![]() |
Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
That is a serious question. It's a form of hatred like any other. It is based on generalizations and prejudice like any other (treating humanity as a whole as responsible for the wrongs of individuals), yet it is glorified by our culture.
I don't see how hating everyone "equally" (which, actually, is usually not the case for self-declared misanthropes) makes it fair. It's like saying that blaming everyone for a particular crime is "fair", which is ridiculous. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
For me it seems like misanthropy is a more generalized form of bigotry, and simply because it's lacking specifics isn't categorized in the same way. I guess that's like hating the idea christmas because you don't like materialism/have just a general apathy towards it or hating it because you know santa claus isn't real anymore and it taints your view of the entirety of it.
I certainly don't think that misanthropy is considered any less of a hateful practice, it just lacks the anchoring of reason, whether a prejudice or not. It's my first time hearing both "misanthropy" and "bigotry" and I just looked them up so that is my two cents lmao |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
"Misanthropy is glorified in our culture" [citation needed]
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
I guess I can fall into this category. I don't hate "everyone" I hate "society". As a whole everything is going down the drain. Mostly the respect of others and our planet. Greed and selfishness are taking over. I know this is just a majority, and not everyone is this way. I generalize the worst of everyone, but trust individuals.
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
The actions and attitudes of your typical bigots are much different than those of misanthropes, and so even if we were to categorize misanthropy as a type of bigotry (in the sense that both make generalized, prejudicial claims), I'm not sure that it'd be meaningful for our purposes.
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
As to misanthropy being glorified in our culture, the stance that blindreper has does seem rather common. But I still don't think that that's what zaevod was getting at still, since blindreper is a self-declared misanthrope. You really must explain where this perspective of misanthropy being cool has come from zaevod. Is it the, for lack of a better way to put it, the culture of counter-culture that exists these days that you're talking about? That 'make fun of everything' style that exists? If that's what you were referring to, I guarantee that such vibes have existed long before your generation. It's simply glorified teasing that has branched over the internet. I suppose that would make it more pervasive and I would agree with your point...but I still suspect I'm not identifying zaevod's misanthropes correctly. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
I think Spenner is right in terms of one being more generalized and the other being a broader term. Focusing on the question, while bigotry is almost certainly a form of misanthropy, it is not necessarily reciprocal. For example wood is a building material but not all building materials are wood. There is a specific example that falls into a broad category, but that broad category is not just the specific example.
When it comes to comparing terms this similar, there will obviously be a grey area where they overlap for some and not for others. It is personal beliefs about these terms that will determine if someone thinks misanthropy is bigotry or not. -o24 |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Getting attention and being popular aren't the same thing.
Nor are some upper-middle class white people complaining on the internet about how their life sucks glorifying or even embodying misanthropy. The kind of misanthropy you seem to think is being lionized on the internet is the kind of anarchy that well-off white kids who hate that their parents have rules get into, where they think it just means "You can do anything you want" |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Nah, it's like posting "I hate all humans" on facebook or other places and have lots of people admire you for it and agree, despite the fact that the person has outright stated that he/she hates them.
The point is that misanthropy is seen as far more "acceptable" as other forms of hatred, though Reincarnate has a point about the different attitudes of most bigots. And there's also the ever so popular saying "I'm not a racist, I hate everyone equally..." |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
I don't think anybody in the history of facebook that has posted "I hate all humans" is actually a misanthrope. They've had a bad interaction with someone and are being hyperbolic for attention.
