The thing that NOBODY seems to understand, or maybe not willing to admit is, you CANNOT group people together.
It’s the whole reason racism logically makes no sense. At all.
“Oh, all those dirty (insert race here) are good for nothin! They’re all assholes!”
And sure, regardless of what race you inserted there, there’s going to be some assholes. There’s also going to be some amazing people that you’re unfairly judging.
And it’s not just races. It’s anything. Races, genders, religions, countries, social groups, book clubs, whatever.
If you think all people of one group think the same on everything, you’re just factually wrong. And if you use that incorrect fact to judge that group, now you’re just an asshole.
I’ve found that people th]?6ink judging people is bad, and wrong. I don’t think so. I think some people are just terrible at judging people, and miss the point of judging people. You’re supposed to judge them as an individual. Not as (insert group here).
You have to look at it from the opposite to understand why social psychology and sociology works: people inherently group people together and that very grouping creates power imbalances and forces shared perspectives. Social constructs are constructs, yes, but they also have very tangible effects.
I really disagree here. Religion and book clubs are essentially special interest groups that involve choice to join or continue participating in.
Religion is for weak minded people.
Edit: I knew I should have trusted my gut when I got weird vibes from your post. Then I saw your Nazi apologia below.
What do you mean? They were used as examples of random groups of people. They’re good examples of that, right? Just like postmen, cyclists, gingers, diabetics… They’re groups of people that have one thing in common and can be completely different in many other aspects.
Being part of a group of your choosing is very different from being part of a group you are born into.
You’re right, in many ways it isn’t, but I don’t think it’s relevant in this context. We’re talking generalization when it comes to random groups. When you’re a cyclist, it’s reasonable to think you like cycling. It’s not reasonable to judge your morality, taste or family status. It works for all kinds of groups. We’re talking about the fact that groups of any kind are not homogeneous.
Some groups are very much homogeneous by design. Religious dimwits and police come to mind. I judge the morality of those groups all the time and I sleep fine. Meanwhile I feel kinda bad for swiping whichever way is ‘reject’ on dating apps. I’ll agree that is not right for most groups. But groups founded on hatred (police and rekigion) or for the purpose of being obnoxious/attention seeking (ABATE motorcycle chapters) can absolutely be generalized.
Now keep in mind we’re discussing in a thread where the top level comment was from an admitted Nazi sympathizer.
How did 28 ppl downvote this? lmao
If you downvoted that comment, you’ve gone to the dark side
Can’t tell his expression at the end. Is he mad or is he ashamed or does he kinda like her?
My guess is that he’s farting
well, I’m pretty sure he’s an alcoholic (red nose. red cheeks.) and I’m pretty sure the shadow across the face means he’s mad.
She has the same red nose and cheeks. I think that’s just the author’s style.
The artist’s atyle is poorly drawn muppets like flehy versions of Grover.
To each their own. I like the style. I think the characters are cute, with very expressive looks!
Yes, everything else about the art style is excellent. The noses stand out like sore thumbs, because they look like sore thumbs.
I’m genuinely torn, because I support the message, but the execution is… very unclear.
The entire “bear” thing is the exact same situation from the other side. The reality is that there is always nuance, while it is more popular / more often that people see the extreme outliers and attribute that to the entire group.
The point of the bear question isn’t blaming men. It’s assessing risk, and the risk of random man in the wilderness is far greater than random bear. Yes. A bear can maul, kill, and eat you, but a bear will never assualt, torture, or throw you in a pit for years on end. The risk of sexual and psychological abuse is worse to women than the threat of being eaten by an animal. It’s not about blame at all.
Which makes sense. You get only one shot at life. So being more sensitive to negative bias could be an advantage to the individual.
Are people still saying that?
Not adults. People see posts from 14 year olds and take it as gospel for an entire demographic.
Reddit in a nutshell
… said the incel
