Defensiveness Over "Generalizations" When Discussing Systemic Issues (AKA #NotAllMen)

Shin Bobo Dakes said:

I guess my point is, it's not about you.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

"I see, but on the other hand, EVERYTHING is about me, so...."

It's literally that.

Remember the Labo threads on gaming side?

"Who would ever want this? fucking cardboard? So fucking dump"
"It's for young children"
"Sure but I mean GOD! CARDBOARD!?! I can buy cardboard by the pound for 50 cents down the road! This is so stupid, where are my real games?"
"It's a craft kit for young childr-"
"No I know, but what I'm saying is, where are the games for me?"
"This isn't for you, it's for you-"
"YES RIGHT BUT SERIOUSLY, why aren't they catering to me?"

Me me me
Ad nauseum
Forever and ever amen.

People hate being told they're wrong or uninformed.

And many people believe they're the only free thinker in a sea of sheep:



And, well, it's fairly common for someone to believe that the world revolves, or should revolve, around them and what they want out of life.

It happens on a lot of subjects. See racism. I tend to think it's just mostly insecurity in lieu of critical thinking.

Because you have academic privilege. When you read White Men you think of the academic demographic and statistic. When someone not in this sphere reads in they think of white men in its entirety including them. They do this because they apply the mindset of their prejudices, which in their mind should only be reserved for the mexicans or the blacks, to themselves.

kadotsu said:

Because you have academic privilege.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure we should start calling people being more informed or having more academically accepted positions and outlooks "academic privilege." It lowers an epistemological position to socioeconomic factors and suggests it's no more valid than its opposition.

On topic it's because this is a tricky turn in discourse that requires nuance and people in general aren't very good at that. Moreover, it's a problem on the speaking and listening in.

You're asking for a way to generalise without generalising

Fragility. Share your experience in a way that doesn't hurt my feelings.

It's just one Bad apple guys

I feel like those people need to realize that hey, as long as you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to be defensive about. I used to be like them years ago with the devils advocate shit whenever a "Not ALL" convo occurred but then one of my friends just reminded me that I never did anything wrong be it harass or assault anyone in the middle of the convo and that too many men have, so that just made me realize that oh, this isn't about me at all and I shouldn't think that.

Even if the person was talking about "you", it seems more important to talk about how fucked up is the minority than correct a small detail

I don't see how being more specific is a bad thing. Especially if you're trying to be persuasive. Isn't it better to get your point out there as clearly as possible instead of provoking unnecessary arguments about what you meant?

Shin Bobo Dakes said:

Why is that a thing? Is it too much to expect people to know that if they're not part of the problem then they're not talking about you and that maybe you can do something to help.

In this culture where we're calling out the bullshit of dominate groups in power, I don't see the point in getting that defensive.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is perhaps a little generic and might not touch fully on the points you address, but i just want to say this piece anyway.

In a timeframe where pitchforks are brought in to blow out a match, these are things that will continue to happen. People should disagree, and quite so, and others should defend, with respect to the poster disagreeing. Too often though, a discussion goes on and on and on, where it feels one is questioned rather than properly disagreed with. I am guilty of keeping a discussion on going when its not needed, and others can be guilty of the aforementioned questioning.

At some point you have to ask yourself if a discussion still has healthy merits to continue. And when it does not, its time to pull the plug. As abruptly as it is (As it stops the discussion in a rather rude way), i feel that this is the way of going. You have to read a topic to have some foresight into how its going to develop. And when you can see it is going a certain way, either disengage, or not participate.

This is just my take on it though. I used to keep on busting people's balls in threads and i could get endlessly frustrated that people wanted to vent on things that clearly aren't meant for them or they weren't the kind of people who likes these things (certain games, for example). Even today, i don't see why people feel the need to get offended over things that aren't even their concern to begin with. If you disagree, disagree, but going full on hyperbole on a user, essentially approaching hypothetical character assassination for what comparitively are literally the small potatoes in a day.. I don't get that. Criticize the things that deserve critique, disagree with those things that don't have to be extrapolated into a huge issue.*


I have learned (the hard way, lol!) that this is a better (not the best!) way to discourse than playing the Its you card. But that is only strictly my personal experience though, everyone's experiences may and will vary.

I just try to say, lets approach as possible friends, instead of definitive enemies right away.

Since no one has time to go "except you, and you, and you over there, and you, and..." and opt to go for the general terms people feel a need to make sure they don't get lumped in because no one wants to be part of the problem and usually need that reassurance, regardless of whether or not they think they might be part of the problem. That can come off as passive aggressive at times.

