OT: Judging Others

[AJ]

I'd argue that even if it is a result of overeating and laziness, it's still not our place to judge.)

For example, I judge racists and misogynists, and I find that a valuable use of an opinion.

Is there a particular reason you don't think people should place a value judgement on the character flaw of laziness but you do think it's ok to place a value judgement on the character flaw of racism? Is it just that one "feels" worse than the other? Or, is there an objective difference that we can extrapolate and use as a measuring stick for other examples?

[warfreak2]

is there an objective difference that we can extrapolate and use as a measuring stick for other examples?

(a) harms them more than it harms everyone else, and (b) they are surely already aware of.

Laziness primarily hurts the lazy, while racism primarily benefits racists. (It's true that some kinds of laziness do harm others, but in this context we're talking about people who don't exercise.)

[AJ]

is there an objective difference that we can extrapolate and use as a measuring stick for other examples?

(a) harms them more than it harms everyone else, and (b) they are surely already aware of.

Laziness primarily hurts the lazy, while racism primarily benefits racists. (It's true that some kinds of laziness do harm others, but in this context we're talking about people who don't exercise.)

So, it's not really the laziness or the racism, but rather you judge people hurting other people?

[warfreak2]

I suppose you could put it that way. Or hurting themselves, if there's a reasonable chance they will appreciate and act on your advice.

[WageSlave]

I wasn't making a general statement, just a response to the post above which mentioned judging fat people. My argument is that there's almost never a possible benefit to judging somebody as fat. (Also, the word "fatties" is very rude, and strongly implies a judgement of fat people, although the poster was talking about trying not to judge. I'd argue that even if it is a result of overeating and laziness, it's still not our place to judge.)

Just to be clear... I was trying to say that I have some "instinctive" judgments, as I believe all people do.  So yes, they require energy, but like breathing, it just happens.  But I try to recognize such judgments as unhelpful at best, hurtful/harmful at worst, so I certainly don't act on them.  And to the extent possible, for every instinctive judgmental thought that pops into my head, I try to rationally think through where the judgment came from and why it's not helping me or anyone else.  In time, I hope I can "train" these kinds of thoughts away.

I apologize if anyone took offense to the use of the word "fatties"... I threw it out there as a (failed?) attempt at ironic humor (or maybe just low-brow humor, you be the judge ;)).  Perhaps I mis-judged my audience.  Maybe my audience judges me as offensive rather than amusing?

Semi-seriously, though, that in and of itself is a little example of the point I was trying to make.  How do you handle derogatory comments in general?  How do you judge people that use them?  What about in jokes?  How do you judge how people react to hearing them?  What if I threw out an obscure one like "touch of the tar brush" (any Aziz Ansari fans here)?  Where and how do you draw the line?

And let's look at the other side of slurs.  Once everyone gets over the offensiveness, is there not some benefit to bringing up terms like this?  Could they not be a stepping stone into social study?  Why do these terms come about?  What does their use say about us as people?  Surely the answer to questions like that can be used to better understand the human condition.  So you could judge their use as mean-spirited or ignorant or simply inappropriate; or you could judge it as an opportunity for intellectual pursuits.

Laziness primarily hurts the lazy, while racism primarily benefits racists. (It's true that some kinds of laziness do harm others, but in this context we're talking about people who don't exercise.)

If you have socialized (any group health insurance) medicine, laziness hurts other people who pay into it.

What if my laziness affects my health and I have dependents?  I'm implicitly putting themselves at risk.

What about intellectual laziness?  Or emotional laziness?

What if my kids want to play but I'm kinda tired, so I tell them to play by themselves.  Am I lazy?  If I always deny them, you could argue the quality of my nurture is less than someone who sucks it up and plays with his kids always, tired or not.

What if, at work, I could get this report done today instead of tomorrow, but no one is expecting it until tomorrow... but delivering it today means the project finishes sooner which means more revenue for the company.

How do you define laziness?  The extremes are easy, but there's a huge grey area.  What is the optimal point of being not-lazy such that everyone benefits maximally?

Even if you try to define it narrowly, such as with exercise: well, what is the optimal exercise frequency and intensity?  What's the criteria for "lazy" or "not lazy"?  I get up at 5:30am three times a week to lift increasingly heavy weights: what about someone who only does it twice a week?  Or someone who does it four times a week?  What if someone does the same thing but never increases the weights?  What about a runner versus a CrossFitter versus a strength trainer?  Just as a random example, I think few people would judge someone training for a marathon as lazy, but there's some evidence out there now that this kind of training, over the long term, is ironically unhealthy.  So, just for the sake of argument, in terms of health risk, what if we come to find out it's a wash between being a couch potato and a lifetime marathoner?  Then I judge the marathoner to be stupid, because he's doing an awful lot of work for no benefit.  What if someone works out really hard a few times a week, but is clearly "lazy" the rest of the time?

Where do you draw the line?

[fixer-upper]

I'd argue that even if it is a result of overeating and laziness, it's still not our place to judge.)

For example, I judge racists and misogynists, and I find that a valuable use of an opinion.

Is there a particular reason you don't think people should place a value judgement on the character flaw of laziness but you do think it's ok to place a value judgement on the character flaw of racism? Is it just that one "feels" worse than the other? Or, is there an objective difference that we can extrapolate and use as a measuring stick for other examples?

Laziness gets a bad rap.  Aren't we all here because we don't want to work our entire lives?

I'm efficient, which means I don't work harder than needed.  Some people see that as laziness, and judge it as a character flaw.  I see their lack of being able to feel good about themselves without a 'job' as a character flaw.

As for racism...it's mis-applied and inequitable in today's world.  As a white male, I'm held to a MUCH different standard and put at an economic disadvantage to a black woman.  I see both racism and sexism as cultural flaws (rather than character flaws), being encouraged by feel-good laws such as affirmative action and unbalanced media coverage.

[fixer-upper]

I apologize if anyone took offense to the use of the word "fatties"... I threw it out there as a (failed?) attempt at ironic humor (or maybe just low-brow humor, you be the judge ;)).  Perhaps I mis-judged my audience.  Maybe my audience judges me as offensive rather than amusing?

