<<Teaching your kids that the world is dangerous can also make them less tolerant of others.
Should kids be taught that the world is not dangerous to make kids less likely to be tolerant ( I attempted to retain the qualifiers )?
Edit: I decided to remove the rest of the comment. The argument I presented for dangerous/safe world seemed off after I re-read it.
OTOH, being prepared is not the same as being fearful.
I've seen posts by women describing how they were _fearful_ of men until they were 18-20 and realized most men aren't a razors edge away from raping them. And their relationship with men completely changed.
That doesn't mean women should be ignorant of the possibility, but it does mean they shouldn't be _fearful_. Rather they should learn to recognize situations where the possibility is higher and avoid them.
Years ago I read a story about 3 young women who were paid to entertain some men in a boat that sat in international waters. At some point they were asked for sex, refused, got raped, then dropped off at the airport without the money they were promised.
In a perfect world things like this would never happen. But our world isn't perfect and there's a certain level of naivete in the actions of those young women, they could have avoided all of that by recognizing the danger and refusing.
If my kids fear that anyone who is not in their group is out to harm them,then they will become less tolerant of anyone not in their group. Dunno why you put it on the head like that?
Second part is more personal, would I be willing to sacrifice my kids safety in the name of tolerance? I know how I answer that question. I am all but certain most people answer it the same way.
To put it simply, as values come: kids > tolerance.
Teaching intolerance to children? Yeah, that's a bad thing.
Intolerance itself is amoral. Intolerance of bad things is good. Intolerance of good things is bad. Part of raising a kid is teaching them which things should be tolerated and which things not to tolerate. Absolute tolerance isn't virtuous, it makes you a wet noodle with no spine.
The problem you're running into is mistaking statistics for personal actions.
you can get tetanus from a rusty nail, the solution is more care around rusty nails, not to refuse to work around them. Or disallow your children from working around them. In fact, disallowing that harms them in the long run as they never learn how to work around them with more care.
At the end of day being alive implies risk, teaching your children how to manage that risk is a part of your job as a parent.
I do want to point out that the moment you call everything racist, nothing is racist. Same applies to most labels used to attempt to shut down discussions based on merits/data/statistics rather than emotions and rallying flag keywords. In the old country, my parents did not let me play with other white kids for reasons other than race. Were their intolerance so different, because it did touch the color of the skin? It is not a bait. It is a real question.
<< At the end of day being alive implies risk, teaching your children how to manage that risk is a part of your job as a parent.
We are in agreement.
<< Or disallow your children from working around them. In fact, disallowing that harms them in the long run as they never learn how to work around them with more care.
Depends on the kid temperament really. I was somewhat obedient. My sister was not.
You did not really answer the question about intolerance. Is racism tolerable? Should you not "not to refuse to work around them" based on your own argument?
What was actually said is that if your criteria applies to racist actions there's a problem with your criteria, in the same way that if your behavior results in someones death, there's a problem with your behavior.
statistically speaking, most murders are perpetrated by black men. So statistically speaking, your garden variety racist is right to distrust their black neighbor.
^ that the above is true speaks clearly to the flaw in your thinking.
Could you elaborate a little bit? I do not want to put words in your mouth.
What is the problem with my criteria? Are the criteria applied inherently racist? Am I racist the moment if I apply them even if they are not inherently racist?
<<statistically speaking, most murders are perpetrated by black men. So statistically speaking, your garden variety racist is right to distrust their black neighbor.
Well, duh. You don't have to convince me. As any city-dweller will tell you, as you approach a stranger on a sidewalk at night, you run an internal calculus of expected danger. You typically develop sharp senses rather fast as a result^ that the above is true speaks clearly to the flaw in your thinking. . I am thinking Chicago/New York ( but I would assume it applies to any bigger city really ).
We can talk about whether it is fair or not, but that is the reality of our current existence. You want to change it, change the proportions and start putting more whities in jail ( I am all for increasing accountability; maybe things will improve in general if the laws are applied across the board ). Alternatively, we can try seeing what can be done to ensure less crimes are committed in urban areas so that whites don't flee to suburbs.
<<^ that the above is true speaks clearly to the flaw in your thinking.
What is that flaw?
And you're still asking what the flaw in your thinking is.
<< and not because you're in a bad neighborhood
You just assumed quite a lot about a hypothetical that I purposefully left open-ended. Note that I did not say black or bad neighborhood in it.
<< And you're still asking what the flaw in your thinking is.
What is that flaw ( ideally, please refrain from saying I am evidently racist; it kinda undermines the argument with circular logic )?
Note that this is the 2nd time I am asking that very question. If you won't offer something to work with, I will discontinue this conversation.
In short, I no longer believe you engaged in good faith discussion. Fare well.
They don't happen to sometimes misfire. They are a very poor predictor of the behavior of individuals within the group you're stereotyping. And in your day-to-day life, you're pretty much always dealing with individuals rather than an entire class of people.
This is significantly complicated when considering that stereotypes weren't created in a vacuum, either. Sometimes they are the result of some statistical phenomenon (which still doesn't mean they are good predictors of individual behavior), but often they are the result of historical prejudice. One easy example is that there are lots of stereotypes about Jewish people, many of which involve money or some sort of secret societal control. Those are categorically false, and have been tied to age-old antisemitic sentiments and humans' natural fear of groups of "others".
Some are also self-fulfilling. If 50 years ago a bunch of the population believed that a certain class of people were more likely to commit crimes, and as a result more of those people tended to be arrested, then looking at those statistics today in isolation seems to "prove" the point that this segment is more dangerous. Whereas in reality the reason the statistics are this way is largely because of the prejudiced belief.
<<This is significantly complicated when considering that stereotypes weren't created in a vacuum, either.
Absolutely correct, they exist as a result of observed facts and carried down as memes throughout society at large. You can question their accuracy, but there is a reason they exist and thrive.
<< which still doesn't mean they are good predictors of individual behavior
They are good enough for an individual predictions, which is all an individual is concerned with. The issue starts when it is being used more broadly.
<< If 50 years ago a bunch of the population believed that a certain class of people were more likely to commit crimes, and as a result more of those people tended to be arrested, then looking at those statistics today in isolation seems to "prove" the point that this segment is more dangerous.
Ok. Lets say we forget history for a moment. There is indeed an argument to be made that data may not be.. accurate ( but that also opens the question of.. is that accuracy zero ?). What about current statistics of shooting incidents in Chicago? Are those also biased, because they happen to show similar pattern ( I think we can agree shooting people is a bad thing and likely dangerous and those involved likely belong in prison -- self defense and similar being excluded )?