Debate:
Spoiler
Show
Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
Which was precisely my point: the vast majority of religious people do NOT also have the properties B, C and D that those USA Americans estadounidenses ascribed to me. My particular religion (like almost all religions) has order of magnitude more adherents outside the US than inside, and yet those USA Americans estadounidenses assume that all religious people are like USA American estadounidense religious people (without even going into "do characteristics B, C and D even appear in the vast majority of USA American estadounidense religious?" question, btw, which I'm doubtful of but am not qualified to state).
Isn't that a language barrier? If I told you I was property A in italian, you wouldn't understand the word. English just has this little issue of being used entirely too much by too many different geographical groups that think they are using the same language. On to the real point:

In fact, there is a word for what you are doing (ascribing a member of a group characteristics you assume all members of the group has). It is not a nice word, and it is especially famous when it comes to those assumptions based on skin colour. So do tell, what is the practical difference between assuming that all members of religion X have properties B, C and D, and assuming that all members of race X have properties E, F and G? E.g. was the person that assumed that Ashley should learn English correct in his assumption, in your eyes, since the "vast majority" (to use your own words) of Asian people can't speak English?
Racism, noun. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

So, ascribing a member of a group characteristics you assume most members of the group have is not racism. It lacks the part where you discriminate or act superior. Should I offer sunscreen to black people? I think not doing that isn't racist: I am ascribing to them characteristics (resistance to sunlight) that I believe most people of their race have. (For all I know, I'm wrong. I can reasonably assume to be statistically correct, however). As for the Ashley example: he's ignoring a good amount of context to make that assumption, but let's ignore that and say there aren't many asian people that are born in the USA (which is false). The problem there is how he acts on that information. If I saw an asian girl in a shop having trouble with something, should I not assume she is having trouble with the language and try and help her if I can? Is that racist? I don't think it is. If someone saw me at a party reading a math book (happened), they probably will think I'm a nerd. If they use that assumption to be a jerk, call me names and accidentally spill drinks on me, that's wrong (nerdism? ); if they tried to get me into their social circle and help me out in a context I'm not comfortable in, they wouldn't be. Both people act on the same assumptions and preconceptions, except one tries to help while the other is just being a ****. Maybe I'm a jock and just need to finish this book by tomorrow at all costs, but couldn't resist going to the party anyway? Should they not assume anything about me at all because there might be an extreme case? I don't like that. I'd rather take the reasonable risk and be wrong some of the times (unless the result is extremely offensive yadda yadda yadda - just make an informed average risk benefit evaluation).

(Now you might say we are naturally biased towards groups we are part of (which is true), but then everyone is racist, so I'm going to say striving to avoid those feelings is enough to say one person isn't racist.)

Edit: Forgot my conclusion: IMnpHO, the correct response to a label is to only ascribe the characteristics necessarily shared by the entire group. Whether the vast majority, or hell even 99.9% of all its members also have properties B, C and D is irrelevant. Do not make assumptions: this person in front of you might be the 0.01%.
Yeah, I don't like that. The way I see it, you are handicapping yourself due to risk aversion. Which I guess is fine if you believe the result of making a faux pas is bad enough. Which I guess is also comprehensible given that you were on the receiving end of this while I never actually was, and I probably am not going to be ever. Overall, though, I think that assuming something about someone and being proven wrong is not that bad. Also, the 0.01% is really statistically insignificant, so I have trouble caring about it: the world is made of exceptions, but is run by approximated models. And they work.