I didn’t say “invented” either, I said “made up” - I used the exact same wording you did. Don’t put words in my mouth, it’s unhygienic. And I would say that of all the foods to pick for the analogy, going straight for M&Ms in particular is, shall we say, telling.
“FBI crime stats” is, in fact a good critique. If we accept bigotry against immigrants is unjustified because their crime stats are low, logically, we are forced to accept that if they were high, bigotry would be justified, which is the “FBI stats” argument. Now, I realize I might be on the fringe here, but I would like to take the stance that bigotry is inherently unjustified, regardless of what stats someone can dig up. Crime stats, historical oppression, financial disadvantage, and other PMC buzzwords do not matter. Either we agree that a person, an actual, living, breathing, human being with feelings, hopes, and dreams, can be pre-judged based their birth (prejudice: prae- “before” + iūdicium “judgment”) , or they can’t. And I am of the radical, extremist stance that prejudice is wrong, inherently.
And what the fuck do bears have to do with any of this?
You are kinda straw-manning their argument. They never implied bigotry against men (or anyone for that matter) is justified. They implied that men as a demographic commit crimes at a higher than average rate, enough so to make it an outlier, and that the underlying issues should be addressed to reduce that.
Your attempt to shift their argument to one of bigotry is just trying to shutdown the conversation. Men really do commit crimes at a higher rate, it’s not bigotry to acknowledge that. It would be bigotry to imply there was something inherent to being a man that made a person commit crimes. But wanting to understand the data and help isn’t bigotry, it’s compassion.
Crime stats, historical oppression, financial disadvantage, and other PMC buzzwords do not matter.
Given that, crime stats, historical oppression, and financial disadvantage do in fact matter to putting context to crime rates. Would you be surprised to learn that areas with higher poverty rates have higher rates of crime? Would you accuse me of bigotry against the poor for saying that providing food, money, housing, education, and resources to those groups would reduce the crime rate? What if the impoverished area was comprised of immigrants? Am I bigoted for wanting to alleviate the situation that drives people to commit crimes, just because the people who need help are a minority group? Obviously not, bigotry is defined by thinking the problem is inherent to a group. It has nothing to do with acknowledging a problem and wanting to help everyone involved.
Now, with all that in mind, if men are committing crimes (especially violent crimes) at a much higher rate than the general population, is it bigotry to say we should consider what we can do to reduce the crime rate in that demographic?
edit: Here is something of a related situation to bring context. There are significantly less women in the tech industry. Is it bigotry to say that there is nothing inherent in being a woman that would make a person less capable to work in tech, so there is likely some alternative (likely societal) reason for this discrepancy? Is it bigotry for someone to try and help women get interested in tech and break into the industry?
I’m not strawmanning anything, the M&M argument itself is a justification for bigotry. It’s not shutting down the conversation, that is the conversation being had. The M&M argument isn’t about helping people, it’s a justification for prejudice and is to be rejected out of hand regardless of what demographic it’s targeting or what justification it tenders, because human beings aren’t fungible commodities. Read the articles I linked. Crime stats do not need context, because they do not matter at all.
How do you respond to M&Ming Japanese-American internment? After all, not all of them are traitors, but one poison M&M… And in response, do you say “well, if you look at the data, the average Japanese-American was actually…”? No, you reject the argument out of hand, because people are innocent until proven guilty. How do you respond to M&Ming vagrancy? Do you dig up data on shelters and talk about mental health? No, you reject the premise, because freedom shouldn’t be contingent on property ownership. How about migrants? Do you waste time proving that actually they’re all nice people who are worthy of help? No, you reject the argument, because people in need should be helped.
