Purgatory Hosting Standards

124

Comments

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    .... And more to the point, on the Ship we aren't dealing with generalities but with individuals. 'Americans are individualistic' may help me predict what policies are likely to win elections, but I can't rely on it as a principle when talking to any individual American. And on this forum, we are talking to individual Americans, not to Generic America.

    But generally we aren't discussing those same individuals, at least not in Purgatory.

    We kind of are. I mean, a statement of the type 'Tories are X' may be intended to describe the overall effects of Tory behaviour in the aggregate, but if an actual Tory is posting, obviously they are going to take it as being about them as an individual, because apart from anything else, the expectation is that they will either defend Toryism or repent in sackcloth and ashes in the face of their Shipmates' rhetorical brilliance.
    If a Tory is aprt of the argument, then why the hell wouldn't they defend the position or state their disagreement with it? Why are they are part of the discussion if they aren't discussing?

    Possibly because the discussion was on something other than the general evil tendencies of Tories (for example, a single policy, the odds in an upcoming election, anything, really) and then some idiot Shipmate decided to toss in a drive-by nasty generalizaton?

    We aren't bound to defend every-freaking-thing anybody ever says anywhere anytime in a discussion thread. It's perfectly fine to stick to the particular point you're interested in, and let the rest go by.

    Not that it's easy to let nasty generalizations go by. We're human, too.
    A drive-by generalisation is different to a generalisation in context and the response to it should be different.

  • If you say so....
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Logic.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    .... And more to the point, on the Ship we aren't dealing with generalities but with individuals. 'Americans are individualistic' may help me predict what policies are likely to win elections, but I can't rely on it as a principle when talking to any individual American. And on this forum, we are talking to individual Americans, not to Generic America.

    But generally we aren't discussing those same individuals, at least not in Purgatory.

    We kind of are. I mean, a statement of the type 'Tories are X' may be intended to describe the overall effects of Tory behaviour in the aggregate, but if an actual Tory is posting, obviously they are going to take it as being about them as an individual, because apart from anything else, the expectation is that they will either defend Toryism or repent in sackcloth and ashes in the face of their Shipmates' rhetorical brilliance.
    If a Tory is aprt of the argument, then why the hell wouldn't they defend the position or state their disagreement with it? Why are they are part of the discussion if they aren't discussing?

    ??????????

    I never said that they wouldn't or shouldn't discuss anything.

    My point is that if I post 'Tories are X', any Tory in the discussion will naturally take this as applicable to them, and therefore, even if my comment was intended as a generality, it will be treated as though it was applicable to them as individuals. So the argument that we're discussing generalities, not individuals doesn't really stand up with respect to any individual on the Ship.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited May 2020
    Whilst I accept that online communication may have become blunter, I think some of this boils down to wanting to be able to dish it out whilst not having to take it in return. Because Commandment 5 is for other people ...

    For all the nostalgia about Erin that’s been voiced on that thread, I can’t help feeling she wouldn’t be on the side of those wanting special privileges for themselves and their group. She had no patience for that kind of thing.

    No one here is responsible for defending the honour of X. X can take care of itself. If the content of a thread is bothering you so much it feels like you’re being dragged down then why are read / participate on it? Find a thread that’s more uplifting instead.

    If you think particular posting behaviours would be more helpful to the tenor of the conversation then that starts you. Ignore people who are attempting to yank your chain with snarky comments or cheap one liners. Be the change you want to be and all that. And stop expecting the Crew to do all the heavy lifting for you.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    ... and then some idiot Shipmate

    Speaking of nasty.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    Oh and this is for Ship’s Business. Hell is available if you just want to score points off each other.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Tubbs wrote: »
    Whilst I accept that online communication may have become blunter, I think some of this boils down to wanting to be able to dish it out whilst not having to take it in return. Because Commandment 5 is for other people ...

    Which specific posts give you that impression?
  • Ruth wrote: »
    ... and then some idiot Shipmate

    Speaking of nasty.

