• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Sloth Guevara

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,346
User Warned: Off-Site Baggage
You're now making this personal to an embarrassing and uncalled for degree. But fine. Go right ahead. I can guarantee you will never find a post of mine condoning or rationalizing sexist harassment and threats of any kind, let alone actually directly engaging in such behavior.

The best you could do is construe something somewhere as some kind of diet or implied sexism (the bar for what constitutes that is often set absurdly low after all), and then claim to know what's in my heart.

I just think other should know if they are dealing with a sexism lite person.

But here is your quote:
"Not a change. GG always was kind of a mixed bag, with a lot of well intentioned and a lot of ill intentioned individuals.

The perception that it's strictly bad was manufactured by old gaf and portions of the gaming press."

[Mod Edit: Off-site link removed]

Imo someone who calls GG a mixed bag and "manufactured by old gaf and portions of the gaming press." while defending white cis males from generalizations is just SUUUPER transparent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GrizzleBoy

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,762
This thread has been very frustrating for me to read.



You're conflating a genuine warning with misandry. If you meet a man on the street, in a bar, etc. and they're nice a woman should be careful. If a woman meets any random man, she should be careful. Let's think about all those threads where women are raped and people victim blame. "They shouldn't have gone out looking like that." "They shouldn't have gone home with him" "They shouldn't have trusted him" etc.

THE BLAME IS ALWAYS ON THE WOMAN FOR NOT RECOGNIZING A MAN IS A BAD PERSON.

Yet the second that women wish to warn each other, to say to be careful, to watch out because they should be careful around men, suddenly they're being too general. They're generalizing. They need to be more specific about who they're talking about. Yet here's the deal: there is no way to be more specific.

Please. Describe the type of man I should warn my friends about. Is he tall? Is he handsome? Does he say rude / misogynistic things during dinner? What are his attitudes / beliefs / and patterns? I'm assuming you haven't been raped, and thus I assume you don't really know what a rapist is like besides some vague ideas you have from media.

Come on! You're the one telling everyone that they need to be more specific, that they're being rude and too general: How do I tell a man is a rapist? How can I describe what rapists are like without making some men feel generalized?

The issue is that any man be a rapist, and recently we've found that some of the nicest, the kindest, and the most unexpected people are rapists or sexual assaulters. This means that the only way to truly warn women is to be blunt: "Be careful around all men because you can never tell whether he's one of the good ones or not and getting raped is not worth the risk".

You're free to police the tone in this thread if that's what you want to do. But offer a realistic alternative to talk about these things rather than just say that we aren't doing it right. You cannot easily recognize which peoples will take advantage of systemic issues in our society. Is this a good cop or will he shoot me if I'm not careful? Is this man trying to get me alone to rape me or is he just being too forward? Is this man creepy because he doesn't understand women or is he taking advantage of the fact that I can't do much about it? Is this person ignoring me at the register because they're racist or am I being "too sensitive"?

You can always find a way to explain away systemic issues at the personal level by claiming the individuals involved are just different.
But it never actually does anything to solve the problem or address why police can kill black individuals or why men can sexually assault women and get away with it.


I don't think theres a single word I can disagree with in this post and in terms of addressing men as simply "men" in this instance is something I agree with.

However, this post doesn't include the kind of generalisation I think weve been talking about for at least the past few pages.

Yes you are saying "be careful around men" in a broad sense, but youre qualifying it with the context and idea of not all men being untrustworthy or dangerous by also stating "because its not possible to tell which specific ones are dangerous".

As ironic (?) as it might sound, you've actually INCLUDED "not all men" in your argument. You indirectly make that distinction.

If anyone tries the tone policing argument in your post id join you in telling them what for.

However, the generalisation weve been discussing is more along the lines of "men are x", or "men like to do x", "black people should just X", "white peopke are so X".

As good as your post is, I dont believe that's what peopke are calling generalisation. If it is, then I can understand the frustration .
 

TitanicFall

Member
Nov 12, 2017
8,330
I think the issue is that generalizations often have the negative effect where the people you want in your corner end up tuning out because they are offended. Getting people to listen is the most important thing. Sure I can talk to other black people about the issues we have in America, but to make actual progress we need to make white people pay attention.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
GG had good intentions in the same way trickle down economics has "good intentions".

As in, it makes sense only on the very, very, very surface level interpretation ("we want good things for good people") but everything underneath it is corruption and malfeasance. Anyone who threw their hat in with GG under the impression that they could achieve anything substantially good were being played for fools by the malicious actors, kind of like Republican voters.
 

prag16

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
848
I just think other should know if they are dealing with a sexism lite person.

But here is your quote:
"Not a change. GG always was kind of a mixed bag, with a lot of well intentioned and a lot of ill intentioned individuals.

The perception that it's strictly bad was manufactured by old gaf and portions of the gaming press."