Incidentally, inherentness is also irrelevant. The M&M argument doesn’t claim poison is inherent to M&Ms. You can just as easily make the argument that you know full well that …m e n… aren’t inherently violent, it’s just that the crime stats very clearly show that they, as a demographic, have certain tendencies, and while you sympathize with them, and would like nothing more to help them overcome the circumstances, probably cultural, that are surely to blame for them being that way, the data is what it is, and you just don’t feel comfortable working/socializing/sharing an elevator/being in the same bar/seeing them in the neighborhood, and, I mean, for all they complain, the back of the bus is still on the same bus so I don’t get…
I realize nobody thinks of themselves as a bigot, and I know reexamining one’s own biases is not pleasant, but it is a necessary step for growth.
And now you have strawmanned my argument… I get that you have heard an argument using M&Ms to justify widespread harm to targeted groups, and see Pyre’s use of it as a sort of dog whistle. And who knows, I do believe you are attaching a whole truckload of intent that they nor I ever suggested, but maybe it is a secret play to take away the rights of men. But seeing as you had to jump to hyperbolic attacks on people’s rights to find a way to imply I’m a bigot, I’m thinking it’s also possible that you are just a big fan of strawmanning people.
All of my suggestions were looking at statistics and seeing how we could improve the lives of all involved.
What do you do about internment camps? Shut that shit down, there is no place for collective punishment in a humane society.
What do you do about vagrancy? Provide safe spaces to sleep in, offer free food, and free health care (preferably a “right to housing as well”).
What do you do about the statistical discrepancy that men commit crimes at a higher rate? Invest in schools, provide positive role models, investigate the societal norms that may be affecting men’s “sense of self” negatively and try to counter balance it. (The list goes on, but you should at least get my point)
But you don’t just ignore statistics, after all data isn’t bigoted, people are. So you do your best to use stats and data to point to underlying causes and try to improve the situation for everyone to the greatest extent possible.
And, to bring this back to its original point, you also use data and stats to make educated decisions about your safety. If you go to an area with high crime rates, it’s not bigoted to carry and show less valuables. If you go to a city where cars get broken into a lot, it’s not bigoted to not keep valuables on the car. And if you are a woman who has a 14.8% chance of being a victim of rape in their lifetime, it’s not bigoted to not feel safe alone with men.
But you did make one very good point.
I realize nobody thinks of themselves as a bigot, and I know reexamining one’s own biases is not pleasant, but it is a necessary step for growth.
And I think you should take your own advice here. Because your biases have you so up in arms about this conversation, that you found a way to get from “maybe we examine why men commit a higher rate of crimes and see if we can help them so they don’t have or want to anymore” to “men belong at the back of the bus!”. And that’s… not a healthy mindset.
The M&M argument, THE M&M argument, that the article describes, and that …let’s say Pyre, made, and admitted to making, is, in fact, a justification of prejudice. It’s the argument of exclusion of an entire demographic based on “well, some of them are bad, and I’m not taking the chance.” And if we’re gonna shove buzzwords down each other’s throat, I’m not strawmanning you, you’re gaslighting me. Well, trying to, anyway.
If you wanna make a separate, different M&M argument, one that isn’t the one above, go ahead - I am curious about how you’re gonna talk your way into un-poisoning the M&Ms. But that new, different argument that you have not yet made is not what this conversation is about.
That’s the fun part of my argument, I don’t need to talk about M&M’s. But I can see why you would prefer I do so you don’t have to engage with the actual content of the argument.
Also, more strawmanning from you is no surprise, Pyre didn’t make the argument that a group should be excluded did tthey? They made the argument that women often don’t want to take chances with their safety by being alone with men. Even if the M&M argument was used to justify collective punishment (with or without a “poisoned M&M” actually existing), it’s very clear Pyre used the metaphor to explain why being alone with an unknown man would be a situation a woman would want to avoid. Your attempts to change their arguments to one of bigotry is disingenuous.
On the contrary - yes you do. My complaint is using poison M&Ms as a metaphor for human beings. If you’re not gonna present a poison M&M argument of your own, then there’s only The Argument left. Though at least we now agree that it is used to justify collective punishment.