    Yes. I apologise.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    .... And more to the point, on the Ship we aren't dealing with generalities but with individuals. 'Americans are individualistic' may help me predict what policies are likely to win elections, but I can't rely on it as a principle when talking to any individual American. And on this forum, we are talking to individual Americans, not to Generic America.

    But generally we aren't discussing those same individuals, at least not in Purgatory.

    We kind of are. I mean, a statement of the type 'Tories are X' may be intended to describe the overall effects of Tory behaviour in the aggregate, but if an actual Tory is posting, obviously they are going to take it as being about them as an individual, because apart from anything else, the expectation is that they will either defend Toryism or repent in sackcloth and ashes in the face of their Shipmates' rhetorical brilliance.
    If a Tory is aprt of the argument, then why the hell wouldn't they defend the position or state their disagreement with it? Why are they are part of the discussion if they aren't discussing?

    ??????????

    I never said that they wouldn't or shouldn't discuss anything.

    My point is that if I post 'Tories are X', any Tory in the discussion will naturally take this as applicable to them, and therefore, even if my comment was intended as a generality, it will be treated as though it was applicable to them as individuals. So the argument that we're discussing generalities, not individuals doesn't really stand up with respect to any individual on the Ship.
    Not seeing why this should be. The Ship uses normal rules of conversation and generalities are normal.
    There are subject of discussion that are attacks on the existence of groups of people, but the Ship allows them in order to have a discussion on those subjects.
    And yet we are supposed to curtail normal speech because people might take offence?
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    .... And more to the point, on the Ship we aren't dealing with generalities but with individuals. 'Americans are individualistic' may help me predict what policies are likely to win elections, but I can't rely on it as a principle when talking to any individual American. And on this forum, we are talking to individual Americans, not to Generic America.

    But generally we aren't discussing those same individuals, at least not in Purgatory.

    We kind of are. I mean, a statement of the type 'Tories are X' may be intended to describe the overall effects of Tory behaviour in the aggregate, but if an actual Tory is posting, obviously they are going to take it as being about them as an individual, because apart from anything else, the expectation is that they will either defend Toryism or repent in sackcloth and ashes in the face of their Shipmates' rhetorical brilliance.
    If a Tory is aprt of the argument, then why the hell wouldn't they defend the position or state their disagreement with it? Why are they are part of the discussion if they aren't discussing?

    ??????????

    I never said that they wouldn't or shouldn't discuss anything.

    My point is that if I post 'Tories are X', any Tory in the discussion will naturally take this as applicable to them, and therefore, even if my comment was intended as a generality, it will be treated as though it was applicable to them as individuals. So the argument that we're discussing generalities, not individuals doesn't really stand up with respect to any individual on the Ship.
    Not seeing why this should be. The Ship uses normal rules of conversation and generalities are normal.

    Yes. And if I says 'X are Y' and Bob is a member of X, it's normal for Bob to see this as applicable to himself.

    You might think people shouldn't do this, but they do. Because it's normal.
    There are subject of discussion that are attacks on the existence of groups of people, but the Ship allows them in order to have a discussion on those subjects.

    Only on one specific board. Just as there is only one specific board where posters are allowed to make direct attacks on individuals.
    And yet we are supposed to curtail normal speech because people might take offence?

    For a start I'm not convinced it is normal when the people you are generalising about are sitting in the room with you. If I was sitting in a bar with a Chinese friend, I wouldn't start blithely making assertions about 'Chinese people do X', even if those assertions are entirely defensible - not because he might take offence, but because it's bloody presumptuous.

    Secondly I'm not bothered about people taking offence, but about the Ship becoming an echo chamber. If people who posted from outside the Ship's Overton window* took offence but continued to post, I wouldn't see an issue.


    * Thanks to @Doublethink for that insight.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The Ship uses normal rules of conversation and generalities are normal.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    No one talks like that.
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    That’s an absolutely ridiculous assertion. People talk like that all the time.

    I think this is the point. There is no one set of normal rules of conversation.