Semi-seriously, though, that in and of itself is a little example of the point I was trying to make.  How do you handle derogatory comments in general?  How do you judge people that use them?

Earlier today, I heard some fat people say "that girl needs to eat a cheeseburger".  The person they were talking about is naturally skinny, and has image concerns of her own.  She's been called anorexic, twig, Olive Oyl, and who knows what else over the years.

Our society condemns the skinny girl if she calls them fatties, yet encourages the fat people to judge her as anorexic.

[arebelspy]

As for racism...it's mis-applied and inequitable in today's world.  As a white male, I'm held to a MUCH different standard and put at an economic disadvantage to a black woman.

haha what?

EDIT: Everyone else, don't misconstrue my laugh and short reply to think that I don't realize this is one of the stupidest things ever written.

[arebelspy]

I apologize if anyone took offense to the use of the word "fatties"... I threw it out there as a (failed?) attempt at ironic humor (or maybe just low-brow humor, you be the judge ;)).  Perhaps I mis-judged my audience.  Maybe my audience judges me as offensive rather than amusing?

Semi-seriously, though, that in and of itself is a little example of the point I was trying to make.  How do you handle derogatory comments in general?  How do you judge people that use them?

Earlier today, I heard some fat people say "that girl needs to eat a cheeseburger".  The person they were talking about is naturally skinny, and has image concerns of her own.  She's been called anorexic, twig, Olive Oyl, and who knows what else over the years.

Our society condemns the skinny girl if she calls them fatties, yet encourages the fat people to judge her as anorexic.

Saying "it would be healthy for her to eat more" or "it would be healthy for them to lose weight" is different than insulting name calling, from either body type.

[warfreak2]

Just to be clear...

Yep, that's how it came across. Just generally, you aren't going to be able to use a word like that in a public setting without doing more harm than good.

If you have socialized (any group health insurance) medicine, laziness hurts other people who pay into it.

Nope, not buying that as a reason to judge other people; only a reason to promote exercise as a healthy lifestyle choice (which at least, the UK's government and health service do). It still hurts themselves more than anyone else. Also, I'm not sure that it's even true.

What if my laziness affects my health and I have dependents?  I'm implicitly putting themselves at risk.

That's a trickier one, more of a grey area, but again I think it's wrong to judge people for this. Society is more likely to reap the benefits of widespread exercise if it's promoted in a non-judgemental way.

What about intellectual laziness?  Or emotional laziness?
[...]
Where do you draw the line?

These are different kinds of laziness; in context, laziness meant "people who don't exercise". I didn't make a general statement about laziness, just that even if obesity is due to laziness, that's still not a good reason to judge somebody for it. For the general drawing of lines, I refer back to the "if it harms them more than anyone else, and they are surely already aware of it" test.

[warfreak2]

As for racism...it's mis-applied and inequitable in today's world.  As a white male, I'm held to a MUCH different standard and put at an economic disadvantage to a black woman.

haha what?

It's so convenient when racists voluntarily identify themselves in public. (Judgement made!)

[fixer-upper]

As for racism...it's mis-applied and inequitable in today's world.  As a white male, I'm held to a MUCH different standard and put at an economic disadvantage to a black woman.

haha what?

One example of inequity is colleges offering scholarships to meet affirmative action quotas.  I could go on with dozens more examples, but you can work it out from there. 

Edit:  See how quick I labeled a racist for pointing out that affirmative action is inheritantly racist?  That's a perfect example of different standards at work.

[dragoncar]

I apologize if anyone took offense to the use of the word "fatties"... I threw it out there as a (failed?) attempt at ironic humor (or maybe just low-brow humor, you be the judge ;)).  Perhaps I mis-judged my audience.  Maybe my audience judges me as offensive rather than amusing?

Semi-seriously, though, that in and of itself is a little example of the point I was trying to make.  How do you handle derogatory comments in general?  How do you judge people that use them?

Earlier today, I heard some fat people say "that girl needs to eat a cheeseburger".  The person they were talking about is naturally skinny, and has image concerns of her own.  She's been called anorexic, twig, Olive Oyl, and who knows what else over the years.

Our society condemns the skinny girl if she calls them fatties, yet encourages the fat people to judge her as anorexic.

Girl probably needs Ironized Yeast Tablets

[arebelspy]

As for racism...it's mis-applied and inequitable in today's world.  As a white male, I'm held to a MUCH different standard and put at an economic disadvantage to a black woman.

haha what?

One example of inequity is colleges offering scholarships to meet affirmative action quotas.  I could go on with dozens more examples, but you can work it out from there. 

Edit:  See how quick I labeled a racist for pointing out that affirmative action is inheritantly racist?  That's a perfect example of different standards at work.

You genuinely believe you are at a disadvantage being born a white male in America instead of a black female?

[warfreak2]

Edit:  See how quick I labeled a racist for pointing out that affirmative action is inheritantly racist?  That's a perfect example of different standards at work.

You genuinely believe you are at a disadvantage being born a white male in America instead of a black female?

He also genuinely believes that I responded to his point about affirmative action before he wrote it, so don't expect logic.

[fixer-upper]

As for racism...it's mis-applied and inequitable in today's world.  As a white male, I'm held to a MUCH different standard and put at an economic disadvantage to a black woman.

haha what?

One example of inequity is colleges offering scholarships to meet affirmative action quotas.  I could go on with dozens more examples, but you can work it out from there. 

Edit:  See how quick I labeled a racist for pointing out that affirmative action is inheritantly racist?  That's a perfect example of different standards at work.

You genuinely believe you are at a disadvantage being born a white male in America instead of a black female?

If I have to pay higher tuition to support scholarships for people who were chosen based on race rather than merit, yes.

If I'm passed over for a cushy government job because it was given to someone based on race rather than merit, yes.

[Thegoblinchief]

Not sure how well this analogy holds up, but I like to think of it in terms of the years I spent as an editor:

-There are some cut and dry grammatical errors. Everyone agrees these can be fixed. Things like mutilation, child abuse, slavery, etc.

