I apologize if I have posted this here before buried in some thread somewhere, but I keep coming back to this example (and feel free to whack any Leftist morons you come into contact with over the holidays in the head with it) :
I have 25 Blue Wallets, 25 Purple Wallets, 25 Wallets with Polka-Dots and and 25 Wallets made out of Duct tape.
I take 20 of the blue wallets, and I put a $100 bill in them, and leave the remaining 5 empty
I take 15 of the purple wallets, and I put a $100 bill in them,and leave the remaining 10 empty
I take 10 of the wallets with Polka-dots and I put a $100 bill in them, and leave the remaining 15 empty
and finally I take 5 of the Duct Tape wallets and put a $100 bill in those, and leave the remaining 20 empty
I now throw all of them in a barrel. I then approach random strangers walking by and ask if they want to play a game and win some money. I then tell them they have a 50% chance of grabbing a wallet with a $100 bill in it.
When they select one, I take the wallet from them , give them the $100 from it , thank them for their time, put a new $100 bill in the wallet they selected and place it back in the barrel and mix them up.
Because I am giving away free money, a line forms.. and as people in line watch others playing the game, they begin to see that their chances of pulling a $100 from a blue wallet are much, much higher than pulling a $100 from a Duct Tape Wallet. As the day progresses and word spreads, more and more people start choosing Blue Wallets when their turn comes. Why? Because if they pick a blue wallet, they really have an 80% chance of getting a $100 - and only a 20% chance if they pick Duct Tape.
Do you feel this is rational or irrational behavior? Why?
Are they unfairly judging the other wallets based on their external characteristics because of an observed and factual correlation ?
Do these people now have an irrational "hate" of Duct Tape Wallets and as a result they continue to "discriminate" against them, or are they merely responding to the real world correlations (not causation) that are in front of them?
If you agree this is rational judgement on the part of the participants, why is it racist or irrational to do the same thing with arbitrary groups of people groups by age range, skin color, Sex, Physical size, language, or manner of dress?
Its a well known and well proven fact that certain unseen characteristics are more or less prevalent in different groups however selected and arranged, and some of those characteristics are beneficial and some are detrimental. A Strong work-ethic, ambition, a good education may be more prevalent in one group in one place at a given time, while another group may have more members that suffer from Stinginess, Laziness, ignorance, or addiction.
Lets return to the wallets. Lets now change the game such that you may look in as many wallets as you want, but for every empty one you pick, you now owe me $100. That represents the cost of knowledge - the time and effort spent getting to know an individual in the group, and discovering that time and effort has been wasted because that individual has undesirable qualities. Do you think that would change the number of Blue wallets getting chosen? How many people will not play the game at all, now there is additional personal risk? How would that change if the cost of picking an empty wallet were $10, or $1. How about $500 or $1000? Obviously there is a trade off between the cost of investigation and the possible reward of doing so.
In the real world, stopping to discover if the individuals in gang colors walking behind you mean to harm you could result in a mugging, a rape, a beating or even death. Is it an unfair judgement to look at those colors and decide it isn't worth the risk? It is irrational? Is it racist or sexist to incorporate FBI crime Statistics based on race and sex into your assessment of the danger others may pose? Or are you just using all available information to make a decision based on imperfect knowledge - which is a common occurrence in the real world.
If I returned the next day with the statistical distribution of $100 bills in the Duct Tape wallets and Blue wallets switched, is there any doubt that after a very short time the duct tape wallets would be chosen? How many would stubbornly stick to their "racist" and "discriminatory" attitude that Blue Wallets are good and Duct Tape ones are bad? If I was charging for empty wallets what would be the cost of sticking to such attitudes? If the underlying correlation changes, so do the decisions of those playing. People aren't racists - they are behavioralist - they are trying to avoid certain types of detrimental behavior, and people with certain types of untrustworthy character, and trying to attract, associate and do business with with those of good behavior and upstanding character.
People living in the real world have to make such judgments, and assess their own risks, and decide when they can or cannot seek deeper knowledge of individuals than what is apparent ( and likely) from the surface appearance. But the political left doesn't want individuals making decisions. They want all such decisions to be made blindly and according to methods chosen and enforced by government. The want to impose their own vision on others at gunpoint - no mater how factually incorrect that vision might be, and no matter the cost that others will pay for it. They don't want to discuss the behavior of individuals, and will accuse you of smearing a group for pointing out the bad behavior of an individual ( Hence any Criticism ( no matter how fair or valid) of Obama is "racist") - likewise, if discussing a group in aggregate, even with known and verifiable statistics about the behavioral characteristics that are correlated, they will then ignore the context and pretend you are smearing an individual, and again call you racist, or sexist, or homophobic. The left will pretend to not understand the difference. They will pretend that if you say the average of a group of numbers is that you are saying all ALL of the Numbers ARE 3. They do this because the last thing the left wants is to have any discussion about the actual behaviors that are destroying lives, and causing problems for others- especially if those behaviors are correlated and prevalent within the Real group they want to protect and absolve of responsibility -- The Political Left.
As Democrat Evie Hudak said
" just want to say, statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experience in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large and was able to overcome you even with your skills, and chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get than from you and possibly use it against you..."
The Left wants to decide what chances you may take and when you will take them by law. They want everyone choosing a wallet to be blindfolded to suit their childish need for "fairness" which they learned in kindergarten and failed to discard as they became adults and learned life is inherently unfair, people are different, and behavior counts. Its an adult fact of life they won't accept, and they are willing to have you mugged, raped, or murdered to pretend they are still in Kindergarten with a benevolent teacher, a school nurse and a group of people who are for the most part heterogeneous in aptitude and values.. Be it gun violence, gang violence, or racial violence, they feel it is ethically your duty to lay down and take the beating if you are forced to blindly choose the wallet with the unseen cost, because your safety is secondary to their ego and their imaginary ideas of how they want the world to be.
Update: uh oh. Crickets. And Here I thought it was one of my better attempts at relating the idea.
That bad or just that obvious?