Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

[Reincarnate]

I feel like you aren't understanding 90% of what's being said to you in this thread, Zaevod. Dev literally just answered your post before you even wrote it.

Nobody here is defending bigotry. What people are having issue with is your argument.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

You're criticizing these people for the wrong reason. If they hate a group of people and they treat them unfairly, sure, go ahead and criticize them for that. But don't generalize all people that hate a group as being illogical. You don't like it when others generalize, and you're doing it yourself with these people.

The food thing, too, is an analogy. Typically, analogies are meant to illustrate some underlying logical linkage in order to clarify something in another context.

[Zaevod]

Except that I'm not generalizing haters like that.

I wrote this in the last page:

"There are a lot of people in the world. Most of them are not killers or torturers or whatever, but some are. Unless the thing that bothers you about a certain group is an essential part of the group, such as the extreme bigotry of certain religious groups, then it makes no sense to generalize traits you found in specific people you met to the whole group.

There's a big difference between saying "I hate killers!" or "I hate rapists!" and saying "I hate asian women!", if the only killers and rapists you've ever known happen to be asian women (somehow)."

[Reincarnate]

Then I repeat to you

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Zaevod: What kind of food do you like?
Me: I like Japanese food.
Zaevod: NO. WRONG. YOU LIKE THE SUBSET OF JAPANESE FOOD THAT YOU HAVE HAPPENED TO ENJOY, YOU CANNOT SAY THAT ABOUT ALL JAPANESE FOOD. IT IS ILLOGICAL TO SAY THAT YOU LIKE JAPANESE FOOD.

[Zaevod]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Then I repeat to you

I think that you're the one that's ignoring practically everything I said, by making a strawman like that.

Go back to the last page and tell me: do you honestly agree with everything Stargroup said?

I especially made a point about the hateful friend he mentioned, and that what she did is not merely generalizing based on the bad people she met, but far more irrational than that.

[Reincarnate]

If you cannot be bothered to address the points offered to you with intellectual honesty, then there is no point in furthering any discussion or debate with you.

Originally Posted by Zaevod

Go back to the last page and tell me: do you honestly agree with everything Stargroup said?

You could try addressing the point I made to you before trying to place the onus on me for answering to stargroup's points. I'm a separate dude making a separate point to you. If you can't address the point, then I'll just leave the thread.

[Zaevod]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

If you cannot be bothered to address the points offered to you with intellectual honesty, then there is no point in furthering any discussion or debate with you.



You could try addressing the point I made to you before trying to place the onus on me for answering to stargroup's points. I'm a separate dude making a separate point to you. If you can't address the point, then I'll just leave the thread.

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Zaevod: What kind of food do you like?
Me: I like Japanese food.
Zaevod: NO. WRONG. YOU LIKE THE SUBSET OF JAPANESE FOOD THAT YOU HAVE HAPPENED TO ENJOY, YOU CANNOT SAY THAT ABOUT ALL JAPANESE FOOD. IT IS ILLOGICAL TO SAY THAT YOU LIKE JAPANESE FOOD.

To be honest, I admit that I was at least partially wrong for saying earlier that you can't ever generalize based on personal experience. But, still:

Assuming that this analogy works, then it's okay for one to say that they hate blacks/gays/jews/whatever because the ones they met, or at least some of them, were assholes.

My problem with this analogy is that, even though you technically can generalize if you have evidence from personal experience that the majority of people from a certain group are bad, this is usually not an accurate reflection of reality. A lot of these hateful generalizations are not based on honest assessments but on confirmation bias or even anecdotal data that reflects only a minimal subset of the group. I believe that this is the case for misanthropy and many other forms of hatred, because a lot of the justifications people often use only apply to a very small minority.

It's perfectly okay to generalize if the issue you have with a group is shown to be a defining, essential aspect of that group. In a lot of cases, this is simply not what happens.

However, it could still happen that ALL members you meet from a certain group are evil assholes (again, unless this is a defining aspect of a group. For example: religious fanatics), but I'd say you have to be somewhat isolated from the rest of the world for that to occur.

So, maybe the solution for this would be for people to at least attempt to know the group in question as well as they can before making a generalization.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by Zaevod

Assuming that this analogy works, then it's okay for one to say that they hate blacks/gays/jews/whatever because the ones they met, or at least some of them, were assholes.

My problem with this analogy is that, even though you technically can generalize if you have evidence from personal experience that the majority of people from a certain group are bad, this is usually not an accurate reflection of reality. A lot of these hateful generalizations are not based on honest assessments but on confirmation bias or even anecdotal data that reflects only a minimal subset of the group. I believe that this is the case for misanthropy and many other forms of hatred, because a lot of the justifications people often use only apply to a very small minority.