-Sometimes it's very easy to see that there is something wrong or off with a sentence, but it's also difficult to prescribe a solution. Someone has clear lifestyle issues, but they've dug themselves an awful deep hole. So many things are screwed up, both because of circumstance and choice, that it's hard to simply say "do X"

-A solution is proposed, but the author disputes it. The resulting dialogue is constructive criticsm. I think the primary fail state of "judgments" and "judgmentalism" is the expression of the judgment in a non-constructive manner.

Okay, and here is where I feel the analogy falling apart, so I'm going to exercise my own editorial judgment and cut myself off.

[arebelspy]

Adding "If" hypothetical scenarios doesn't answer my question.

"If aliens came down and gave all black women raises, yes."

..alright.

Back to the question:

You genuinely believe you are at a disadvantage being born a white male in America instead of a black female?

[fixer-upper]

Adding "If" hypothetical scenarios doesn't answer my question.

"If aliens came down and gave all black women raises, yes."

..alright.

Back to the question:

You genuinely believe you are at a disadvantage being born a white male in America instead of a black female?

If When I have to pay higher tuition to support scholarships for people who were chosen based on race rather than merit, yes.

If When I'm passed over for a cushy government job because it was given to someone based on race rather than merit, yes.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if when you're a supporter of affirmative action, you're supporting racism.

[iris lily]

About 10 years ago, I moved through a certain lady-age where a few of my unmarried girlfriends decided they wanted to get pregnant RIGHT NOW.  With each announcement, there was quite a lot of joy and congratulations being offered.   I'm sure my silence spoke volumes because I was typically accosted with "you don't think it's a good idea", at which point, I felt the need to elaborate. 
I usually just said "I grew up without a father, and I would never do that to a child ON PURPOSE".  This is just MY OPINION.  I survived and thrived and so have many others, but I still would not choose to do it.  I offered to accept the choices of my friends, and would love their child no less, yet I am expected to AGREE WITH and not just ACCEPT the choices that my friends make.  Invariably, our friendships were damaged.  They think I am a judgemental "church-lady", and I think they are selfish and needy. 
Yeah, I think we need a little more judgementalism in our society.

This is exactly the situation I think of, and thanks for speaking up.

I say, in this situation: I had a father who loved me and I adored him and I cannot imagine purposely denying my child that relationship. I don't  hve children, but if I did I would not have gone off on my own to o that and beside I'm too lazy.

[MDM]

You genuinely believe you are at a disadvantage being born a white male in America instead of a black female?

Fixer-upper provided his own first person reply, but the question seems interesting enough for a third person opinion.

If I interpret correctly, the question refers to an "at birth" scenario.  In that case, if betting on "likely success of the child", I'd look more towards the economic and educational situation of the family and the behavioral aspects of the parents, and less to the child's race or sex.  E.g. Mitt Romney's boys have an advantage over the average black girl born to a drug addicted single mother and destined for poor rural schools.  Similarly, Barack Obama's girls have an advantage over the average white boy left in the sole care of an alcoholic father and destined for poor inner-city schools.

I understand the incredulity with which many have and will read fixer-upper's comment - but it does depend on assumptions overlaying the comment.

[SwordGuy]

I think about this a lot. Within my profession (social work) the concept of unconditional positive regard is stressed, especially as it relates to interactions with clients. Social workers' clients are often seen as the lowest of the low in society (child abusers, sex offenders, drug addicts, etc.), and I agree with the notion that you can't work effectively with clients if you're radiating an inherent dislike.

Child abusers are the lowest of the low.  I don't think I could be nice to one of them even if paid to do so.

I regret they aren't executed so it would save you the trouble and the rest of us the worry.

We have a passel of them in our neighborhood.   Our school system, in it's infinite lack of wisdom, places elementary school bus stops in sight of houses full of them.  Makes one wonder.

[AJ]

About 10 years ago, I moved through a certain lady-age where a few of my unmarried girlfriends decided they wanted to get pregnant RIGHT NOW.  With each announcement, there was quite a lot of joy and congratulations being offered.   I'm sure my silence spoke volumes because I was typically accosted with "you don't think it's a good idea", at which point, I felt the need to elaborate. 
I usually just said "I grew up without a father, and I would never do that to a child ON PURPOSE".  This is just MY OPINION.  I survived and thrived and so have many others, but I still would not choose to do it.  I offered to accept the choices of my friends, and would love their child no less, yet I am expected to AGREE WITH and not just ACCEPT the choices that my friends make.  Invariably, our friendships were damaged.  They think I am a judgemental "church-lady", and I think they are selfish and needy. 
Yeah, I think we need a little more judgementalism in our society.

This is exactly the situation I think of, and thanks for speaking up.

I say, in this situation: I had a father who loved me and I adored him and I cannot imagine purposely denying my child that relationship. I don't  hve children, but if I did I would not have gone off on my own to o that and beside I'm too lazy.

I was going to ignore BlueHouse's comment, since it goes off topic, but if people are chiming in to pat her on the back I have to ask: Are you really saying you would rather have never been born than to grow up without a father? Because, if I'm reading this correctly, the choice these women are making isn't "keep the daddy in child's life vs. not" it's "have baby w/o daddy or have no baby". Personally, all else being equal, I would prefer to exist without a father than not exist. Not to mention that these babies are clearly both wanted and planned (and given how expensive fertility treatments are, presumably afforded). We could delve further into whether it's right to have any babies (overpopulation, blah, blah, blah) but I think there is at least enough reasonable doubt about the scenario to suspend judgement.

[iris lily]

I was going to ignore BlueHouse's comment, since it goes off topic, but if people are chiming in to pat her on the back I have to ask: Are you really saying you would rather have never been born than to grow up without a father?

Maybe, I don't know. I was born pretty damn lucky with parents who love me--trading that for something less , not sure I'd want to do that. Being null in the universe isn't bad, it's null. I wouldn't know. Its wouldn't bother me not knowing or being known.