<edited to remove off-site link>

Imo someone who calls GG a mixed bag and "manufactured by old gaf and portions of the gaming press." while defending white cis males from generalizations is just SUUUPER transparent.
Glad you reminded me. While you guys are over there, read some posts by 'strange headache' in that topic and others. That is a dude that gets it. He reads a little pretentious for my taste from time to time, but he gets it. e.g. <edited to remove off-site link>

I don't think theres a single word I can disagree with in this post and in terms of addressing men as simply "men" in this instance is something I agree with.

However, this post doesn't include the kind of generalisation I think weve been talking about for at least the past few pages.

Agree.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1726

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,661
I'm not trying to hand wave anything. I've owned the statement, I've stuck to the statement. I'll say it again. You know my point, I know my point. You know what the intent was. You STILL want to argue semantics because YOU take it as an insult to YOU. Once again, it's not about you, provided you're not a creep. I hope you're not the type to go after a girl this hard if she said something like that.

But if you say "all men are shit" if we were to ever meet you would be pre judging me as a piece of shit even though you don't know me. Maybe you wouldn't do it consciously but it would effect your judgement and waryness of me and you'll pre judge me based purely on the fact I'm a man.
 

Deleted member 29195

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
402
I think the issue is that generalizations often have the negative effect where the people you want in your corner end up tuning out because they are offended. Getting people to listen is the most important thing. Sure I can talk to other black people about the issues we have in America, but to make actual progress we need to make white people pay attention.

I don't think theres a single word I can disagree with in this post and in terms of addressing men as simply "men" in this instance is something I agree with.

However, this post doesn't include the kind of generalisation I think weve been talking about for at least the past few pages.

Yes you are saying "be careful around men" in a broad sense, but youre qualifying it with the context and idea of not all men being untrustworthy or dangerous by also stating "because its not possible to tell which specific ones are dangerous".

As ironic (?) as it might sound, you've actually INCLUDED "not all men" in your argument. You indirectly make that distinction.

If anyone tries the tone policing argument in your post id join you in telling them what for.

However, the generalisation weve been discussing is more along the lines of "men are x", or "men like to do x", "black people should just X", "white peopke are so X".

As good as your post is, I dont believe that's what peopke are calling generalisation. If it is, then I can understand the frustration .

My point is that all discussion about topics where systemic abuse is at the forefront will require generalization to discuss. The thing all these issues have in common is that people pretend to be good, honest and kind, but they then take advantage of the system in cruel ways. It is impossible to identify such folks without the use of a generalization. They are men, men who take advantage of system in which they benefit from. Cops who take advantage of a system to their benefit. The only thing that identifies them is the fact that they do this, and their identity.

Talking about them without generalizing simply seems intractable to me. An honest goal (which I myself still strive for) that can never actually be met. And while we're arguing about the proper way to perfectly describe this type of person, they're continuing to abuse the system for their benefit.

Such generalizations can potentially deteriorate to "all men are shit", "all cops are pigs" etc. But even so, what's the worst case? So a man feels bad that he's being attacked, a cop feels the same... Maybe they should if they're benefitting from such a system (even passively) and not doing anything about it. Maybe they should recognize that it's because these people are men or cops that they get away with it.

If one man feels a little bad, but a woman manages to not get raped, then I consider that a win regardless of whose feelings are hurt.
 

BlackGoku03

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,283
That's a lot of replies, yall. I didn't think I'd get quoted so much. I'll respond when I get home from work.
 

Sloth Guevara

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,346
But if you say "all men are shit" if we were to ever meet you would be pre judging me as a piece of shit even though you don't know me. Maybe you wouldn't do it consciously but it would effect your judgement and waryness of me and you'll pre judge me based purely on the fact I'm a man.

Imo context is key in statements like that.
If the context is a women talking about her experiences regarding sexism I wouldn't really care.
Since she is a victim and I'm no fan of telling her what she may or should say.
I'm just gonna sit and listen.
 

Sloth Guevara

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,346
My point is that all discussion about topics where systemic abuse is at the forefront will require generalization to discuss. The thing all these issues have in common is that people pretend to be good, honest and kind, but they then take advantage of the system in cruel ways. It is impossible to identify such folks without the use of a generalization. They are men, men who take advantage of system in which they benefit from. Cops who take advantage of a system to their benefit. The only thing that identifies them is the fact that they do this, and their identity.

Talking about them without generalizing simply seems intractable to me. An honest goal (which I myself still strive for) that can never actually be met. And while we're arguing about the proper way to perfectly describe this type of person, they're continuing to abuse the system for their benefit.

Such generalizations can potentially deteriorate to "all men are shit", "all cops are pigs" etc. But even so, what's the worst case? So a man feels bad that he's being attacked, a cop feels the same... Maybe they should if they're benefitting from such a system (even passively) and not doing anything about it. Maybe they should recognize that it's because these people are men or cops that they get away with it.

