People not only think that if you say something about an issue that they not only know the full spectrum of your thought on that issue but also on unrelated ones. If I said that I'm so pro 2nd Amendment that I think everyone should own an M-16 rifle do you think that would tell you what I think about abortion, racism, transsexuals or eco…
People not only think that if you say something about an issue that they not only know the full spectrum of your thought on that issue but also on unrelated ones. If I said that I'm so pro 2nd Amendment that I think everyone should own an M-16 rifle do you think that would tell you what I think about abortion, racism, transsexuals or economic issues?
If I told you that I read the Bible from cover to cover do you think you could infer that I'm a Christian? I like Pete Seeger's music, am I a communist?
Anyone who a functioning mind and memory has noted that political positions come in syndromes. We could get hung up on the imperfect accuracy of generalizations like that but if I guess that someone wearing a MAGA hat is bigoted against gays etc., I may be making an unfair generalization but I am probably right.
Syndromes.
BTW I've gone a lot further than just reading the Bible ... an interest in Gnosticism led me to read a few dozen books on the first few centuries of Christianity including the writings of several early church fathers. Since most fundamentalist bigots have only read the juicy bits in Timothy and Leviticus, I can argue circles around them pointing out what Iranaeus had to say about abusing scripture to support a personal agenda. This used to be fun.
People with 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴 don't embrace all the items on their tribal checklist. They look at separate issues as separate issues. Indeed, it is my reason for disliking extreme political partisanship, it is a syndrome. Are their lots of people who fall into those syndromes? Yes, of course, but assuming it about others maintains the divide. Who does that serve?
As for having a 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘺, I try to not make assumptions from that either. I consider it of course but it is not a decider. If it was, thanks to my memory of adult homosexuals offering me money for sex when I was fifteen, I'd be making an assumption about you that I suspect would be unfounded. My memory of the violence of the black guys from the projects that I went to high school with carving people up and beating them down in packs would have me thinking things about Steve that are untrue. Our memories are a limited subset, not the whole. That's where bigotry is found.
The reference to assumptions about reading the Bible cover to cover indicating that the reader is a Christian was a reference to a bad assumption. I don't know the actual number, but I suspect that many become atheists while reading the Bible critically. As an aside, I am well read on world religions, but that wasn't the point.
I suspect you think you're rebutting me but you're doing more the opposite. Of course people with functioning minds examine issues and individuals separately. But as I keep saying, logic is a retrofit and it is a minority retrofit.
Adlai Stevenson on needing a majority.
But a point I keep coming back to is the sneer at any and all generalizations. Smart people are alert to their exceptions; not all gay men offer money to teenage boys (most don't), not all black kids roam in gangs (most don't). I'd say generalization in those cases is bona fide bigotry.
But. Judiciously and unprejudiciously applied, generalization is the most powerful tool we have for making sense of the world. Look at taxonomy. It bears live young that are initially helpless, it feeds them with a nutritious fluid generated in its own body, it has fur. No oppression or presumption in guessing it's a mammal. Then there are the marsupials and monotremes that don't quite fit the generalization. That doesn't mean we should stop gathering mammals into a category.
Same with people. Taking your first example, the gay culture encouraged immaturity and ready capitulation to impulse and didn't have the maturing power of needing to get it together to raise children. That was nothing intrinsic to being gay and a lot of gays managed to grow up anyway. But the culture promoted it, one reason AIDS swept through it like a fire in a dead cornfield and a high wind.
Back to my first, political attitudes very much tend to come in syndromes. I'd call myself pretty far left, and more authoritarian every year as I see what a lousy job we're doing with our precious freedoms, but there are elements of the "leftist syndrome" that are completely unacceptable to me.
AND there is the fact that most people are conformist af and live their lives trying to act like the television tells them they're supposed to. Watch how eagerly people pick up dumb new words and phrases (reach out, share) or succumb to peer pressures and start smoking.
I think we share in disdain for political syndromes. There are places where generalizations are more highly useful than others and I do not discount them out of hand. I just try to not give them more weight than they deserve.
