"the Truth at any cost"

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Two Definitions of Racism

Ok, before I get started on the content of this post, I want to say I am sorry if I offend anyone--I am against racism and sexism, but I think that only through a clear conception of racism can we eliminate it.

It seems to me, when people use the words 'racism' and/or 'sexism', they use it in different ways. And this isn't necessarily true of just the uneducated, either. In both of my interpretations of the definition of racism, I have heard and read scholars use them in each way.
This is an exercise in Folk Philosophizing (see below), so obviously I have no real scientific evidence behind why I take these to be the definitions people are using--it just seems that way to me. So feel free to comment and criticize me.

The first definition of racism is the type that states that all stereotypes of a group of people (whether it be race or sex, or even something else) are false, and therefore, believing these stereotypes to be true is damaging ethically and practically. Now this is the definition I held about racism/sexism for almost all of my life. For example, I criticize people for saying gay men are more sensitive, have better fashion sense, are shallow, are feminine, etc. According to this definition of racism/sexism, shows like Queer Eye and Will and Grace are homophobic (or homosexist, if that might be a word), because they perpetuate these stereotypes of gay men.

But this definition of racism/sexism seems problematic. For one, I have heard many people applaud shows like Queer Eye and Will and Grace for bringing more homosexuality into the media. They don't think those shows are homophobic--this is something I have heard not from ignorant people, either, I am talking about gay men themselves applauding these shows.
The second problem with this definition of racism/sexism is a little more controversial. Let's say a sociologist did a study on gay men and found that they rank significantly higher on some kind of sensitivity scale (just work with me here, this is theoretical). Wouldn't this justify the homophobia? I mean it wouldn't prove that all gay men are more sensitive, but it would give me a rational reason to, when meeting a gay man, guess that he is more sensitive. It would be parallel to this less controversial example: I like metal music. I like Meshuggah. Now if I meet someone else who likes metal music, I am going to assume there is statistically a higher chance that this person likes Meshuggah. Now if I meet a homosexual male, I can already know that there is a statistically higher chance that he is more sensitive.
And this could work for anything. A black male is more likely to go to prison than a white male, and from this I could rationally assert, when seeing a black male on the street, that he is a criminal.
So if this first definition is right, there are empirical tests that could be done that could make racist/sexist beliefs rational. And we certainly don't want to say that racism and sexism are rational.

The second definition I hear people use seems more bizarre to me: The second type of racism/sexism assumes certain stereotypes to be true about certain groups of people, but says that disciminating against these people because of these characteristics is wrong. For example, I'm not sure if anyone remembers last year when there was a big issue with the Visitor's locker room at Kinnick Stadium, but suddenly, after years of it being, some feminists and homosexual advocates accused the University of Iowa of being sexist/homophobic because the Visitor's locker room is painted pink. Now they can't possibly using 'sexist' or 'homophobic' in the way the first definition describes it, because it wouldn't make sense. The pretense in their accusations was that pink is a color associated with women and homosexuals, so using it in this negative way is sexist/homophobic.
But this definition seems even more problematic. Using this line of reasoning, someone could say something as ridiculous as this: "Playing highly rhythm based music in clubs is racist against caucasians, because caucasians aren't born with the amount of rhythm that African Americans are." Now we certainly would accuse the speaker in this statement of him/herself being the racist for taking the pretense that white people don't have rhythm to be true.
Secondly, it does not seem so crazy to dislike a group because they hold a certain characteristic like the ones being used. If a study shows that teenagers are all rude and a bunch of thiefs, can someone really accuse me of being irrational for not liking teenagers? I don't think so, it seems a clearly valid argument:
I dislike people who are rude.
Teenagers are rude,
Therefore, I dislike teenagers.
And we can run an argument like that for any 'accepted' stereotype. For example:
I dislike people who love the color pink.
Women tend to like the color pink.
Therefore, I tend to dislike women.

As we can see, both ways in which people use the words 'racism', 'sexism', and 'homophobia' seem flawed. But I can't find any way to resolve it. I am much inclined to try to fix the first definition, because it seems much closer to what most people mean by these terms than the second, but I'm keeping an open mind. Any ideas?

Friday, December 22, 2006

Folk Philosophy

Coming home from an undergrad philosophy conference once, I stopped to get gas. The gas station attendant was a nice, talkative guy, about my age.
"Where are you headed?"
"Home."
"Where were you visiting?"
"I was in Madison, at a philosophy conference, actually."
"Oh, philosophy, huh? What is the meaning of life?"