Actual misanthropes don't have facebook because why would you want to interact with people if you can't stand people? In fact, expressing misanthropic ideas to get attention or approval from other people is directly contradictory to what misanthropy is. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
Another very common thing, actually, are people who simply post on any content about animals and can't resist the urge to compare the cute animals to "those bastard, stupid evil humans that destroy the world". Sometimes, people act as if we're somehow "below" nature, even though we are a part of nature. Even people in my family, sometimes, often make silly comments like "the human being truly is an evil thing" as a reaction to a particular crime done by a particular person. Those generalizations are almost always met with agreement, and this is what baffles me. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Posting the obvious wikipedia copypasta:
When we talk about something good or wrong, it often makes people react based on their feelings rather than reason. If we're talking about actions and consequences, suddenly we can get somewhere and do something about what we're all discussing about. I'm just assuming people loves to socialize with no further intents and stay on the good/wrong format because it gives a larger social freedom and doesn't need any form of commitment to your ideas. Yet, once in a while, I meet people who knows a lot about specific subjects and the discussion suddenly get a lot more interesting so, this obviously doesn't apply to everyone. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
I think a lot of it comes from the kind of actions humankind commits. War, destruction of nature, countries that force women to dress thick in garb and execute homosexuals with a lot of support from the majority of citizens. A lot of individuals in the human race are pretty awesome, but as a whole I think we're pretty disgusting as far as our behavior/morals. Nor sure if that makes me a misanthropist, but I don't consider myself a bigot.
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Sorry for the bump.
Quote:
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
If you look at human race not as a series of individuals, but as a whole, the results are pretty saddening. It's not a matter of responsibility, rather the analysis of collective results. You can blame humanity without automatically blaming the single individual.
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Because the only thing needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
I think bigotry has more of a "I'm singling you out against everyone else" connotation, whereas misanthropy is a sort of "I'm singling myself out from all of you, because fuck you guys" thing.
Misanthropy doesn't necessarily require being a reclusive hermit or anything but I think it's pretty clear that they both have different contextual implications. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
Assuming I understand what you're talking about, I think the reason why misanthropy is socially acceptable while bigotry is not is because of how a person who holds these views affect the people around them as well as how these views are interpreted. A misanthropist is generally seen as someone who criticizes humanity by bringing to light negative aspects of the human condition, something which most people interpret as just cynicism. A bigot, however, is targeting only a select group of people, treating them unfairly. It's this unequal treatment that leads some people to be offended. Most people don't really care about which is more fair in a technical sense, they simply react more strongly towards what they believe is more unfair from their observations. We live in a society where kids learn about historical events such as the Holocaust/WWII, slavery and the Civil War, and 9/11, where large-scale tragedies and catastrophes arise from bigotry and prejudice, not general hatred for human kind. Economically, it's also very difficult to deal large-scale damage to humankind by yourself, and misanthropists tend to not like working with other people. Bigotry, however, can become more extreme when people of similar views band together, strengthening each other's hatred. This group power then becomes far more dangerous. Philosophically, misanthropy stems more from expectations that are not met, and this type of hate does not tend to lead to violence, whereas bigotry is a kind of hate that generally desires to, optimally, eliminate "inferior" beings. Another point I should mention is this topic's relevance to a psychological phenomenon. If you leave a baby alone, he's fine. If you give him a lollipop and take it away from him, he'll cry. It would've been better if he had never seen the lollipop in the first place. The root of this phenomenon stems from the idea in our head that realizes that in comparison of a past or alternate state, our current state is less-desirable. This is why people get so upset and/or jealous when people are given uneven circumstances, and that's why the unfair treatment of bigotry is less accepted and stirs more of a reaction than the "unfair" treatment of misanthropy. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
I contest the "humanity sucks as a whole", actually. The reason why people focus on bad things is because they stand out easily. If you actually make some kind of statistical research comparing good or neutral actions vs bad actions, you will find out that bad actions are an overwhelming minority.
If a person was good during their entire life, but for some reason snaps and kills someone, people won't really give a damn about anything other than this act and what directly caused it. Which is justifiable, of course, if we want to eradicate this type of thing. Even if, 1000 years from now, crimes occur at one hundredth of the frequency they occur today, people will still say "humanity sucks". In fact, they will always complain as long as things aren't perfect, which they will never be. Quote:
Another reason I find misanthropy illogical is the notion that somehow evil is tied to human nature, when it's not. If any species evolved to the point where it would be nearly as smart us, it would probably do very similar mistakes or acts of stupidity/evil. Naturally, the perceived responsibility is dependent on the power and intelligence of the agent. The problem is that we are only "partially smart". |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Okay so I'm guessing you don't care about what society thinks of misanthropy and you're questioning the philosophy itself.
