Re: Generalizations re: age gender

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's interesting that among those who have been criticizing any concerns
over the generalization issue, the predominant argument appears to be along
the lines of "as a general principle, I should be able to say whatever I
want, wherever I want, with no repercussions". I'm not saying these folks
believe that, but that's what they're generally arguing.

I strongly disagree with that line of argument - it ignores the power of
words to shape human perception. What people say about me influences what
other people will think about me, and that affects how other people will
treat me. I benefit from some stereotypes about me, some are neutral, and
some are harmful. Some might be beneficial to others in my group but harmful
to me. If people start flinging around capricious generalizations that
could affect me positively or negatively, don't I have a right to take an
interest in their actions?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's really a tradeoff among various
interests, rights and responsibilities. There are situations in which
discussion of a generalization serves a valuable purpose, which a
"reasonable person" might judge to merit proceeding despite the chance
that someone might be offended. For P3D, I would recommend that this
"valuable purpose" have something substantial to do with 3D - an issue that
might affect whether a stereo club will be in existence ten years from now
would be considered substantial, but a discussion of which way the stereo
club members lace their shoes would not be "substantial 3D" in that sense.
So I would *not* recommend that all generalization of people be cut off,
but those who choose to promulgate generalizations would be well advised
to keep in mind that they're figuratively playing with dynamite.

Please note that this post is not a reaction to Dr. T's comment on
ViewMaster collector demographics, but on the subsequent "let me say
whatever I want, and shame on you if you object" posts.

>Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:54:38 -0500
>To: Multiple recipients of list <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Generalizations re: age gender

>The only thing more harmful and insulting than a generalization, are
>people who are offended by them! 

So, for example, if I happen to be a member of a group (ethnic, age, gender,
etc.) that people generalize as dishonest, and if storekeepers follow me
around and harrass me, and police stop me and threaten me, even though
I as an individual happen to be honest, does that mean that my audacity
in being offended by this treatment is more harmful and insulting than
anything that's done to me?

>If your name is not attached to a
>statement, it may or may NOT pertain to you.

So if I fail to get a job because of a generalization, should I be content
because even though I'm unemployed, I have the comfort of knowing in my
heart that the generalization does not pertain to me?

Yes, these are extreme examples, but if those claims are going to be
asserted as general principles, they need to be able to handle the
extreme cases.

I didn't want to leave the previous posts unanswered, but it would be really
nice if we could get back to 3D sometime. Just think - if the generalization
hadn't been posted, then a lot of this non-3D stuff on P3D could have been 
avoided!

John R


------------------------------