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)
No, they study behaviour within groups. The group itself does not have behaviour.
And people working within those professions understand quite well how to frame things in a way that doesn't read as if presenting a hard and fast rule to apply each and every individual member of the group.
I feel the need to say I'm less than impressed with the attempt to trawl through my posting history in an attempt to dredge up generalisations. An attempt that at best produced me talking about 'people'.
Really? Do we want to make the argument that personal, given that the point of this issue is whether or not folks take things personally?
Should I now be trawling through the posting history of people who are taking a different view to me, in order to dissect what they've said? I suppose I can least personally identify who it was who decided this was a suitable tactic. But why bother? You can all see who did it.
I thought we were trying to discuss a principle here. Not whether or not any particularly individual (me or anyone else) can be found to have perfectly lived up to that principle.
Claiming that a principle I'm in favour of can be negated by finding examples where I didn't apply the principle is frankly an arsehole move. And one that appears to have backfired in any case because it seems that the examples miss the mark. But even if it had worked, it's an arsehole move. It's like claiming that only a teetotaller can discuss the downsides of alcohol consumption.
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)
No, they study behaviour within groups. The group itself does not have behaviour.
They study the patterns of groups themselves as well. X group in Y situation will do C. Groups do indeed have behaviour. Fluid dynamics literally studies groups of particles, not so much the individual particles themselves. Fluid dynamics works with all sorts of groups, including people. It cannot predict the behaviour of a given individual person, but it can predict the behaviour of the group. All the other dsiciplines I mention work the same way.
And people working within those professions understand quite well how to frame things in a way that doesn't read as if presenting a hard and fast rule to apply each and every individual member of the group.
When writing a white paper, or other such document, one should spell out the parameters. That isn't the dynamic involved in the discussions we have on the Ship.
Surely there's a well established rule that, if a certain wording offends some people it should be avoided? Isn't that what we're talking about here?
Yes, please. For example, I am a Gay man, not a 'fag', not a 'poofter'. My neighbors are Polish, not 'Pollacks'. My bishop is my bishop, not a 'Lady Bishop'. I am a man in my 70's, not a 'Geezer'. And so on. I do not think it needs to be more complicated than that, and how succintly you put it: if a word offends someone, it should be avoided.
I guess I'd call that simple kindness towards the other. ISTM that it does take attention and, perhaps, some amount of intention -- simply that I can find a way to disagree but state it with kindness, not insistence on agreement.
Geezer. Thank you for the example. In the US, geezer means old person. In (parts of) the UK, it is the rough equivalent of dude. Contextual. Like generalisations.
Conversely, people perhaps should not be too quick to take offence when a word is used in innocence, especially where its meaning varies across cultures. For instance, many years ago and when I was single I wanted to compliment my American boss's wife for the warm welcome she had given me into her family. I said she was "homely" which - to her - meant that I thought she was fat! (She was, as it happens). We had a laugh about it, but it's harder to correct such misunderstandings online.
I said she was "homely" which - to her - meant that I thought she was fat!
In most of the U.S., it means that someone is not very attractive. I am not aware of there being an overtone of being overweight, but that may vary with region.
Well, exactly! If we avoid the short cut words ("geezer", "homely" "fag") that have varying meaning and spend the time to describe what we mean, would we not be better off? And if the word used in innocence is found offensive can we not simply respond "I prefer we use ........." without going nuclear on each other? Then we are, I think, communicating respectfully..... which is all I have been hoping for.
Word usage changes the flavour of a conversation. One thing I struggle with online is a natural conversational tone. My tone tends to feel much more harsh than it is often meant.
There is no neutral in conversion without context in a typed conversation. Probably any converasion, but typed has less inherent context.
Yes, so true.... I type, I edit, I re-edit..... vocal conversation with immediate friends offers opportunity for quick clarification of the tone. Written is hampered by lack of vocal nuance and, in matters here on the Ship, often hampered by a delay of a day or more, and influenced by intervening comments by others. Yikes!
On the whole we do a great job, but those other days...... And therein is some of the challenege inherent in this medium -- Someone may post a comment.... several others comment on that comment...... even just one day later any of us are challenged as to which comment to address, knowing perhaps that what we write may be addressing someone's comments of two days previous, but may be read, or misread, by those intervening readers. Yikes again!
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.
Which is my point. Some generalizations are valid.
2. 'Current Australian view' refers to the view that the Australian Parliament is currently acting on.
Again, this is my point. You said "Australian" instead of "Australian Parliament," despite having argued against the common use of "Canberra" to refer to the government.
