All cops are _____. All Wall Street bankers are _____. All Mexicans are _____. All liberals are _____. You fill in the blank. Actually, please don’t. “All” is an ugly word. It’s naked prejudice.
In the past few years, I’ve seen too many people assign labels to groups and call them derogatory names.
It’s easy to find rants on social media, see protesters chant ugly slurs in the streets, and even hear angry politicians spew hatred in the name of “progress.” They lump entire demographic groups together and belittle them, as if they all have the same fingerprints.
At first, when we hear these slurs, we view them as outrageous. But, over time, we become desensitized to the hate speech as the shock value wears off. What’s worse, others begin to mimic this disgusting behavior. History shows that if hate speech isn’t condemned, it can even become part of the norm.
I’ll be the first to admit there’s a bad apple in every bunch. But haters are quick to cast aspersions on large segments of the population, using a few rotten apples as justification. That’s like throwing the whole town in jail because one person commits a crime.
Please don’t misunderstand. If someone is guilty of wrongdoing, they should be held accountable for their actions. But that doesn’t make everyone guilty. “All” is an ugly word.
6 Ways to Combat Prejudice and Hateful Rhetoric
Promote free speech. Free speech is the bedrock of freedom and is fundamental to our way of life. Free speech and debate are essential in our search for the truth. Therefore, we must expose those who discourage free speech, even if we disagree with the message in that speech. BUT…
Open your eyes. We should view hate speech for what it is –– outrageous. People who condone this behavior or look the other way are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Remember, the end never justifies the means. There’s no cause worthy of spewing hatred. Period. Leaders who pit groups against each other, for whatever reason, are unworthy of our support.
Think twice before following someone off a cliff. Some people use hate speech to promote their personal agenda. It has been said that some protesters even get paid to make believe a cause has widespread support. (So much for free speech.)
Don’t be a parrot. As Charlayne Hunter-Gault, the American journalist said, “If people are informed, they will do the right thing. It’s when they are not informed that they become hostages to prejudice.” So listen to your conscience before sharing a hateful message on social media. Remember, some people hit with fists; others with words. “All” is an ugly word.
Promote your opinions with dignity and grace. Debate issues. Defend your beliefs. But don’t demonize folks who do not agree with you. The truth is, people who disagree with you are no more stupid than you are in not agreeing with them.
Put an End to Hatred, Bigotry, and Prejudice
Standing up to prejudice isn’t easy. If you’re brave enough to call out these haters, you may be faced with retribution. Their allies may swarm all over you, like you’re disturbing a hornet’s nest. The fact is, bullies want to drive fear into your heart as a warning to never cross them.
You have to ask yourself: “What do we lose by not standing up to prejudice? The answer is –– everything! Do we want a world in which bullies intimidate anyone who doesn’t share their opinion? Do we want a world in which angry mobs run through the streets with pitchforks? Do we want a world in which our kids could grow up mimicking this ugly behavior?” (Remember, little footsteps in the sand follow larger ones, so watch where you step.)
It’s time to reject labeling. It’s time to put an end to hatred, bigotry, and prejudice. We can no longer close our eyes, or worse, become a parrot to hateful rhetoric. Nothing good has ever come from demonizing entire groups of people. Hate is a cancer on one’s soul.
Follow your conscience. Sleep well.
How Do You Feel About Prejudice?
Additional Reading:
Ever Hear the Excuse “Everybody Does It”?
Ethics as Usual
Is It News or Propaganda?
Moral Character Matters
If you like this article, subscribe to our blog so that you don’t miss a single post. Get future posts by RSS feed, email or Facebook. It’s FREE.
Another good one Frank, but I am of two minds. While bigotry is wrong there are too many people who believe that EVERY GENERALIZATION about people is ipso facto bigotry. If I say “the French make great wine” am I a “bigot?” Do I have to add the qualifier “Many French make great wine” or is that understood and needlessly prissy? I love Russia and will be going there in a few weeks like I do almost every year. However if I say “The Russians drink too much” I don’t think I’m being a bigot. And again I don’t think I must add qualifiers. Business marketing acumen is based on the ability to make VALID generalizations about classes and demographics. And again if I say “Liberals have a propensity for spending other people’s money” I don’t think that is just rank prejudice even if it is patently obvious that not ALL liberals fit this bill. Thanks for stirring up thought as usual!!