[Cheddar Stacker]

About 10 years ago, I moved through a certain lady-age where a few of my unmarried girlfriends decided they wanted to get pregnant RIGHT NOW.  With each announcement, there was quite a lot of joy and congratulations being offered.   I'm sure my silence spoke volumes because I was typically accosted with "you don't think it's a good idea", at which point, I felt the need to elaborate. 
I usually just said "I grew up without a father, and I would never do that to a child ON PURPOSE".  This is just MY OPINION.  I survived and thrived and so have many others, but I still would not choose to do it.  I offered to accept the choices of my friends, and would love their child no less, yet I am expected to AGREE WITH and not just ACCEPT the choices that my friends make.  Invariably, our friendships were damaged.  They think I am a judgemental "church-lady", and I think they are selfish and needy. 
Yeah, I think we need a little more judgementalism in our society.

This is exactly the situation I think of, and thanks for speaking up.

I say, in this situation: I had a father who loved me and I adored him and I cannot imagine purposely denying my child that relationship. I don't  hve children, but if I did I would not have gone off on my own to o that and beside I'm too lazy.

I was going to ignore BlueHouse's comment, since it goes off topic, but if people are chiming in to pat her on the back I have to ask: Are you really saying you would rather have never been born than to grow up without a father? Because, if I'm reading this correctly, the choice these women are making isn't "keep the daddy in child's life vs. not" it's "have baby w/o daddy or have no baby". Personally, all else being equal, I would prefer to exist without a father than not exist. Not to mention that these babies are clearly both wanted and planned (and given how expensive fertility treatments are, presumably afforded). We could delve further into whether it's right to have any babies (overpopulation, blah, blah, blah) but I think there is at least enough reasonable doubt about the scenario to suspend judgement.

I don't want to put words in the mouth of BlueHouse, but there's a huge difference between wanting to have never been born, and not being excited for a friend knowing first hand the difficulties that child might endure. I agree though, I'd rather be born under the worst circumstances than not be born at all.

I'm a fairly judgemental person, including a pretty harsh judgement Warfreak deservedly called me out on yesterday, but I'm working on dialing it down a notch. I think it's innate in me to optimize, and when I see someone doing something "wrong", even if it's only my pre-conceived notion of right and wrong, I feeled compelled to call them out. When somone does this to me I find it annoying, so at the very least I hope to not annoy people with my judgemental tendencies.

[innerscorecard]

Ironically, I think it's important to surround yourself with people who are like you in being openminded to be happy as an openminded person.

For example, I would not be happy in academia or the practice of law, where people constantly harp on about institutional prestige and look down on others for their lack of it.

[rocksinmyhead]

Adding "If" hypothetical scenarios doesn't answer my question.

"If aliens came down and gave all black women raises, yes."

..alright.

Back to the question:

You genuinely believe you are at a disadvantage being born a white male in America instead of a black female?

If When I have to pay higher tuition to support scholarships for people who were chosen based on race rather than merit, yes.

If When I'm passed over for a cushy government job because it was given to someone based on race rather than merit, yes.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if when you're a supporter of affirmative action, you're supporting racism.

oh dear god.

personally, I'm not in favor of affirmative action. I think we need to fix the underlying problems instead. if a significant number of smart disadvantaged (minority and/or poor) kids aren't getting the opportunity to go to college, why? let's fix that. I don't think there's a huge societal benefit to giving a leg up to a middle-class black kid who would have done well anyway.

I still think you're out of your fucking mind if you honestly believe you, as a white male, are at an economic disadvantage to a black female in the U.S. today.

and the reason we're saying you're racist is because if you believe that to be true, then looking at the statistics re. income, wealth, and education levels for white men vs. black women in this country,  you're basically saying you think black women are inherently lazier and/or less intelligent than white men.

[matchewed]

If it were true that there were economic advantages to being a minority in the US then where are all the statistics showing us how rich they are and how low their unemployment is?

But back on topic... I'm suddenly feeling quite judgey.

I guess I can be more judgmental when it is something I identify strongly with or have very concrete opinions about.

[arebelspy]

If it were true that there were economic advantages to being a minority in the US then where are all the statistics showing us how rich they are and how low their unemployment is?

But.. but.. theoretical anecdotes!  That's good enough.

[rocksinmyhead]

If it were true that there were economic advantages to being a minority in the US then where are all the statistics showing us how rich they are and how low their unemployment is?

But back on topic... I'm suddenly feeling quite judgey.

I guess I can be more judgmental when it is something I identify strongly with or have very concrete opinions about.

haha! good point :)

[matchewed]

Not if I cross out words and replace them. Then it's moved from theoretical to unverifiable claim.

If it were true that there were economic advantages to being a minority in the US then where are all the statistics showing us how rich they are and how low their unemployment is?

But.. but.. theoretical anecdotes!  That's good enough reality.

[hybrid]

I still think you're out of your fucking mind if you honestly believe you, as a white male, are at an economic disadvantage to a black female in the U.S. today.

and the reason we're saying you're racist is because if you believe that to be true, then looking at the statistics re. income, wealth, and education levels for white men vs. black women in this country,  you're basically saying you think black women are inherently lazier and/or less intelligent than white men.

Wow, what a loaded statement there. Goddammit do I hate it when the race card is played like that. The OP may be wrong, but being wrong does not make a person racist.

If you take a white male and a black female, both of whom come from similar backgrounds, similar education, similar in all ways you can think of, what gives a white man and advantage over a black woman?

Networking and bias. As uncomfortable as it is, people almost always associate with other people similar to themselves. I was talking to a black woman yesterday at work (I'm a white man, and were it not for work our social circles would not cross) about how housing is still very segregated across large swaths of Richmond (but less so in Chesterfield, the neighboring county). At the heart of our conversation was the simple fact that people tend to want to be around people that make them feel more comfortable - people that look like themselves. That is changing, but slowly. This definitely does give white males a very clear advantage when white males are still at the top of just about every field. The glass ceiling still exists in that way.

What the OP is trying to hit on is that as our culture becomes more enlightened people are realizing that homogenous workplaces that result from networking and bias just aren't a great idea. The need to diversify does present some (limited, IMO) opportunities to minorities that may not exist for just one more white guy looking to fill a slot.