I guess as an example, there was the whole thing about alt right people and anime avatars on Twitter (or whatever that was about). That doesn't refer to you but you probably still cringe a little at the slight relation and may feel the need to clarify that an anime avatar isn't a guarantee that you're that kind of person. Out loud, anyway. Everyone does this in their mind 100% of the time when thing they're related to is connected to something negative.

BriGuy said:

I don't see how being more specific is a bad thing. Especially if you're trying to be persuasive. Isn't it better to get your point out there as clearly as possible instead of provoking unnecessary arguments about what you meant?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I think unless you specify, you're speaking generally. I mean thats been the rule for hundreds of years. However, online, you have to say you're not talking about everyone in order to not be derailed into anecdotes about why its not true that cops are shit.

Usually, its people who have no clue about viscous generalizing, and want to make a point that all generalizing is equally bad. Its like their 1% chance of being indignant over society, while the 99% of the time is peachy keen.

Reminds me how whenever someone brings up the idea that there is unique toxicity among the video game community and in gamer culture they risk being bombarded with "Its not a fault of gamers it's a fault of humans in general I play video games and don't hate *insert minority group here* how dare you generalize us."

It's not very complicated, I don't think. People don't like being generalized about. And everyone knows that if you make negative general statements about almost any group, lots of people are going to be insulted. Try it with "women", "black people", "poor people", etc., and see what kinds of reactions you get. A lot of what's happening here is that members of privileged groups are pushing back against generalizations about their groups because they've (successfully!) learned that it's wrong to generalize like this. Sure, you can make the argument that it's fine in these cases because these groups are privileged -- I'd mostly agree with this, and certainly it is much less harmful in these cases than in others -- but that's a hard thing to communicate and a harder thing to actually persuade people of.

I mean, when has someone who feels like you're unfairly judging them by their group identity -- because you've just said something negative without qualification about a group they're a member of -- ever been satisfied with you explaining that it's actually "not about you"? That just doesn't happen. You can either find another way to communicate what you want to communicate or you can resign yourself to getting a lot of very defensive reactions.

I will never understand why leftists academics marry themselves so heavily to language and terms that clearly do not properly communicate the concepts they are supposed to. If you find yourself constantly explaining the "Real" meaning of something, even to your own side, that might be a failing on your part. The most ridiculous part is how clearly frustrated people get when they have to keep explaining themselves over and over, you are doing it to yourself. Using language like Fragility, Toxicity, and Privilege are intentionally designed to be provocative and confrontational, no shit that they get the response from the groups they are targetted at.

Minorities face generalizations like that as well, so why continue that behavior in your own life?

It's not like baseless accusations don't get thrown around all the time. It's just as easy to ask people not to make generalizations as it is to ask people not to take generalizations personally.

My only real problem when people get defensive about generalizations is when they use their or others' perceived victimhood as an excuse to dismiss the statement that someone was trying to make. See Samantha Bee getting dogpiled for calling someone a cunt instead of talking about the actual crux of her argument.

People need to realize that these larger discussions are not about THEM, personally. It's about existing power societal power structures and the privilege one has. Sadly, a lot of white, straight men struggle with accepting that they even have any privilege to begin with. A lot of them will say things like "Yeah, but I was born into a poor family, so I've had it bad too!" without understanding that even being a rich PoC in America is going to cause you to suffer in ways that a poor white person is not. Again, not about you.

Mr. X said:

Fragility. Share your experience in a way that doesn't hurt my feelings.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Bingo.

I ignore that shit because I don't feel like holding every idiot's hand through the conversation as if they don't know what the fuck we're talking about. They're not actually offended, they're just trying to stop the conversation from happening.

Ed. said:

Minorities face generalizations like that as well, so why continue that behavior in your own life?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Minorities face oppression in combination with generalization. Generalization isn't the source of the oppression, its a facet of oppression due to decades of bigotry and hate. So when you get a group that has no oppression, crying foul at being generalized as if it is oppression, thats when it falls on deaf ears. Unless we wan't to strike off the whole concept of generalizing in language, its safe to say there is room for critical thought around certain issues, and how they are discussed.

People will avoid discussing the trend affecting peoples lives on a global scale, to share anecdotes about how its not 100%. Isn't that much inherent as per nature. Nothing is going to be 100% of anything.

Men can also be minorities too, as far as OP goes.

Most groups don't like to be generalized by skin colour, gender, sexuality or anything else. This shouldn't be that complicated. As a very liberal person myself I try to avoid making general statements about any group. The OP makes it sound like it's difficult to avoid making general statements. You might find that there are less people who will derail discussion regarding the semantics of "ALL" vs. "SOME" by simply using "some" as a qualifier in your sentence. "Some men are creeps, especially the nice ones they don't realize it yet." is a perfectly acceptable statement versus the one you said to your cousin.

