others without realizing you're doing it. It can cause you to rationalize and accept things that you know are morally wrong. It labels all the people you're generalizing into a bucket of "them" that are separate from you, and in turn not as valuable as you. You can also unintentionally pass these stereotypes onto others (like children) to ensure they continue to survive and thrive. Is it fair if every person is judged by their stereotypes and generalizations? There is a lot of deep psychology here in generalizations and stereotypes. They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead. It's a vicious cycle really. I've seen this type of thing pop up in my own head, and had to consciously stop myself and say "no, that's not true".
“They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead.”

You appear to have a presumption that “them” are dependent on others for their conditions; that sounds like you believe they are victims. Did I read you correctly?
If someone is judged by their stereotype and not by the content of their character, especially en masse throughout society, then yes they are a victim.
I am judging them by their character. People with character don't act in ways that make you not want them as neighbors.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Election meaningless unless we change for the better

Post by pmward » Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:02 pm

pugchief wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:59 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:09 pm
Mountaineer wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:57 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:39 pm
pugchief wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:39 pm

I generalized it that way because that's the way it is. People who can afford to live in nice neighborhoods typically want to keep the neighborhood nice by keeping up their properties, keeping crime to a minimum and having the best schools.
It's not the generalization of the people in the neighborhood that is problematic. It was the generalization of the "lower class" that is. This very generalization, and the subconscious though process behind it, can cause you to discriminate and oppress others without realizing you're doing it. It can cause you to rationalize and accept things that you know are morally wrong. It labels all the people you're generalizing into a bucket of "them" that are separate from you, and in turn not as valuable as you. You can also unintentionally pass these stereotypes onto others (like children) to ensure they continue to survive and thrive. Is it fair if every person is judged by their stereotypes and generalizations? There is a lot of deep psychology here in generalizations and stereotypes. They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead. It's a vicious cycle really. I've seen this type of thing pop up in my own head, and had to consciously stop myself and say "no, that's not true".
“They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead.”

You appear to have a presumption that “them” are dependent on others for their conditions; that sounds like you believe they are victims. Did I read you correctly?
If someone is judged by their stereotype and not by the content of their character, especially en masse throughout society, then yes they are a victim.
I am judging them by their character. People with character don't act in ways that make you not want them as neighbors.
No, you did not judge an individual for their character. You judged an entire class of people based on the actions of a few. It's ok to say "I don't want people in my neighborhood that will cause crime, property destruction, etc" but it's not ok to say I don't want lower class people in my neighborhood because they won't "take care of their property and contribute positively to the schools" and that they are a bunch of "hooligans, gangs and disruptive students"
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Election meaningless unless we change for the better

Post by Tortoise » Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:09 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:16 pm
Tortoise wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:09 pm
The hypocrisy of people who criticize classism is quite amusing, because the vast majority of them participate in it by living in neighborhoods with the best schools for their kids. They don't voluntarily live in the ghetto to align with their outwardly professed virtue if they can afford not to.

Almost everyone self-segregates based on class, including most people who criticize classism.
Nice strawman!
My apologies for mischaracterizing you. I didn't realize you voluntarily live in a ghetto despite being able to afford a higher-class neighborhood. ;)

Sarcasm aside, I'm assuming you live in a fairly decent neighborhood. Would you ever consider moving to a ghetto to "put your money where your mouth is" and confirm that stereotyping low-class people as a group is unfair and inaccurate?
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Election meaningless unless we change for the better

Post by pmward » Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:15 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:09 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:16 pm
Tortoise wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:09 pm
The hypocrisy of people who criticize classism is quite amusing, because the vast majority of them participate in it by living in neighborhoods with the best schools for their kids. They don't voluntarily live in the ghetto to align with their outwardly professed virtue if they can afford not to.

Almost everyone self-segregates based on class, including most people who criticize classism.
Nice strawman!
My apologies for mischaracterizing you. I didn't realize you voluntarily live in a ghetto despite being able to afford a higher-class neighborhood. ;)

Sarcasm aside, I'm assuming you live in a fairly decent neighborhood. Would you ever consider moving to a ghetto to "put your money where your mouth is" and confirm that stereotyping low-class people as a group is unfair and inaccurate?
This is the key point I'm trying to hammer home with pugchief. There is a difference between saying "I want to live in a nice neighborhood" or "I don't want to live in an area with a lot of crime" and saying "every person that lives in that area is a criminal". Some of the people are criminals in any area you go to... no matter how nice it is. But not every person in any area is a criminal. So to broadly judge every person in an area as anything is false. Even to judge all the people that live in a nice part of town as rich is going to be false, there are going to be some people living on debt alone with a negative or very small net worth. I have friends that live in ritzy Scottsdale houses, getting brand new BMW's and Teslas every year or two, wearing all designer clothes, and not a dimes worth of net worth because of all their debt. There may even be criminals in that nice part of town. You cannot ever assume anything based on where someone lives.
Last edited by pmward on Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4055
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Election meaningless unless we change for the better