    The kinds of generalities we’re talking about are totally normal language for some people. But for other people they stick out as rude and dismissive, especially if they’re in the group being generalised.

    So the generalisers just want the generalised to see the context and read as intended, and the generalised want the generalisers to stop generalising...

    Maybe the generalisers should do their best to be more specific with their language, AND the generalised should do their best to read as intended? You know, meet half-way?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Doesn't mean generalities are above criticism, lilBuddha. Like any statement in any post.In fact Ruth and I agree that there is a category of unfair generalisation. As I've said and Tubbs has said, following the discussion we see no reason to make a rules change about it.

    So feel free to generalise and be prepared to receive criticism if Shipmates don't like what you've said.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    My point is that if I post 'Tories are X', any Tory in the discussion will naturally take this as applicable to them, and therefore, even if my comment was intended as a generality, it will be treated as though it was applicable to them as individuals. So the argument that we're discussing generalities, not individuals doesn't really stand up with respect to any individual on the Ship.

    Exactly.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    There's a bit of an enthymeme going on here.

    Normal conversation involves generalizations.
    You want to restrict rude and dismissive generalizations
    Therefore: you don't want normal conversation.

    Notice what gets left out of the conclusion? What isn't being acknowledged? What some interlocutors here won't acknowledge even exists?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Doesn't mean generalities are above criticism, lilBuddha.
    Never said, or meant to imply, that they were.
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    So feel free to generalise and be prepared to receive criticism if Shipmates don't like what you've said.
    More than happy to discuss any generalisation I make.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Maybe the generalisers should do their best to be more specific with their language, AND the generalised should do their best to read as intended? You know, meet half-way?
    Being more specific is more than half-way. Half way would be to take care in making generalisations and the generalised doing their best to read as intended.
    However, the sticking point is when poster A feels the generalisation is apt and poster B does not. The conversation probably won't change that and poster B will probably still feel offended. So often it is not the generalisation, but the idea itself.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    That's a good place for me to leave this thread. I started it to explore Hosting options which might help prevent the place becoming an exclusive echo chamber. The discussion has clarified for me that there aren't any good options down that road. Thanks to all contributors.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Doesn't mean generalities are above criticism, lilBuddha.
    Never said, or meant to imply, that they were.
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    So feel free to generalise and be prepared to receive criticism if Shipmates don't like what you've said.
    More than happy to discuss any generalisation I make.

    :killingme:
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    Is there a substantive difference between generalisations using a singular subject:

    "Britain doesn't value multilinguilism";

    and a plural subject:

    "Brits don't value multilinguilism"?

    The former seems to announce "sweeping generalisation ahead; please don't wear the cap if it doesn't fit you" far more than the latter.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Doesn't mean generalities are above criticism, lilBuddha.
    Never said, or meant to imply, that they were.
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    So feel free to generalise and be prepared to receive criticism if Shipmates don't like what you've said.
    More than happy to discuss any generalisation I make.

    :killingme:

    Take it to Hell or drop it.

    Tubbs
    Styx Hosting
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Is there a substantive difference between generalisations using a singular subject:

    "Britain doesn't value multilinguilism";

    and a plural subject:

    "Brits don't value multilinguilism"?

    The former seems to announce "sweeping generalisation ahead; please don't wear the cap if it doesn't fit you" far more than the latter.

    That resonates with me.
  • Me too. It’s interesting that in the UK, with the use of “Tories” for the Conservatives, the generalisation works differently to Labour.

    In usage, “Labour” would usually refer to the party, and “Labour voters” to the public. But “Tories” could refer to either party or public. The ambiguity isn’t there with Labour. “Conservatives” would refer to the party, as with “Labour”.

    “You’re a Tory” might mean the person is a Conservative voter, or a Conservative politician.

    We’ve had “Corbynites” as a term / perjorative recently, though, which has the same ambiguity.

    In the US, “Republicans” and “Democrats” can also refer to party or public, which is why unqualified generalisations can be problematic.

