Please Don't Feed our Bums

I personally am not spending my time weeping with bums as Cyclo has tried to portray me.

What I am arguing against is what I see as generalization of these negative experiences to disparage a whole social class (even if you say you just mean the bad bums stickers like this are generalized slurs, advocating not helping any of them is generalized), and as this is already a highly disparaged one I am defending it against this generalized derogation. Cyclo likes to think his derogation is as lazer-guided as it is scathing and that these "street rats" that accosted him are all he is derogating but the article itself is an example of generalization of this sentiment. They too claim they are only talking about the bad bums, of course, but this kind of movement is never going to be a smart bomb. Dlowan was right to bring up other generalized slurs in response to Cyclo's increasingly derogatory class slurs and while he dismissed the comparison out of hand on the basis of inherent vs. chosen (an important distinction in discrimination to be sure) he ignores completely that even if he's criticizing chosen behavior the use of generalized slurs, and funny lil' stickers at their expense does not restrict this derogation to those exhibiting this behavior but rather to the group as a whole. This is a highly disparaged social class, and every single raindrop claiming to be excoriating only the bad ones doesn't think it's responsible for the flood.

Basically, I keep saying this but this is Psychology 101 here: greater recognition of situational rather than dispositional factors. Most people like to see people as so single-dimensional, they are assholes or not (Cyclo will recognize that they are more nuanced but just says he doesn't care as emphatically as he can) and most personality negatives are reduced to dispositional characteristics, this is a highly inaccurate world-view in general. Yes, I advocate empathy in general, it's a sense, it's a signal not a conclusion. It is a good thing to have.

It can be assumed however that those who hold the individual to full account will disdain the bums.

I will give your suggestion all the consideration it is due. However you'll have to do more than merely negatively characterize me (I already know I'm self-righteous and arrogant, did you have something of greater intellectual substance than that to add?) to be convincing. If you can't indict anything else I say and only want to call me self-righteous you probably could have saved yourself the effort, I am one self-righteous bastard. Now back to the subject.

Considering that the larger question has never been settled we should refrain from throwing stones at those who despise bums.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Considering that the larger question has never been settled we should refrain from throwing stones at those who despise bums.

But then we should also refrain from throwing stones AT the bums, and those who support them...

Quote:

I personally am not spending my time weeping with bums as Cyclo has tried to portray me.

I never portrayed you that way, stop exaggerating.

Dlowan was completely wrong to bring up those generalized slurs, for the reasons I pointed out earlier. You are basically making a Slippery Slope argument here and claiming that criticism of one class of homeless inevitably leads to criticism of all of them. That's not logically valid.

I don't care what their motivation is, because understanding that motivation doesn't change the situation for me one bit. It doesn't lead to any difference in my life. So why does it matter?

I want to yell at people all the time, but I don't.

It's almost as if you're blaming ME for thinking that someone who is being abusive to ME is a jerk!

I don't understand that. I just can't have the reaction that there must be some perfectly understandable reason why I have to suffer abuse from these people, and I shouldn't have a negative reaction to it.

Understanding that you are acting in a self-righteous fashion should lead to an editing and reformation of your argument, but it doesn't seem to do so.

I have to tell you that your argument isn't exactly convincing me at this moment that anything that I or anyone else is doing is incorrect in any way.

I am not making a slippery slope argument (which is contingent on the slippery slope being predicted, without substantiating evidence, not described with plenty of evidence). The sticker does not say "don't feed the aggressive bums". I am describing generalization of this sentiment, not predicting it.

How should it change the argument? Delivery I can get, and I do what I can with the disposition that the good lord gave me, but what change in the argument are you calling for?

the term bum is a slur.

no matter how you apply it.

it imposes judgment.

So basically, you are using exaggeration to attack me for exaggerating.

The term 'Bum' is already describing a subset. It doesn't say 'don't feed our homeless.'

You are generalizing to suit your argument.

Selling stickers that say "please don't feed our bums" is stone throwing

So? It is still a "subset" far too broad and certainly not the "aggressive panhandlers" you are excoriating either.

That, sir, is seriously weak. I am criticizing an obvious generalization, you are just responding with child-like gainsay these days accusing me of whatever it is I have just argued against. "I know you are, but what am I?"

Yeah, but what IS the argument?

From what I can tell my original argument - that aggressive bums are uncool and that I disdain them, and don't care the reasons behind their behavior - really remains accepted by all here, including you.