Post by pugchief » Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:17 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:02 pm
pugchief wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:59 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:09 pm
Mountaineer wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:57 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 1:39 pm
pugchief wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 12:39 pm

I generalized it that way because that's the way it is. People who can afford to live in nice neighborhoods typically want to keep the neighborhood nice by keeping up their properties, keeping crime to a minimum and having the best schools.
It's not the generalization of the people in the neighborhood that is problematic. It was the generalization of the "lower class" that is. This very generalization, and the subconscious though process behind it, can cause you to discriminate and oppress others without realizing you're doing it. It can cause you to rationalize and accept things that you know are morally wrong. It labels all the people you're generalizing into a bucket of "them" that are separate from you, and in turn not as valuable as you. You can also unintentionally pass these stereotypes onto others (like children) to ensure they continue to survive and thrive. Is it fair if every person is judged by their stereotypes and generalizations? There is a lot of deep psychology here in generalizations and stereotypes. They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead. It's a vicious cycle really. I've seen this type of thing pop up in my own head, and had to consciously stop myself and say "no, that's not true".
“They are extremely harmful to those that the generalization is not true for. It prevents them from being able to free themselves from that generalization, and in turn prevents them from getting ahead... which also prevents their future generations from getting ahead.”

You appear to have a presumption that “them” are dependent on others for their conditions; that sounds like you believe they are victims. Did I read you correctly?
If someone is judged by their stereotype and not by the content of their character, especially en masse throughout society, then yes they are a victim.
I am judging them by their character. People with character don't act in ways that make you not want them as neighbors.
No, you did not judge an individual for their character. You judged an entire class of people based on the actions of a few. It's ok to say "I don't want people in my neighborhood that will cause crime, property destruction, etc" but it's not ok to say I don't want lower class people in my neighborhood because they won't "take care of their property and contribute positively to the schools" and that they are a bunch of "hooligans, gangs and disruptive students"
Fair point. I revise my assessment to "I don't want people in my neighborhood that will cause crime, property destruction, etc", if the government will remove them if they do so, which they won't. So on balance, I'd rather not have any of them since that's where the vast majority of the crime and property deterioration comes from. If I wanted to live in a crime ridden area, I would do so. But I put a lot of hard work in to afford the nice place I moved, so silly me if I want it to stay nice.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Election meaningless unless we change for the better

Post by Tortoise » Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:24 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:15 pm
This is the key point I'm trying to hammer home with pugchief. There is a difference between saying "I want to live in a nice neighborhood" or "I don't want to live in an area with a lot of crime" and saying "every person that lives in that area is a criminal". Some of the people are criminals in any area you go to... no matter how nice it is. But not every person in any area is a criminal. So to broadly judge every person in an area as anything is false. Even to judge all the people that live in a nice part of town as rich is going to be false, there are going to be some people living there that are living there on debt alone with a negative or very small net worth. There may even be criminals in that nice part of town. You cannot ever assume anything based on where someone lives.
I agree with all of that. But if I choose to buy a house in a nice neighborhood so that I can avoid sending my kid to a school with lots of problematic kids (vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent, whatever), that doesn't mean I think every kid at the bad school is problematic. Some of them may be quite exemplary.

Neither pug nor I claimed in this thread that "every person" that lives in a low-class neighborhood exhibits low-class behavior. We're saying that many people in low-class neighborhoods exhibit low-class behavior, and that's enough to dissuade us from living there and sending our kids to those schools. So you seem to be shooting down an "every person" claim that neither of us made, which is -- funny enough -- a strawman fallacy just like the one you accused me of in an earlier post.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Election meaningless unless we change for the better

Post by pmward » Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:44 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:24 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:15 pm
This is the key point I'm trying to hammer home with pugchief. There is a difference between saying "I want to live in a nice neighborhood" or "I don't want to live in an area with a lot of crime" and saying "every person that lives in that area is a criminal". Some of the people are criminals in any area you go to... no matter how nice it is. But not every person in any area is a criminal. So to broadly judge every person in an area as anything is false. Even to judge all the people that live in a nice part of town as rich is going to be false, there are going to be some people living there that are living there on debt alone with a negative or very small net worth. There may even be criminals in that nice part of town. You cannot ever assume anything based on where someone lives.
I agree with all of that. But if I choose to buy a house in a nice neighborhood so that I can avoid sending my kid to a school with lots of problematic kids (vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent, whatever), that doesn't mean I think every kid at the bad school is problematic. Some of them may be quite exemplary.