Quote:
Quote:
I also don't see your point that talks about other species. We evaluate whether or not something is evil based on the amount of suffering it causes, and generally speaking all lifeforms that could develop this intelligence can sense its surroundings and react accordingly to this. I would say that in this case evil would still be tied to human nature, just not human nature exclusively, and evil between species would also vary due to biological/psychological differences. And you have to explain what you mean by "partially smart" because I don't understand the significance of that term. Still, this doesn't explain what all of this has to do with misanthropy. If I were to accept everything you say, and people still fall short of my expectations, how does that invalidate my view or make it illogical? |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
Quote:
It's also strange for one to be a misanthrope because, to perceive humanity as inherently "evil" or whatever, you need to have the moral perspective to be able to judge that. If your human mind has the capacity to have that perspective, doesn't that mean that it can avoid the immoral actions? Obviously, it can. So it really is stupid to see "human nature" as something inherently bad. Quote:
Quote:
I was really referring to something else, in the beginning of this thread. At least, what most self-entitled misanthropes claim to believe. People who hate humanity or at least believe that humanity is inherently bad or morally inferior as a species. This kind of thinking is what I find illogical. There's nothing particularly distinct about bringing light to negative aspects of humanity. If that is the case, pretty much everyone can be considered a "misanthrope" and the label is practically meaningless. The examples in the wikipedia page are closer to the kind of thinking that I'm calling illogical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy Here's one of the first examples of the page: "My hate is general, I detest all men; Some because they are wicked and do evil, Others because they tolerate the wicked, Refusing them the active vigorous scorn Which vice should stimulate in virtuous minds." I find this kind of thinking just infuriating. He detests ALL men because he only perceives the two groups he mentioned? What about himself? Does he also "tolerate the wicked" and is just a stupid hypocrite? I don't tolerate the wicked, but I can't just somehow stop all bad people from doing bad things. What baffles me is that this line of thinking is seen as politically correct and a lot of people try to appear "smart" by saying this kind of bullshit. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
For the record, I'm not a misanthropist. Quite the opposite actually. While I do disagree with the notion that humans are evil, I don't agree with how you're interpreting the issue.
Quote:
Quote:
Good and evil is not black and white. There are varying degrees of evil, and even one particular case can have multiple interpretations. What is evil to you might not be evil to someone else. What is somewhat evil to you might be incredibly evil to someone else. Judging evil correctly may be a near impossible task, but that doesn't stop someone from thinking that humans are inherently evil. If in this person's mind he can justify his position, why would it be stupid? There's also a strange gap in your logic. Suppose I perceive humanity to be evil and I have the moral perspective to be able to judge that. How does the fact that I can simply identify and avoid evil acts say anything about humans as a whole? Even if you meant all people being able to identify evil and avoid it, you're also assuming that they choose to do so. Part of the idea of evil comes from the fact that even people who identify evil don't even choose to avoid it, sometimes embracing it. Quote:
Quote:
This is also consistent with the following description of the philosophy: "Socrates defines the misanthrope in relation to his fellow man: 'Misanthropy develops when without art one puts complete trust in somebody thinking the man absolutely true and sound and reliable and then a little later discovers him to be bad and unreliable ... and when it happens to someone often ... he ends up ... hating everyone.' Misanthropy, then, is presented as the result of thwarted expectations..." The reason why they hate all humans is because they expect humans to be perfect or almost-perfect, and then realize that all humans have certain flaws they find difficult to find acceptable. Clearly, this tends to lead to the misanthropist believing he is "above" everyone else. Arthur Schopenhauer adds: "misanthropy does not necessarily equate with an inhumane attitude towards humanity." I think you group all misanthropists and think their hate for humanity is simple and directly correlated with the nature of evil, and that's a mistake. In addition, even though we might use the words "all humans," hating humanity and hating every human being are still two separate concepts. Obviously I don't agree with this philosophy, as I think it's unrealistic and unnecessary in a certain sense, but at the very least I can understand how someone can reach these conclusions and believe them. There are people out there who are illogical in their hatred towards humans, of course, but to discredit misanthropy as a philosophy in that manner is not understanding what you're criticizing. You should target those with illogical hate, not misanthropy. Ironically, you could have the potential to be a misanthropist. You have a certain expectation of people: Quote:
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
I guess I don't expect anyone to be perfect, but I still expect most people to be decent on the majority of occasions.
