As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[NOT ALL ____] What Justifies Generalization, And Is It Ever Productive?

1234568»

Posts

  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    edited November 2014
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    I see #notallx as an attempt to insert the "but I also" information into the discussion. If you assert that men rape then I do not see it as unreasonable for me to want to make it clear that I, a man, am not defined by that group association and do not engage in the ascribed behavior.

    But the issue is that by doing so, you have struck off on a tangent that is totally irrelevant to the topic ("the men who rape / the men who catcall"). Whether you intended to do so or not, you have (1) derailed the conversation; (2) made it about you; and thus (3) marginalized, in whatever small way, the original complainant's experience. And while it's not the end of the world when one person does it, it's never just one person, and it's very easy for the original message to get lost in a sea of voices "just inserting [irrelevant] information" into the space.

    Imagine a discussion about aggressive dogs that starts off, "What should be done about these aggressive, dangerous dogs?"

    And sixteen people immediately interject, "But my dog isn't aggressive or dangerous."

    How does that help the conversation?

    Could not the original speaker pre-empt possible derailment by not using a lazy generalization in the first place? If they say "men who rape" and someone still says "excuse me, I'm not a rapist", then fuck Mr. Imnotarapist.

    Could not the listener give the speaker the benefit of the doubt and take a moment to realize the conversation isn't about them before chiming in with an unnecessary, defensive comment? Take a breath before assuming a generalization that isn't necessarily even there? Why is it the speaker's responsibility to add a pile of disclaimers on every statement so the least-common-denominator who hears it is absolved of all responsibility to parse it in a reasonable fashion?

    The issue is that they do say "Men who X" and someone always says "Well I don't X." And not just one, but lots of them.

    (Defense of this practice is happening on this very page! the previous page! -ed)
    To use your example ("What should be done about these aggressive, dangerous dogs?"), a person interjecting with "But my dog isn't aggressive or dangerous" doesn't make much sense, at least as something important enough to say immediately.

    Yeah, it doesn't make much sense to me either, because the interjector is making an argument against what he has perceived the speaker to be claiming: that "all dogs are aggressive" even though the speaker never made that claim. It's basically strawmanning.
    If the original speaker instead said "Dogs are aggressive and dangerous and we need to do something about them", they are saying that they believe all dogs are aggressive and dangerous. They might not believe this and really meant "what do we do about aggressive, dangerous dogs", but they might also be the kind of person who responds to a toy chihuahua barking on their front lawn with a shotgun to the face.

    Yes. #NotAllXYZ is only a valid argument against claims that "All XYZ do that thing." And sure, sometimes the speaker fails to correctly articulate his claim. But it happens disturbingly often that such a claim was never made except in the listener's mind. And that's not the speaker's fault.

    DivideByZero on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • BethrynBethryn Unhappiness is Mandatory Registered User regular
    edited November 2014
    Why is it the speaker's responsibility to add a pile of disclaimers on every statement so the least-common-denominator who hears it is absolved of all responsibility to parse it in a reasonable fashion?
    Because as someone initiating informed conversation or discussion, I would argue the onus is on them to try and define their statement with as much specificity as a reasonable person would need to recognise their intentions.

    Why is it your opinion that it's the listener's responsibility to give the speaker the greatest benefit of the doubt possible?


    Here's an obvious example, something that's happened to me a few times, and I imagine a few others here at least. I've been in conversations where a woman has been cheated on by her boyfriend, and the question, "Why are men such pigs" has been asked. Now I'm not going to treat that as a debate question, or respond "well not me". The intent is obvious. On the other hand, if someone I barely know starts a debate thread with the same words and without that context, I'm going to be a little less forgiving of them for calling men pigs.



    I mean there's also a basic discussion to be had about what exactly you're saying when you use a group noun. When you say "Men" are you using it as shorthand for all men, some men, a few men? As an operator to a future verb? Statistically about the group of men?

    The logical classic is swans; "Swans are white".