Neither pug nor I claimed in this thread that "every person" that lives in a low-class neighborhood exhibits low-class behavior. We're saying that many people in low-class neighborhoods exhibit low-class behavior, and that's enough to dissuade us from living there and sending our kids to those schools. So you seem to be shooting down an "every person" claim that neither of us made, which is -- funny enough -- a strawman fallacy just like the one you accused me of in an earlier post.
No, go re-read the quote that pug made that started this whole thing. He said he didn't want "lower class" people in his neighborhood because they won't "take care of their property and contribute positively to the schools" and that they are a bunch of "hooligans, gangs and disruptive students". Not every poor person doesn't take care of their property. Not every poor person is a hooligan, gangbanger, causing problems at school. You jumped in on that discussion between me and him mid-stream and started trying to twist what I was saying into something else entirely. I'm not telling people that if they choose to live in a nice, low crime area that they are classist. I'm saying that attributing those negative stereotypical traits to all poor people is not only false, it is incredibly harmful. It's ok to judge a criminal as a criminal. It's ok to judge a vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent teen as a vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent teen. It's not ok to judge an entire group of people as these things.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Election meaningless unless we change for the better

Post by Tortoise » Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:50 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:44 pm
No, go re-read the quote that pug made that started this whole thing. He said he didn't want "lower class" people in his neighborhood because they won't "take care of their property and contribute positively to the schools" and that they are a bunch of "hooligans, gangs and disruptive students". Not every poor person doesn't take care of their property. Not every poor person is a hooligan, gangbanger, causing problems at school. You jumped in on that discussion between me and him mid-stream and started trying to twist what I was saying into something else entirely. I'm not telling people that if they choose to live in a nice, low crime area that they are classist. I'm saying that attributing those negative stereotypical traits to all poor people is not only false, it is incredibly harmful. It's ok to judge a criminal as a criminal. It's ok to judge a vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent teen as a vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent teen. It's not ok to judge an entire group of people as these things.
Fair enough, I think I understand the distinction now. You're saying something like the following:

Okay: I'd rather not live in that low-class neighborhood, because many of the people who live there exhibit low-class behaviors.

Not okay: I currently live in a nice neighborhood and dislike the fact that someone who appears to be low-class just moved into this neighborhood, because although I haven't seen them exhibit low-class behavior yet, I'm assuming they're likely to.

If that's roughly what you're saying, then I'm completely on board with that.
Last edited by Tortoise on Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tomfoolery
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:47 pm

Re: Election meaningless unless we change for the better

Post by tomfoolery » Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:51 pm

I think I see the problem here between pug and pm

In a poor neighborhood, there might be 90% good people and 10% leaving trash on the ground, dealing drugs, blasting loud music at night, getting into roving gun battles in the street.

And in the rich neighborhood, that 90% “good” people increases to 99.999%. And I’m using “good” to refer to neighbor-like qualities. Not good in any objective sense. Such that in the Ritzy neighborhoods, there’s no drug dealer shootouts happening on a nightly basis.

The problem is that one cannot live in the poor neighborhood and exclude those 10% who are shitbags. Or even if only 1% are shitbags, that’s a lot of shitbags, plenty to make life a problem with noise issues, property crime, stray bullets, litter, etc.

So yeah, if one could live in a neighborhood full of only poor people who are not shitbags, then I think we’d do it. Hell, it would be a massive cost savings to me.

But, the only way to avoid living with shitbags is to spend 5x to 10x on your housing and live with upper middle class and rich folks.

I suppose we could say let the police deal with the shitbags and clean up the poor neighborhoods and get rid of litter, noise, stray bullets, and then people like me and pug might live there. But, we’ve seen what happens when armed KKK in blue uniforms with metal badges are allowed to run loose in high crime areas under the guise of “cleaning up the streets”.

So I guess the answer is defund the police and send tons of social workers to high crime areas and once the crime and nuisance stops, money will flow in from people like me looking to retire early in a low cost of living neighborhood.

Except then us moving in will drive up the home values, and through gentrification price out the poor natives.

