First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Generalizations and why they aren't that bad.
Posted 11/16/15
I'm afraid my post was laced in sarcasm. Not that wit escapes anyone or anything.
254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

haikinka wrote:

You obviously just hate women!!

But generalizations aren't inherently bad it's what you do with them. If you go round putting all black people in prison just because of "a few bad apples", it's a pretty mean thing to do.


yes bby
13577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15

onibrotonel wrote:

I'm getting lazy reading the original post. Sum it up in 20 words or less... in general.


Three blind mice.


eclair-lumiere

Time to leave CR again... there's so much sexism on this thread it is making me want to vomit. It's like all of the most misogynistic men in the world have gathered together in one forum.


Reporting for duty madam.

In all seriousness, these general threads have exploded.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

eclair-lumiere wrote:

Time to leave CR again... there's so much sexism on this thread it is making me want to vomit. It's like all of the most misogynistic men in the world have gathered together in one forum.


I actually just returned to returned to Crunchyroll after I was asked back and assured that most of the gynocentrism and feminists were gone.

Now we can trade places! I'll tag you in after they run me off again!

P.S. There are no misogynists here.
14733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

So, I'm not in the majority, I'm not a leftist and I fully understand well placed judgments, generalizations and hatred.


Like, when we say "Every single one of your threads is a pompous, self-absorbed, pretentious, verbal-masturbatory twelve-paragraph cry for attention."

(Now, they might not all be, but if at least 90% off them are, it's a fair generalization to make.)
254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/16/15
and what if my generalization about you was that you're a virgin because you watch anime????????/
1077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 11/17/15

onepunchfinny wrote:

and what if my generalization about you was that you're a virgin because you watch anime????????/


then you would be right...
355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/17/15

Ejanss wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote:

So, I'm not in the majority, I'm not a leftist and I fully understand well placed judgments, generalizations and hatred.


Like, when we say "Every single one of your threads is a pompous, self-absorbed, pretentious, verbal-masturbatory twelve-paragraph cry for attention."

(Now, they might not all be, but if at least 90% off them are, it's a fair generalization to make.)


I wanted to say that but I thought she'd slaughter me with more of that
9758 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Online
Posted 11/17/15
Generalizing threads and threads about generalizing. It's the spring of 2012 all over again. Yes, most were about women. I made the last "about generalization" thread fiasco back then.
4490 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
UK
Offline
Posted 11/17/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

So, I'm not in the majority, I'm not a leftist and I fully understand well placed judgments, generalizations and hatred.

This topic is about generalizations, in people go up in arms unless you manage to detail every single person from a certain collective or demographic. Since this is impossible, we need generalizations to get a better understanding of demographic dynamics since there's always going to be one person that is an exception.

Generalizations like. "Black people steal" or "Mexicans are prone to violence" are met with negative reception, even when accompanied by reports and statistics. You're not allowed to weary of a black person stealing or weary of white person with a supremacist complex in positions of power because you'd be prejudice in some form and it would be unfair to the majority for a "few" bad apples.

Which is okay for the most part, but what about generalizations that are true? Why do we hate those so much? For example, in terms of wealth, blacks(AA) are the least likely to make large sums of money, so in reference to this, eHarmony and other dating sites have statistics of blacks being less desired because of their predisposition to be...poor and less likely to have money on hand. This applies to men moreso than women of course.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-race-affects-whether-people-write-you-back/

In sports, people typically prefer African Americans or Blacks because of their tendency to perform and excel above everyone else.

Now these are fine when not pointed out. But when they are honestly about these choices and social constructs, people seem to take issue with the fact that there's a generalization and not whether it's true or not.

I get lots of flak on my blogs, websites and youtube channel about my explicit criticism of women and saying "women" in general instead of "some women". The reason for this being that more often than not, women engage in whatever I'm talking about so there's no need to say "some women" when most of them do it.

So I can see how generalizations can be bad when it's an overblown statistic. But what if it's true? It's not wrong to generalize that mice are disease ridden, even though we know not every mouse ever is disease, but simply because mice won't take to social media to berate us for our generalizations. This is something I like to discuss from time to time since it makes my blood boil when women throw around "internalized misogyny" at me or talk too much about how I'm generalizing rather than if I'm right or not -- and I typically am.