    Arguments to its falsehood are that all swans are not white; some are black.
    Arguments to its truthfulness are that some swans do fulfil the whiteness or that swans as a group are mostly made up of white swans.

    A more relevant example would be rape.

    Men rape.

    Some men do rape: the statement is accurate.
    All men do not rape: the statement is inaccurate.
    Of rapists, most are men: the statement is accurate.
    Men, as a group, rape: the statement is questionable. Statistically, it is very likely that more men do not rape than do.

    There was actually an instance in [chat] a few months back when someone quoted the statement "women have vaginas" and a lot of people responded about just how transphobic this was. Do you think they should've given the person quoted a greater benefit of the doubt before calling them transphobic?

    Bethryn on
    ...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    Why is it the speaker's responsibility to add a pile of disclaimers on every statement so the least-common-denominator who hears it is absolved of all responsibility to parse it in a reasonable fashion?

    It just doesn't seem like saying some X, many X, most X, X who do Y, etc is such an unreasonable request. I try to avoid generalizing whenever I can because there's no reason not to other than purposefully trying to be a dick.

    If generalizing is only worth considering harmful against certain groups, what other practices I find harmful are okay against certain acceptable targets? If a popular kid started getting bullied in school would it not be a harmful act because there isn't an overall societal trend of popular kids being bullied? If the popular kid complains about being harassed is it okay to say "get over it; there are other kids more deserving of our sympathy"?
    The issue is that they do say "Men who X" and someone always says "Well I don't X." And not just one, but lots of them.

    In those instances it is perfectly reasonable to be annoyed with men who do that.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    But they need to have a justification for discrimination. The fact that safe spaces are necessary is inherently a signpost of trauma, violence and oppression. It's a black mark on our record as a species that such exercises of compassion are even necessary.

    Certainly there are groups of people who might require a safe space that could include white people. Intersectionality etc.

    What reason could a group of specifically white people have for wanting a whites-only space that is not, on its face, inherently an exercise of oppression rather than relief from oppression?

    I sort of get what you're saying but I am not buying it. You're arguing, in essence, that the very presence of a white person is oppression.

    The presence of the majority in what is meant to be a safe space for a minority is oppression.

    Whiteness is not empty. It has meaning and impact, despite the documented tendency of whites to feel racially neutral or detached from racial conflict.

    As I said, the very presence of a white person, for e.g. a black victim of severe white oppression - of racially driven oppression, by white people - can be inherently oppressive. It can cause psychological pain, it can elevate stress, it can force altered behaviour. What they've endured leaves an imprint, and part of that imprint is the association of whiteness with their oppression. It's bad enough to endure that, but to then seek out a space to obtain relief from the omnipresent pressure of coping with that majority, and have it compromised? That's oppression, certainly. It would be cruel and oblivious to force oneself into that context.

    Does that seem absurd or extreme? I don't know; I feel that as a white man, it would be profoundly inappropriate and inconsiderate for me to intrude on such a space.

    It sounds almost exactly like Gamergate. Perhaps slightly less whiny.

    Supporting cultures based on oppression seems like a generally terrible idea since it leads the members to identify with and defend those cultures rather than something more positive, and sometimes to even fight against efforts to remove the oppression.

    I don't think it's really fair to call GamerGate a safe place. Though, arguably, you could explain it as an outburst occurring because a bunch of people feel their safe place (in this case games aimed at 18-25 year old males) is being threatened.

    Which really just suggests that not all safe places are okay or beneficial. Not that safe places aren't positive things. The world would be a much shittier place without the multitude of LGBTQ support groups, alcoholics anonymous and a variety of other services that are basically 'hey, come hang out with other people like you so you have a place to talk about your thing'.
    Whenever someone starts up the whole "safe place" thing, my mind goes straight to the movie "Pleasantville" and the scene when all of the patriarchs of the town retreat into the bowling alley. :D

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    If you said "half the men in this room catcall. Men that catcall are bad" then I think that a man who does not catcall would be justified in stating that he does not. "Men that catcall are bad" isn't that different though. Either way, the statement takes a group identifier (men) and makes a negative statement about some people who fit within the identifier, but without identifying who is and is not part of the smaller, criticized group of men who cat call.