If one man feels a little bad, but a woman manages to not get raped, then I consider that a win regardless of whose feelings are hurt.

Well said.
This is something that is repetitive in these conversations. The majority who benefit from systemic injustices hold THEIR FEELINGS over the security and humanity of the minorities speaking up.
 

PhazonBlonde

User requested ban
Banned
May 18, 2018
3,293
Somewhere deep in space
I said 'virtually' unchallenged. Yeah, not everybody was on board. It wasn't just me. That's all the more reason to listen to your fellow posters. I'm not just one guy on an island. You have (albeit few) women and PoC in the topic casting doubt on the OP and its justification, and they're being dismissed out of hand. So again, why make the topic just to dismiss all counter arguments out of hand?.

What thread are you reading? It's at least a 70/30 split in favor of people on your side lecturing OP about generalizations and other semantics, especially in the opening pages. You see nothing but "#notallwhitemen' bs on the front couple of pages. Even qualifying it with 'virtually' is very disingenuous.

Also, I can't speak for the PoC in this thread (I'm white) but I am a woman and like OP, I too am frustrated with white men who throw tantrums the moment it's implied they've got privilege or are benefiting from systemic oppression. And I'm pretty sick of them clouding up threads about sexual assualt, rape, misogyny and racism by suddenly making it all about them. "Don't say all, I'm not like that!" etc.

If you're so concerned about ineffective rhetoric, then stop lecturing OP because he clearly didn't ask for you to 'educate' him.
 
OP
OP
Oct 25, 2017
26,560
But if you say "all men are shit" if we were to ever meet you would be pre judging me as a piece of shit even though you don't know me. Maybe you wouldn't do it consciously but it would effect your judgement and waryness of me and you'll pre judge me based purely on the fact I'm a man.
I think you're missing the point of why the initial statement was made and who it was directed toward. If I were to meet you, I'd just think you're weird based on that statement, not that you'd ever attack me.

Reminder that my cousin who I said this to didn't cut me off to go "well, my dad isn't a creep."

You're overlooking the point of statement to make direct the comment at yourself.
 

Shroki

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,912
This thread is a very interesting read.

As a white man, I don't take personal offense to people casting generalized aspersions towards men or white people because I don't fit into the particular criticisms that inform those generalizations. I've, at least in my opinion, never been a creep towards women and I've been left-leaning and supporting of minorities and the less priviledged for my entire adult life. That said, I have had a negative reaction in the past to those casting generalized aspersions at my community for harboring much of the same toxicity that women and POC are criticizing when they make generalizations about white people and men. I think what it comes down to is an instinct to be protective of those you care for who may be generally good, but very imperfect. That concept that someone is making generalized, sweeping seemingly hateful statements about your parents, friends, siblings, etc when you know them to be more complex than others have any responsibility to view them. In some cases, it's clear that people recognize part of their own world view to be controversial and are trying to rationalize the fact that they aren't bad people for those views.

Except, while you have an interest in seeing yourself and those you care about as a more complex person, others don't own that responsibility. Reducing a person to their worst values when they are an opponent to your civil rights or freedom from a culture of racist, sexism and violence is entirely sensible.
 

PhazonBlonde

User requested ban
Banned
May 18, 2018
3,293
Somewhere deep in space
And the minorities that think generalising at all is bad?
They can talk that out with the OP. In general the PoC I've interacted with in this thread are not using this anti-generlization rhetoric to distract from the main point of expressing frustration with oppression. Rather, they seem to be against generalizing as a practical method of gaining more allies to their side. At least from what I'm understanding, they're not making moral judgements about generalizing as a rhetorical device, but just discussing it's effectiveness. I can't really speak for their perspective because I don't feel it's my place to tell PoC how they should fight their struggles.

On the other side, much of my personal frustration comes from the #notallmen aspect. As a woman, it is intensely frustrating to have discussion derailed by this diversion tactics. A 'good' man listens and asks what he can do to help; and is not so insecure about his own 'goodness' that he feels the need to make repetitive proclamations about how he personally is an exception.
 

BlackGoku03

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,283
So you agree that marginalized groups are hurt more by generalizations.
That is something I guess.

That depends on what conversation and with whom.
But even in real life if we talk about systemic issues a certain degree of generalization will be needed if we want any progress.
If I speak too my PoC friends I will generalize that we will be targeted far more the people with a lighter complexion.

Of course I would agree. It has real consequences and PoC can feel it.

The bolded is what I'm getting at. You and me speaking to each other or to other PoC can make the generalizations like what was mentioned in the OP, because we know what's really being said. And why.

But if you're debating with someone, on any issue, leading with a generalization will tend to throw the whole conversation off. If you want to talk about x, y and z then why give them bait to talk about a, b and c? You can't even get to the meat of the conversation because they're arguing semantics. Personally, I like to use precise language to get my point across.