Well, anyhow, the quote I picked actually reflects what I have heard in many places. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
Those groups include all men. You are either wicked, or tolerate the wicked. Because, he would likely argue, if you actually were neither wicked nor tolerated the wicked, the active and vigorous scorn he feels should be stimulated would result in an eventual lack in wicked people. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
Also, last time I noted, psychopaths will be psychopaths regardless of society's disapproval or "vigorous scorn". Preventing any opportunity for them to manifest is far beyond my abilities. And, no, I don't tolerate evil. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Zaevod I literally have no clue what you're trying to argue. Can you condense it into a couple sentences?
Are you trying to argue that misanthropy is probably confirmation bias in most cases? |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
This is a nice angle on misanthropy. However, I think a more suitable topic that could arise answers to your particular concerns is: "does misanthropy stems from ignorance, in the knowledge sense of the term (e.g. placing a blind trust on humanity and then being disappointed by it for not living up to your expectations), or could it rather consist in a lack of empathy? Can it be both?"
I'd be rather intrigued in knowing what shapes a misanthrope and how much his background weighs on the level of disdain he expresses. You seem to make the assumption that misanthropy is secluded to one mold, whereas its implications are much more intricate as a social phenomenon. Things that might apply to particular contexts you seem to refer might not apply to the whole ideology. If the whole debate is to be defined within certain situations and not the whole scope, be sure to clarify. Otherwise it is ground for miscommunication. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
I was based on what I perceived to be the most common behavior of self-declared misanthropes.
If someone comes and claims that their "version" of misanthropy is just seeing humanity as inherently flawed, I'll obviously not have a problem with that. But if you expand the label to that point, it seems somewhat pointless for it to even exist. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
On the original debate, I would expand the label to determine of what nature between bigotry or sociopathy a misanthropic individual is more akin to being associated/mislabeled. Knowing how much of ignorance and/or lack of empathy is included in the shaping of the common misanthrope would significantly help in understanding its nuances.
IMO, misanthropy can either consist of the gray area between the two, in which the balance can sway lightly or heavily between either, or even the complete lack of both. The latter being closer to misology, where it's more disinterest than scorn. The ideology itself seems to be distributed organically within certain demographics, self-proclaimed or not (some base themselves on certain extent of rationality, some don't and rely on prejudice, some... etc.)* and I find it hard to pinpoint a common ground. Hence why I think the ambiguity of the misanthropic condition can set the table for a more profitable discussion. *Following link serves as a relevant example of the diversification between misanthropic beliefs: http://www.whyihatepeople.com/forum/...php?f=7&t=2704 |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
Secondly, if you're going to come into a critical thinking thread and make an argument or even ask a question, you should be clear about what it is you want. We couldn't answer your questions very well because it took about 2 pages of posts to figure out what you were even trying to ask. If you use the term "misanthropy" we're gonna assume it's the dictionary definition. If you have a different definition then you need to describe it. EDIT: LOL To some degree though, I understand where you're coming from. When you're talking about "misanthropy being glorified in our culture" you could be referring to cynical people (like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAmazingAtheist) who spout a lot of negativity and become very popular. I'm not a fan of this guy because I think almost everything he says is cliche criticism without any real insight. If this is what you're talking about, this isn't misanthropy. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
EDIT: okay wow |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Why the edits?