    By contrast "these four men to my left cat call and are bad" would not properly invite a notallmen response because the statement is about a clearly bounded group.

  • chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    What I gather from this thread is that it's okay to be prejudiced against a group as long as the majority agree that it's okay.

    That safe places are only okay for those who "deserve it."

    That it's okay to speak down on a group based purely on facets of their birth because it's socially acceptable currently.

    "Context matters." Is the defense of those who have no position to uphold except viewed in the most limited light. This excuse has been used since the dawn of time to uphold every terrible thing ever. Because context matters! They are just savages! They are godless! They are barely human! Societally, that context was perfectly acceptable at the time.

    Basically people are arguing that it's okay to be awful because it's easier, because the current trend says it's okay, or because they have prejudged a people, a group, a skin tone, and found it acceptable.

    That's pretty shitty. There are no acceptable reasons. Fighting fire with fire or some such I guess? Must be nice.

    steam_sig.png
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    If you said "half the men in this room catcall. Men that catcall are bad" then I think that a man who does not catcall would be justified in stating that he does not. "Men that catcall are bad" isn't that different though. Either way, the statement takes a group identifier (men) and makes a negative statement about some people who fit within the identifier, but without identifying who is and is not part of the smaller, criticized group of men who cat call.

    By contrast "these four men to my left cat call and are bad" would not properly invite a notallmen response because the statement is about a clearly bounded group.

    That seems excessive to me. You can't expect someone complaining about men who catcall to only bring up the topic if they have a list accurately identifying every catcaller.

  • BethrynBethryn Unhappiness is Mandatory Registered User regular
    If you said "half the men in this room catcall. Men that catcall are bad" then I think that a man who does not catcall would be justified in stating that he does not. "Men that catcall are bad" isn't that different though. Either way, the statement takes a group identifier (men) and makes a negative statement about some people who fit within the identifier, but without identifying who is and is not part of the smaller, criticized group of men who cat call.

    By contrast "these four men to my left cat call and are bad" would not properly invite a notallmen response because the statement is about a clearly bounded group.
    I think "men who catcall" is a reasonable bounding for most listeners.

    ...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    Bethryn wrote: »
    Why is it the speaker's responsibility to add a pile of disclaimers on every statement so the least-common-denominator who hears it is absolved of all responsibility to parse it in a reasonable fashion?
    Because as someone initiating informed conversation or discussion, I would argue the onus is on them to try and define their statement with as much specificity as a reasonable person would need to recognise their intentions.

    Why is it your opinion that it's the listener's responsibility to give the speaker the greatest benefit of the doubt possible?

    Bolded the important part. A speaker should be responsible for tailoring their message to the intended audience such that a reasonable person in that audience can understand what they're saying. i.e When addressing children, it's best to use simpler terms because they might not understand a more nuanced statement, a restriction which goes out the window when dealing with adults. The speaker shouldn't be taken to task for failing to anticipate whatever edge case or unreasonable reading of their statement a particular audience member objects to.

    Specifically, "What should we do about men who catcall?" is not a grammatically ambiguous question. The object is not "men" (which would imply "all men"), it is "men who catcall." I don't believe it's unreasonable on its face to expect an audience of mainly adults with some degree of first-world education to be able to properly parse that sentence. (Though there's an argument to be made that since legions of dudebros seem unable to parse sentences like that, maybe feminists should change their language to avoid the misunderstanding.)

    Moreover, if someone is discussing "rapists" I don't feel it's necessary to include a disclaimer that "Not all men are rapists" because that information should be taken for granted. We know not all men are rapists; it's a patently absurd claim and pretty much everyone who has ever made it has been dismissed or mocked. If someone actually wants to make the claim that "all men are rapists" they are perfectly free to do so, so I think it's reasonable to assume that someone speaking about rapists does not feel that way unless they explicitly say so. That is what I mean by the benefit of the doubt.