So, shit, man, I’m at a loss.

How do we fix it? And curious PM, where do you live?
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Election meaningless unless we change for the better

Post by pmward » Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:57 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:50 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:44 pm
No, go re-read the quote that pug made that started this whole thing. He said he didn't want "lower class" people in his neighborhood because they won't "take care of their property and contribute positively to the schools" and that they are a bunch of "hooligans, gangs and disruptive students". Not every poor person doesn't take care of their property. Not every poor person is a hooligan, gangbanger, causing problems at school. You jumped in on that discussion between me and him mid-stream and started trying to twist what I was saying into something else entirely. I'm not telling people that if they choose to live in a nice, low crime area that they are classist. I'm saying that attributing those negative stereotypical traits to all poor people is not only false, it is incredibly harmful. It's ok to judge a criminal as a criminal. It's ok to judge a vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent teen as a vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent teen. It's not ok to judge an entire group of people as these things.
Fair enough, I think I understand the distinction now. You're saying something like the following:

Okay: I'd rather not live in that low-class neighborhood, because many of the people who live there exhibit low-class behaviors.

Not okay: I currently live in a nice neighborhood and dislike the fact that someone who appears to be low-class just moved into this neighborhood, because although I haven't seen them exhibit low-class behavior yet, I'm assuming they're likely to.

If that's roughly what you're saying, then I'm completely on board with that.
YES!!! This is it right here.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Election meaningless unless we change for the better

Post by pmward » Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:08 pm

Here's the thing to kind of rope it back around to where this tangent started. These generalizations become engrained in our brains. They become a part of our mind's subconscious programming. So when we start to buy in to these generalizations, they flavor our actions, the things we say, who we associate with, who we are friendly with, who we avoid, who we shun, who we support, who we resist, etc. These things themselves turn into discriminating thoughts, which turn into discriminating actions. And the whole time we may not be aware that we are doing this. Like, I don't think pugchief was aware of what he said when he said it. Not to pick on you pugchief, because I've caught myself doing this. In watching my own mind, I catch myself doing this. I have to stop and pause and say "wait a minute, that's not true". This is how the human mind works, we are good at trying to find patterns, and sometimes they falsely project those patterns forward, and it can unintentionally harm others. If you go way back and read l82start's comment from this morning on page 19, he called these people the "cognitive dissidents". People that may say they don't support discrimination, and they may not believe they are perpetuating discrimination, but they really are. An example that a friend of mine told me that helped me get the "aha" moment. He told me about a time he was traveling and went to a local church in the area. He was the only non-white person there. He said that person after person came in and sat as far away from him as they could. He said when the service started basically the only seats open in the whole place were around him. Nobody stopped to say hi or shake his hand. He felt terrible, unwanted, rejected, less than, etc. He said he doesn't think it was intentional. These people didn't think "oh I'm not going to sit by HIM", their subconscious just automatically avoided him basically on auto-pilot. But it still hurt him, and lowered his own self value, even if just briefly. When this kind of behavior becomes a regularly occurring thing... it's easy to start really believing that you really are less than.
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4055
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Election meaningless unless we change for the better

Post by pugchief » Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:17 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:57 pm
Tortoise wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:50 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:44 pm
No, go re-read the quote that pug made that started this whole thing. He said he didn't want "lower class" people in his neighborhood because they won't "take care of their property and contribute positively to the schools" and that they are a bunch of "hooligans, gangs and disruptive students". Not every poor person doesn't take care of their property. Not every poor person is a hooligan, gangbanger, causing problems at school. You jumped in on that discussion between me and him mid-stream and started trying to twist what I was saying into something else entirely. I'm not telling people that if they choose to live in a nice, low crime area that they are classist. I'm saying that attributing those negative stereotypical traits to all poor people is not only false, it is incredibly harmful. It's ok to judge a criminal as a criminal. It's ok to judge a vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent teen as a vulgar, unmotivated, drug-using, violent teen. It's not ok to judge an entire group of people as these things.
Fair enough, I think I understand the distinction now. You're saying something like the following:

Okay: I'd rather not live in that low-class neighborhood, because many of the people who live there exhibit low-class behaviors.

Not okay: I currently live in a nice neighborhood and dislike the fact that someone who appears to be low-class just moved into this neighborhood, because although I haven't seen them exhibit low-class behavior yet, I'm assuming they're likely to.

If that's roughly what you're saying, then I'm completely on board with that.
YES!!! This is it right here.
Okay, then I'm on board with that, too. Except...what Tom said just above.
Post Reply