    @lilbuddha, in a compromise, everyone always thinks they’ve compromised more. As far as I can see, using “The Republican Party” or “Republican voters” to make one's language more specific really isn’t a huge ask.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Something I'm thinking about and will throw out there, for what it's worth, and people can make of it what they will, is that a sort of equivalent to a cultural difference happens not only with people from different countries, but also with people from the same country whose brains work in different ways. Being on the autism spectrum in a largely neurotypical world is sometimes thus seen as a sort of culture clash.

    I mention this because people on the autism spectrum are often over-represented on online discussion boards, as written discussion can be more natural than spoken, and so we have quite a few of us here. And one of the defining aspects of autism, which has been studied in detail in the research, is that the brain doesn't automatically/easily generalise in the way that non-autistic people's brains do.

    Generalisation is a way people make sense of the world - people do it in all sorts of ways they're not aware of. Think of how Temple Grandin explains her autism by saying that when someone says the word 'steeple', she doesn't have a generalised steeple in her mind, but she thinks of every single steeple she has ever seen - they all flash through her mind. Not all autistic people are visual thinkers, of course, but the same sort of thing can happen for non-visual things. It is something I do for all sorts of things - rather than have an overall generalisation in my mind, I have all sorts of specific examples in my mind that lead to a conclusion. Autistic thinking (which isn't wrong - just different) tends to start with the specifics and lead to a tentative generalisation. Non-autistic/neurotypical thinking is apparently the other way around. Seeing the big, generalised picture first, and then moving to specifics.

    So, possibly, many of the people in favour of generalisations have a different brain wiring to many of those arguing against them. I would tentatively suggest that both ways have their strengths and weaknesses, neither is right or wrong, or superior or inferior. And so rather than mock each other for having a different way of seeing things, maybe respect this, and keep it in mind. On both sides. Some people are more inclined to speak in generalisations. Others more in specifics.
  • An example to throw into the mix. I've often seen it posted on the Ship that Tory voters do not support the NHS, or they wouldn't vote the way they do. The ones I've spoken to definitely do support it, but they think you need a strong economy to afford it, and that the Conservatives have better economic policies.

    (I disagree with them about economic competence, and I don't think the NHS is safe in Tory hands personally.)
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    It is the very nature of a generalization that it is understood, or should be, that it does not apply to every individual within the group.

    Eh?

    This reads as saying that a generalization is nothing more than an excuse for being lazy about constructing sentences properly to convey the intended meaning.

    And that anyone who is subjected to a generalization ought to do the work of the author for them.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    There's a bit of an enthymeme going on here.

    Normal conversation involves generalizations.
    You want to restrict rude and dismissive generalizations
    Therefore: you don't want normal conversation.

    Notice what gets left out of the conclusion? What isn't being acknowledged? What some interlocutors here won't acknowledge even exists?

    I'm going with: the existence of generalizations that aren't rude or dismissive.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Barnabas62:: Do Shipmates see a need to change these standards as a means of encouraging a more diverse membership?

    Kwesi:Decidedly, yes. I don't think it's simply a question of attracting a greater diversity of contributor, but of the regulars expressing themselves without recourse to the kind of language that would be inappropriate in any civilised conversation, let alone under Christian auspices. Verbal abuse is of its nature designed to be both disrespectful and and intimidatory. It has no place on this ship, whatever backgrounds we Old Salts hail from.

    Barnabas62: Kwesi, may I clarify? We have always defined verbal abuse as an attack on a person, not as a criticism of an opinion. Strongly worded criticisms of opinions have always been allowed here. Do you think that distinction is wrong for some reason? And if so, how would you correct Commandment 3, or its enforcement by Hosts?

    Sorry to be late in replying, Barnabas62. Reflecting on your request I don't think my observation falls within the area of new rule making. I suppose what I'm seeking is an earlier intervention by the host to cool a tone which relies on heated language as opposed to force of argument. Indeed, the two are mostly inversely proportional. I can put up with bar-room expressions, but I don't like them, and am inclined to withdraw from debates conducted in such terms. If the question relates to attracting new contributors, I would not be attracted by the language of some of the exchanges for fear of being treated in a similar manner. While I welcome the use of avatars they should not be a license to ignore common decencies the person would normally employ in person.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Is there a substantive difference between generalisations using a singular subject:

    "Britain doesn't value multilinguilism";

    and a plural subject:

    "Brits don't value multilinguilism"?