    Here's an obvious example, something that's happened to me a few times, and I imagine a few others here at least. I've been in conversations where a woman has been cheated on by her boyfriend, and the question, "Why are men such pigs" has been asked. Now I'm not going to treat that as a debate question, or respond "well not me". The intent is obvious. On the other hand, if someone I barely know starts a debate thread with the same words and without that context, I'm going to be a little less forgiving of them for calling men pigs.

    I think the purpose of the speech is often just as important as the venue. Someone starting a thread calling men pigs because she was just cheated on is probably in the same situation as your friend, just looking to vent about a lousy situation and rustle up some camaraderie and solidarity. However if the intent was to genuinely prove that all men are cheaters or behave badly or are just assholes, then yes I'd be less forgiving of that thread as well.

    There's a lot of frustration at the #NotAllMen response when a woman posts something to the effect of "God, I hate it when guys say [this thing]" because the intent of that statement is to point out that (1) [this thing] gets said a lot, (2) it is hurtful/annoying/sexist/problematic/etc, and (3) it's only ever said by men, so (4) guys, think about what it means before you say something like that. Then some dude pops in with "Not all guys say that" or "Well I wouldn't ever say that" which doesn't address or counter any of those points, but just comes off as an excuse for not having to think about it.


    I mean there's also a basic discussion to be had about what exactly you're saying when you use a group noun. When you say "Men" are you using it as shorthand for all men, some men, a few men? As an operator to a future verb? Statistically about the group of men?

    The logical classic is swans; "Swans are white".

    Arguments to its falsehood are that all swans are not white; some are black.
    Arguments to its truthfulness are that some swans do fulfil the whiteness or that swans as a group are mostly made up of white swans.

    A more relevant example would be rape.

    Men rape.

    Some men do rape: the statement is accurate.
    All men do not rape: the statement is inaccurate.
    Of men, there are rapists: the statement is accurate.
    Men, as a group, rape: the statement is questionable. Statistically, it is very likely that more men do not rape than do.

    There was actually an instance in [chat] a few months back when someone quoted the statement "women have vaginas" and a lot of people responded about just how transphobic this was. Do you think they should've given the person quoted a greater benefit of the doubt before calling them transphobic?

    I'd have to defer to the context before passing judgement, as there is a continuum of goosiness at play. Someone who denies that trans is a thing and subscribes to an absolutist "gender is only defined by your sex organs" is deffo acting more transphobic than, say someone just using it as casual shorthand to avoid having to think too hard about it. But then I am generally quicker to blame ignorance or laziness than malice, at least at first. So yes, I think this person should be afforded the benefit of the doubt, until they have shown that they don't deserve it any longer by clarifying their views.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Why is it the speaker's responsibility to add a pile of disclaimers on every statement so the least-common-denominator who hears it is absolved of all responsibility to parse it in a reasonable fashion?

    It just doesn't seem like saying some X, many X, most X, X who do Y, etc is such an unreasonable request. I try to avoid generalizing whenever I can because there's no reason not to other than purposefully trying to be a dick.

    So do I! And I agree -- keeping away from absolute, all-encompassing, sweeping generalizations of entire groups of people is the best way to avoid your argument being shot down or derailed by a single anecdote.

    But even when you do your best there always seem to be an unending stream of complainants who think you are generalizing them even if you're not:
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    The issue is that they do say "Men who X" and someone always says "Well I don't X." And not just one, but lots of them.

    In those instances it is perfectly reasonable to be annoyed with men who do that.

    Excuse me, but not all men do that. Stop generalizing me.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Bethryn wrote: »
    If you said "half the men in this room catcall. Men that catcall are bad" then I think that a man who does not catcall would be justified in stating that he does not. "Men that catcall are bad" isn't that different though. Either way, the statement takes a group identifier (men) and makes a negative statement about some people who fit within the identifier, but without identifying who is and is not part of the smaller, criticized group of men who cat call.