Okay but all you've been saying is "the traits of the few do not reflect the traits of the many," and we all understand that.

A generalization is a generalization. It is by definition not meant to necessarily be an all-encompassing, strict categorization.

For example, I would say I dislike Indian food. I fully understand, rationally, that if I were to try every single Indian dish ever made (assuming it could be done, etc), I would probably encounter plenty that I would like.

However, this doesn't change the fact that many of the dishes I come across I would really dislike. It's enough to make me not care about the rest. Even if I understand that there could be good Indian dishes out there, the way it makes me feel is simply what I feel. I don't need to sample every single dish ever made / that's out there in order for me to come to a reasoned opinion of how it generally makes me feel.

We all make opinions based off our general experiences. Yes, I generally believe that we should back up our opinions in evidence rather than blind acceptance or confirmation bias, but sometimes people can still feel hate even after this has been done. What matters is whether or not we act on these experiences and cause harm to others. I hold the same view with religion: believe what you want, but don't mess with other people.

Moving on to misanthropy, maybe someone hates humanity because they hate seeing how cruel people can be to each other. It doesn't matter if most people are "good" -- maybe the fact that man can be cruel is enough to make someone repulsed by the human condition and not wish to interact. There are several possible reasons.

The point I am trying to get at is that people hold the opinions they do for a variety of reasons. Some are reasonable, some aren't. Some beliefs can be harmful, others aren't. Some are logical, others aren't. Some people act on their beliefs, others don't. The reasons can be different, the contexts can be different, and the moral implications can be different. This is what stargroup was also trying to argue earlier:

Originally Posted by stargroup100

I'm not defending all hate. I'm saying that it's possible to have logical hatred towards a group.

[stargroup100]

Yo sorry for going off-topic a bit but this is an example of what I was talking about in the other thread:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Given the amount of societal setback + abuse that has come from crap like creationism, I think it's troubling that you find it merely entertaining.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

I don't find it amusing in the same way that someone enjoys seeing someone suffering or in pain. Seeing it as entertainment for me covers a few things that are important to me/that I like: it's a way of coping with the urge to fight/argue with these people, it's a way for me to understand the way other people think, it gives me insight on the reality that there exist a large number of people that think that way, and it challenges certain philosophies I accept almost without question to think about how and when they're valid. It is in this way that I justify the entertainment value I derive from listening to people present poor arguments.

In the past, an argument like this would've made me angry. However, today, rather than get mad, I try to figure out what reasons there could be that result in someone thinking this way (or unable to think in a particular way). Whether or not the person's views are "politically correct" (Zaevod's intentions are good, despite the inability to grasp the argument) is irrelevant. If we can understand the mechanics and psychology behind the ways of thinking of these people, we can get a better idea of how to either make them understand certain perspectives or make something positive/minimize the negative aspects of the fact they can't grasp certain viewpoints.

Bumping heads and getting nowhere isn't good for anybody.

The "entertainment value" I derived is a result of a defensive mechanism from getting emotionally heated and thirst for knowledge and understanding. It doesn't mean I find this to be funny in itself, or that I find the social implications to be funny.

[Reincarnate]

Makes sense

[Zaevod]

@stargroup100: No need to be so painfully condescending by comparing me to creationists. I already got the argument and even admitted that I might be wrong in some aspects. Maybe you should consider that you aren't perfect, either.

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by Zaevod

@stargroup100: No need to be so painfully condescending by comparing me to creationists. I already got the argument and even admitted that I might be wrong in some aspects. Maybe you should consider that you aren't perfect, either.

I never said I was perfect. I was merely pointing out the fact that rather than butt heads with people I disagree with, I try to understand what causes the disagreement. There are plenty of things I can't wrap my head around and sometimes I also assume things incorrectly in discussions by mistake.

My comparison of you with creationists is NOT saying your argument is as dumb as creationism (in comparison your argument is more rational I think) but the fact that you both fail to recognize certain arguments/forms of evidence, as everyone else in this thread arguing with you also agrees.

The fact that you think I was being condescending or insulting you in any way confirms the fact you don't actually understand what I'm trying to communicate before you voice your opinion. This does not mean I think of you any less as a person, but it does give me insight as to what kinds of things you can and can't grasp. Everyone has things they can't understand, and maybe this is just something that you can't. I don't know that, but it certainly helps me understand you better at least. I even said that your intentions are good, it's just that you aren't understanding what we're trying to say.