It sounds like you're hung up on some damn moral principle that you can never generalize. It's ludicrous. Generalizing is how you have real conversation all the time with everyone. We all do it constantly because it's how our brain makes sense of the world. The human brain notices behavior, generalizes it to larger groups in the hopes of finding patterns, and then dissects how those generalizations break down.

Can you address these questions?
  • How can I warn POC about police without generalizing?
  • How can I warn women about rapists without generalizing?
  • How can I warn you about forest fires without generalizing about the causes of forest fires?
Humans NEED generalizations. We cannot make arguments without them, because it is impossible to precisely define other people and their behavior. If people were perfectly describable, we wouldn't need to generalize to describe them. But we must because pragmatically that's all we can do.

I don't like generalizations either. They're imprecise and at times they hurt folks feelings, yet they truly are necessary at times. But the onus is on others to realize that a generalization doesn't apply to them and move on. If you're not a bad cop, it shouldn't be hard to see that. If you're not a bad man, it shouldn't be hard to see that. And if someone generalizes you so poorly that there is no way to redeem yourself, then just move on.

I mean, context and nuance are key in making a clear argument. I'm not going to go through your quiz... the answers depend on who you're speaking to. The answer to your first question greatly depends on who you're speaking to. If you're speaking to PoC, of course a generalization would be okay. But if you're speaking to someone who is white, I would tailor my answer differently so I don't have to hear "Not all cops".
 

FFNB

Associate Game Designer
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
6,183
Los Angeles, CA
A lot of the times it feels like a deflection tactic. They don't actually want to hear about, or discuss the grievances that marginalized groups are trying to discuss, so being able to sidetrack and derail the conversation about how they're upset over semantics is a tried and true tactic that works.

I almost think that we should stop entertaining those derails and power through with our conversation. While I'm sure some folks are simply being ignorant, others, I think, know exactly what they're doing when they whip out the semantics card. By getting super, super specific about our wording of issues like sexual harassment or systemic and institutionalized racism, is that once you get specific, it becomes so much easier for them to dismiss it as not being as big a deal as those with the grievance are making it out to be. "Oh, not all cops are shooting up black people? Oh, not all men are sexually assaulting women? Well, what's the problem then? Don't you know there are people starving in other parts of the world and climate change is a bigger issue right now?" It's all deflection tactics and whataboutism. Anything to keep them from having to consider, even for a moment, that their fence-riding, both sides peddling, inaction is possibly contributing to the continued marginalization of marginalized groups. They don't want to see themselves as the "bad guy," when the point of bringing these issues to light have nothing to do with them, personally, but the systems that allow the abuse and oppression of these people to continue.
 

Budi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,896
Finland
Also, I can't speak for the PoC in this thread (I'm white) but I am a woman and like OP, I too am frustrated with white men who throw tantrums the moment it's implied they've got privilege or are benefiting from systemic oppression. And I'm pretty sick of them clouding up threads about sexual assualt, rape, misogyny and racism by suddenly making it all about them. "Don't say all, I'm not like that!" etc.
Admitting priviledge isn't the same as accepting generalizations of who I am, what I do and how I think because I'm a white male. And why do you single out white men again? POC men can throw tantrums about generalizations based on their gender? That doesn't frustrate you?
 

RedMercury

Blue Venus
Member
Dec 24, 2017
17,734
POC men can throw tantrums about generalizations based on their gender? That doesn't frustrate you?
No, does that frustrate you? Who is throwing tantrums? Why do you think you should have a say over or police what PoC do or think?

As a white dude, we've earned our generalizations by and large through complicity and being the bearers and benefactors of systemic oppression and racism. If you're working to break that system up then nobody is talking about you when white dudes are generalized.
 

Budi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,896
Finland
No, does that frustrate you? Who is throwing tantrums? Why do you think you should have a say over or police what PoC do or think?
Why do you think I'd want to have a say in what POC think? The point was that people of color also enjoy male priviledge, it's not white male exclusive. But the poster linked only white males to issues like sexual assault, rape and misogyny and being defensive over them. Those definitely aren't just a white male issues. As you probably know that too. Nobody in this thread atleast seems to be throwing tantrums about it, though I haven't read 100% of it so don't just take my word on it. Throwing tantrums generally can frustrate me, as it rarely leads to proper discussion. But throwing tantrums can also be a way to vent in some situations and I can understand that. It just seemed like "only white men" kind of post, so I was left wondering if it was just a poor choice of words or they genuinely are bothered by only white men doing it or they think it's indeed just white men doing it to begin with. Or if I misread it, which is a great possibility (tired, not native english speaker and male).

Also the poster I quoted brought up "throwing tantrums" and they ment (white) men. You should read also the post I quoted and not just mine, as it was a reply to them.