What do you think? Do you think generalizations are wrong, even if they're statistically and scientifically proven? I don't think they're inherently bad, they make sense for a civilization that consists of billions of people and you cant account for every single one of them.


For a moment I thought you had an argument but then I realised you're just using this thread to regurgitate some old negative stereotypes. You say these negative statements are the truth yet you've provided no proof. When I say proof I mean universal proof. A small statistical sample is not enough. Neither is the perception of one group of people. It seems you're more about proving you're right. You're just stating your opinion, nothing more nothing less.


10228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 11/17/15


You were one of the main people I was talking about actually. The less rights women have, the happier they are?

That assumption really does make me sick. You actually believe women are happy having no rights at all and enjoy being treated like possessions?
1292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/17/15
I love generalizations/stereotypes.

Its the quickest way to determine if the person I'm talking to is a closed minded insensitive shit. Understand that I mean this in a reasonable way, generalizations in the form of jokes or for the purpose of jokes are fine... However when people believe them to be true I stop talking to them.
4126 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F
Offline
Posted 11/17/15
There can be a lot of value in knowing what is "typically true" versus what is "possibly true" for a given population, being able to differentiate the typical from the possible, and understanding that the possible (e.g., women in the US can be engineers) does not negate the typical (e.g., most engineers in the US are men). Unfortunately, people often conflate what they observe day-to-day with what is typically true, and may exhibit poor understandings of or appreciate for base-rate information. And, without base rate data gleaned from a large, representative sample, it's hard to make high-quality generalizations (assuming you want to talk about a huge, heterogenous population like all women).

A real example from a painful conversation

Woman A: I know a lot of female engineers so I don't see how people can say there aren't very many of them.
Woman B: Well, if you look at the available percentages of engineers in the US who are female, you can see that there are in fact many more male than female engineers in that population.
Woman A: *blank stare*
Woman B: *face palm*
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/17/15 , edited 11/17/15
@tkayt
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lO8ysZ0d-ts

If I were to make an educated guess, I'd say you fit the generic female narcissist type that we discuss and evaluate at WGTOW/RPW. Sugar cube, there's just no beating little girl pettiness. So Honey Badgers don't engage on channels like these.

@eclair,
Okay, let's pretend you're right, and I'm some mean old misogynist who hates women(me) for some reason.

What does that have to do with my statements or psyche evaluations?

The United States started annually gauging happiness and morale since 1972. Female morale and general happiness went down overall 5%.

DESPITE 40 years of hardcore man hating feminism. Feminism has granted women many avenues in work, education and just social prestige.

They got undeserved work quotas, they got education quotas, they got women only colleges. They even got the education system butchered to artificially increase girls scores.

And women are LESS happy after those things. So that's my theory, that the more power women get, the less happy they are. Am I wrong? Well, where's your argument?

The problem with gynocentric women is that they believe criticism and scrutiny is equal to flat out insults or harrassment(Anita Sarkeesian anyone?) even discussing scientifically proved psychology like hypoagency and hypergamy is frowned upon to women. Which makes no sense.

So please, other than make theories based on data and discuss genuine female self interest, how am I misogynist? How does that even make sense? Whether you got offended is not an argument, it's not a cause to get "Justice" upon just because you feel insulted that someone would dare imply to have any ideals that don't involve a typical SJW/Feminist/Pro Woman mindset.

It's funny, cause if I was talking about men, it'd be men saying. "Not all men are like that." And kissing up to how a "good man" is supposed to act. But as soon as women are even evaluated in a neutral light. You're automated a misogynist.

Or in my case. "Internalized misogyny" for what, exactly? A thought crime?
7547 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 11/17/15
I'll say it again: countries where women have more rights (US, Canada, Norway, Iceland, etc., generally enjoy greater happiness and quality of life than countries where women's rights are more restricted (Yemen, Syria, the Congo). The notion that female empowerment makes society worse is too easily debunked by reality.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/17/15

geauxtigers1989 wrote:

I'll say it again: countries where women have more rights (US, Canada, Norway, Iceland, etc., generally enjoy greater happiness and quality of life than countries where women's rights are more restricted (Yemen, Syria, the Congo). The notion that female empowerment makes society worse is too easily debunked by reality.


It sure is, all it takes is false/no information, a pinch of mental gymnastics and a tall glass of Social Justice.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.