And this is a fundamental problem I think you have. When you compare two things, you need to understand in what ways you're comparing the two. When you're making a point using this comparison, recognize what aspects are relevant in demonstrating what you're trying to say. You automatically associate other things as well upon comparison of two things. Basically, what you do is this:
Me: "Lemons can be yellow, gold can be yellow. Lemons are like gold in this way."
You: "No, lemons are a fruit. Gold is an element. They are nothing alike."
That's what you do with the human/oyster argument. You don't actually explain how the two cases are different in relation to my point, but you automatically get emotionally heated simply because humans are involved. I can incorrectly judge an oyster and that's ok, but if I incorrectly judge a human oh no I just committed an inexcusable sin.

You're in a critical thinking board. We're here to discuss ideas and share knowledge. Getting emotionally heated means you're prone to bias. We don't have to be politically correct (though it's preferable) because we're discussing things from a rational point of view. We try to leave our personal opinions out of it (which is what bias is). Generally speaking, if I start to get mad or offended or cocky, I try to leave the discussion until I cool down, because otherwise chances are I'm going to say something stupid.

So calm down.

[Zaevod]

"I already got the argument and even admitted that I might be wrong in some aspects."

Now, stop the strawmanning with the gold + lemon thing. I never said that the analogy was completely invalid. I just thought it was oversimplifying things. Read my last answer to Reincarnate to see what I mean. He already answered it, and I already got his point, so it's not necessary to dwell on that.

[stargroup100]

I was simply clearing up your possibly bad impression of me. I didn't even refer back to the original argument. All I did was offer you criticism as to how you can improve your own rational discourse.

If you think the lemon/gold thing is a straw man, then you STILL don't understand what I'm trying to say. I never said you thought the analogy was completely invalid. I said you didn't understand the relevant points of the analogies, and you were unable to explain how the relevant points weren't valid. It's just non-stop assumptions with you, isn't it?

Again, this is a critical thinking board, where we discuss things rationally. We all should be open to [constructive] criticism here, whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not. If you don't want to hear more criticism, then leave.

[Zaevod]

In that post, you complained that I didn't explain things. I just pointed you to a post where I explained the thing you thought I should have explained. I don't know what else I'm supposed to do.

[Reincarnate]

Getting the impression that this guy is trolling

Telltale sign of ignoring everything and intentionally skewing/misunderstanding some low-hanging fruit

[Zaevod]

Holy shit, YOU'RE the ones dragging the conflict on forever. I already admitted a mistake, I already said I GOT your point, and now you're accusing me of trolling? What the fuck do you want me to say?

I said you didn't understand the relevant points of the analogies, and you were unable to explain how the relevant points weren't valid. It's just non-stop assumptions with you, isn't it?

I'm not assuming, ignoring or misunderstanding anything. Now, make sure YOU are not doing that before you accuse me. The post I mentioned (and you CLEARLY ignored) explains that I UNDERSTAND the analogy but I see some problems with it. I already said that you don't need to reply to that because that was already replied to and there's no need to continue the discussion. But, if you want, you can reply to each point I made in that post.

Before you complain that I somehow "don't accept criticism", you should ALSO accept criticism. Don't be a hypocrite.

I'm done with this. This is completely one-sided. I'm supposed to listen to everyone and, if I disagree with ANYTHING, I must be "ignoring" things or "trolling", while the same can't apply to you.

[Reincarnate]

Ok, cya

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Getting the impression that this guy is trolling

Telltale sign of ignoring everything and intentionally skewing/misunderstanding some low-hanging fruit

I don't think he's trolling. I think he legitimately just doesn't understand the argument, and getting emotionally heated doesn't help him.

[Zaevod]

Can you explain, in a non-assholeish way, what you think I'm not understanding? I honestly think you're deliberately ignoring a lot of the things I say.

[stargroup100]

We're all legitimately trying. We're not trying to be rude, especially me. But every time we try to explain what you're not understanding, you go off in a tangent or say something that's not valid. You think you understand, but your rational discourse is unclear.

I'll try one more time.

The original argument (even if you understood already I'm just gonna reiterate):
- Logical hatred is possible.
- Hate is a natural human emotion, and there's nothing wrong with hate itself.
- If someone is harmed as a result of a feeling of hatred, that is wrong.
- Therefore, misanthropy itself could potentially be justified.

What you can't grasp:
- When we compared two things, we explained how it applied to the topic. You said the analogy was not valid, but you didn't convince us how it wasn't valid. Like the human/oyster example, you said humans are different from oysters, but then you don't ever compare it back to the oyster. I turned your human argument into an oyster one by changing a few words, and you never addressed why that wasn't valid.
- A generalization about an entire group does NOT necessarily apply to each individual of a group. Whether or not the generalization is negative is irrelevant.
- Just because one has a negative generalization of a group of people does not mean they will treat this group unfairly. They can draw conclusions about what is likely, but ultimately give each individual person a fair chance. This is possible.