    The former seems to announce "sweeping generalisation ahead; please don't wear the cap if it doesn't fit you" far more than the latter.
    They are not exactly different things. But even allowing for perceptual differences, Brits are a different category than Tories. The set of responsibilities varies, and is more variable, for the first and being one is less voluntary.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    fineline wrote: »
    Something I'm thinking about and will throw out there, for what it's worth, and people can make of it what they will, is that a sort of equivalent to a cultural difference happens not only with people from different countries, but also with people from the same country whose brains work in different ways. Being on the autism spectrum in a largely neurotypical world is sometimes thus seen as a sort of culture clash.

    I mention this because people on the autism spectrum are often over-represented on online discussion boards, as written discussion can be more natural than spoken, and so we have quite a few of us here. And one of the defining aspects of autism, which has been studied in detail in the research, is that the brain doesn't automatically/easily generalise in the way that non-autistic people's brains do.
    This is the first argument that gives me pause. Though I would point out that more than one of those arguing against generalisation here are not on the spectrum, it is still a valid consideration.

    fineline wrote: »
    So, possibly, many of the people in favour of generalisations have a different brain wiring to many of those arguing against them. I would tentatively suggest that both ways have their strengths and weaknesses, neither is right or wrong, or superior or inferior. And so rather than mock each other for having a different way of seeing things, maybe respect this, and keep it in mind. On both sides. Some people are more inclined to speak in generalisations. Others more in specifics.
    To be clear, I am not mocking people who see things differently. I will admit to not respecting the idea that generalisations are an anomaly in typical speech, but people who process differently are something that I would not intentionally mock or show disrespect.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    You know all this is covered in the commandments by 'Don't be a jerk'. No really.

    Horrible things are happening in our societies today. Tempers are fraying. If you want to say 'All Xs are bastards!' when you know other shipmates are Xs, then there may be some personal reason of extreme pain/loss for you doing it, there may be some horrible injustice which has broken your heart, but if there isn't and you went and said it quite casually on some non-Hell board, then be honest, you were probably being a bit of a jerk.

    If you want to say all Xs are bastards - the Hell board is your friend.

    If you're posting elsewhere, even if you're sure all Xs are bastards - you're talking to Xs - how persuasive do you think you are being when you word your arguments this way, never mind anything else? And I say this as someone with a horrible temper myself who is prone to such things - it pricks at me because I know I do it. It's easy in such times to be all too much Ms Zeal-For-The-Cause and if other people get hurt, serves them right.

    But - the hosts cannot undo all the damage that is done if people insist on being jerks to other people here. It's corrosive.

    I know how the civility argument can be abused ('But I was civil when I told that person their child should have been euthanised - I said euthanised not 'put down' - how dare they swear at me! Such bad language!) People can hide behind it while saying appalling things, but that still doesn't free us all from the responsibility to think about how we are treating other people here.

    Don't leave it all to the hosts. Do your bit. Ask yourself if your blunderbuss attack was really necessary. If it went too far - apologise. If you can't leave it alone - take it off to Hell where people are signed up for brawling. If you see someone blasting away at others with the blunderbuss - take them up on it. Especially step in and pipe up if it's someone from your own 'tribe' being unfair to others - that helps to set norms. And bear in mind that in these days of deaths and economic ruin, people are hurting and may tell you to stick civility where the sun don't shine and that doesn't make them bad people.

    I don't think a new hosting guideline will solve anything - we've already got a good guideline for everyone. How about we all do a bit of self-reflection and a bit of the work?

    (These are purely my personal views and not those of the management!)
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    Something I'm thinking about and will throw out there, for what it's worth, and people can make of it what they will, is that a sort of equivalent to a cultural difference happens not only with people from different countries, but also with people from the same country whose brains work in different ways. Being on the autism spectrum in a largely neurotypical world is sometimes thus seen as a sort of culture clash.