Actually, you know what, since you can’t seem to find the exit, I’ll point you to it. Say:
“The M&M argument is a faulty and dehumanising generalisation, but it’s understandable that someone would feel unsafe after living a lifetime worrying about men hurting you.”
And I’ll say:
"The sentiment is not unreasonable. But generalizations are both suspect and arbitrary (see Sartre’s “Jewish furrier” story), and the wariness itself is alienating for both sides, and an obstacle to fixing things. It’s not strange that a lifetime under threat leads to trauma, but allowing trauma to fester and calcify is the wrong choice.
Look, I’m willing to say thanks for bringing the bigoted usage of M&M metaphor to my attention. It is good to know common usages of things to avoid misunderstandings like this. Given that it was used to argue for collective punishment against oppressed and minority groups, that is obviously sick and unacceptable. So much so that while I never used it in the past, I will now be sure to never use it in the future either.
I don’t believe the metaphor is faulty in of itself, as you would obviously at least hesitate to consume food if it had a chance to be poisoned. And in the context it was used here, where it did not argue for collective punishment, but rather simply women wanting to not put themselves in situations that could render them defenseless, I think it fit quite well. If it didn’t have its association with discrimination, it would have aptly explained women’s point of view while acknowledging that the grand majority of men are not a threat.
Regardless, it was repeatedly made clear to you that no generalizations were being made. And you repeatedly insisted on making a linguistics argument even after people defined their terms and intent. You continued to ignore their clarifications and resort to implying your interlocutors were bigoted. Which makes it hard for me to believe you were arguing in good faith. Doubly so when you thought an appropriate exit would include you saying the argument “is alienating for both sides, and an obstacle to fixing things.”.
If you genuinely wanted to fix things, you would have argued with enough charity to say “I understand that your intent was not to generalize nor attack a group of people, but the metaphor you used is charged with bigotry due to its common usage. To avoid misunderstandings, might I suggest using a different method of getting your points across?”. Or something to that affect.
But you didn’t, you doubled down on accusations of bigotry, flat out strawmanned arguments, and remained steadfast in a linguistics debate when everyone had already defined their terms. Even after I had conceded that the M&M metaphor could be creating a misunderstanding.
So let me offer you another exit. I’ll say:
Thanks for letting me know about the M&M argument. I prefer to have clarity in my statements, and loath bigotry of all forms. So being made aware of the dehumanizing and faulty manner it has been used in is greatly appreciated. I hope you understand that I mean no ill will in our discussion. But I do find that some people will often try to focus on one faux pas to derail a more important conversation about women’s rights and safety, and that is something of a pet peeve of mine. Regardless I’m sorry for any misunderstanding.
And you can say:
No worries, the M&M metaphor has been used in such awful ways that it fundamentally undermines any attempts at genuine conversations, and I was unable to see past it to your actual intent. I understand that you and Pyre weren’t being bigoted, and I’m sorry for trying to associate bigotry from past usage of the M&Ms metaphor on your actual intentions even after it was made clear that you were not using the metaphor in its common usage.
The point isn’t that you should eat the M&Ms, the point is that when a batch of food is suspected to be tainted, you throw it away. You don’t keep tainted food around, you order it recalled from the market and incinerate it because merely having it around is a hazard. It’s a matter of public safety. The problem of applying it to people should be obvious - this is why I mentioned “un-poisoning the M&Ms”. And yes, the argument is alienating for both sides, it alienates them from each other, and that is an obstacle. Unless, I guess, we go for the incinerator solution like we would with M&Ms.