Edit: If someone replies to me, don't expect and answer since I'm off to sleep now. It's not that I wouldn't want to engage in discussion, but I really need to sleep already. I'll check back in the morning.
 
Last edited:

PhazonBlonde

User requested ban
Banned
May 18, 2018
3,293
Somewhere deep in space
Admitting priviledge isn't the same as accepting generalizations of who I am, what I do and how I think because I'm a white male. And why do you single out white men again? POC men can throw tantrums about generalizations based on their gender? That doesn't frustrate you?

No one ever asked you to accept generalizations. They asked you to put aside your own ego to listen to their experiences and concerns. Generalizations are a rhetorical device used every day in english by everyone. When you hear a news story about how "parents are worried about the rising cost of college tuition," everyone knows and accepts that they do not mean 100% of parents.

Now that begs the question as to why

I throw out white men because straight, white men are at the the top of the social ladder, at least in western culture and especially in America. Can men of color have advantages women don't? Of course. But as a white woman I have privilege that they don't. That's how privilege works.

Can men of color #notallmen in a discussion about misogyny and sexual abuse? Again yes, but are three factors here.

1. In my personal experience, I come across it way, way less amongst men of color. There could be various reasons for this, least amongst which

2. A man of color is going to be much more hesitant of responding aggressively to a white woman due to the nature of race relations and their history, and how those optics looks (the tribalist racist fears white america has had which drive them to protect their women.)

3. Even then, a man of color does not carry the same ability to oppress as a white man does (because of privilege)
 

Budi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,896
Finland
Sure, I've been trying to personally. But since it's a discussion specifically created for this subject I've decided to participate this time to share how I think about it and also to use the opportunity to learn a bit how far people are willing to generalize and why. Also it's just that it often feels it's not just a rhetorical device, but comes with malice or a genuine belief that white men are an enemy of sorts or inherently bad. Especially in such situations when it's not so much about skin color and it still gets specified. Like I mentioned in my original post here, that when it comes to things like sexual assault and misogyny.

It's true that white men are at the top of social ladder in America and generally in western culture, including here where I live. I also often assume that people here (ResetEra) are talking from American perspective and rarely point that out either. Like when police brutality is discussed, it's very American issue while not exclusive to them it's usually really clear that the discussion is about the US. I do appreciate when people are clearer what they are talking about. But misogyny, sexual assault, racism and bigotry towards LGBT are definitely universal issues. While every country is different, how badly are different minorities opressed, how big part of the population holds the harmful views, what does the goverment do to combat things etc. The severity of these things is varied. As there are places where women have had full political rights from 1907 (which is the earliest and it's very sad that it took so long) then there are places where women are just now allowed to drive and so on. And POC do get a priviledge in places where they are the majority, which is not America and definitely not here. But as I said I usually just assume the perspective is US one when I read it here, which is a shame since it's an international board and big part of posters aren't from America or never even visited there.

1. Yeah that's probably one reason, also that POC are indeed the minority so you encouter them less overall.
2. Drives to protect "their" women, rings bit bad in my ears since that's exactly what bigots here say they are doing too. People often get accused for using "Alt-Right tactics" in discussion, in here "protecting women" is indeed one very prevalent tactic. The over representation of certain nationalities in sexual assault/rape cases gets brought up a lot when talking about refugees/immigrants. It's basically the main talking point among unemployment/living on welfare.
3. True, not in white majority nations atleast. And racism isn't just about skin color either.

To conclude how I feel since I want to be absolutely clear about it. I agree that it sucks when discussion derails from actual opression to opression of straight white males which is not really a thing but does get brought up by crazies claiming they are being persecuted. Or when the bigotry of religious groups gets challenged, they scream persecution and opression. But I also find it quite easy to avoid such generalizations that would give the opportunity to such derail, or make people feel unfairly attacked, such generalizations aren't beneficial, so I'd rather see discussions where it doesn't happen. Even though OP doesn't seem particularly interested in hearing from those who are bothered by the generalizations, I'm quite glad the discussion is happening in this topic rather than somewhere else where it shouldn't.

And thank you for your thoughtful and calm reply, I do really agree with most of what you said and how you seem to think even though my lenghty reply included more than just "I agree".
 
Last edited:

PhazonBlonde

User requested ban
Banned
May 18, 2018
3,293
Somewhere deep in space
Sure, I've been trying to personally. But since it's a discussion specifically created for this subject I've decided to participate this time to share how I think about it and also to use the opportunity to learn a bit how far people are willing to generalize and why. Also it's just that it often feels it's not just a rhetorical device, but comes with malice or a genuine belief that white men are an enemy of sorts or inherently bad. Especially in such situations when it's not so much about skin color and it still gets specified. Like I mentioned in my original post here, that when it comes to things like sexual assault and misogyny.