By and large though, much better to have all the inherent advantages that a white man has just by being white and male.

 

 

[warfreak2]

Wow, what a loaded statement there. Goddammit do I hate it when the race card is played like that. The OP may be wrong, but being wrong does not make a person racist.

OTOH, being racist does. Also, there's no such thing as "the race card", it was invented by racists to make it sound as if it's unfair for them to be called out on their racism.

What the OP is trying to hit on is that as our culture becomes more enlightened people are realizing that homogenous workplaces that result from networking and bias just aren't a great idea. The need to diversify does present some (limited, IMO) opportunities to minorities that may not exist for just one more white guy looking to fill a slot.

I don't know who you mean by "OP"; at least, fixer-upper said nothing of the sort. He just plain asserted that black women are economically advantaged over white men - a ludicrous, racist fantasy that can only explain reality if white men are just so superior that they overcome their disadvantages to become, economically, extraordinarily more successful than black women who supposedly have the game rigged in their favour (or every other demographic, for that matter).

Honestly, even arguing that black women aren't economically disadvantaged would have the same problems. If white men aren't playing the game on easy mode, how come they're overwhelmingly the winners?

As Louis C.K. sez, "if you're white and you don't admit that it's great, you're an asshole".

[matchewed]

I still think you're out of your fucking mind if you honestly believe you, as a white male, are at an economic disadvantage to a black female in the U.S. today.

and the reason we're saying you're racist is because if you believe that to be true, then looking at the statistics re. income, wealth, and education levels for white men vs. black women in this country,  you're basically saying you think black women are inherently lazier and/or less intelligent than white men.

Wow, what a loaded statement there. Goddammit do I hate it when the race card is played like that. The OP may be wrong, but being wrong does not make a person racist.

If you take a white male and a black female, both of whom come from similar backgrounds, similar education, similar in all ways you can think of, what gives a white man and advantage over a black woman?

Networking and bias. As uncomfortable as it is, people almost always associate with other people similar to themselves. I was talking to a black woman yesterday at work (I'm a white man, and were it not for work our social circles would not cross) about how housing is still very segregated across large swaths of Richmond (but less so in Chesterfield, the neighboring county). At the heart of our conversation was the simple fact that people tend to want to be around people that make them feel more comfortable - people that look like themselves. That is changing, but slowly. This definitely does give white males a very clear advantage when white males are still at the top of just about every field. The glass ceiling still exists in that way.

What the OP is trying to hit on is that as our culture becomes more enlightened people are realizing that homogenous workplaces that result from networking and bias just aren't a great idea. The need to diversify does present some (limited, IMO) opportunities to minorities that may not exist for just one more white guy looking to fill a slot.

By and large though, much better to have all the inherent advantages that a white man has just by being white and male.

What you said "Nuanced examination which still comes to a conclusion that being white and male is advantageous" ≠

As for racism...it's mis-applied and inequitable in today's world.  As a white male, I'm held to a MUCH different standard and put at an economic disadvantage to a black woman.  I see both racism and sexism as cultural flaws (rather than character flaws), being encouraged by feel-good laws such as affirmative action and unbalanced media coverage.

Also I'd raise a skeptical eyebrow that economic disadvantages comes down to networking and bias when there are clear systemic and institutionalized frameworks in place which are racist and prevent minorities from attaining equal footing hence policies like affirmative action to help mitigate those frameworks.

[rocksinmyhead]

I still think you're out of your fucking mind if you honestly believe you, as a white male, are at an economic disadvantage to a black female in the U.S. today.

and the reason we're saying you're racist is because if you believe that to be true, then looking at the statistics re. income, wealth, and education levels for white men vs. black women in this country,  you're basically saying you think black women are inherently lazier and/or less intelligent than white men.

Wow, what a loaded statement there. Goddammit do I hate it when the race card is played like that. The OP may be wrong, but being wrong does not make a person racist.

maybe we are using different definitions of the word "racist." in my opinion, the belief that people of one race are, due to their race, superior in intellect and character to people of another race is racist. in my reading, fixer-upper implied that he held this belief. I would be glad to be shown that I'm wrong! I don't go around calling people racist lightly.

I also don't see how I'm "playing the race card." I'm just discussing race, in a discussion about race that fixer-upper started.

"out of your fucking mind" may have been unnecessarily harsh, though :) sorry!

other than that, I agree with everything you said, but like warfreak and matchewed, I do not see how you are agreeing with fixer-upper (assuming that's who you meant by OP).

[WageSlave]

Just to be clear...

Yep, that's how it came across. Just generally, you aren't going to be able to use a word like that in a public setting without doing more harm than good.

Again, though, I think this whole "judging" thing is cultural.  MMM, on the main blog, liberally uses---and encourages others to use---words you can't say on TV.  I'm pretty sure you can say "fatty" on TV, but you can't say "fuck".  But if my post had used the latter instead, nobody here would blink an eye.  In my mind, I judge "fatty" and "fuck" to be two sides of the same coin.  Let me put it this way: they are both words I don't want my young children to hear or say.  Again, it's culture/context: if I went onto a "skinny elite" forum, I'd probably find every other post contained the word "fatty".  But on this forum, I know the community takes the use of cuss words lightly, so I assumed the same would hold for the use of a word like "fatty" (which, again, I intended for effect, not to shame the overweight).

How about this: what if I say, "We shouldn't judge people by their religion".  On this forum, I'd expect almost complete agreement.  But what if I said that on a Nazi forum?  What do you think the world population at large thinks about that statement?

Again, that's why I think the whole judgment thing is cultural.  There's still plenty of places in the world where religious intolerance is the norm.  What if WW2 had a different outcome?  What would everybody thing about religious choice under those circumstances?

The point is, these things simply aren't absolutes: religion or fatties or nazis or racists or motherfuckers or lazies.  They all have "soft" definitions that are deeply rooted in cultural norms.  So whether or not you judge these things---i.e. where you draw the line---isn't that just a matter of your character (and from that, the culture to which you belong)?

