Sociology is a science built on generalizations, and I made sure to use phrases like "more likely" for a reason. I'm simply going by what I've observed in my travels (Toronto, Saint John, Moncton, Manassas, San Diego, Dallas, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Detroit, et cetera hardly qualify as "less than 200 mi." from my home, by the way).

You can rail against generalizations all you like, but we would not be able to comment on society as a whole without using them to some small degree. The danger comes in painting every member of a group with the same brush by using generalizations (such as: "Black people are uneducated." While it is true that black people have a lower high school graduation rate, it does not mean that every black person is uneducated, nor is anyone saying that they are by saying "a black adult is less likely to have graduated from high school or recieved his GED.").

Blanket hatred of generalizations is pretty fucking stupid. Without them, we would not be able to make social commentary or track social trends. Please save your criticism for when someone actually uses them in an abusive manner. Thanks.

As a sociology major, I can't tell you how flattered I am that you consider my chosen field a "science."

No, sociology is a science based on observations of large groups of people within a set of parameters over a length of time, to reach a conclusion that reads "within this particular group, when this particular event occurred, this certain range of responces happened more often than others." Those are not generalizations.

But that is exactly what you did with your statements, in particular

.

What social commentary? You said they were conjectures based on your own very limited observations. Generalizations without solid observations and limited parameters is completely fucking useless.

sociology is a formalized version of exactly what Domo_Kun described. he has observed--and i have observed, and others have observed--a particular strain of racism that seems prevalent mostly in the northern parts of the country. this strain of racism is typified by a covert mistrust or fear of black people by white people, as opposed to the more overt styles of racism which tend to be more prevalent in the south. i still fail to see how relating that observation was bad or wrong.

Here is a link to a guide to the Qualitative Methods used to conduct field studies in Sociology.

I've gone to the trouble to get just the chapter on Participant Observation which describes how to record events observed in detail, describing what[?] you observe, versus interpreting what you have observed.

For example, "The man with red hair picked up the glass of water"
is a decription of what was observed.

"The redneck was thirsty"
is an interpretation.

There is a *big difference*.

I think some people here are are operating from dated, tired, incorrect stereotypes, or Barack would not have been able to win in urban and rural, north and south and west and eastern states.

i don't see any other posts being held to this standard. only the one that, for some reason i still haven't fathomed, people object to.

i'm not sure i see how that's true, either. nobody on in this thread has made any real argument over how much racism exists in various parts of the country--one or two posters mentioned it, but the debate only really started when Domo_Kun had the audacity to relate what form that racism frequently takes.

i also find it interesting that nobody is actually refuting Domo_Kun's obvservations. there are many cries of "you're not be scientific" and "you're making generalizations", but nobody else has said a single word about what they think racism looks like.

It's not bad. But it may be wrong, because it fails to account for all sorts of personal circumstances. It may be coloured by personal prejudice (conscious or not); it may be that the speaker's business takes him to particular areas (or times) which produce observations of particular sorts more (or less) often than is typical.

That is, it's anecdotal.

the anecdotal nature of the observations has already been acknowledged by both sides.

Then you understand that these observations are best handled via blogs.

Ah. sorry. I've been trying to take him seriously; I assumed he had some basis for his statements. (I.e., I was too lazy or nauseated to check.)

yes, because a discussion board is certainly no place for opinions.

his statements were obviously subjective, and should be taken as such. to view them otherwise is to be deliberately obtuse.

and i'm still wondering what's so offensive about these observations.

I found it offensive because he said, without any qualification, that all people in the North are racist. Simple as that. I quoted it more than once. And not only is that an offensive charge, it is completely unsupportable. Yes, he meant it as an abstract generalization based on his limited observations. But it was such a worthless observation that it should be attacked.

he used a conversational shortcut that is quite common on this and most other internet forums. the only motive i can conjure for haranguing him for it after he has admitted his mistake is a desire to avoid discussing the subject.

What was the subject? I forget.

What was unclear here?

There were some broad sweeping remarks made here that are shocking. Are you discounting the interacial marriages in the north when you say"Whites in teh north do not like individual blacks", for instance.

Move on. we discuss race in context but need not waste time trying to explain.