If you find that there is so much derailing of discussion over generalizations than just avoid using generalizations. You can still have a perfectly acceptable discussion without them. I don't understand why people are so defensive about being able to make them.

Ultimately I don't usually bother to point out generalizations in sensitive topics because it does derail and take away from discussing important subjects.

People in position of privilege are so used to every conversation being centered around them.
So of course they will make it about them.

Shin Bobo Dakes said:

Because saying "SOME cops like shooting unarmed minorities" makes it too easy to overlook the systemic issue.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Bingo. Systemic issues are discussed generally.

Its not the same thing as saying chinese people can't see. Or that black people can't swim. Not even in the same ballpark. Male privilege is a societal/systemic issue.

Dare I say there is a spectrum of generalizing? One of the key components is what the generalization is based on. Stereotype, cherry picked data, or well documented data.

Shin Bobo Dakes said:

Because saying "SOME cops like shooting unarmed minorities" makes it too easy to overlook the systemic issue.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

True but not expecting the cops who haven't shot unarmed minorities to try and distance themselves from the ones who haven't by getting defensive when you refer to cops in general doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to understand. It's not helpful and leads to arguments that pull the focus away but the logic path that they used to get there is pretty straightforward. They're not gonna see it as remark towards the system that they're a part of and not them personally

Ed. said:

Minorities face generalizations like that as well, so why continue that behavior in your own life?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Because in discussing any large, overarching societal issue involving systemic problems, it is absolutely necessary to talk about people in groups and not as individuals. It's just par for the course. There shouldn't need to be a disclaimer saying "note, this is not covering 100% of white individuals" because that's something any logical person who's talked about these issues before should understand.

It also hews very close to concern trolling. For one, it silences discussion by diverting attention. Also, notice how the people who do this react. There is usually a generalized statement in the discussion already. Such as "All women experience sexual harassment by a man at some point." Now a #notallmen poster will agree with the explicit generalization that all women have been harassed, but it's the implicit statement that all men are harassers that he takes issue with. Generalizations are all over the place in these topics, and the ones that posters take issue with says a lot about their own fragility, in that they choose to be personally hurt rather than empathize with the oppressed group.

Shin Bobo Dakes said:

Why is that a thing? Is it too much to expect people to know that if they're not part of the problem then they're not talking about you and that maybe you can do something to help.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

My personal experience is that this happens when you don't trust that the person saying it isn't referring to you. I think it's a natural reaction - I have that reaction when one of my in-groups is described generally this way.

Daysean said:

I feel like those people need to realize that hey, as long as you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to be defensive about. I used to be like them years ago with the devils advocate shit whenever a "Not ALL" convo occurred but then one of my friends just reminded me that I never did anything wrong be it harass or assault anyone in the middle of the convo and that too many men have, so that just made me realize that oh, this isn't about me at all and I shouldn't think that.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Nothing to worry about if you're one of the good ones.

Z-Beat said:

True but not expecting the cops who haven't shot unarmed minorities to try and distance themselves from the ones who haven't by getting defensive when you refer to cops in general doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to understand. It's not helpful and leads to arguments that pull the focus away but the logic path that they used to get there is pretty straightforward. They're not gonna see it as remark towards the system that they're a part of and not them personally

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

What's not helpful is missing the entire point of the generalization just so that you can have a meaningless sidebar about individualism in a discussion that is explicitly about systems that does nothing but grind the conversation to a halt. They can opt out of the conversation entirely and let the rest of us who understand what's being discussed get on with it. They're the ones who are wrong in this situation.

Go talk about your dads friends brother who's a good cop in a separate conversation. Go talk about your one black friend who lets you say nigger somewhere else. Go talk about the woman you know who hates feminism somewhere else. We're talking about bigger things.

PhazonBlonde said:

Because in discussing any large, overarching societal issue involving systemic problems, it is absolutely necessary to talk about people in groups and not as individuals. It's just par for the course. There shouldn't need to be a disclaimer saying "note, this is not covering 100% of white individuals" because that's something any logical person who's talked about these issues before should understand.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

In my experience it isn't necessarily true that those kinds of blanket statements are inevitable when discussing systemic issues. There are simple adjustments that don't trigger a defensive response.

But you're right - the more a person engages in these issues, the more they understand and develop a thick skin or a filter. So it gets better over time. I find it helpful to adjust my verbiage early on until relational trust is built.