Well, anyhow, I know I shouldn't have bumped this. People had already answered the original question in the first page. The bump was because I felt the need to reply to the last post by fido123. The rest of the discussion arised from that, but some people still thought I was discussing only the things in the original post, when I really wasn't. I should have been clear, though: my issue is not with the DISTRUST, my issue is with the HATRED. I think it's stupid and by no means "better" than what people would call bigotry. How is hatred of everyone better than hatred of a single group? I get the thing said in the link, but the fact that it comes from a website called "why I hate people" is a bit hard to ignore. It's just so profoundly stupid that people create a whole website, based on technologies made by other people, to talk to other people about why they hate people. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
Example to show you that in principle this is possible: Imagine you're a black man living in oppression because of white men. You might hate white men. Not because you hate every individual white man, but because from your experiences, the large majority (or even all) of white men you meet treat you badly, leading you to come to the generalization that white men are abusive. You make this conclusion as a way to protect yourself and prepare for what you know is most likely to happen. You may not think it's right, but can you really blame this person for thinking this way? However, suppose you have an employer here in the US that just hates black people for some petty reason. When this employer decides to reject a fantastic applicant with an impressive profile simply because he is black (or any other race), that is considered bigotry because the person who is being treated unfairly is the black man looking for the job. The root of hatred and discrimination has no reasonable basis. Where the previous case the man had a reason to hate white men (to protect himself), this employer just hates black people for a petty reason that is not reasonable. Hate is a perfectly natural emotion that almost all humans experience, for many different possible reasons. You seem to immediately target those that hate others due to generalizations as being unreasonable, and that's not necessarily true. There could be sound basis for why a person would make such generalizations, and he has every right to feel what he feels (and from a psychological standpoint changing one's way of thinking is not easy either if it's rooted heavily in habits and personality). What you should be judging is how reasonable these generalizations are, and how they affect how this person's behavior. I have plenty of friends who are generally very spiteful and full of hatred, but they don't treat people unfairly. The hatred is simply due to their nature and environment. One of them experienced a very abusive childhood, and even though she hates humanity, is very close to me and trusts me. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
A black person who hates whites is a bigot. No more, no less. Same with a white who hates blacks. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
We have all heard of people who due to some early childhood trauma, develop a fear for something. For example, a child that originally was not afraid of snakes, but is then bitten by one, could end up being afraid of snakes the rest of his life. And this is just due to one experience. Now imagine this trauma is caused by people of a particular group, who we know are aware of what they're doing. Then imagine this happening not just once but consistently throughout one's entire life, whenever he happens to encounter people of this group. I dare you to try and convince this person that this group of people isn't bad. But that doesn't necessarily mean he'll never like anyone of this group. If some situation happens where a person of this group is very kind to this person and earns trust, then it's possible that hatred would subside for this individual. But that won't stop this person from hating the group. Hating all members of a group and hating a group are two completely different things. The elements of a set is not the same as the set itself. Why is it difficult to accept that some people can still be fair to other people while having a hateful nature? |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
In my experience, people who claim to hate a group want more than just distance from the group. They believe that the reduction or destruction of the group would be a positive thing. I'm unable to see a person that holds this belief as being "fair". For example: I fear bears, snakes and spiders. I wouldn't want them to die, but I'd be pretty terrified of being in the same room as them. I hate mosquitoes. I actually wish they would cease to exist where I live. Is this hatred of mosquitoes rational? Probably not. They happen to be one of the very few things I actually hate, besides evil, obnoxious and disgusting things in general. I understand what trauma is, however, my point is precisely that the hatred of a group has no rational basis. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
I'm quite aware of what hatred is. And once again, I have friends that actually hate other groups or humanity in general, and yet treat people fairly. One of these friends does in fact wishes death upon all humans except for the ones she cares about, and as paradoxical as it may seem, the cause of this mindset is fairly clear and the distinction of humanity versus individual humans is also clear. Hatred for something doesn't necessarily mean you wish to eradicate it completely. It could just mean you don't want to encounter it because it causes you distress. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
You literally just said that your friend wishes death upon all humans except for the ones she cares about. Do you realize how incredibly selfish, prejudiced and unfair that is?
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
It doesn't matter. It doesn't mean she'll actually go and kill every single human, or even a single human for that matter. Is simply thinking that still selfish and unfair? What's wrong with that view then?
Suppose someone you respected who did not harbor any kind of hate that you can observe secretly felt the same way, but never acts upon this feeling or communicates it. How could you ever tell that this person had any hate? If you couldn't tell, why does it matter? Have you never felt hate for anything? Do you even hate these hateful people we're talking about? |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
I was talking about what I find logical/reasonable. This is critical thinking, after all. Ideas are not harmless at all, and if hateful ideas spread, there can be some terrible physical consequences, as history clearly shows.