    By contrast "these four men to my left cat call and are bad" would not properly invite a notallmen response because the statement is about a clearly bounded group.
    I think "men who catcall" is a reasonable bounding for most listeners.

    But as a man in the room with the speaker (and the members of the audience who may also be upset at such men" isn't it understandable that I would want it to be clear I am anot part of that group. Of the descriptor "men who cat call" the only piece of information that is evident on its face is who is a man. It isn't like cat callers must cat call all the time or like they all wear special jackets to make it easier to identify them.

  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    Bethryn wrote: »
    If you said "half the men in this room catcall. Men that catcall are bad" then I think that a man who does not catcall would be justified in stating that he does not. "Men that catcall are bad" isn't that different though. Either way, the statement takes a group identifier (men) and makes a negative statement about some people who fit within the identifier, but without identifying who is and is not part of the smaller, criticized group of men who cat call.

    By contrast "these four men to my left cat call and are bad" would not properly invite a notallmen response because the statement is about a clearly bounded group.
    I think "men who catcall" is a reasonable bounding for most listeners.

    But as a man in the room with the speaker (and the members of the audience who may also be upset at such men" isn't it understandable that I would want it to be clear I am anot part of that group. Of the descriptor "men who cat call" the only piece of information that is evident on its face is who is a man. It isn't like cat callers must cat call all the time or like they all wear special jackets to make it easier to identify them.

    Why is that so important to you? What does announcing your status as a non-catcaller contribute to the conversation?

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • BethrynBethryn Unhappiness is Mandatory Registered User regular
    But as a man in the room with the speaker (and the members of the audience who may also be upset at such men" isn't it understandable that I would want it to be clear I am anot part of that group. Of the descriptor "men who cat call" the only piece of information that is evident on its face is who is a man. It isn't like cat callers must cat call all the time or like they all wear special jackets to make it easier to identify them.
    Unless you're worried that your silence would be taken as tacit admission, I don't think you should have to worry about identifying yourself as one of the good ones in the situation you described.

    ...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited November 2014
    Bethryn wrote: »
    If you said "half the men in this room catcall. Men that catcall are bad" then I think that a man who does not catcall would be justified in stating that he does not. "Men that catcall are bad" isn't that different though. Either way, the statement takes a group identifier (men) and makes a negative statement about some people who fit within the identifier, but without identifying who is and is not part of the smaller, criticized group of men who cat call.

    By contrast "these four men to my left cat call and are bad" would not properly invite a notallmen response because the statement is about a clearly bounded group.
    I think "men who catcall" is a reasonable bounding for most listeners.

    But as a man in the room with the speaker (and the members of the audience who may also be upset at such men" isn't it understandable that I would want it to be clear I am anot part of that group. Of the descriptor "men who cat call" the only piece of information that is evident on its face is who is a man. It isn't like cat callers must cat call all the time or like they all wear special jackets to make it easier to identify them.

    Honestly? If you're in favor of what is being said by the speaker? No, it's not really that understandable. The best way to show that you're not part of the group being mentioned, is to show vocal support for the message, instead of distancing yourself from it.

    Javen on
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    I listened to an interview on NPR with the woman who runs the org that produced the catcalling video.

    In response to a question, she was very very very careful in her explanation that, while the experience of this one woman was one in which almost all of the men who were catcalling her were black, it didn't mean that all the experiences of women who get catcalled were ones involving mostly black men.


    Basically, she was saying #notallblackmen

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Holy god, this thread is terrible. Everything about it is the fucking worst. All people who posted in here should be ashamed of themselves.

    "Wait, not all people who--"

    No, fuck you, every last one of you. This thread broke the laws of math and now everyone in here is literally the most singularly terrible of all possible things.

    Including me, because the taint is upon me and this is something I will have to live with for all time.

    The sacrifices I make for you people.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
This discussion has been closed.