The Kree said:

They can opt out of the conversation entirely and let the rest of us who understand what's being discussed get on with it. They're the ones who are wrong in this situation.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Which leads to an echo camber where nothing actually gets accomplished.

It's because people are stupid, plain and simple.

Shin Bobo Dakes said:

I'm not talking about cops. I'm talking about posters who come in the usual threads and argue that the shooting was justified or how it wasn't about race.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The logic path is the same, more or less. People wouldn't want to admit that something is wrong with a group or system that they're a part of regardless of whether or not they contribute to the problems within that group or system, so you distance your group by either trying to justify the actions of the problematic members or casting them out by claiming that it's only a few bad members but the group/system as a whole is fine.

Or they're part of the problem so they'd be trying to justify it based on faulty morality anyway.

TreadTalks said:

In my experience it isn't necessarily true that those kinds of blanket statements are inevitable when discussing systemic issues. There are simple adjustments that don't trigger a defensive response.

But you're right - the more a person engages in these issues, the more they understand and develop a thick skin or a filter. So it gets better over time. I find it helpful to adjust my verbiage early on until relational trust is built.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I think anyone who can't distinguish between a generalized group and an individual lacks the maturity to have that conversation in the first place. If you have to coddle an individual's feelings by interjecting 'but not you!' all the time, it says a lot about that person.

On the other hand, if someone's interrupting with "but not me!" all the time, that's sending a clear message to those complaining about oppression that you care far more about what others think of you than what their actual problem is.

You don't get to make poor generalizations and then get away with it with lame execuses like "it's not about you".

Zornack said:

Which leads to an echo camber where nothing actually gets accomplished.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is a lie. People who don't know what the fuck they're talking about don't always need to be heard.

If a thing doesn't apply to you, try to have a thicker skin about it instead of #notallmen-ing it (and indeed if you're NOT part of the problem then this should be easy).

Zornack said:

Which leads to an echo camber where nothing actually gets accomplished.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Honestly I doubt conversations regarding systemical issues will lead to anything if we water down the language too the point the issues can just be shrugged of.

Daysean said:

I feel like those people need to realize that hey, as long as you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to be defensive about. I used to be like them years ago with the devils advocate shit whenever a "Not ALL" convo occurred but then one of my friends just reminded me that I never did anything wrong be it harass or assault anyone in the middle of the convo and that too many men have, so that just made me realize that oh, this isn't about me at all and I shouldn't think that.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This. Even in the moments where I can identify where I might've been any kind of complicit in anything, I don't make it about justifying myself. I think "Was that uncool? Huh, I'll catch myself next time."

We don't have to make things a big deal. Just strive to be better.

It is Ego and the perception of self worth in an identity.

The first step and the place most stay is accepting there is a problem but after that comes the reflexion and undestanding of the systems in place that gets us with all the problems.

Also generalizations and stereotypes have for better or worse become bad practice on the internet.

The Kree said:

What's not helpful is missing the entire point of the generalization just so that you can have a meaningless sidebar about individualism in a discussion that is explicitly about systems that does nothing but grind the conversation to a halt. They can opt out of the conversation entirely and let the rest of us who understand what's being discussed get on with it. They're the ones who are wrong in this situation.

Go talk about your dads friends brother who's a good cop in a separate conversation. Go talk about your one black friend who lets you say nigger somewhere else. Go talk about the woman you know who hates feminism somewhere else. We're talking about bigger things.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The cop thing was an example because the post I was replying to was using cops as an example. If you think I'm missing the point of this then that's fine and I'll get back on track but I am TRYING, so don't you DARE "Shhh, the grownups are talking" me if I'm making some form of honest attempt in this.

This is just how it is here. If you're not a minority, and someone makes a post that insults you indirectly, you either keep quiet about it or you get banned.

Z-Beat said:

The cop thing was an example because the post I was replying to was using cops as an example. If you think I'm missing the point of this then that's fine and I'll get back on track but I am TRYING, so don't you DARE "Shhh, the grownups are talking" me if I'm making some form of honest attempt in this.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

No, I was not talking about just you specifically.

I was making a







(wait for it)







a generalization.

The Kree said:

This is a lie. People who don't know what the fuck they're talking about don't always need to be heard.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Your bar for not knowing is absurdly low.

Sloth Guevara said:

Honestly I doubt conversations regarding systemical issues will lead to anything if we water down the language too the point the issues can just be shrugged of.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Who says it's one or the other?

Nijhazer said:

This is just how it is here. If you're not a minority, and someone makes a post that insults you indirectly, you either keep quiet about it or you get banned.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is a lie.