People not only think that if you say something about an issue that they not only know the full spectrum of your thought on that issue but also on unrelated ones. If I said that I'm so pro 2nd Amendment that I think everyone should own an M-16 rifle do you think that would tell you what I think about abortion, racism, transsexuals or economic issues?
If I told you that I read the Bible from cover to cover do you think you could infer that I'm a Christian? I like Pete Seeger's music, am I a communist?
People read way too much into things.
Anyone who a functioning mind and memory has noted that political positions come in syndromes. We could get hung up on the imperfect accuracy of generalizations like that but if I guess that someone wearing a MAGA hat is bigoted against gays etc., I may be making an unfair generalization but I am probably right.
Syndromes.
BTW I've gone a lot further than just reading the Bible ... an interest in Gnosticism led me to read a few dozen books on the first few centuries of Christianity including the writings of several early church fathers. Since most fundamentalist bigots have only read the juicy bits in Timothy and Leviticus, I can argue circles around them pointing out what Iranaeus had to say about abusing scripture to support a personal agenda. This used to be fun.
Recommended: https://smile.amazon.com/Doctrine-Practice-Early-Church-Stuart/dp/0802806295/ref=sr_1_2
People with 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴 don't embrace all the items on their tribal checklist. They look at separate issues as separate issues. Indeed, it is my reason for disliking extreme political partisanship, it is a syndrome. Are their lots of people who fall into those syndromes? Yes, of course, but assuming it about others maintains the divide. Who does that serve?
As for having a 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘺, I try to not make assumptions from that either. I consider it of course but it is not a decider. If it was, thanks to my memory of adult homosexuals offering me money for sex when I was fifteen, I'd be making an assumption about you that I suspect would be unfounded. My memory of the violence of the black guys from the projects that I went to high school with carving people up and beating them down in packs would have me thinking things about Steve that are untrue. Our memories are a limited subset, not the whole. That's where bigotry is found.
The reference to assumptions about reading the Bible cover to cover indicating that the reader is a Christian was a reference to a bad assumption. I don't know the actual number, but I suspect that many become atheists while reading the Bible critically. As an aside, I am well read on world religions, but that wasn't the point.
I suspect you think you're rebutting me but you're doing more the opposite. Of course people with functioning minds examine issues and individuals separately. But as I keep saying, logic is a retrofit and it is a minority retrofit.
Adlai Stevenson on needing a majority.
But a point I keep coming back to is the sneer at any and all generalizations. Smart people are alert to their exceptions; not all gay men offer money to teenage boys (most don't), not all black kids roam in gangs (most don't). I'd say generalization in those cases is bona fide bigotry.
But. Judiciously and unprejudiciously applied, generalization is the most powerful tool we have for making sense of the world. Look at taxonomy. It bears live young that are initially helpless, it feeds them with a nutritious fluid generated in its own body, it has fur. No oppression or presumption in guessing it's a mammal. Then there are the marsupials and monotremes that don't quite fit the generalization. That doesn't mean we should stop gathering mammals into a category.
Same with people. Taking your first example, the gay culture encouraged immaturity and ready capitulation to impulse and didn't have the maturing power of needing to get it together to raise children. That was nothing intrinsic to being gay and a lot of gays managed to grow up anyway. But the culture promoted it, one reason AIDS swept through it like a fire in a dead cornfield and a high wind.
Back to my first, political attitudes very much tend to come in syndromes. I'd call myself pretty far left, and more authoritarian every year as I see what a lousy job we're doing with our precious freedoms, but there are elements of the "leftist syndrome" that are completely unacceptable to me.
AND there is the fact that most people are conformist af and live their lives trying to act like the television tells them they're supposed to. Watch how eagerly people pick up dumb new words and phrases (reach out, share) or succumb to peer pressures and start smoking.
I think we share in disdain for political syndromes. There are places where generalizations are more highly useful than others and I do not discount them out of hand. I just try to not give them more weight than they deserve.