First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Generalizations and why they aren't that bad.
9817 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Offline
Posted 11/17/15

atinytanuki wrote:

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*


Few enough men want to be engineers, and even fewer women. Even less are actually cut out for it, male or female. Sorry, this reminded me of a work-related gag about "Imagineers."
7597 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 11/17/15

Magical-Soul wrote:


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.


Or we could just look at the numbers: The US, Canada, Iceland, Denmark and the Fenno-Sacandinavian countries all place inside the top 20 in terms of gender equality, according to the WEF, and also rank in the top 25 happiest countries in the world and the top 25 in the UN's Human Development Index

On the other side, Syria and Yemen rank in the bottom four on the WEF's list and place in the 25 unhappiest countries in the world. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (which I had confused with the Republic of Congo) has been described as the worst place in the world for women and ranks 186th in HDI (out of 187 countries) while Syria ranks 184th and Yemen 154th.

1430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / The Cosmos
Offline
Posted 11/17/15
It's one thing when it's a generalization that's something like "women wear makeup"

but when you start generalizing people by race it tends to make one's mind extremely narrow. People will have that steroetype or generalization in the back of their minds and causes them to make poor judgements about people
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/17/15

IShouldBeStudying wrote:

It's one thing when it's a generalization that's something like "women wear makeup"

but when you start generalizing people by race it tends to make one's mind extremely narrow. People will have that steroetype or generalization in the back of their minds and causes them to make poor judgements about people


"Because it offends me." Is not an argument.

Generalizations about race makes perfect sense if the assessment is accurate. Whenever a boxing match is about to happen, people generally think the black guy is going to win because of how they normally dominate in athletic competitions. It's not racist to say blacks do better in sports if they do. It's not racist to say white people have own group preference(they do).

Generalizations aren't judgments... And making generalizations(which everyone does) aren't inherently bad, it takes mental gymnastics to say people who make generalizations are close minded since the most intelligent people(scientist, psychologists) make generalizations in their research. Generalizations are only bad if it's a faulty one.

If I got dumped by three Asian girls, than I deduced all Asian women were bigots because of those three -- that'd be a bad generalization. But if I said: "Blacks tend to earn less money than whites." That wouldn't be a bad generalization because it's true.


To say people who generalization are dumb/close minded, in and of itself is a generalization. And guess what? It's a faulty one based of Social Justice rhetoric of being politically correct.

You can't say you aren't a dog person, because that bigoted towards dog and not every dog is like the dogs you dislike. You can't say mice are diseased because every mouse isn't diseased and it's "bigoted" to blanket mice.

Mice and dogs don't bitch about being generalized so the Social Justice brigade doesn't rush to their "defense", but being offended is apparently enough to disregard validity.

I stated this enough times already, every time someone makes a stupid comment generalizing generalizations, I will link to TFM's video of why these people have no argument and why being offended isn't a cause for change.
1430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / The Cosmos
Offline
Posted 11/17/15

Magical-Soul wrote:


IShouldBeStudying wrote:

It's one thing when it's a generalization that's something like "women wear makeup"

but when you start generalizing people by race it tends to make one's mind extremely narrow. People will have that steroetype or generalization in the back of their minds and causes them to make poor judgements about people


"Because it offends me." Is not an argument.

Generalizations about race makes perfect sense if the assessment is accurate. Whenever a boxing match is about to happen, people generally think the black guy is going to win because of how they normally dominate in athletic competitions. It's not racist to say blacks do better in sports if they do. It's not racist to say white people have own group preference(they do).

Generalizations aren't judgments... And making generalizations(which everyone does) aren't inherently bad, it takes mental gymnastics to say people who make generalizations are close minded since the most intelligent people(scientist, psychologists) make generalizations in their research. Generalizations are only bad if it's a faulty one.

If I got dumped by three Asian girls, than I deduced all Asian women were bigots because of those three -- that'd be a bad generalization. But if I said: "Blacks tend to earn less money than whites." That wouldn't be a bad generalization because it's true.


To say people who generalization are dumb/close minded, in and of itself is a generalization. And guess what? It's a faulty one based of Social Justice rhetoric of being politically correct.

You can't say you aren't a dog person, because that bigoted towards dog and not every dog is like the dogs you dislike. You can't say mice are diseased because every mouse isn't diseased and it's "bigoted" to blanket mice.

Mice and dogs don't bitch about being generalized so the Social Justice brigade doesn't rush to their "defense", but being offended is apparently enough to disregard validity.

I stated this enough times already, every time someone makes a stupid comment generalizing generalizations, I will link to TFM's video of why these people have no argument and why being offended isn't a cause for change.


i guess it just depends on how you word it

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.