Jargon

[andrewducker]

Several people have said that discriminating against Americans isn't racism. Which seems reasonable in some ways, because Americans aren't a race. But in that case, what is it? Nationalism doesn't seem right, because nationalism is usually being proud of your own country, not against a specific other one. Anyone?

[Poll #161402]

Comments

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

I don't really think that "discriminating" really is the right word for what's at issue here. I'd say "making generalizations about" rather than "discriminating".

[andrewducker]

Making negative generalisations based on a characteristic that's not relevant is surely discriminatory?

If I said all black people were stupid (which, by the way I'd never say outside of an example), would that not be discriminatory?

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

I don't think "discriminatory" can refer to speech, only to actions. If you denied black people admission to a university because of the belief that black people were stupid, that would be discrimination. But stating such a belief is not itself discrimination, only a generalization (in this case, a generalization with no basis in fact, unlike the generalization "Americans tend to be ill-informed," which has some basis in fact, though both statements are generalizations).

heh

[josephgrossberg.livejournal.com]

So let's say, a person said really disgusting things against Jews, but never actually came across one to treat in that manner, you don't think they'd be accurately labeled as discriminatory?

Re: heh

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

No, I don't think so. You could say, perhaps, that they were making grossly inaccurate generalizations about Jews, or you could justifiably describe them with other, less polite words, but it wouldn't be accurate to say that they were "discriminating", because they wouldn't be discriminating against anyone.

Re: heh

[allorin.livejournal.com]

Discriminate: - To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.

I think you can quite easily verbally discriminate against someone, or a group of someones. Your argument seems to be that to discriminate, there has to be an action. I don't think that's factually correct.

Regardless, you're arguing semantics.

Re: heh

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

I think you can quite easily verbally discriminate against someone, or a group of someones. Your argument seems to be that to discriminate, there has to be an action. I don't think that's factually correct.

The dictionary definition you give (and I hate arguing from dictionaries, because they don't tell you about actual usage, which is always the relevant thing) is a bit ambiguous, I admit. However it still seems like "show preference or prejudice" means "act in a way that reveals ones prejudice," especially given the examples they then give.

Regardless, you're arguing semantics.

I also hate it when people say that. Semantics means "meaning". When someone says "it's pointless to argue semantics," they really mean, "it's pointless to try to come to an agreement on words mean, because a word means whatever I decide it means."

Whereas (yeah, I'm anal-retentive, so what?)

[allorin.livejournal.com]

Generalise: -

1)
a) To reduce to a general form, class, or law.
b) To render indefinite or unspecific.

2)
a) To infer from many particulars.
b) To draw inferences or a general conclusion from.

3)
a) To make generally or universally applicable.
b) To popularize.

Which might fit, but doesn't seem entirely appropriate.

Re: Whereas (yeah, I'm anal-retentive, so what?)

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

It really depends on the specifics. If someone is saying "really disgusting things about Jews" (josephgrossberg's words), it is likely that they are engaging in 1(a), 2(a), and or 2(b). Racist generalizations are often based on drawing inferences or conclusions from evidence (albeit evidence that doesn't support the conclusions), and/or reducing individuals to a "general form, class or law" (in this case, to someone's idea of what people in said individual's racial group are like).

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

I think part of the problem is that intelligence doesnt increase by numbers. Isn't there a saying that a mob is less smart than its dumbest member?

I know, or have known, a bunch of Americans and as individuals they've had a spread of intellectual ability tending towards the smarter end. But as a mob they are responsible for Jerry Springer and ad breaks every five seconds and poor health care.

Of course we are just as bad, and by we I mean every possible group that includes me. But then no group that includes me has any real power on a global stage.

Canadians, of course, are universally intelligent, fun, and pretty :)

heh

[josephgrossberg.livejournal.com]

You have better beer, better comedians, and Quebecois women are sublime.

But that's all the credit I'll give you, you suburb of America! ;)

[nickys.livejournal.com]

I think the correct term for thinking that people from another country are inferior is Chauvanism - derived from a M. Chauvin in the 19th Century.

Of course these days chauvanism is used to mean different stuff.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

Does it have to be an -ism? Couldn't it just be prejudice?

I agree that it's definitely not racism.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

How about biased?

[allorin.livejournal.com]

Or bigoted? ;+)

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

Oooh, that's a good one!

[derumi.livejournal.com]

Stupidism?

[thefirethorn.livejournal.com]

Actually I changed my mind, I think what you are describing is generalization.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

If the reference is (as I assume it is) to this cartoon (http://www.livejournal.com/users/andrewducker/358296.html), the answer's pretty amusing.

[rainstorm.livejournal.com]

I've noticed lately that your use of apostrophes is going down the drain. I will therefore look down my nose at you whenever I have the chance.

Ha!

[andrewducker]

Ok, I've re-read it three times.

Where's the incorrect apostrophe?

There's three in there, all used in contractions, which is a perfectly valid place for them.

And it's easy for you to look down your nose at me, so long as you're standing on a chair. Or two.

[rainstorm.livejournal.com]

"American's" shouldn't have an apostrophe.

[andrewducker]

Where???

[rainstorm.livejournal.com]

ha, very cunning, you changed it, you dirty lying cow-bag.


HAHAHA I WIN!

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

As I pointed out, in your poll on public nakedneess, offensive clothing etc. in teh "offensive clothing" section you said "nun's" when you meant "nuns"

heh

[josephgrossberg.livejournal.com]

"Americans aren't a race"

Maybe that gives the portion of critics who really are bigoted, more leeway than they deserve.

Re: heh

[andrewducker]

Well they aren't a race any more than the French are a race or the Canadians are a race.

They're a populace, I suppose. Or something else technical. But races are genetically similar (in at least some respects).

Re: heh

[josephgrossberg.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not denying that Americans aren't a race.

I'm just saying that the fact they aren't lets critics sidestep accusations of racism, a type of bigotry that is almost universally seen as illegitimate.

heh

[josephgrossberg.livejournal.com]

Sub-poll:

xenophobia, except when it's your own country

And when it's your own country, it's ...?

* revolutionary
* reactionary
* progressive
* elitist
* hypocritical
* credible
* ???

Re: heh

[allorin.livejournal.com]

British

Sorry, couldn't resist....

[allorin.livejournal.com]

Scary icon. Sca-ree. Is that the Joker?

And yeah, I'm bored, and can't be arsed writing in my own journal. Andy's is far more interesting anyway.

[blackmanxy.livejournal.com]

Fuckit. I have better things to do than involve myself in flamewars.