I’m “making a linguistics argument” because I don’t think you understand the argument being made. An argument isn’t faulty because it’s used against oppressed and minority groups, it’s used against oppressed and minority groups because it’s faulty - it’s the faultiness that allows for bigotry. Your response is you’re not talking about oppressed and minority groups, so it’s not bigoted, so it’s not faulty. This is getting it precisely backwards. This isn’t a misunderstanding, I know what you - I mean, Pyre - set out to say. But what you actually said - and, frankly, the rest of this conversation - is telling me I was right to speak up. You think I’m “arguing linguistics” because you think the problem is the words themselves, because what you set out to say isn’t bigotry, because you’re not a bigot, you only have a problem with people who deserve it! Hell, your exit admits there is no other M&M metaphor, but it’s OK, because we both agree you didn’t mean it like that! That’s the important part here! Because this is a conversation about you!
You’re gonna think this is more linguistics, but if you read back, you’ll notice I never called you a bigot. I said the argument is a veil for bigotry. The reason for this is both because essentialism isn’t helpful, and because my problem isn’t with you - it’s with the argument.
I didn’t say “invented” either, I said “made up” - I used the exact same wording you did. Don’t put words in my mouth, it’s unhygienic. And I would say that of all the foods to pick for the analogy, going straight for M&Ms in particular is, shall we say, telling.
“FBI crime stats” is, in fact a good critique. If we accept bigotry against immigrants is unjustified because their crime stats are low, logically, we are forced to accept that if they were high, bigotry would be justified, which is the “FBI stats” argument. Now, I realize I might be on the fringe here, but I would like to take the stance that bigotry is inherently unjustified, regardless of what stats someone can dig up. Crime stats, historical oppression, financial disadvantage, and other PMC buzzwords do not matter. Either we agree that a person, an actual, living, breathing, human being with feelings, hopes, and dreams, can be pre-judged based their birth (prejudice: prae- “before” + iūdicium “judgment”) , or they can’t. And I am of the radical, extremist stance that prejudice is wrong, inherently.
And what the fuck do bears have to do with any of this?
You are kinda straw-manning their argument. They never implied bigotry against men (or anyone for that matter) is justified. They implied that men as a demographic commit crimes at a higher than average rate, enough so to make it an outlier, and that the underlying issues should be addressed to reduce that.
Your attempt to shift their argument to one of bigotry is just trying to shutdown the conversation. Men really do commit crimes at a higher rate, it’s not bigotry to acknowledge that. It would be bigotry to imply there was something inherent to being a man that made a person commit crimes. But wanting to understand the data and help isn’t bigotry, it’s compassion.
Given that, crime stats, historical oppression, and financial disadvantage do in fact matter to putting context to crime rates. Would you be surprised to learn that areas with higher poverty rates have higher rates of crime? Would you accuse me of bigotry against the poor for saying that providing food, money, housing, education, and resources to those groups would reduce the crime rate? What if the impoverished area was comprised of immigrants? Am I bigoted for wanting to alleviate the situation that drives people to commit crimes, just because the people who need help are a minority group? Obviously not, bigotry is defined by thinking the problem is inherent to a group. It has nothing to do with acknowledging a problem and wanting to help everyone involved.
Now, with all that in mind, if men are committing crimes (especially violent crimes) at a much higher rate than the general population, is it bigotry to say we should consider what we can do to reduce the crime rate in that demographic?
edit: Here is something of a related situation to bring context. There are significantly less women in the tech industry. Is it bigotry to say that there is nothing inherent in being a woman that would make a person less capable to work in tech, so there is likely some alternative (likely societal) reason for this discrepancy? Is it bigotry for someone to try and help women get interested in tech and break into the industry?
I’m not strawmanning anything, the M&M argument itself is a justification for bigotry. It’s not shutting down the conversation, that is the conversation being had. The M&M argument isn’t about helping people, it’s a justification for prejudice and is to be rejected out of hand regardless of what demographic it’s targeting or what justification it tenders, because human beings aren’t fungible commodities. Read the articles I linked. Crime stats do not need context, because they do not matter at all.