If you have socialized (any group health insurance) medicine, laziness hurts other people who pay into it.

Nope, not buying that as a reason to judge other people; only a reason to promote exercise as a healthy lifestyle choice (which at least, the UK's government and health service do). It still hurts themselves more than anyone else. Also, I'm not sure that it's even true.

I wasn't presenting a rationale to judge others.  In fact I was trying to cast doubt on the idea that judgment is sometimes acceptable.  Someone else was trying to justify the idea that, "It's OK to judge if you're judging a behavior that harms other people, and laziness only harms lazy people, so therefore it's OK to judge them as lazy."  I was trying to say, no, laziness can harm others.  And, more generally, I was trying to say that it's not so easy to draw a line for what constitutes "harming others".  To what degree?  And what about in the case of ignorance?

Society is more likely to reap the benefits of widespread exercise if it's promoted in a non-judgemental way.

Are you sure about that?  So you're judging encouragement to be a better motivator than shame?  To be fair, I probably agree with you... but I also think some people are more motivated by the carrot and others more so by the stick.

How about another example more relevant to this blog.  Do you (the royal you, not any you in particular) judge me (and how so) if I drive my Hummer 5 blocks to the store to pick up a gallon of milk, when I could have just as easily walked or rode my bike (on a nice, warm sunny day, in the world's safest neighborhood)?  You could say, well, I'm encouraging the destruction of natural resources, increasing air (and noise) pollution, so I'm hurting others more than I'm hurting myself... but am I?  What if I'm just ignorant, what I've never read MMM or don't understand the side-effects of unnecessarily driving a gas-guzzler?  And in fact, since it's only 5 blocks, the damage to everyone else is real, yet infinitesimally small.  But the (financial) damage to me is easily calculated.  So, it's basically just like laziness on my part, right?  In that I'm hurting myself more than I'm hurting others.  But isn't this contrived version of myself the "MMM anti-hero", the one constantly being judged?  How is MMM judging people who drive unnecessarily to be clowns any different than judging lazy people to be fatties?

[warfreak2]

Again, though, I think this whole "judging" thing is cultural.  MMM, on the main blog, liberally uses---and encourages others to use---words you can't say on TV.  I'm pretty sure you can say "fatty" on TV, but you can't say "fuck".

The difference is that "fatty" implies a negative judgement of fat people - it's a pejorative - while "fuck" is merely profane, unless you're saying something like "you fat fuck", in which case you're using it as a pejorative and then it's not OK.

if I went onto a "skinny elite" forum, I'd probably find every other post contained the word "fatty".

That hypothetical forum sounds like its userbase consists of judgmental fucks. I wouldn't visit it.

How about another example more relevant to this blog.  [...] What if I'm just ignorant, what I've never read MMM or don't understand the side-effects of unnecessarily driving a gas-guzzler?

Then you fail (b) because of lack of awareness, so there's a clear possibility that telling you my opinion (that you're being wasteful and lazy) could help you.

How is MMM judging people who drive unnecessarily to be clowns any different than judging lazy people to be fatties?

This is a good question, of course. I think being "silly" doesn't have anywhere near the stigma of being "fat" in our society, it's a much milder insult if it's an insult at all. On top of that, the thrust of the article isn't judging car drivers, but inviting them to judge themselves:

To cure the disease, you just need to change the way you feel about driving.[...]The goal here is not to create negative stress in your life. Just acknowledge that whenever you turn the key, you need to say, “Here we go. I’m being an asshole again”.

Of course, the message is wrapped in MMM's own judgement; "harsh judgement of things that are widely considered totally acceptable" is a common trope in comedy, and I think it's generally acceptable when the people being "attacked" are in a position of strength, and/or don't actually suffer from those judgements in real life. For example, jokes at the expense of the ruling class are in much better taste than jokes at the expense of those in poverty.

[Russ]

So you're judging encouragement to be a better motivator than shame?

Just gonna point this out since a few people have used "judge" this way in what seems to be a "fuck you everybody judges things I win"...

what nonjudgemental people try not to do is judge things as good or bad. that doesn't mean you can't have opinions. having the opinion "encouragement is a more effective motivator than shame" (especially if with the context of certain given circumstances) is quite different from saying "encouragement is good, shame is bad"

[AJ]

So you're judging encouragement to be a better motivator than shame?

Just gonna point this out since a few people have used "judge" this way in what seems to be a "fuck you everybody judges things I win"...

what nonjudgemental people try not to do is judge things as good or bad. that doesn't mean you can't have opinions. having the opinion "encouragement is a more effective motivator than shame" (especially if with the context of certain given circumstances) is quite different from saying "encouragement is good, shame is bad"

+1

We should make the distinction between normative and descriptive "judgements" here.

Descriptive: Saving money now leads to earlier retirement
Normative: Saving money is better than spending it

Descriptive: Eating too much leads to weight gain
Normative: People who are overweight should eat less

Descriptive: Having a child alone means the child will grow up fatherless
Normative: It is wrong to have a child alone


I assume most people here are fine with descriptive, factual statements. Those can be supported with evidence. The big question is: are normative statements ever (or even usually) helpful? I'm not sure...

[fixer-upper]

I still think you're out of your fucking mind if you honestly believe you, as a white male, are at an economic disadvantage to a black female in the U.S. today.

and the reason we're saying you're racist is because if you believe that to be true, then looking at the statistics re. income, wealth, and education levels for white men vs. black women in this country,  you're basically saying you think black women are inherently lazier and/or less intelligent than white men.

Now that you (and others) have jumped on the bandwagon of labeling me as a racist simply because I'm white, let's go back to my original post here:

From my brief time here, the people seem a bit cliquish, and yes, they do judge.  Whenever I've tried to introduce a new concept, they're quick to pile on and label me black or white, rather than being open to shades of gray.

What I didn't tell you is that I was born with congenital defects, struggle to walk (with Forrest Gump braces) most days, can't walk on others.  My absentee dad is a verbally abusive druggie.  I was raised in a poor rural area by a single mom without a college education.   