I’m a liberal; I do not have a propensity for spending other people’s money, nor do I think it’s a good idea to do so. Therefore, I am offended that you think that of me, someone you have never met.
I am quite confident that there are Russians who do not drink at all, let alone to excess.
To determine if something is a”bigoted” generalization, ask yourself: can I find a person who will be hurt or harmed by what I am saying? If someone said this about me, how would I feel?
To determine if something is a “valid” generalization, ask yourself if it’s statistically significant? And then, if possible, use the statistics. And use words with solid meanings. All is incorrect (unless it’s absolute fact: All humans have a central nervous system. Implied “all” is just as bad (The Russians drink too much == All Russians. “LIberals” implies “All Liberals”.)
So, yes. You should add qualifiers. Better yet, ask yourself why you’re making sweeping generalizations? And if you have to add “I love Russia”, keep in mind that this is the moral equivalent of “Some of my best friends are…”.
Hi Augie
You bring up an interesting point.
We’ve become so PC that we call people derogatory names at the drop of a hat. This diminishes the horror of the term and will render the use of it meaningless over time. The truth is, there will come a time when so many people are being called a racist, bigot, etc. that we won’t even stop and notice when the case is really true. One of the reasons this happens is because name-calling is often used as a weapon to disparage someone’s reputation and to shut down speech. If we want a civil and just society, maybe we should start acting that way. As I like to say, “Fair-minded people are true to their own beliefs without forcing them on others.”
Frank
Hi Vicki
Some people hit with fists; others with words.
Sometimes we don’t realize how much words can hurt. I hope we are equally offended when people are called derogatory names for opinions with which we agree. I long for a day where folks can once again debate issues without attacking each other personally.
Frank
Great article Frank,
One thing I have noticed from living and observing human nature for over 65 years is that people that are guilty of stereotyping groups of other people never see or will admit to it. They will go to great lengths debating by utilizing examples or word phrases that seem similar to the subject at hand but are light years away. There was a time when I was exhibiting at a trade show when a Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan came into our booth. He proudly started telling me what he was about and claimed he wasn’t a racist. I personally have never met a racist that ever admitted that they are a racist. I then took out my wallet and showed him a picture of my adopted daughter whom happens to be African American (I’m Caucasian) and asked him, “What do you think of my daughter?” He paused and seemed confused and said something like, “We ain’t against charity”. He wanted us to make a custom item for him that promoted the Klan and we refused to sell to him. Another exhibitor came over to us that sold custom items to the Klux Klux Klan and said, Lot’s of people claim that I am supporting the Klan by selling to them but I tell them no, they are supporting me by helping me pay for my bills through their purchasing of my products. It is interesting how we humans postulate a philosophy utilizing slippery words to justify our dark hidden ways.
Hi Mark
I find this situation so troubling. One of the few things that we have control over is how we choose to live our life –– we have to answer to our conscience every day. In this case, the Grand Dragon also made his choice.
The truth is, there will always be hateful people in the world –– that, we can do little about. The problem is that I’m seeing more and more people use hateful rhetoric to promote their personal beliefs. Their behavior goes unchallenged as long as the end justifies the means. If we don’t challenge hateful rhetoric, it will ultimately become part of our cultural norms. Is that the kind of world that we want for our kids?
Best,
Frank
Frank I could not agree more. I am utterly opposed to ad hominem arguments. Attack the argument and not the person making the argument. On my Facebook page I encourage spirited debate and I want diversity of opinion. However I reserve the right to step in and come down hard whenever I see someone attacking others personally. In that sense we are absolutely in agreement. I also agree that the terms “racist”, “sexist” etc have gone from precise descriptors to bludgeons used to mute any criticism or generalization whether valid or not. I do still maintain that we cannot repeal –even if we were crazy enough to want to—the law of inductive reason. Ergo if we meet enough red headed people who hurt us we will be justified in coming up with the generalization that “red headed people are dangerous.” Refusing to do so out of some PC bigotry would just be another form of madness. And again such a generalization does not necessarily imply ALL as most people are smart enough to realize that it is probably not the case that ALL redheaded folks are dangerous. I actually wrote an article for Forbes about all this called The Confessions of a Serial Stereotyper where I argued that it is not stereotyping that is bad but INVALID stereotyping that is bad. Not to mention that all those folks who hate stereotypes depend on them. For example the statement “down through history men have oppressed women” is itself a stereotype. Do they mean to say ALL men oppressed women? Again I think insisting on qualifiers eventually gets prissy. Think of how many great quotes would be ruined. Eleanor Roosevelt said, “Great minds talk about ideas, average minds events, and simple minds other people.” Now imagine her having to say, “some but not all people who talk about other people are often simple minded” it ruins the effect. It is also mildly insulting because it assumes that I am too stupid to add the qualifiers on my own.