It's true that white men are at the top of social ladder in America and generally in western culture, including here where I live. I also often assume that people here (ResetEra) are talking from American perspective and rarely point that out either. Like when police brutality is discussed, it's very American issue while not exclusive to them it's usually really clear that the discussion is about the US. I do appreciate when people are clearer what they are talking about. But misogyny, sexual assault, racism and bigotry towards LGBT are definitely universal issues. While every country is different, how badly are different minorities opressed, how big part of the population holds the harmful views, what does the goverment do to combat things etc. The severity of these things is varied. As there are places where women have had full political rights from 1907 (which is the earliest and it's very sad that it took so long) then there are places where women are just now allowed to drive and so on. And POC do get a priviledge in places where they are the majority, which is not America and definitely not here. But as I said I usually just assume the perspective is US one when I read it here, which is a shame since it's an international board and big part of posters aren't from America or never even visited there.

1. Yeah that's probably one reason, also that POC are indeed the minority so you encouter them less overall.
2. Drives to protect "their" women, rings bit bad in my ears since that's exactly what bigots here say they are doing too. People often get accused for using "Alt-Right tactics" in discussion, in here "protecting women" is indeed one very prevalent tactic. The over representation of certain nationalities in sexual assault/rape cases gets brought up a lot when talking about refugees/immigrants. It's basically the main talking point among unemployment/living on welfare.
3. True, not in white majority nations atleast. And racism isn't just about skin color either.

To conclude how I feel since I want to be absolutely clear about it. I agree that it sucks when discussion derails from actual opression to opression of straight white males which is not really a thing but does get brought up by crazies claiming they are being persecuted. Or when the bigotry of religious groups gets challenged, they scream persecution and opression. But I also find it quite easy to avoid such generalizations that would give the opportunity to such derail, or make people feel unfairly attacked, such generalizations aren't beneficial, so I'd rather see discussions where it doesn't happen. Even though OP doesn't seem particularly interested in hearing from those who are bothered by the generalizations, I'm quite glad the discussion is happening in this topic rather than somewhere else where it shouldn't.

And thank you for your thoughtful and calm reply, I do really agree with most of what you said and how you seem to think even though my lenghty reply included more than just "I agree".

I'm glad we can have thoughtful calm discussions too. You seem to be coming at it too from a perspective where you just don't want to give disengenuous types the ability to derail. \ I'm just tired of those people, I kind of have grown cynical and think "well, they're going to derail anyways." In general though, in conversation if someone stops me and says "don't generalize" I'll just say something like "I don't mean 100% of people, of course, so remember that for future reference if I talk like that." I don't think it's too much to ask to throw a disclaimer out once or twice, but if someone's just waiting and watching for you to generalize, I don't think they're listening to the actual message itself, just more so how it's presented.

We're in agreement I think a lot, and again I can't really say much for those outside of America. White european colonialism has kind of complicated the matter, but your point makes sense to me. A Japanese person would be a PoC in America. Yet if an American lived in Japan, they would be a minority and experience what it's like to be a minority and a foreigner. I have briefly traveled in other countries, and I highly recommend it to people because the experience of being the 'other' is something valuable. This is probably why a lot of poor white Americans are more inclined to be racist; they haven't had the opportunity to be put themselves in the shoes of a foreigner or other minority. I'm pretty firmly middle class and have grown up with a diverse family and friend group, so I've had experiences they haven't.

As for your comments about generalization coming from a place of malice, where it regards things like misogyny or sexism... that requires some context. The 'man-hating' feminist cliche is rarely, if ever true. (I've met maybe one or two women like that, and I've run in some pretty intensely feminist and queer groups). But I can get why these sorts of things would make men feel attacked or threatened, because rape and sexual assault are very serious issues.

In the context of the post OP where he said something like "all men are shit", he was giving advice to his young cousin about to head off to college, and warning her to be careful. As a woman, I know logically that not ALL men are rapists or capable of sexual assault. My little brother is my most beloved person in my entire life, and I know he could never do something like that. Yet I know that there are a some of men out there that DO pose a threat. I'm only one woman, and I've experienced numerous sexual assaults, was raped several times by an ex, been followed to my car several times, had pictures taken of me without my consent, followed by men in cars while jogging, and been nearly trapped and assaulted by men when cuddling or kissing my current (also female) partner. And I'm one of the women who's been aware of this shit and circumspect as I possibly can be. AND I've had it incredibly easy compared to shit my mom, my current partner and my sister have been through.

So in effect, women have to assume men they don't know are a danger, until proven otherwise. If we gave the benefit of the doubt and believed the best in every male stranger, we could easily end up dead. This is the context in which OP was giving advice, so that hopefully no harm comes to his cousin. We know there are good men out there. Some of us have some great brothers, sons, dads, nephews, cousins, boyfriends, husbands, etc. If you're not the type of man who would treat a woman badly either in words or actions, just rest assured you're not one of the ones we're talking about when we say things like 'men suck' or anything of that nature. Be good to the women in your life and be secure in that.