At birth, I was certainly at a disadvantage to a typical black woman.  The way I was reared, however, gave me an advantage.  My mom didn't cut me any slack, and didn't coddle me.  She expected me to fend for myself, and it made me the sort of person who figures out how to do things for myself rather than expecting special treatment.

You think I'm crazy for saying minorities shouldn't get special entitlements, but I know from personal experience that coddling the under-privileged isn't necessarily a good thing.  Generations of welfare to indians have resulted in reservations being some of the poorest places in the US.  Employers are afraid to hire cripples and minorities because they're afraid of being sued for BS infractions.  By "protecting" me from discrimination, you've made me the target of it.

Multiple generations of providing special treatments to minorities has resulted in increased percentages of poor, incarcerated, broken families, and addicted members of those classes.  You need a face punch if you think special treatment is helping minorities rather than hurting them.  The fact that the laws are inherently racist is just an amusing side note.

[warfreak2]

"I can't be racist, I was born with congenital defects". Sorry dude, that's not how logic works. Being born with congenital defects surely sucks ass, but it doesn't give you a "get out of racism free" pass. Also, try being a black woman born with congenital defects.

The point you seem to be missing, when you're arguing against "special treatment" for minorities, is that overwhelmingly, it's white men who get the special treatment, as should be obvious from a cursory glance at reality.

[fixer-upper]

"I can't be racist, I was born with congenital defects". Sorry dude, that's not how logic works. Being born with congenital defects surely sucks ass, but it doesn't give you a "get out of racism free" pass. Also, try being a black woman born with congenital defects.

The point you seem to be missing, when you're arguing against "special treatment" for minorities, is that overwhelmingly, it's white men who get the special treatment, as should be obvious from a cursory glance at reality.

What a bunch of rubbish!  Black Americans (as a group example) hold themselves down by shunning education.  They tease and shun oreos who want to make something of themselves.  They play the race card, crying about how much harder they have it, and demand special treatment.  They complain about slavery, but they're the ones who invented it.

Demanding special treatment because of your race or sex is racist or sexist.   Demanding equal treatment is not.

I don't accept special treatment, and treat people equally regardless of sex, color, or disability.  Any person can choose to lift themselves up, if they have the pride to do so.  Likewise, they can choose to whine while they hold themselves down.  Blaming it on an *unfair advantage* falls under the latter category.

[rocksinmyhead]

I still think you're out of your fucking mind if you honestly believe you, as a white male, are at an economic disadvantage to a black female in the U.S. today.

and the reason we're saying you're racist is because if you believe that to be true, then looking at the statistics re. income, wealth, and education levels for white men vs. black women in this country,  you're basically saying you think black women are inherently lazier and/or less intelligent than white men.

Now that you (and others) have jumped on the bandwagon of labeling me as a racist simply because I'm white, let's go back to my original post here:

From my brief time here, the people seem a bit cliquish, and yes, they do judge.  Whenever I've tried to introduce a new concept, they're quick to pile on and label me black or white, rather than being open to shades of gray.

What I didn't tell you is that I was born with congenital defects, struggle to walk (with Forrest Gump braces) most days, can't walk on others.  My absentee dad is a verbally abusive druggie.  I was raised in a poor rural area by a single mom without a college education.   

At birth, I was certainly at a disadvantage to a typical black woman.  The way I was reared, however, gave me an advantage.  My mom didn't cut me any slack, and didn't coddle me.  She expected me to fend for myself, and it made me the sort of person who figures out how to do things for myself rather than expecting special treatment.

You think I'm crazy for saying minorities shouldn't get special entitlements, but I know from personal experience that coddling the under-privileged isn't necessarily a good thing.  Generations of welfare to indians have resulted in reservations being some of the poorest places in the US.  Employers are afraid to hire cripples and minorities because they're afraid of being sued for BS infractions.  By "protecting" me from discrimination, you've made me the target of it.

Multiple generations of providing special treatments to minorities has resulted in increased percentages of poor, incarcerated, broken families, and addicted members of those classes.  You need a face punch if you think special treatment is helping minorities rather than hurting them.  The fact that the laws are inherently racist is just an amusing side note.

oh my god, it's like you didn't even read what I wrote, you read what you wanted to read. I didn't "label you a racist simply because you're white." to repeat:

and the reason we're saying you're racist is because if you believe that to be true, then looking at the statistics re. income, wealth, and education levels for white men vs. black women in this country,  you're basically saying you think black women are inherently lazier and/or less intelligent than white men.

in my opinion, the belief that people of one race are, due to their race, superior in intellect and character to people of another race is racist. in my reading, fixer-upper implied that he held this belief. I would be glad to be shown that I'm wrong! I don't go around calling people racist lightly.

so, no, it has nothing to do with you being white. you could be black, Asian, Latino, or IDGAF and if you implied that you believe that your race is inherently more intelligent and/or hardworking than another, I think that's a racist belief. from your posts, I deduced that you hold this belief. I could definitely be wrong.

What I didn't tell you is that I was born with congenital defects, struggle to walk (with Forrest Gump braces) most days, can't walk on others.  My absentee dad is a verbally abusive druggie.  I was raised in a poor rural area by a single mom without a college education.   

At birth, I was certainly at a disadvantage to a typical black woman.  The way I was reared, however, gave me an advantage.  My mom didn't cut me any slack, and didn't coddle me.  She expected me to fend for myself, and it made me the sort of person who figures out how to do things for myself rather than expecting special treatment.

I'm sorry to hear about the challenges you've had in your life. it's great that you've made it this far. but your personal experience does not mean that the average white male has it harder than the average black female in this country, which is what you implied in your previous posts (i.e. that you were worse off than the average black female because you are a white male, not because of congenital defects or growing up poor and fatherless).

