Racism, sexism, homophobia, jerkism

[jonesy]

Since 1996, the FBI has pegged false rape accusations an annual rate of @8%. How accurate that is, I cannot say.

It's so inaccurate it's not even usable:

http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/

This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.

The term "unfounded" is not a homogeneous classification and, to date, there is not a formalized, accepted definition of "false rape allegations." Certainly, the designation of false accusation should not include those situations in which the accuser was raped but unintentionally identified the wrong person as the alleged perpetrator. The definition of false allegation of rape cannot be limited to the situation in which the victim recants the accusation. There are women who were truly raped but for any number of reasons choose to recant. On the other hand, there are women who were not raped but do not recant their accusation.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Since 1996, the FBI has pegged false rape accusations an annual rate of @8%. How accurate that is, I cannot say.

Even if one believes that estimate is somewhere near the truth, "low" is a rather subjective term. For example, imagine if in 8% of murder cases, no one had actually been killed.

 

[Emerald88]

But it seems that this idea stops short of certain particular types of bullying. For instance, (but not limited to), racism, sexism, homophobia. It seems that society still says, “this person is treating you badly because of you.” That is, you’re getting poor treatment because you’re black. Or your thoughts are dismissed because you’re a woman. Or you were called names because you’re gay.

The problem is, someone can stand up claim that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Or give blood And still be credited as a respectable politician. When really, they should be thrown into a big black hole and forgotten about. It's not bullying, it's taking a stand on some incredibly warped moral ground. The perception is different. The fact is, people (I use the term loosely) always fear something different. They so horrified by the idea that their status quo might change, and so ignorant that they don't want to look at a point of view, or a lifestyle, or anything even slightly different to what they know.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The problem is, someone can stand up claim that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Or give blood And still be credited as a respectable politician. When really, they should be thrown into a big black hole and forgotten about. It's not bullying, it's taking a stand on some incredibly warped moral ground. The perception is different. The fact is, people (I use the term loosely) always fear something different. They so horrified by the idea that their status quo might change, and so ignorant that they don't want to look at a point of view, or a lifestyle, or anything even slightly different to what they know.

I don't think an eye-for-an-eye approach is helpful at all. Tolerance and acceptance is a two-way street. No one can expect to be accepted if they completely disregard the viewpoints of other people. People can learn. People can change. That's why groups have come into more acceptance over time. Forgetting about the ignorant and intolerant still leaves them ignorant and intolerant.

 

[Janx]

I don't think an eye-for-an-eye approach is helpful at all. Tolerance and acceptance is a two-way street. No one can expect to be accepted if they completely disregard the viewpoints of other people. People can learn. People can change. That's why groups have come into more acceptance over time. Forgetting about the ignorant and intolerant still leaves them ignorant and intolerant.

Keep in mind, a part of that "people can change" stuff is they they die off.

A chunk of "X-ist" mindset held by demographic that later changes is because the people who hold that belief grew up in a certain time period when that was more acceptable. So as they shuffle off this mortal coil, the number of remaining people who think that way is reduced.

To make it more complicated, we may associate those viewpoints with the grey-haired old people of the 80's if that was our formative era of learning "man those people are X-ist!"

They're all dead now, so when we see hip grey-haired old people now who's views are more tolerant, we may accidentally think "old people changed their minds" when in reality, old people just got replaced by a new crop of different old people.

 

[Emerald88]

. People can learn. People can change.

This is an ideal I find myself losing faith in on a daily basis. Some people absolutely can and do change. But the loudest, worst examples of this problem dig their heels in and refuse to listen to anyone else. It's like banging your head off the most ignorant wall. Repeatedly.

 

[Janx]

This is an ideal I find myself losing faith in on a daily basis. Some people absolutely can and do change. But the loudest, worst examples of this problem dig their heels in and refuse to listen to anyone else. It's like banging your head off the most ignorant wall. Repeatedly.

There's already science that indicates people are highly resistant to changing their mind by virtue of you trying to convince them.

Take smoking.

A man who smokes may not know the official % of people who die from smoking, but he's got a number in his head that is kind of low.
He also has a number in his head about how many people die of shark attack.

If you brief him on all the percentages then quiz him,
he will remember the percentages that don't apply to him, and he will only slightly improve the % of smoking death.

This is because his brain cannot accept that his habit is bad for him and science says so.

So he ignores that fact, while being very happy to accept facts he has no investment in.

 

[Emerald88]

Well with smoking, comes the addiction side of it as well (stating the obvious here I know). But yeah, people work themselves up to a point where they can't be seen to back down. Pride is a big part of it. As is being an outright hateful person...

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Sure, part of change is death.

But fighting hate with hate never accomplishes anything.

And, IME, most prejudice doesn't emerge from outright hate. It emerges from fear, from misunderstanding. My grandfather saw his friends move away from the neighborhood he founded by building the first home in what was an overgrown baseball field. As each neighbor moved away, a young African-American family or Hispanic family would move in. He had little in common with his new neighbors. He had misconceptions about them. He formed a strong prejudice against them. But as time went on, before he passed, he learned more about his neighbors. He saw that his misconceptions were just that. He saw that most of these new families cared about the community as much as he did. And his prejudices faded. If his prejudices had been met with equal levels of dislike, he would have died holding onto that prejudice.

We've even seen progress recently at the top of a major religion in attitude towards homosexual priests. An attitude that has been carried even longer by contemporary nuns (my sister-in-law having been with the Franciscan order for the past decade).

It would be awesome if everyone would just change today and be nice to each other. But we can't even get people to be nice to each other over RPGs here, how can we expect instantaneous change over topics that stretch so much further back into human history?

 

[Starfox]

I don't think an eye-for-an-eye approach is helpful at all. Tolerance and acceptance is a two-way street. No one can expect to be accepted if they completely disregard the viewpoints of other people. People can learn. People can change. That's why groups have come into more acceptance over time. Forgetting about the ignorant and intolerant still leaves them ignorant and intolerant.

This is a low process. Part of it is people taking their prejudices to the grave, part of it is that experience is a slow accumulation, part of it is that prejudiced-against groups often backlash, confirming to the very prejudices they hate (if you call me a thief I might as well steal) and themselves need to undergo this slow process.

But yes, I very much see it happening on a larger time scale. There are setbacks and reversals, but I still feel there is a progress in a tango pace (two steps forward, one step back). It often takes something very dramatically bad for attitudes to become visible and thus change. The greatest setback in this way was hitlerism and WWII - before WWII, racism was not controversial and a fact of life all over the world. Because of the excesses of the nazi, people the world over questioned their own values and change began. Sad that it had to take all those millions of lives to open our eyes.

But I don't think this CAN change overnight, and attempts to instantly eradicate various forms of ass-hatedness are doomed to failure. Which does not mean that trying to change things are pointless - but expecting quick results means you'll be disappointed.