For me personally, when I'm talking about toxic men I will use qualifiers like "dudebros" or "incels" or "MRAs" or "creepy pervert" whatever fits the bill for that brand of toxic man. It's more useful to me anyways in describing the problem I have.
 
Last edited:

BlackGoku03

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,283
They can talk that out with the OP. In general the PoC I've interacted with in this thread are not using this anti-generlization rhetoric to distract from the main point of expressing frustration with oppression. Rather, they seem to be against generalizing as a practical method of gaining more allies to their side. At least from what I'm understanding, they're not making moral judgements about generalizing as a rhetorical device, but just discussing it's effectiveness. I can't really speak for their perspective because I don't feel it's my place to tell PoC how they should fight their struggles.

On the other side, much of my personal frustration comes from the #notallmen aspect. As a woman, it is intensely frustrating to have discussion derailed by this diversion tactics. A 'good' man listens and asks what he can do to help; and is not so insecure about his own 'goodness' that he feels the need to make repetitive proclamations about how he personally is an exception.
Thank you thank you thank you PhazonBlonde.

This is what I'm trying to say but I didn't articulate it well.

I don't think it's effective when debating someone. I also think by doing this, you give them an easy "out" of the main issue you want to discuss. And I hate hate hate arguing semantics.
 

iapetus

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,080
Thank you thank you thank you PhazonBlonde.

This is what I'm trying to say but I didn't articulate it well.

I don't think it's effective when debating someone. I also think by doing this, you give them an easy "out" of the main issue you want to discuss. And I hate hate hate arguing semantics.

I think part of the problem is that there are two types of people who will object to generalisations. One is people who are hit by that generalisation unfairly. And the other is those who are arguing in bad faith. The former you can address with this approach - the latter will find new semantics to argue with you. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a good thing to avoid the overly broad generalisations. The approach of these bad faith arguers is to attempt to position them as much as possible with anyone in the middle ground so that when the backlash comes at them, it inevitably also includes the people they're targeting.

It's a neat trick, and it can only be avoided in two ways. Firstly, don't generalise overly. Make sure those generalisations that we do make are ones that genuinely are valid (even if they're difficult to accept). Secondly, when we are hit by generalisations, don't immediately jump to the defensive. First look at whether they're valid, because they might be. Then don't let them distract from other points being made if that can be avoided.
 

BlackGoku03

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,283
I think part of the problem is that there are two types of people who will object to generalisations. One is people who are hit by that generalisation unfairly. And the other is those who are arguing in bad faith. The former you can address with this approach - the latter will find new semantics to argue with you. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a good thing to avoid the overly broad generalisations. The approach of these bad faith arguers is to attempt to position them as much as possible with anyone in the middle ground so that when the backlash comes at them, it inevitably also includes the people they're targeting.

It's a neat trick, and it can only be avoided in two ways. Firstly, don't generalise overly. Make sure those generalisations that we do make are ones that genuinely are valid (even if they're difficult to accept). Secondly, when we are hit by generalisations, don't immediately jump to the defensive. First look at whether they're valid, because they might be. Then don't let them distract from other points being made if that can be avoided.
I can agree with this. And people here have mentioned that if they go for the low hanging fruit of your argument (in this case, generalizations) then they probably didn't want to argue in good faith anyway.

I understand that. The sad thing is, that diversion tactic works. It totally works. But I still want to do everything I can to take that excuse/tactic away. I don't want to give them the chance.

But of course, this all depends on who you're talking to. Having been in debate club, model US senate, and model UN, I was always taught to be precise and to know your audience.
 

RM8

Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,913
JP
This baffles me, why would it not be obvious that it's not every single man / any other majority. People are so silly.

Er... SOME people are silly, not you, dear reader. You're not one bit silly!
 

iapetus

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,080
This baffles me, why would it not be obvious that it's not every single man / any other majority. People are so silly.

Because... sometimes people express it in such a way that makes it clear that it is all of them, normally alongside an exhortation not to #notallmen or the equivalent.
 
Last edited:
Oct 28, 2017
237
I think part of the problem is that there are two types of people who will object to generalisations. One is people who are hit by that generalisation unfairly. And the other is those who are arguing in bad faith. The former you can address with this approach - the latter will find new semantics to argue with you. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a good thing to avoid the overly broad generalisations. The approach of these bad faith arguers is to attempt to position them as much as possible with anyone in the middle ground so that when the backlash comes at them, it inevitably also includes the people they're targeting.

It's a neat trick, and it can only be avoided in two ways. Firstly, don't generalise overly. Make sure those generalisations that we do make are ones that genuinely are valid (even if they're difficult to accept). Secondly, when we are hit by generalisations, don't immediately jump to the defensive. First look at whether they're valid, because they might be. Then don't let them distract from other points being made if that can be avoided.