    I mention this because people on the autism spectrum are often over-represented on online discussion boards, as written discussion can be more natural than spoken, and so we have quite a few of us here. And one of the defining aspects of autism, which has been studied in detail in the research, is that the brain doesn't automatically/easily generalise in the way that non-autistic people's brains do.
    This is the first argument that gives me pause. Though I would point out that more than one of those arguing against generalisation here are not on the spectrum, it is still a valid consideration.

    I would point out in return that you may not always know who is or isn't on the spectrum. Not everyone shares such things. Not everyone may even be aware of it themselves.

    And I would also point out that I myself, in my wording, very specifically allowed for the fact that not everyone arguing against generalisation will necessarily be on the spectrum, and similarly not everyone arguing for generalisation will necessarily be neurotypical. To suggest otherwise would be a crude and unhelpful generalisation (from my perspective, at least - but interesting to see you also are keen here to ensure that such a sweeping generalisation isn't made!). It is possible to talk about trends and influences and 'People in this group are more likely to hold this view/approach, for this reason' without saying 'All these people think this way, and all those people think that way!'

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I will admit to not respecting the idea that generalisations are an anomaly in typical speech,

    But absolutely no-one has said that.

    My claim is that if I say 'X are Y', and Bob, a member of X, is part of the conversation, then Bob is likely to take my remark as having a personal application - and that this should inform the way we use generalisations.

    You seem to be saying that Bob couldn't possibly interpret it that way or would be completely unreasonable if he did.

    All I can say on that point is to draw your attention to relevance theory in linguistics, which states, more or less, that people do assume that things said to them are relevant to them.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I will admit to not respecting the idea that generalisations are an anomaly in typical speech,

    But absolutely no-one has said that.
    It has sure as hell has been implied.

    My claim is that if I say 'X are Y', and Bob, a member of X, is part of the conversation, then Bob is likely to take my remark as having a personal application - and that this should inform the way we use generalisations.
    Ricardus wrote: »
    You seem to be saying that Bob couldn't possibly interpret it that way or would be completely unreasonable if he did.
    Everything is possible and often an interpretation is unreasonable.
    One of my biggest irritations on SOF is when long-time members interpret posts in a way that is contrary to the poster's established history. It is unreasonable to do so.
    It is just as unreasonable to assume that a generalisation is personally directed.
    Ricardus wrote: »
    All I can say on that point is to draw your attention to relevance theory in linguistics, which states, more or less, that people do assume that things said to them are relevant to them.
    Because some people assume things are relevant to them does not obviate the responsibility of the assumer to understand that not everything is.
    Especially on a discussion board.
    I'm not saying that the generaliser assumes no responsibility, responsibility is shared.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    fineline wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    Something I'm thinking about and will throw out there, for what it's worth, and people can make of it what they will, is that a sort of equivalent to a cultural difference happens not only with people from different countries, but also with people from the same country whose brains work in different ways. Being on the autism spectrum in a largely neurotypical world is sometimes thus seen as a sort of culture clash.

    I mention this because people on the autism spectrum are often over-represented on online discussion boards, as written discussion can be more natural than spoken, and so we have quite a few of us here. And one of the defining aspects of autism, which has been studied in detail in the research, is that the brain doesn't automatically/easily generalise in the way that non-autistic people's brains do.
    This is the first argument that gives me pause. Though I would point out that more than one of those arguing against generalisation here are not on the spectrum, it is still a valid consideration.

    I would point out in return that you may not always know who is or isn't on the spectrum. Not everyone shares such things. Not everyone may even be aware of it themselves.
    All true. I do not rely on disclosure, but on how people interact and describe their interactions. This is not available with everyone of course, because some people do not describe their personal lives and I could be incorrect in my analysis. My in person observations tend to be pretty good, online offers more challenges.
    fineline wrote: »
    And I would also point out that I myself, in my wording, very specifically allowed for the fact that not everyone arguing against generalisation will necessarily be on the spectrum, and similarly not everyone arguing for generalisation will necessarily be neurotypical. To suggest otherwise would be a crude and unhelpful generalisation (from my perspective, at least - but interesting to see you also are keen here to ensure that such a sweeping generalisation isn't made!).
    I'm not quite as pro generalisation as my arguments might appear. I object to the idea that are not a normal part of speech and the generalisation that generalisations and not sometimes perfectly appropriate.
    But yes, sometimes they are the incorrect choice.
    fineline wrote: »
    It is possible to talk about trends and influences and 'People in this group are more likely to hold this view/approach, for this reason' without saying 'All these people think this way, and all those people think that way!'
    My objection to this is generalisations do not say 'all of these people' and, for some groups,* differences of internal opinion don't matter if the group decision doesn't change. Nor does voting for one reason obviate the result of the party platform.

    *Specifically chosen groups like political parties
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Kwesi

    Returning back briefly to say that Hosts can and do intervene if they feel debates are getting Hellishly hot. But our usual standard is to be content with them getting heated.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Louise wrote: »
    (These are purely my personal views and not those of the management!)

    Personally, they're damn good personal views.

  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...It is just as unreasonable to assume that a generalisation is personally directed. ...
    Why do you think that?


  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    Hmm. Yes, what exactly is the point of a generalisation about a group, consisting of people, if you don't expect anyone to think that the generalisation is relevant to the people who make up that group?

    Otherwise, it's either an admission that the generalisation is wrong and shouldn't have been applied, or some sort of declaration that a group of people isn't made up of people.

    And I think this is also pertinent to the question of the difference in tone between talking about 'Britain' and talking about 'Brits'. Because in fact 'Britain' is not a group at all, it is a geographical and political entity.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Back in the day when people made an asshole generalization in the presence of somebody in the group they were slanging, they added "present company excepted." It's a dick move, equivalent to "but you're not like other black people."

    It's just as assholic to make the asshole generalization and leave the "present company excepted" part out.
  • I disagree with much of what Marvin is saying on the Coronavirus thread, but I also think many of the responses to him are problematic in the same sort of way as the generalisations discussed above. Technically, they are not personal attacks owing to word choice - but the impression left in your head is of posters repeatedly telling one person he is a selfish bastard who will get people killed.

    (I literally checked the thread to ensure I hadn’t got it confused with the hell thread.)
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    Hmm. Yes, what exactly is the point of a generalisation about a group, consisting of people, if you don't expect anyone to think that the generalisation is relevant to the people who make up that group?

    Otherwise, it's either an admission that the generalisation is wrong and shouldn't have been applied, or some sort of declaration that a group of people isn't made up of people.

    And I think this is also pertinent to the question of the difference in tone between talking about 'Britain' and talking about 'Brits'. Because in fact 'Britain' is not a group at all, it is a geographical and political entity.
    The point of a generalisation is to talks about the group's behaviour, not individuals within the group. Psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, physics, etc. all study group behaviour (aka generalisation)
    Britain can mean the geopolitical entity or it can mean the British people.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    @orfeo Here are generalizations you have recently made:
    You can't say that they're more vulnerable unless you wait until the virus has finished sweeping through places like South America, sub-Saharan Africa and Russia where infection is now accelerating, and assess the end result. (here)

    South America, sub-Saharan Africa and Russia are all large expanses, and South America encompasses such places as French Guiana (1 death), the Falkland Islands (0 deaths), and Suriname (1 death). But despite the fact that South American, sub-Saharan Africa and Russia are vast expanses, and despite the fact that it's possible some places within them will get off lightly, your generalization is valid.
    Current Australian view is that constitutionally, we need people to be in the chamber. (here)

    It can't possibly be that every single Australian thinks you need people to be in the chamber. This professor of constitutional law at the University of Sidney certainly thinks the Australian parliament can and should meet virtually. But what you say is the prevailing Australian view, so this generalization is valid.
    It's one of the great flaws of modern society/social media that people constantly assume the only two options on everything are For and Against. (here)

    Here you're discussing all of modern society and social media and "people," i.e., everyone, when you know not everyone does this. It's a generalization that describes a common trait, and no one objected because we recognize the truth of it.

    So unless you're prepared to stop making generalizations yourself, you're on shaky ground here.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    I think you could probably find generalisations used by pretty much everyone who is complaining about them. They are that ubiquitous.
  • goperryrevsgoperryrevs Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    I think there’s a lot of talking past each other here.

    I don’t think anyone is blanket complaining about all and any generalisations, but about how some generalisations are used sometimes.

    None of the generalisations that @orfeo used in @Ruth’s post are likely to cause offence or irritate anybody.

    Some generalisations do though.

    I also don’t think that anyone’s been arguing that generalisations are not part of normal conversation.

    However, some people are more loose in their generalisations than others, and if that’s coupled with what essentially seems to be vilifying a group that someone else is part of, then that will upset them.

    If we don’t want to upset other people then we should consider how we use language. There’s nuance from the choice of certain phrasings, and it isn’t that complicated to see why.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    There is nuance in reading phrasings. IMO, there is at least as much problem from that side as the other.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    I think there’s a lot of talking past each other here.

    I don’t think anyone is blanket complaining about all and any generalisations, but about how some generalisations are used sometimes.
    That is what is implied by some of the arguments, especially those claiming that generalisations are not part of normal conversation.

    If they meant what you say, the argument would be "Generalisations are used, but care should be taking in using them." If that were the position taken by everyone, this discussion would have been over already.
  • goperryrevsgoperryrevs Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    That is what is implied by some of the arguments, especially those claiming that generalisations are not part of normal conversation.
    Personally I haven’t interpreted any posts as saying that generalisations are not part of normal conversation, hence the “talking past each other” comment.
    lilbuddha wrote: »

    If they meant what you say, the argument would be "Generalisations are used, but care should be taking in using them." If that were the position taken by everyone, this discussion would have been over already.
    I think that’s exactly the proposal, which is why people have discussed different similar phrasings and the impressions they give to people who are part of a group they refer to.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Literally nobody on this thread has said we shouldn't use generalizations.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    Ruth wrote: »
    @orfeo Here are generalizations you have recently made:
    You can't say that they're more vulnerable unless you wait until the virus has finished sweeping through places like South America, sub-Saharan Africa and Russia where infection is now accelerating, and assess the end result. (here)

    South America, sub-Saharan Africa and Russia are all large expanses, and South America encompasses such places as French Guiana (1 death), the Falkland Islands (0 deaths), and Suriname (1 death). But despite the fact that South American, sub-Saharan Africa and Russia are vast expanses, and despite the fact that it's possible some places within them will get off lightly, your generalization is valid.
    Current Australian view is that constitutionally, we need people to be in the chamber. (here)

    It can't possibly be that every single Australian thinks you need people to be in the chamber. This professor of constitutional law at the University of Sidney certainly thinks the Australian parliament can and should meet virtually. But what you say is the prevailing Australian view, so this generalization is valid.
    It's one of the great flaws of modern society/social media that people constantly assume the only two options on everything are For and Against. (here)

    Here you're discussing all of modern society and social media and "people," i.e., everyone, when you know not everyone does this. It's a generalization that describes a common trait, and no one objected because we recognize the truth of it.

    So unless you're prepared to stop making generalizations yourself, you're on shaky ground here.

    Sigh. Do you really want to do this?

    1. The first generalisation is not remotely about a group of people, but geographical regions where it can be seen that coronavirus cases are increasing. Damn right it's valid.

    2. 'Current Australian view' refers to the view that the Australian Parliament is currently acting on.

    3. So sue me.

    I feel quite fine about the ground I'm on, thanks. The fact that you can't understand the problem we're discussing is how Shipmates feel about generalisations that are directed towards membership of groups they might be a part of, well that's part of the problem.
Sign In or Register to comment.