Hi Augie
I believe Mark did a wonderful job of capturing my sentiments. Please take a moment to read his comment when you have a chance. Thank you, as always, for your thoughts.
Best,
Frank
I’m sorry if you are offended Vicki but I stand by my points. To wit my point was that a VALID generalization does not have to be true for every individual to be valuable. If a Martian asks me to describe a human being and I draw one with two arms I am offering a valid generalization even if some people only have one arm. We all encounter thousands of human interactions almost daily and I cannot stop and ask myself at every turn about who might or might not be offended. Again I repeat that most folks are smart enough and fair minded enough to realize that saying “Russians drink too much” or “liberals spend too much” does not mean EVERY Russian or ALL Liberals. However I do agree with you that what matters is whether statistically speaking the generalization adds up. So I would ask: Would a statistically significant sample of liberals show that liberals favor higher taxes or not? If it did then I would argue that my statement that liberals like to spend other people’s money would have a basis for argument even if it still could turn out to be false. If I say “women like to get roses” I of course don’t mean ALL women, but if I owned a flower company I would feel pretty safe in backing up that statement with some ad dollars. As for Russia, I am a Russian history major, something of an expert on Russian literature etc. and a long time student of the Russian language. And as i mentioned before I spend tons of my hard earned money and valuable time visiting/living in Russia. And yes as horrible as you think it sounds, I actually do have many Russian friends. And speaking of offensive I found it just a tad offensive that you would question my sincerity and love for Russia without knowing me!!! Wasn’t making a personal attack what you accused me of doing to you!!! 🙂 And yes RUSSIANS DRINK TOO MUCH. Or better said, RUSSIAN MEN DRINK TOO MUCH. It is a big reason why they live almost 20 years shorter lives than American men. And if the generalization was not valid then it would be hard to explain why combating excessive drinking is such a top priority for the Russian government. I know hundreds of Russians and I cannot think of one who would object to the statement Russians Drink too Much. But even if they did as you put it what matters most is TRUTH not feelings.
Thanks for the stimulating reply.
In my opinion the problem is when a stereotype is embraced as an all encompassing reality of a certain group of people and is acted upon on an individual or individuals of that group. Stereotyping or statistical analysis isn’t necessarily a bad thing within itself. It is what we do with that “limited information”. The definition of stereotype is a widely held but fixed and “oversimplified image or idea” of a particular type of person. The definition of oversimplified is; simplify (something) so much that a “distorted impression of it is given”. In other words, a stereotype tends to oversimplify and distort in so much that we should recognize its limitations and also its dangers.
What I believe Frank is talking about is completely a different subject than what August Turak is bringing up. Yes, some stereotype usage is innocent. To say that African Americans are more prone to diabetes than Caucasians is an example how we use statistical analysis or stereotyping in a useful way in our daily lives. But using that type of example to justify all statistical stereotyping even when they are some what measurably correct, is a suspicious overreach in my opinion.
Too many liberals stereotype conservatives and too many conservatives stereotype liberals. Too many Caucasians stereotype African Americans and too many African Americans stereotype Caucasians. Too many religions are stereotyped by the many. Stereotyping IS a problem and is not just a ho hum acceptable human experience.
Hi Mark
I wholeheartedly agree with your position. I believe some folks pit groups against each other for personal gain or to push their own personal agenda. Then, people who agree with that opinion (no matter how ugly the statement) give the person a pass. This is counterproductive and detrimental to our society.
My hope is that we all become more sensitive to hate speech and condemn prejudiced behavior of any kind. Thanks so much for advancing the conversation.