You think I'm crazy for saying minorities shouldn't get special entitlements, but I know from personal experience that coddling the under-privileged isn't necessarily a good thing.  ....  You need a face punch if you think special treatment is helping minorities rather than hurting them.  The fact that the laws are inherently racist is just an amusing side note.

once again, did you even read anything I wrote?

personally, I'm not in favor of affirmative action. I think we need to fix the underlying problems instead. if a significant number of smart disadvantaged (minority and/or poor) kids aren't getting the opportunity to go to college, why? let's fix that. I don't think there's a huge societal benefit to giving a leg up to a middle-class black kid who would have done well anyway.

so like I said before, I don't think we should hand out entitlements/scholarships/jobs/what have you on the basis of race, because there's no point in helping out middle- or upper-class racial minorities who don't need it. that help would be better targeted to those who are disadvantaged (by poverty, lack of parenting, etc.), like yourself, regardless of race. but I do think we have to look at statistics on racial minorities that end up with worse life outcomes (lower educational attainment, higher poverty rates, shorter lifespans, etc.), ask ourselves why that's happening, and work to amend it. this doesn't have to come at the expense of white people, except maybe in the way that some white people have only achieved the level of success that they have because of the systematic advantage of being white. does that make sense? I hope I'm being clear, but I'm concerned that you've taken my other points completely wrong.

[NinetyFour]

I judge people who misspell the word "judgment".  And the word "misspell".  ;-)

[AJ]

I judge people who misspell the word "judgment".  And the word "misspell".  ;-)

And grey (or gray) areas like that are why people say not to judge ;-)

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/judgement-or-judgment/

[dragoncar]

I judge people who misspell the word "judgment". 

I judge people that leave off vowels from perfectly acceptable spellings like "judgement" (stupid Webster and his stupid vowel deletion conspiracy).

[daverobev]

Interesting topic.

I think if we can get to "a human is a human; they have properties like skin colour, gender, intelligence, education, laziness" and learn to discriminate based on the relevant properties (how hard they work, how well they work - for an employer), then we'll be doing pretty well.

I do agree that positive discrimination is discrimination. I also believe this: Just because the heads of companies tend to be middle aged white guys, not all middle aged white guys are automagically destined for greatness because of their sex and skin colour. It is very easy to look at white males and go: THEM! THEY'RE THE FUCKERS! THEY'RE STEALING ALL MY MONEY!! when it just isn't true. Look at Homer Simpson!

Also, at the child molester comment - just think about that for a second. You really think a 25 year old goes, ooh, what shall I do today. I know - I'll molest a child! While I totally accept personal responsibility is really really important, there are no doubt hundreds and thousands of people who are attracted to children but do nothing about it. They are sick. They don't deserve to be executed - it is not *their fault*.

Y'see, that's how it goes - the more you try and not judge, the more you go.. nope.. these people are just a bit fucked up.

We ALL do stupid things. Catching falling knives (literally.. ouch). Turning left when we could've turned right.

Letting your dog shit on my lawn is ignorant. Buying an SUV is ignorant. Being Christian is ignorant. Right? Who am I to say (apart from letting your dog shit on my lawn; that really makes me annoyed).

What we *lack* is responsibility for our actions. Money is our God, and with it we can do all sorts of harm - because other people want some of our God, and we - because we're trustworthy borrowers and spenders - would rather live convenient lives. Hanging out washing? Naw, just throw it in the dryer. Walk? Naw, just drive. Wait? Naw, NOW!

But again - who am I to judge? Just because I think something is ignorant, doesn't mean it is, and that I'm not. I am not God.

Fat people need help. They may not be breaking healthcare systems now, but give it 30 years? But it's not all their fault, either - marketing and advertising, sedentary lifestyles, the low price of all this stuff that years ago would've been scarce - animals will eat to get them through the lean times, and we in our lizard brains choose to do the same. There might not BE any ice cream tomorrow!

Who knows. I feel really bad for the (ex) Mozilla CEO. Did he make a personal contribution to a cause that is not politically correct? Sure. Does that have any impact on his ability to do his job? I think not. If I believed in a faceless, nameless all-powerful being that created everything.. does that make me more or less suitable to be president, or CEO, or cleaner?

So "we all" judge. Just make sure you don't judge differently to the people around you, or you might get lynched. Which says something, don't you think?

[warfreak2]

Black Americans (as a group example) hold themselves down by shunning education.

And you're telling me you're not racist?

They tease and shun oreos who want to make something of themselves.

Because ambition = "white on the inside", right? I get it! (Super racist!)

They play the race card, crying about how much harder they have it, and demand special treatment.  They complain about slavery, but they're the ones who invented it.

HOLY FUCK MY RACIST-OMETER EXPLODED.

I don't accept special treatment

OTOH, white men get special treatment whether they ask for it or not.

[fixer-upper]

so like I said before, I don't think we should hand out entitlements/scholarships/jobs/what have you on the basis of race, because there's no point in helping out middle- or upper-class racial minorities who don't need it. that help would be better targeted to those who are disadvantaged (by poverty, lack of parenting, etc.), like yourself, regardless of race. but I do think we have to look at statistics on racial minorities that end up with worse life outcomes (lower educational attainment, higher poverty rates, shorter lifespans, etc.), ask ourselves why that's happening, and work to amend it. this doesn't have to come at the expense of white people, except maybe in the way that some white people have only achieved the level of success that they have because of the systematic advantage of being white. does that make sense? I hope I'm being clear, but I'm concerned that you've taken my other points completely wrong.

I don't think we should hand out entitlements/scholarships/jobs/what have you based or race, disability, or sex (and especially not for athletics).  I embrace Darwinism, and believe we should let the cream rise to the top naturally rather than trying to force a homogenous mixture. 

"The systemic advantage of being white" is complainypants justification for special treatment, and isn't to our benefit from an  evolutionary standpoint.  The cream of our society (those who rise to the top on their own) are the ones who provide the greatest advancement for us as a species.  Forcing them into a mixture of half and half prevents them from realizing their true  potential.

[warfreak2]

The cream of our society (those who rise to the top on their own WHITE PEOPLE)

So you really do believe that white people are simply superior and that is why they are successful? You aren't even ashamed of being a white supremacist, you're actually going to admit it in public?

Forcing them into a mixture of half and half prevents them from realizing their true  potential.

Straight up white supremacist bullshit.