World Cup TV kiss sparks social media debate on sexual harassment in China
67 replies, posted
Well, that's the thing about bias, the ones who have it obviously feel it's justified. I'm sure basically every racist in existence held their prejudices deeply to heart as well.
Fundamental attribution error doesn't even cater to demographics, it can apply to individuals as well. When you categorize someone you know as stupid or lazy you're likely partaking in it, too.
Your argument about not wanting such things to be perfectly logical may be used in other contexts as well, like gender or race equality. Logic serves to point out the bias that are integrated so deeply into our society that we are unaware of them. To be open minded means being ready to subvert those deeply ingrained habits when they're shown to be logically inconsistent. Feminists among others use that method to protest against injustices, but if you selectively apply it depending on whether you already agree with its conclusion, can you really call yourself one? That would be utterly missing the point, to use rationality to push your beliefs onto others while refusing to hold them to the same scrutiny.
You can't prove that an ideology is objectively true. But logically inconsistent ideologies are objectively false. If you don't accept to lose beliefs nor rationally defend them when they are being challenged, you are willfully lying to yourself and perpetrating that lie to the rest of society.
Prejudice
le epic one word response to an attempt at having a genuine discussion about complicated topics
I mean I also made a lengthy edit to my post 10 days ago and further attempted to justify my intuition but..
No, your point still doesn't stand. Two things :
Your attempt at rationalizing your prejudice completely misses the point of my original argument. Whether the increase in likelihood of danger is due to biological or socioeconomic factors is irrelevant. Having grown up in poverty and having a rough upbringing isn't any better of an excuse for committing crimes than having naturally high testosterone levels. In either of those cases, the individual has no control over those factors. Would you argue that the justice system should treat mentally disabled people in the exact same way as regular citizens? While we're at it, why don't we lower the maximum legal alcohol driving dosage for Asians, since they're generally unable to process alcohol as well as other ethnicities?
In neither case is discrimination justified, because those factors affect said populations more in general. Some black people aren't criminals, some white people are. Some men are less aggressive than some women. It's unfair for either person to be discriminated against because of generalizations based on their ethnicity or sex, whether these generalizations stem from socioeconomic, biological, physical or metaphysical factors. Your argument is not valid.
Secondly, the very line of logic you're attempting to employ here is by and large decried by the feminist community as "biotruths" ie fallacious attempts at justifying discriminatory behavior or gender discrepancies using biological jargon. The use of testosterone or estrogen as justifications for variations in behavior that lead to differences in career choices and wage negociations, for instance, tend to be considered as such by feminists, who prefer to use entirely social gender norms as explanations.
If you're going to use this rhetorical tool as an argument (which I'd advise against, since I've shown that it doesn't invalidate my main point) then you'd better be prepared to accept it when used in those arguments, lest you be an ideological hypocrite.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.