How do you respond to M&Ming Japanese-American internment? After all, not all of them are traitors, but one poison M&M… And in response, do you say “well, if you look at the data, the average Japanese-American was actually…”? No, you reject the argument out of hand, because people are innocent until proven guilty. How do you respond to M&Ming vagrancy? Do you dig up data on shelters and talk about mental health? No, you reject the premise, because freedom shouldn’t be contingent on property ownership. How about migrants? Do you waste time proving that actually they’re all nice people who are worthy of help? No, you reject the argument, because people in need should be helped.
Incidentally, inherentness is also irrelevant. The M&M argument doesn’t claim poison is inherent to M&Ms. You can just as easily make the argument that you know full well that …m e n… aren’t inherently violent, it’s just that the crime stats very clearly show that they, as a demographic, have certain tendencies, and while you sympathize with them, and would like nothing more to help them overcome the circumstances, probably cultural, that are surely to blame for them being that way, the data is what it is, and you just don’t feel comfortable working/socializing/sharing an elevator/being in the same bar/seeing them in the neighborhood, and, I mean, for all they complain, the back of the bus is still on the same bus so I don’t get…
I realize nobody thinks of themselves as a bigot, and I know reexamining one’s own biases is not pleasant, but it is a necessary step for growth.
And now you have strawmanned my argument… I get that you have heard an argument using M&Ms to justify widespread harm to targeted groups, and see Pyre’s use of it as a sort of dog whistle. And who knows, I do believe you are attaching a whole truckload of intent that they nor I ever suggested, but maybe it is a secret play to take away the rights of men. But seeing as you had to jump to hyperbolic attacks on people’s rights to find a way to imply I’m a bigot, I’m thinking it’s also possible that you are just a big fan of strawmanning people.
All of my suggestions were looking at statistics and seeing how we could improve the lives of all involved.
What do you do about internment camps? Shut that shit down, there is no place for collective punishment in a humane society.
What do you do about vagrancy? Provide safe spaces to sleep in, offer free food, and free health care (preferably a “right to housing as well”).
What do you do about the statistical discrepancy that men commit crimes at a higher rate? Invest in schools, provide positive role models, investigate the societal norms that may be affecting men’s “sense of self” negatively and try to counter balance it. (The list goes on, but you should at least get my point)
But you don’t just ignore statistics, after all data isn’t bigoted, people are. So you do your best to use stats and data to point to underlying causes and try to improve the situation for everyone to the greatest extent possible.
And, to bring this back to its original point, you also use data and stats to make educated decisions about your safety. If you go to an area with high crime rates, it’s not bigoted to carry and show less valuables. If you go to a city where cars get broken into a lot, it’s not bigoted to not keep valuables on the car. And if you are a woman who has a 14.8% chance of being a victim of rape in their lifetime, it’s not bigoted to not feel safe alone with men.
But you did make one very good point.
And I think you should take your own advice here. Because your biases have you so up in arms about this conversation, that you found a way to get from “maybe we examine why men commit a higher rate of crimes and see if we can help them so they don’t have or want to anymore” to “men belong at the back of the bus!”. And that’s… not a healthy mindset.
The M&M argument, THE M&M argument, that the article describes, and that …let’s say Pyre, made, and admitted to making, is, in fact, a justification of prejudice. It’s the argument of exclusion of an entire demographic based on “well, some of them are bad, and I’m not taking the chance.” And if we’re gonna shove buzzwords down each other’s throat, I’m not strawmanning you, you’re gaslighting me. Well, trying to, anyway.
If you wanna make a separate, different M&M argument, one that isn’t the one above, go ahead - I am curious about how you’re gonna talk your way into un-poisoning the M&Ms. But that new, different argument that you have not yet made is not what this conversation is about.
That’s the fun part of my argument, I don’t need to talk about M&M’s. But I can see why you would prefer I do so you don’t have to engage with the actual content of the argument.