So, you never question people's unfair and poorly based beliefs because they might not motivate actions? I always thought truth should stand on its own. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
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. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
No, I'm not generalizing anything. I'm making a statement based on the beliefs they have already shown.
Beliefs don't need to translate into actions to be stupid. I could believe that the center of the earth is made of candy and do nothing about it, but the belief would still be illogical and stupid on its own, and people would be free to call me out on my idiocy on that case. Believing/wishing that every human should die except for the ones someone cares about is illogical, selfish, unfair and stupid. There is nothing logical that supports this feeling. If someone tells me that, I'll call them out on it regardless of whether they plan to kill anyone or not. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
"All people who hold hatred towards a group are illogical and idiotic." The people you don't like: "All people who hold hatred towards black people are illogical and idiotic." The only way these two can be different is if you think "hatred towards a group" itself is idiotic. That could be your opinion. But the fact of the matter is there do exist idiots in this world. That doesn't make this concept in general unfair or wrong. Even if it was idiotic and illogical, how does it make it unfair or selfish? Because they're blaming people for things they didn't do? The act of blaming still happens in their mind, just as the hate is solely in their mind. Thinking that is still unfair and selfish? Remember we're still talking about "hating of a group", not acting upon it in any way that is irresponsible or unethical. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
You're somehow trying to paint me as a hypocrite and are failing to understand the message. All I'm saying is that these hateful beliefs have no true logical reasoning behind them. Keyword: "logical", feelings don't really apply. Do you contest this statement? If so, can you at least explain why? |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
But even so, just hating a group is just a feeling a person holds. To say that it can't possibly be logical is still far-fetched. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
You didn't really answer my questions.
Quote:
Do I really have to explain why it's unfair? EDIT: I forgot to answer your question: "do I hate people who hate others"? The answer is no. Not necessarily. I only hate evil people. That includes people who act upon their hateful beliefs and that spread falsehoods due to being willfully ignorant or bigoted. Oh, and people that have the power to prevent evil but choose not to. And, no, not everyone is like that. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
Firstly, once again, there's a difference between hating each individual person and hating an entire group. When a person makes generalizations, they make it about the entire group, which could be true. It is unfair to act upon these generalizations by applying it to each individual person, but if there's sound evidence for the generalization as a whole, it's not illogical to think it. "Black people are fast runners." The evidence could be by observing that the fastest runners in the Olympic games tend to be black. Doesn't mean that every black man is fast. Secondly, hating a group of people is still just a feeling. There are two kinds of "logic" for this. The explanation for how the feeling of hatred manifested, and the explanation for the justification of a belief that leads to the feeling of hatred. The former is probably not what you're referring to and an answer exists anyways. The latter assumes that there exists a belief that consequently causes the feeling of hatred. And even if it does exist, it could be logical, as I explained above. Wishing that everyone should die is not necessarily selfish. It's a fantasy, and in our own fantasies, why would we care about anyone else? The point is to satiate our own desires without any limits. Actually killing everyone would be selfish and wrong, but just thinking that is not only not necessarily selfish, but also normal. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
"I hate blacks. Black people are bad and they deserve to die an agonizing death. I think so because I was wronged by this black person that one time."
Let's imagine that this little "fantasy" spreads. The original person who had the fantasy didn't really act on it. He was completely innocent, but he managed to cause others to share similar feelings. The number of people that share the feeling only grows, and many merely follow on the footsteps of others without really thinking for themselves and questioning whether the idea has a rational justification behind it. There's nothing that could possibly go wrong, there. Right? It's just a fantasy. Why question the person that holds the belief? |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Sigh.