I get this kind of thing every now and then, mostly when making small talk with strangers. By 'this kind of thing', what I mean is that I get the idea that people don't really know what academic philosophy is. And I understand it, and I can't blame them, because when you have (as most of the population does) taken either an Intro to Philosophy class or no formal philosophy introduction, your idea of philosophy is probably much different than mine. What philosophy means to most people is a bunch of pretentious assholes smoking pot and using language in a convoluted manner as to seem intelligent. (Think modern day Chinese proverbs) Well, in some ways, I guess it is like that--but we don't say things like "What is the meaning of life?" and "Can God cook a burrito so hot that even He/She could not eat it?"
Things like this I like to call "Folk Philosophy". Folk Philosophy is the type of thing that all people engage in, myself included. I like Folk Philosophy. Its actually what got me into Academic Philosophy--my Intoduction to Philosophy class was largely a class on Folk Philosophy. Plato could in many respects called a Folk Philosopher.
My point here is that the Philosophy practiced in upper level undergraduate courses (and I presume beyond) is a different kind of thing. The biggest difference is that we ask completely different questions. This Philosophy is probably strongly influenced by Folk Philosophy, but instead of just playing around with words (as I think people believe we do), we formalize arguments into logical forms. We attempt to define things in ways which don't allow them to be manipulated.

This all seems pretty useless, as I am not explaining myself well. But my point, and you'll have to take my word for it, is that Academic Philosophy is important, and is dealing with real questions, not just questions of language (contrary to what Wittgenstein may have you believe). I am happy to talk Folk Philosophy with anyone at any time, but it really upsets me when I hear people say that all philosophers do is get really good at bull-shitting. Because an Academic Philosopher is that last person you want to try bull-shitting. A philosophy professor is going to see every fallacy and error in reasoning you use, and if he/she wants can tear you apart for it.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Christmas Wish List

This year, I am hard pressed to find anything that I truly want...I am pretty satisfied with my material state in life right now...and since people can't really give me less stress or more free time for Christmas, I want to give a list of great organizations that everyone should donate money to. (that should is a moral should, but it isn't to be taken to be literal that every single person should donate money to these organizations)
Mostly this is for my parents, who seem strangely dissapointed that I want to squander away my Christmas gifts on the less fortunate (especially my Dad). They must be reading too much Ayn Rand. I remind you: "She always wore a large gold dollar-sign pin on her dress. At her funeral, a six-foot floral dollar-sign was placed by the casket."
So, without further ado...here is a list of organizations that should have more money...some are important because they actually work to help people of today in the world to live and not suffer; others are important in changing the landscape of knowledge, thus creating more informed and able people to help.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This is just a great resource for all philosophers, and fortunately right now it is free. Its written by reputable people, so you know it isn't full of shit like many other web sites are.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation


How about rich people that give a shit? Pretty awesome, huh? This is just an awesome organization that, from what I have heard, does everything to help--after all, its not like Bill Gates needs to pocket the money or anything.

Wikipedia

Alright, now I know Wikipedia gets a ton of criticism. So its ruined like 3 people's lives, and that is sad. But they are improving the system, and making fraud much tougher with the help of volunteers. Wikipedia is an all-around great thing. It is full of so much useful information, and you can't deny that you have used it to brush up on a topic. Its an incredible source for information, and with your monetary help it can only get better. The money goes to pay monitors and servers and what-not.

Food Not Bombs


Food Not Bombs isn't the most internet savvy charity, but they are trying to change things in intelligent ways. They take the whole "teach a man to fish" idea to charity, as oppposed to just dropping boxes of food in poor places.

Adbusters

Go surf around this website if you are not familiar with Adbusters. Adbusters is an anti-consumerism media group. They are non-profit and have a bi-monthly magazine. I think it this is an important company to make otherwise unquestioning people realize that we in the Western world live in absolute absurd luxury. I, as you all know, think consumerism (caused by rampant capitalism) is a huge factor in this drive for more luxury/higher status. I read somewhere today (and don't quote me, I don't have a source), that the median life expectancy in parts of Africa is less than 5 years old. Dammit! I think its strange that if a child is drowning right next to us we are morally obliged to save it, and yet when donating $10 to Oxfam can save a childs life, we don't consider it morally obligatory. Somehow if we don't see it right in our faces it is outside of our moral duty?

Doctors without Borders

Damn French. How dare they save people's lives.

In conclusion, these or many other organizations are great. Even churches are fine, on the condition the money goes to needy people instead of a huge flashing marquee that tells the time and temperature. Does it piss anyone else off when a church is so loaded they put up expensive worthless crap? It can be best summed up by what my friend Jordan once said, in mockery of his old church: "This 50ft. cross will help us love our God more!"

By the way, Thanks to everyone who responded to the last post--it is still eating me alive, but I feel much better than I did before I put it up. I just made the mistake of reading an article about how bad world poverty really is while I was on my break today.