Also, more strawmanning from you is no surprise, Pyre didn’t make the argument that a group should be excluded did tthey? They made the argument that women often don’t want to take chances with their safety by being alone with men. Even if the M&M argument was used to justify collective punishment (with or without a “poisoned M&M” actually existing), it’s very clear Pyre used the metaphor to explain why being alone with an unknown man would be a situation a woman would want to avoid. Your attempts to change their arguments to one of bigotry is disingenuous.
On the contrary - yes you do. My complaint is using poison M&Ms as a metaphor for human beings. If you’re not gonna present a poison M&M argument of your own, then there’s only The Argument left. Though at least we now agree that it is used to justify collective punishment.
Actually, you know what, since you can’t seem to find the exit, I’ll point you to it. Say:
And I’ll say:
Look, I’m willing to say thanks for bringing the bigoted usage of M&M metaphor to my attention. It is good to know common usages of things to avoid misunderstandings like this. Given that it was used to argue for collective punishment against oppressed and minority groups, that is obviously sick and unacceptable. So much so that while I never used it in the past, I will now be sure to never use it in the future either.
I don’t believe the metaphor is faulty in of itself, as you would obviously at least hesitate to consume food if it had a chance to be poisoned. And in the context it was used here, where it did not argue for collective punishment, but rather simply women wanting to not put themselves in situations that could render them defenseless, I think it fit quite well. If it didn’t have its association with discrimination, it would have aptly explained women’s point of view while acknowledging that the grand majority of men are not a threat.
Regardless, it was repeatedly made clear to you that no generalizations were being made. And you repeatedly insisted on making a linguistics argument even after people defined their terms and intent. You continued to ignore their clarifications and resort to implying your interlocutors were bigoted. Which makes it hard for me to believe you were arguing in good faith. Doubly so when you thought an appropriate exit would include you saying the argument “is alienating for both sides, and an obstacle to fixing things.”.
If you genuinely wanted to fix things, you would have argued with enough charity to say “I understand that your intent was not to generalize nor attack a group of people, but the metaphor you used is charged with bigotry due to its common usage. To avoid misunderstandings, might I suggest using a different method of getting your points across?”. Or something to that affect.
But you didn’t, you doubled down on accusations of bigotry, flat out strawmanned arguments, and remained steadfast in a linguistics debate when everyone had already defined their terms. Even after I had conceded that the M&M metaphor could be creating a misunderstanding.
So let me offer you another exit. I’ll say:
And you can say:
The point isn’t that you should eat the M&Ms, the point is that when a batch of food is suspected to be tainted, you throw it away. You don’t keep tainted food around, you order it recalled from the market and incinerate it because merely having it around is a hazard. It’s a matter of public safety. The problem of applying it to people should be obvious - this is why I mentioned “un-poisoning the M&Ms”. And yes, the argument is alienating for both sides, it alienates them from each other, and that is an obstacle. Unless, I guess, we go for the incinerator solution like we would with M&Ms.
I’m “making a linguistics argument” because I don’t think you understand the argument being made. An argument isn’t faulty because it’s used against oppressed and minority groups, it’s used against oppressed and minority groups because it’s faulty - it’s the faultiness that allows for bigotry. Your response is you’re not talking about oppressed and minority groups, so it’s not bigoted, so it’s not faulty. This is getting it precisely backwards. This isn’t a misunderstanding, I know what you - I mean, Pyre - set out to say. But what you actually said - and, frankly, the rest of this conversation - is telling me I was right to speak up. You think I’m “arguing linguistics” because you think the problem is the words themselves, because what you set out to say isn’t bigotry, because you’re not a bigot, you only have a problem with people who deserve it! Hell, your exit admits there is no other M&M metaphor, but it’s OK, because we both agree you didn’t mean it like that! That’s the important part here! Because this is a conversation about you!
You’re gonna think this is more linguistics, but if you read back, you’ll notice I never called you a bigot. I said the argument is a veil for bigotry. The reason for this is both because essentialism isn’t helpful, and because my problem isn’t with you - it’s with the argument.