Yes, I have already agreed that that would be wrong. What I said was: Not ALL hatred towards one group is wrong or illogical. You shouldn't generalize all hate in such a way. You should evaluate it on a case by case basis. In this particular case you evaluated, you decided that it was wrong. (This is under the assumption that fantasies can even spread to that degree) I'm not defending all hate. I'm saying that it's possible to have logical hatred towards a group. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
If I got sick every time I ate an oyster, is there not a good reason to believe that the next oyster I eat will very likely make me sick? Quote:
By your logic, we should also question people that do anything solely for personal gain, such as riding a roller coaster. You gain no real benefit out of it aside from a bit of pleasure and you risk the coaster malfunctioning and possibly hurting or even killing you. I guess we should ban roller coasters. Hating a religious group that is known to terrorize people is a good thing. We as a society are saying that this is unacceptable. A lot of people hate creationists for spreading incorrect ideas about the origin of the universe. These are kinds of hate that fuel postiive ideas. It doesn't mean we'll go and eradicate these people, but there's nothing wrong with hating them. Once again, hate is a natural emotion that almost all humans experience. Religions often tell us to question our sexual urges and repress them, even though they're totally natural. Why should we suppress feelings of hatred if they're natural? Just because we find someone sexually attractive, it doesn't mean we'll rape them. Just because we hate something, doesn't mean we'll act upon it. What's the problem here? |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
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). To hate humanity as a whole, the only possible reason would be if there's a highly negative trait proven to be common to all or the vast majority of humans. I don't think that such a trait exists, unless you consider things such as "thinking", "being flawed" or "having legs" as traits to justify hatred. A common one that pops up is that "humans take too many resources from nature", but this is also a bad reason. Humans take many resources because the human population is high, because we are relatively successful as a species. Any species that somehow managed to expand to that extent would also leave a large mark on nature. Also, humans are a part of nature, and the universe itself doesn't have any feelings about any particular species, but I digress... You will only ever know a very small percentage of people, so generalizing from these very few people you meet is simply irrational in the majority of cases, unless the generalization happens to very specific, restricted groups and have a significant statistical basis of some sort. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
I'm so fucking done. The hypocrisy is unreal.
A generalization about a group does not apply to all members of a group. The oyster example is exactly the same as the human one. There's nothing inherently wrong with oysters, as there is nothing inherently wrong with people. There probably exist oysters I can eat and not get sick, just as there are people that don't fit a generalization I make. Doesn't mean I'm gonna eat an oyster, and it doesn't mean one can't hate people. You claim the oyster example is different from humans, but all you do is explain the human case, you don't show how it is any different. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If this doesn't get through to you I'm done. I've spent far too much time trying to explain something elementary about human nature. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
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. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
I think it's seriously retarded to compare a certain type of food to humans in general, but maybe that's just me.
Never mind. There's nothing illogical whatsoever in your friend wishing the death of everyone except for the ones she knows and cares about. Who am I to ever question something that motivated a certain belief? We are just supposed to accept everything. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
You're missing the point.
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
It's an argument against the form of your reasoning, not the content.
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Then, let's try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
In the entire last page, what Stargroup basically did was to preach about how bigotry is acceptable unless it results in physical violence. What I said is that the reasons behind this bigotry should be questioned, because hating an entire group of people, or all people, should probably require a little more consideration than generalizing about food of a certain type. He also cited as an example the beliefs of an incredibly bigoted friend. The friend didn't just generalize about humans because she only met nasty humans; in fact, Stargroup said that she had people she cared about. Instead of considering that there may be many other people in the rest of the world that are also worthy of her respect, Stargroup said that she wished death upon all the other humans. I also explained that, even if bigots are not necessarily violent, their bigoted ideas can still spread and cause damage, and that, even if they don't, logic and reason should stand on their own and beliefs shouldn't just be dictated by feelings. Stargroup called me a hypocrite (I don't think he understands the meaning of that word) and everyone else came to support the extremely reasonable Stargroup defending the thought process of bigots while bashing the evil, evil and crazy Zaevod. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
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. Quote:
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
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)." |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Then I repeat to you
Quote:
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
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. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
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.
Quote:
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
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: Quote:
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Yo sorry for going off-topic a bit but this is an example of what I was talking about in the other thread:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Makes sense
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
@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.
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Quote:
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. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
"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. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
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. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
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.
|
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Getting the impression that this guy is trolling
Telltale sign of ignoring everything and intentionally skewing/misunderstanding some low-hanging fruit |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
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?
Quote:
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. |
Re: Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?
Ok, cya
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution