Is this racism or culture clash in baseball?

[PseudoSABR]

 

There is a difference between preferring your way of doing things and showing a prejudice against another way because it involves a different race. If you can't see that difference, you're not trying....

There is, in some instances.  But when you divide your way of doing things and other ways of doing things along racial and cultural lines and inflict value judgments based on those differences, well, that makes you a racist.  Preference and prejudice are sides of the same coin (the net value bestowed between your group and the other group is same, no matter how you frame it).   

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

There is, in some instances.  But when you divide your way of doing things and other ways of doing things along racial and cultural lines and inflict value judgments based on those differences, well, that makes you a racist.  

I said the same thing earlier. Everybody views their culture (their way of life) as the best way. By your definition everybody is racist. Don't conflate preference and prejudice.  

 

How do you feel about the subhuman treatment of women in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia? It certainly is part of that culture. Its also disgusting. That is a value judgement, I deem that aspect of their culture to be lesser than my own. Does that make me a racist? 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Well, herein seems to lie the problem.  Repeatedly, by everyone I can recall in this thread, there has been a distinction you refuse to acknowledge: no one is presuming what Kinsler truly believes.  We are making an assessment of his statement.  And we're doing so in the larger context in which prejudices, biases, and all sorts of things impact us all to try and explain why he might have said what he did. 

 

The only thing I'm "literally saying" is that what Kinsler said has significant racial overtones far too common in baseball these days.

By assigning him particular biases or prejudices you are presuming to have that knowledge though. If you're not claiming that then Idk what some of the previous posts were getting at. 

 

If the argument is that you're only comparing what he said to what somebody who would hold that particular bias against Latin players would say then we've come full circle. In your OP you claimed he was slightly racist, and my initial objection was in regards to people arriving at that conclusion with such certainty. You see similarity to bias against Latin players; I see a strong preference for what he believes the best way to play the game is. I see no need to repeat the first few pages if this is the case. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I said the same thing earlier. Everybody views their culture (their way of life) as the best way. By your definition everybody is racist. 

Actually not everybody views their culture as the best.  There's plenty about American culture I find disgusting.  I'm sure you do too.  Often, when people make value judgments of other cultures they pick and choose which parts of their own culture they like and deem that their culture, while ignoring the uglier parts.

 

How do you feel about the subhuman treatment of women in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia? It certainly is part of that culture. Its also disgusting. That is a value judgement, I deem that aspect of their culture to be lesser than my own. Does that make me a racist? 

I think there are aspects of cultures/religions/countries that deserve condemnation (as you mention), but what will make that observation/advocacy racist(or whatever -ism) is when you say something like no children should be raised Muslim because of what happens in Saudi Arabia.  Because the reality is not all Muslim people treat women with such disregard (and more there are plenty of elements within Islam that advocate for the rights of woman, they just don't get much publicity).    Moreover, it's not as if Kinsler was advocating for women's rights...he was bothered by how emotional the other team/culture was--if it wasn't for his judgment of the other team, he never would have promoted the values of his own culture.

 

Look, plenty of what Christians or Texans or climate-change deniers* seems backwards to me, but upon meeting any one person from any of those group, I do my best to not to generalize my observations of the group to that individual person.  And I sure as heck never speak about how any one group should raise their children.   (Can you imagine how offended people would be if I said we should never rear children with Texas or Christian values? Oh boy.)

 

*well I might judge this group more harshly because it isn't something they were born into (or perhaps it is).

 

I think you can celebrate your own culture without inviting comparisons to other cultures or bringing kids into it. Fair? 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Actually not everybody views their culture as the best.  There's plenty about American culture I find disgusting.  I'm sure you do too.  Often, when people make value judgments of other cultures they pick and choose which parts of their own culture they like and deem that their culture, while ignoring the uglier parts.

 

I think there are aspects of cultures/religions/countries that deserve condemnation (as you mention), but what will make that observation/advocacy racist(or whatever -ism) is when you say something like no children should be raised Muslim because of what happens in Saudi Arabia.  Because the reality is not all Muslim people treat women with such disregard (and more there are plenty of elements within Islam that advocate for the rights of woman, they just don't get much publicity).    Moreover, it's not as if Kinsler was advocating for women's rights...he was bothered by how emotional the other team/culture was--if it wasn't for his judgment of the other team, he never would have promoted the values of his own culture.

 

Look, plenty of what Christians or Texans or climate-change deniers* seems backwards to me, but upon meeting any one person from any of those group, I do my best to not to generalize my observations of the group to that individual person.  And I sure as heck never speak about how any one group should raise their children.   (Can you imagine how offended people would be if I said we should never rear children with Texas or Christian values? Oh boy.)

 

*well I might judge this group more harshly because it isn't something they were born into (or perhaps it is).

 

I think you can celebrate your own culture without inviting comparisons to other cultures or bringing kids into it. Fair? 

Meh agreed for the most part. People do pick and choose. There is an overarching "American Culture," that does encompass both the good and bad. There are obvious exceptions but for the most part I do believe that most Americans prefer the culture here. I look at it this way; there are aspects of other countries that I wish were commonplace in America. However, as a complete package, I wouldn't trade my way of life here for there. 

 

I guess you changed the definition and that was kind of my point. I wasn't trying to make the conversation be about Islam; it was just the lowest hanging fruit in terms examples. I was getting at the way you defined racism because according to it my denouncement of the the way women are viewed and treated was in fact racist. If I were to discriminate against Saudis or hold a prejudice against all of them due to that negative aspect of their culture then the argument could be made that I was being racist. I think that is an important distinction from being critical of an aspect of another culture and/or championing an aspect of your own.   

 

I couldn't agree more on the take concerning the ideology of some Christians. I haven't spent enough time with native Texans to really have an opinion, but I do enjoy Austin. Don't even get me started on the climate change deniers, this thread has been exhausting enough....

 

Certainly you can celebrate your own culture without comparing it to others. If that bothers people I can understand it. The disagreement was over whether or not racism transpired as a result of the comparison. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

By assigning him particular biases or prejudices you are presuming to have that knowledge though. If you're not claiming that then Idk what some of the previous posts were getting at. 

 

I assign him biases because he's human.  It comes with the condition.

 

I am not assigning him to be a racist, what I am asserting is that his statement was racist because of how it was framed.  And within the larger context of how baseball players talk about Latin celebrations.

 

Look, I think you can and should decry practices in other cultures.  It's been necessary for us to get as far as we have as a species and is very much necessary today.  But approaching a subject like that threatens to step over into racism if you're not careful about the how and the why.  Kinsler's comments weren't very careful.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

Let me spell it out differently for you...

 

All instances happen independent of each other yet they're considered to be the same. They're treated as as indistinguishable and categorized as such . Then the data pulled from these groups is used to typify (a synonym of characterize) an entire race/gender. This method clearly eschews nuance. You've shown support for this method yet it's apparently me who has no interest in examination of anything below surface level. I think that it is the other way around. 

 

Better?

 

I applaud your confidence in your opinion....

 

to be clear, you think all instances of communication about race happen independently of each other? You don't think groups of people that meet, and talk about race end up echoing each others' thoughts, and that that talk is largely dependent on other communications? 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

to be clear, you think all instances of communication about race happen independently of each other? You don't think groups of people that meet, and talk about race end up echoing each others' thoughts, and that that talk is largely dependent on other communications? 

We can't talk about societal issues if we don't occasionally generalize when we see consistent themes and over-arching trends.

 

And that applies to everything that happens on a grand scale. It's akin to having a discussion about macroeconomics and only allowing the class to consider Microsoft's individual actions. And then force them to forget what they said about Microsoft and talk only about Exxon-Mobil.

 

Big things require generalization to some degree. Language is clumsy and awkward. We try to power through it the best we can to get to the point we wish to make.

[Craig Arko]

 

We can't talk about societal issues if we don't occasionally generalize when we see consistent themes and over

 

...

 

Big things require generalization to some degree. Language is clumsy and awkward. We try to power through it the best we can to get to the point we wish to make.

 

This is basically the point of statistical analysis, i.e. drawing conclusions from aggregate data.

 

Reading this thread I still see a lot of everyone trying to defend and cling to their own points of view without really giving an inch. That's when this kind of issue becomes an intractable hot mess. Maybe we should try a little roleplaying taking the other person's view and see if it does anything to inform our own.

 

Again, this applies to everyone equally.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

This is basically the point of statistical analysis, i.e. drawing conclusions from aggregate data.

 

Reading this thread I still see a lot of everyone trying to defend and cling to their own points of view without really giving an inch. That's when this kind of issue becomes an intractable hot mess. Maybe we should try a little roleplaying taking the other person's view and see if it does anything to inform our own.

 

Again, this applies to everyone equally.

The thing is that I came to my conclusion by listening to people, lots of people, with very different life experiences from my own. My opinion on this subject has radically changed over the past 20 years as I left my relatively secure suburban high school in SoCal (which helped me better understand the latino perspective but little else) and into even more diverse neighborhoods and situations.

 

And I'm the first to admit that I barely have a grasp on the enormity of the situation and virtually no idea how it feels to be in their position. I'm an outsider looking in, which limits my ability to fully understand the situation.

 

It's not that I don't listen to other peoples' opinions; quite the opposite, actually. I was that opinion growing up in Minnesota and Utah. It's when I began to listen to people who weren't like me that my opinion started to change.

[Craig Arko]

 

I'm an outsider looking in, which limits my ability to fully understand.

Hey, we're all outsiders looking in. Many times even in our own culture.

 

I can't count the number of times I've looked at posts on this very site, where the culture is Twins baseball, and had absolutely no clue about what I was reading. And yet we all have a lot of shared background in this culture. How difficult then to begin to relate to something completely different.

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

to be clear, you think all instances of communication about race happen independently of each other? You don't think groups of people that meet, and talk about race end up echoing each others' thoughts, and that that talk is largely dependent on other communications? 

That isn't what I said...

 

The instances that are labeled as racism happen independent of each other, ie occur at different times, in different places, under different circumstances. 

 

Yes group think exists, it doesn't undermine what I said above. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

That isn't what I said...

 

The instances that are labeled as racism happen independent of each other, ie occur at different times, in different places, under different circumstances. 

 

Yes group think exists, it doesn't undermine what I said above. 

 

that does not make them independent, right? I'm curious what point you are making, nothing more or less. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

I assign him biases because he's human.  It comes with the condition.

 

I am not assigning him to be a racist, what I am asserting is that his statement was racist because of how it was framed.  And within the larger context of how baseball players talk about Latin celebrations.

 

Look, I think you can and should decry practices in other cultures.  It's been necessary for us to get as far as we have as a species and is very much necessary today.  But approaching a subject like that threatens to step over into racism if you're not careful about the how and the why.  Kinsler's comments weren't very careful.  

Agreed, we've established everybody holds their own biases. Which biases individuals hold is another story. 

 

In the OP you did make that accusation but you've since withdrawn a little, which I think is a good thing. Ok, we'll just disagree on where he stepped.  

[KirbyDome89]

 

that does not make them independent, right? I'm curious what point you are making, nothing more or less. 

Instances are individual Mike. The examples of arrest/conviction/unemployment were given much earlier in the thread. The arrests/convictions/cases of unemployment aren't identical but they're grouped as such. I've talked through that in a few earlier posts. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's not that I don't listen to other peoples' opinions; quite the opposite, actually. I was that opinion growing up in Minnesota and Utah. It's when I began to listen to people who weren't like me that my opinion started to change.

 

Yup, my opinion was formed in some really tough situations.  We're talking juvenile detention center, Hamilton St. Chicago Illinois tough.  It blew this farm kid from Minnesota's mind.

 

I had many, many talks with young black men in those times.  I've been told "I can't understand" so many times and they were right.  And I realized that.  We can still find ways to connect, share common experiences, and overcome those differences.  But part of that was learning to understand myself and the situations they lived in every day.  I think they took some things away from me and my experiences as well.

 

I still, to this day, have connections with dozens of those kids.  They've done as much or more for me as I ever did for them.  So, yeah, I don't need to roleplay it.  I've been in the thick of it.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Agreed, we've established everybody holds their own biases. Which biases individuals hold is another story. 

 

In the OP you did make that accusation but you've since withdrawn a little, which I think is a good thing. Ok, we'll just disagree on where he stepped.  

 

"Everyone has their own biases" isn't it. Everyone has biases.  Many of them are shared and common.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Instances are individual Mike. The examples of arrest/conviction/unemployment were given much earlier in the thread. The arrests/convictions/cases of unemployment aren't identical but they're grouped as such. I've talked through that in a few earlier posts.

Now you've completely lost me. How is it possible to even discuss societal issues under your imposed rules?

 

Those numbers aren't identical but they're all similar and point in the same direction. How does one address a problem this large if we argue over minutiae and refuse to use corresponding evidence because it doesn't align with 100% accuracy?

 

To put it in baseball terms, you're basically arguing that we should ignore SLG because it doesn't align with run creation at a 100% rate... while ignoring that SLG aligns with run creation better than any other metric available to us.

[KirbyDome89]

 

This is basically the point of statistical analysis, i.e. drawing conclusions from aggregate data.

 

I agree, I'm not railing against statistical analysis. Where I have pause is when generalizations from the aggregate data are used to indict individuals. 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Those numbers aren't identical but they're all similar and point in the same direction. How does one address a problem this large if we argue over minutiae and refuse to use corresponding evidence because it doesn't align with 100% accuracy?

Except it isn't a 98% vs 100% scenario like you seem to be making it. 

 

These instances that are categorized aren't as similar as you're making them out to be. Take your arrest example regarding whites and blacks from earlier, the ONLY thing that is shared is skin color. Like I said before there is no consideration of any of the circumstances surrounding the arrest. You compare the number of white vs. black arrests and see inequality of outcome and the conclusion is it must be racism because one color is arrested more often. What you're dismissing as minutiae is actually extremely important. When you remove all the lawful arrests or account for the other "minutiae" in different categories and see significant disparity then absolutely lets discuss societal issues and do so honestly. 

 

This same issue comes up in the difference in incarceration rate amongst the sexes. Men are disproportionally incarcerated compared to women. If you look at only violent crime the difference becomes laughable. I don't hear anybody claiming sexism though. "Men just commit more crime," is the narrative. But following the logic above it would have to be sexism or women somehow oppressing men right? I've looked at the outcome, there is definite equality so the justice system must work against men. Certainly don't believe that. If all we're going to do is look at the outcome and ignore all the variables that might explain how that outcome was achieved then IMO we're doing lazy analysis. 

 

I can agree that there are societal issues regarding race and gender and still disagree with the way in which some people reach that conclusion. I'm sorry, but this isn't an "all or nothing," issue. As another low hanging fruit example, take Trump. I cannot stand his stance on anything that involves science and therefore couldn't stomach voting for him. I know lots of others who didn't vote for him as well but its because "he is a nazi." To me that is nonsense and I totally disagree with how they reached the conclusion to abstain from voting for him, but on a basal level we agree. 

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

"Everyone has their own biases" isn't it. Everyone has biases.  Many of them are shared and common.

Your argument hinges on the belief everybody holds a particular negative bias. I disagree. This can't move forward.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

Except it isn't a 98% vs 100% scenario like you seem to be making it. 

 

These instances that are categorized aren't as similar as you're making them out to be. Take your arrest example regarding whites and blacks from earlier, the ONLY thing that is shared is skin color. Like I said before there is no consideration of any of the circumsta......

 

I can agree that there are societal issues regarding race and gender and still disagree with the way in which some people reach that conclusion. I'm sorry, but this isn't an "all or nothing," issue. As another low hanging fruit example, take Trump. I cannot stand his stance on anything that involves science and therefore couldn't stomach voting for him. I know lots of others who didn't vote for him as well but its because "he is a nazi." To me that is nonsense and I totally disagree with how they reached the conclusion to abstain from voting for him, but on a basal level we agree. 

 

Are you arguing that studies that take socio-economic status into account, which still show that darker skinned Americans are incarcerated at higher rates, with stiffer penalties are, what, exactly?

 

Are you arguing there isn't racism in the judicial system?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Your argument hinges on the belief everybody holds a particular negative bias. I disagree. This can't move forward.  

 

"Particular" - no.  Everybody holds some negative biases.  Many of which we share to varying degrees.  But I don't want to go down "particular" with you, that seems to be a major stumbling block in the conversation.

 

But negative biases?  We all have them. You included.  Me included.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Are you arguing that studies that take socio-economic status into account, which still show that darker skinned Americans are incarcerated at higher rates, with stiffer penalties are, what, exactly?

 

Are you arguing there isn't racism in the judicial system?

Yes, this. The data is out there and has been verified many times over.

 

ADJUSTED FOR A VARIETY OF CONDITIONS, people of color are treated more harshly in every aspect of our courts than the equivalent white person. Arrests, accusations, convictions, sentences, length of sentence served.