You're missing a type there. Some people don't feel personally aggrieved by the generalization itself but consider it a poor strategic decision for change and that the use of generalization only serves to exacerbate class and race related fragmentation within society.

What more, the consistent use of generalized racially divisive language has a cumulative effect on society. It may feel better to express that frustration and outlet valid emotional catharsis but there's no behavioral principal that suggests any efficacy to factually incorrect statements. Controversial statements need to be both factual as well as shocking. At least if we want to move towards an objective, observable reality based society.

I want direct, aggressive, but factually correct social messaging. Not because things like ' all white people are shit ' hurts my feelings or I even am particularly concerned about whether victims of social injustice are hurting my feelings but because it isn't productive and often can be counterproductive.

If you consider the race and class based conflicts within modern society to actually be a war (and it is) you can't make offensive maneuvers that leave your opposition gaping holes to leverage and exploit. Unfortunately in this day and age passion, vim, and being on the ethical and humanist side of issues is not enough given the overwhelming odds.

There's another aspect that isn't being touched on here: All of this discussion is regarding avoiding generalizing negative messaging. Positive messaging is a completely different situation, that's why there's an enormous difference between advising against generalizing everyone in a particular privileged group being a certain way versus those critical of Black Lives Matter with very obviously racist contrivance. There's absolutely nothing inherently negative about that name and only serves to draw attention to a specific group...anyone reading negativity into it has to search for it and create it out of whole cloth. This is an important distinction as you don't have the previously mentioned ' vulnerability ' where,as iapetus mentioned, bad faith actors can dilute your messaging so easily.
 

PhazonBlonde

User requested ban
Banned
May 18, 2018
3,293
Somewhere deep in space
I can agree with this. And people here have mentioned that if they go for the low hanging fruit of your argument (in this case, generalizations) then they probably didn't want to argue in good faith anyway.

I understand that. The sad thing is, that diversion tactic works. It totally works. But I still want to do everything I can to take that excuse/tactic away. I don't want to give them the chance.

But of course, this all depends on who you're talking to. Having been in debate club, model US senate, and model UN, I was always taught to be precise and to know your audience.

I always have problems being precise and to the point >_< You must get really frustrated having done debate at such a high level and then come across all these BS troll tactics in discussion.
 

Yoshi

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,055
Germany
Saying too his niece that she should be wary around ALL men on campus isn't sexist cause universities have a history of covering shit like that UP!
Consider the difference between "Be careful around all men, because a significant amount of them are creeps" and "all men are creeps". It is a considerable one. The first, I would have asked for validation before this thread (now I know the validation in the context of US college students), the second one I would outright call out as a wrong factual claim. Which it is.
 

Sloth Guevara

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,346
Consider the difference between "Be careful around all men, because a significant amount of them are creeps" and "all men are creeps". It is a considerable one. The first, I would have asked for validation before this thread (now I know the validation in the context of US college students), the second one I would outright call out as a wrong factual claim. Which it is.


I would agree with your point had I not know the context.
But I don't have a problem with the OP using the terms he did in said context.
He has given the context with sexual assault at universities in the thread.
I'm sorry but I don't think he needed to change his words in that conversation.
 

Tya

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,669
What are the benefits of thinking about and speaking of groups of people so inaccurately?
 

Riversands

Banned
Nov 21, 2017
5,669
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.
Exactly. I always knew this. When women are saying as an example "men are trash"(context: sexual harassment case), i know they are not talking about all men in general. I think there's this term called Totem pro parte and Pars pro Toto. This one is called pars pro toto
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
What are the benefits of thinking about and speaking of groups of people so inaccurately?
Doesn't give people an easy out to dodge responsibility and forces them to confront the issue at hand.

Unfortunately, the preferred mode of engagement seems to be denial of responsibility, so we go back to square one.

I mean everyone knows "not all men", and if you asked any specific man, they'd label themselves as part of the "not all men" group except for the small number of extremists/radcals, and yet abuse and marginalization of women exists at all levels of society. How can it be, if every individual isn't a problem, but the aggregate presents a clear problem far beyond the scope of the aforementioned sociopaths?

Replace men with whites and women with blacks for the racial equivalent.

There is no way to talk about systematic issues in a way that doesn't generalize someone, without also giving one group a convenient excuse to avoid responsibility. If you want clear statistics every time (unreasonable demand), like 60% of all men, men in the audience can just internally sort themselves into the non-problematic 40%.

The conceit that if activists just spoke accurately, they would get their point across, tacitly assumes that all parties are completely rational. Trump's election gives proof to that lie, whether the issue be sex-based, gender-based, or race-based. Humans are very flawed, biased, resentful and irrational things. If you (general you) truly consider yourself a rational actor, you wouldn't take offense at generalizations but rather consider and analyze the reasons underlying the rhetoric. Getting upset about semantics isn't rational in the slightest, it's just petty.
 
Last edited: