facts are not prejudice/racist/bigoted/etc

[smileyeagle1021]

This has been discussed in various forms before, but the ongoing debate in the local paper over the immigration reform has brought up this gripe in me again.
I'm getting tired of one person on the SLTrib's online forum posting something like "x% of mexican immigrants do not have insurance, compared to y% of non immigrants" and having a second person saying "prove it" then the first person providing verification with a link to whatever study they got the information from and the second person just falling back on "well, that's racist".
Sorry, a fact is not racist, it's a fact. The person may be using that fact to support their racism, but they are still making a valid point.
If I may point out on a more familiar ground for those on this forum, Red Panda appears to be extremely prejudiced against fat people and will bring up points about how much more an overweight person taxes the healthcare system over a healthy weight person. While she is most likely using those points to support her prejudice does not change the fact that in that case what she is saying is true. Same with my prejudice (something that is quite difficult to get over, in this I can relate to RP, though I am not sure what even caused her prejudice) with conservative Christians, yes the stats I point out are supporting a prejudice, however, that does not change the fact that some of what I say is true.

Short story shorter, would people please stop crying racist just because you disagree with someone.

[Plaidman]

On the same note: I can't get over my own prejudism towards people that hate others simply based on one one looks.

There's no point in hating someone on how they LOOK. I mean really? You judge a person's entire person based on their looks?

I can understand being ATTRACTED towards someone based on how they look.

I don't understand raw seething hatred towards how one looks.

Or even on the person's beliefs, as long as they don't naturally insult or attack people without cause.

In Red Panda's case: Her beliefs are very angry. She may belive they are valid, But I will never, ever, ever share those hatreds she has. Which is fine with the bulk of people.

I hate repeat criminals who just won't learn a lesson or take their own responsibilities. People here love repeat offenders. They want to love and understand them, because hey, something is wrong in their life which is why they hate, murder, rape and steal, and will never stop. More power to them. Let them invite them to their own homes, and once their stuff is stolen, their own family disappeared or hurt, they can just have a nice smile and just shake their head at the offender. "I thought you were over that! Now say your sorry and leave please".


As for racism versus fact?

It's an iffy area. Those statistics may be skewed. Mayhaps a racist was the one that took the polls and changed the answers himself because he/she couldn't belive what the person of said race said. Maybe they only interviewed ten people, and thus yeah, if 8 of those ten people, said they refuse to get a job and will only live off of welfare, they can proclaim, without lying, that %80 of said race refuse to get a job and only live on welfare.


It's primary reason I don't exactly listen to all statistics, as unless you interviewed every single person on this planet, and got honest answers from them all, it will be impossible to have a perfect answer.

Not to mention, that every single day, people change. It may be small, it may be big. That one person might have said he didn't have insurence that day, but next week he does get insurence. That statistics still state that he does NOT have insurence, not that he does at this point.

[KnitShoni]

As for racism versus fact?

It's an iffy area. Those statistics may be skewed. Mayhaps a racist was the one that took the polls and changed the answers himself because he/she couldn't belive what the person of said race said. Maybe they only interviewed ten people, and thus yeah, if 8 of those ten people, said they refuse to get a job and will only live off of welfare, they can proclaim, without lying, that %80 of said race refuse to get a job and only live on welfare.

This is why Black people get so pissed off when people think we are the ones who receive the majority of welfare, or are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action. The facts prove otherwise, but because some are so quick to cry racism (or reverse racism, in this case), that gets overlooked.

[AdminAssistant]

All facts are biased. That's the main problem with the use of positivism in historiography....there is no correct, unbiased version of past events. Even archives are biased, based on what materials made it into the archive and what materials went into the dumpster. That's why there's been such a big move in history/historiography to recover the histories of the people that history has forgotten. It's highly flawed, methodologically, but it's something.

Data has many of the same issues. If it's a survey, who got surveyed? Who did the surveying? What neighborhoods did they go to? Did they ask an even mix of men and women? A variety of races? Did they go out into the country or urban environments, or did they stay in the suburbs? What questions did they ask? How did they ask the questions? Did the surveyor ask the questions in such a way as to lead the respondent to the "correct" answer?

THEN, all of that data has to be processed by analysts, who have their own sets of bias. They may be looking for a certain answer...and hey, who's gonna know if they fudge the results a little? Or they can just emphasize the results they agree with while letting the rest slip under the radar.

Smiley, I get at what you're saying. But all studies involving people are flawed to some extent. If it's an ethical company, they will work to eliminate as much bias as possible. But there will always be bias. Besides, scientific data by itself doesn't make a compelling argument for, say, social change. Someone can cite medical studies showing the dangers of alcohol and say, "Look, we should ban all drinking because it's dangerous." However, those studies may or may not cover the social ramifications of such legislation. A good debater backs up claims with data, but they do not rely solely on data.

[Plaidman]

This is why Black people get so pissed off when people think we are the ones who receive the majority of welfare, or are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action. The facts prove otherwise, but because some are so quick to cry racism (or reverse racism, in this case), that gets overlooked.

Oh yeah. The whole clerks at the store, who, since they seen 17 out of 20 black people use welfare, that automatically means that 85 percent all black people use welfare defense. How... sad honestly. To label that. I've seen it.

In their defense, they might honestly see that. That every X race uses a type of welfare at their store. That's just it though. They only KNOW their store customers. They do not know ALL customers at ALL stores.

[KnitShoni]

In their defense, they might honestly see that. That every X race uses a type of welfare at their store. That's just it though. They only KNOW their store customers. They do not know ALL customers at ALL stores.

Thing is, where I live, it seems like mostly White people and Latinos are on welfare. It would not be fair of me to then say that everyone of those races is on welfare, would it?

[Plaidman]

Thing is, where I live, it seems like mostly White people and Latinos are on welfare. It would not be fair of me to then say that everyone of those races is on welfare, would it?

About as fair as others who see only another race at welfare.

Like I said. They don't know ALL people at ALL stores. They only know whom comes into their own store, which is how they get their skewed results.