 

Kirby, I'm sorry, but it's almost like you're finding ways to discount evidence that is quite clear and has been for a long time because everything doesn't tie together with a nice bow and 100% consistency across the board.

 

We don't have to agree on the causation of the problem. We don't have to agree on the solution to the problem. But if we can't agree there's a problem - which is backed up by substantial evidence - we can't begin step one of the process.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Are you arguing that studies that take socio-economic status into account, which still show that darker skinned Americans are incarcerated at higher rates, with stiffer penalties are, what, exactly?

 

Are you arguing there isn't racism in the judicial system?

I arguing that if you're only interested in end result inequality regardless of how you arrive at it we have an issue. That shouldn't even be debatable.  

[KirbyDome89]

 

Yes, this. The data is out there and has been verified many times over.

 

ADJUSTED FOR A VARIETY OF CONDITIONS, people of color are treated more harshly in every aspect of our courts than the equivalent white person. Arrests, accusations, convictions, sentences, length of sentence served.

 

Kirby, I'm sorry, but it's almost like you're finding ways to discount evidence that is quite clear and has been for a long time because everything doesn't tie together with a nice bow and 100% consistency across the board.

 

We don't have to agree on the causation of the problem. We don't have to agree on the solution to the problem. But if we can't agree there's a problem - which is backed up by substantial evidence - we can't begin step one of the process.

There are also peer review articles in social science journals claim there is no disparity. I would say I fall in between that and your view, but the inconsistency amongst studies in these journals is linked to inappropriate aggregation, which is exactly the criticism I have made.  

 

I'm not interested in trading scholarly articles back and forth. Maybe my issue is with social science more than you but IMO if your feelings are allowed to determine fact then we've reached an impasse. If the end results aren't transparent they shouldn't be regarded as such.  There is a lot of conflicting data and evidence even in the journals, so to say that I'm just ignoring fact is simply untrue.     

 

We can agree that there are issues. What I can't agree with is that inconsistencies go overlooked. If you're glossing over important detail in order to leap to a conclusion thats an issue. It compounds when previous jumps are used to support future leaps.  

[KirbyDome89]

 

"Particular" - no.  Everybody holds some negative biases.  Many of which we share to varying degrees.  But I don't want to go down "particular" with you, that seems to be a major stumbling block in the conversation.

 

But negative biases?  We all have them. You included.  Me included.  

Sure we all have some number of negative biases. Particular is important in this case; is also happens to be the stalemate. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Sure we all have some number of negative biases. Particular is important in this case; is also happens to be the stalemate. 

 

Breaking down particular biases for individuals is not only fruitless, it's impossible as well.  One can't even recognize their own with much clarity, much less accurately assess someone else.  

 

So if that's what you're holding out for, it is a stalemate, because you've tasked the discussion with the impossible as a requirement.  It seems you want us to be the mind police.

 

I feel like you're taking this personally and being defensive against the idea that you have biases yourself.  Is that the issue here?

[KirbyDome89]

 

Breaking down particular biases for individuals is not only fruitless, it's impossible as well.  One can't even recognize their own with much clarity, much less accurately assess someone else.  

 

So if that's what you're holding out for, it is a stalemate, because you've tasked the discussion with the impossible as a requirement.  It seems you want us to be the mind police.

 

I feel like you're taking this personally and being defensive against the idea that you have biases yourself.  Is that the issue here?

MY GOD! That is the point I've made this whole time, yet somehow you are able to assess Kinsler's and ascertain racism. 

 

I'm asking you not to be mind police, which is exactly what you're doing when you said that you knew Kinsler has a particular bias and used that as justification for calling him a racist (which you did) or claimed what he said is racist (which you're now doing.) 

 

Spare me the psychoanalysis here. Can you do that? 

[TheLeviathan]

 

MY GOD! That is the point I've made this whole time, yet somehow you are able to assess Kinsler's and ascertain racism. 

 

I think, by my count, at least three times I have directly refuted my knowledge of that.  And others have made sure to point that out as well.

 

It appears you may have been arguing a strawman the entire time.

 

Kinsler does have biases.  So do we all.  Racial among them.  There is a strong chance that they influenced his comments.  (Which were racist)  That's the only contention anyone appears to be making. 

 

What's good is that Kinsler is a thoughtful enough human that he walked those comments back about a mile.  It shows recognition and change, which is really all one can do.