Best,
Frank
Mark and Frank again in general I am in agreement. However I also think that sometimes the politically correct taboo against “stereotyping” gets so extreme that it causes us to close our eyes to what I consider obvious facts. For example I would say that technically at least I am a sexist. Why, because I believe that there are genetic differences between the sexes that are valid explanations for differing outcomes. For example I do not think that “social conditioning” alone can explain why almost every serial killer is male. Examples of behaviors like this skewing male or female are too numerous to count let alone mention. My sister has seven older brothers. She has had a very hard life. Some of this not because we treated her differently because she was female but because WE DID NOT. I am not trying nor am I interested in debating feminism etc. This is just an example. My comment instead is again that we often overcook this phobia about stereotyping. As I like to point out, the entire SImpsons TV show (as well as tons of humor generally) is based on extracting that golden drop of truth out of the kind of broad brush stereotyping that makes all cops into fat donut lovers, all Indians into convenience store owners, all Japanese into shutter bugs, and all Christians like Flanders into “do gooder” wimps. The fact that it is now the longest running show in TV history is one sign that we have not lost our sense of humor about ourselves and that there is validity (as well as humor) to many stereotypes even if some may not be flattering. Thanks to you both for some stimulating thought. (I would also like to mention that nothing seems to stop the enemies of stereotyping from stereotyping. When a feminist says “down through history women were oppressed by men” isn’t that a stereotype about men? What about the War on Women? Or America is a racist country? Is everyone who flies a Confederate flag in his yard a racist?)
On another head, how much inductive reasoning must we use before we are morally justified in discriminating among people based on a stereotype? I just had this discussion with a local guy. I have owned my farm for 16 years and over those years–often painfully–I have decided that if I want work done right then I should hire a Mexican. Now of course this is not completely true. The local I was telling is in fact working on my farm and is white. But I will freely admit that I am “biased” in favor of Mexicans. Am I morally “bad” because of this? In my own mind I feel as if I’ve run enough experiments putting my hard earned money at risk to believe I have established a “statistically valid” contention for my preference. I also believe that some stores in my area have employees that are “better” than others. Am I justified? How many times do I have to experience anything before I am morally allowed to draw a general conclusion from it?
Dear August,
Frank and I don’t seem to be in disagreement with what you are bringing up. We both have eluded to that. Statistical analysis has merit. And also the term stereotyping has lost its original meaning and has become broad sweeping in so much that common sense facts have become unacceptable
speech.
I still stand by my statement that what Frank is bringing to our attention is a completely different subject than what you are bringing up. The Webster dictionary defines stereotyping as a negative: “to believe unfairly that all people or things with a particular characteristic are the same”. What you are bringing up has to do with observations with neutral consequences. Keeping inline with the definition of stereotyping, that is what Frank has done. Read his post over again. I may be wrong but you seem to want to blur the two different subjects together for the purpose of sanctifying stereotyping. Is it possible that through all the political correct name calling that is going around regarding stereotyping that you too have lost what the original meaning of what stereotyping is?
Just take the stereotype conclusions that the Nazis came to regarding the Jews? You might say that this type of stereotyping was just statistically flawed but stereotyping within itself is okay we just need to get better at it. Isn’t that what you are saying? Do you really think that if the Nazis were just better at statistical analysis that it would have stopped them from killing over 6 million Jews? It was just a clerical error but stereotyping within itself is good stuff?
Unfairly judging and stereotyping is not a mathematical error that needs to be corrected. It is a moral problem that needs to be corrected. What is it in the heart of a person to believe unfairly that all people or things with a particular characteristic are the same? Is that a math problem or a moral problem?
Dear August,
One more thought. As I mentioned before I find it suspicious that someone would use examples about the merits of statistical analysis to use as a means to justify stereotyping. You have gone to great lengths to do that very thing. I have a question for you that might be in conflict with your claims that you oppose name calling and also might shed some light on my suspicions. Your past mentor Richard Rose use to call African Americans burnt hamburgers. Do you still hold the position that because of the time back then that this was, and in your mind now, is, acceptable language? I think you mentioned something like words are acceptable one day then the next day they are not so it is okay with what Richard Rose use to say about African Americans. Words are transient and hold no lasting gauge of moral value good or bad?
Also, do you think by me saying that this type of language from Richard Rose is unacceptable yesterday, today, and forever, that it falls into your definition of being overly politically correct?
I am asking these questions in the spirit of Frank’s urging in his post to call out potential bigotry and prejudice for what it is and damn the consequences.
One of the things that these comments demonstrate is that prejudice has, and will continue to be, a very raw subject. As Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate, once said, “Most people think shadows follow, precede or surround beings or objects. The truth is that they also surround words, ideas, desires, deeds, impulses and memories.” The fact is, we all live on the same planet. It’s time that we learn to live with one another in peace and harmony.
Best,
Frank