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.
I understand how Shipmates feel about unfair sweeping generalizations, having been included in them more than once. But you argued against generalizations across the board, which is a different problem.
I feel the need to say I'm less than impressed with the attempt to trawl through my posting history in an attempt to dredge up generalisations. An attempt that at best produced me talking about 'people'.
"People" is about as sweeping a generalization one can make about, well, people.
Claiming that a principle I'm in favour of can be negated by finding examples where I didn't apply the principle is frankly an arsehole move. And one that appears to have backfired in any case because it seems that the examples miss the mark. But even if it had worked, it's an arsehole move. It's like claiming that only a teetotaller can discuss the downsides of alcohol consumption.
Frankly, arguing against something you have done multiple times is an arsehole move, and it undermines your argument considerably.
Almost everyone uses generalisations, most only complain when the generalisations include themselves.
Sometimes they are correct in assuming the generalisation is being used unfairly, sometimes they are not. And sometimes it is ambiguous.
Positing generalisations as lazy thinking is not explicitly saying they should never be used, but it is pretty bloody close.
Pretty sure the referenced post falls inside the parameters of my last post.
If @lilbuddha and @orfeo can be bothered to continue this personal argument, then Hell is available. Because it stopped being anything to do with Ship's business several posts ago.
Generalizations are a very important part of communication. Seldom does a generalization mean every member of a group but rather a generalization about the behaviour of a large portion of a group. I have had groups I am a member of generalized often. In most cases there is a kernel of truth in the generalization. Some generalizations are pejorative and others are not and the former should be addressed when they appear since they probably break one of the commandments.
Comments
No, they study behaviour within groups. The group itself does not have behaviour.
And people working within those professions understand quite well how to frame things in a way that doesn't read as if presenting a hard and fast rule to apply each and every individual member of the group.
Really? Do we want to make the argument that personal, given that the point of this issue is whether or not folks take things personally?
Should I now be trawling through the posting history of people who are taking a different view to me, in order to dissect what they've said? I suppose I can least personally identify who it was who decided this was a suitable tactic. But why bother? You can all see who did it.
I thought we were trying to discuss a principle here. Not whether or not any particularly individual (me or anyone else) can be found to have perfectly lived up to that principle.
Claiming that a principle I'm in favour of can be negated by finding examples where I didn't apply the principle is frankly an arsehole move. And one that appears to have backfired in any case because it seems that the examples miss the mark. But even if it had worked, it's an arsehole move. It's like claiming that only a teetotaller can discuss the downsides of alcohol consumption.
When writing a white paper, or other such document, one should spell out the parameters. That isn't the dynamic involved in the discussions we have on the Ship.
Yes, please. For example, I am a Gay man, not a 'fag', not a 'poofter'. My neighbors are Polish, not 'Pollacks'. My bishop is my bishop, not a 'Lady Bishop'. I am a man in my 70's, not a 'Geezer'. And so on. I do not think it needs to be more complicated than that, and how succintly you put it: if a word offends someone, it should be avoided.
I guess I'd call that simple kindness towards the other. ISTM that it does take attention and, perhaps, some amount of intention -- simply that I can find a way to disagree but state it with kindness, not insistence on agreement.
In most of the U.S., it means that someone is not very attractive. I am not aware of there being an overtone of being overweight, but that may vary with region.
There is no neutral in conversion without context in a typed conversation. Probably any converasion, but typed has less inherent context.
On the whole we do a great job, but those other days...... And therein is some of the challenege inherent in this medium -- Someone may post a comment.... several others comment on that comment...... even just one day later any of us are challenged as to which comment to address, knowing perhaps that what we write may be addressing someone's comments of two days previous, but may be read, or misread, by those intervening readers. Yikes again!
Again, this is my point. You said "Australian" instead of "Australian Parliament," despite having argued against the common use of "Canberra" to refer to the government.
I understand how Shipmates feel about unfair sweeping generalizations, having been included in them more than once. But you argued against generalizations across the board, which is a different problem.
"People" is about as sweeping a generalization one can make about, well, people.
Frankly, arguing against something you have done multiple times is an arsehole move, and it undermines your argument considerably.
Sometimes they are correct in assuming the generalisation is being used unfairly, sometimes they are not. And sometimes it is ambiguous.
I read that as a disagreement about the nature of generalisations and how they’re used - not saying that no-one should ever use them.
But I’m sure @orfeo can speak for himself.
Pretty sure the referenced post falls inside the parameters of my last post.
Orfeo frankly can't be fucking bothered.
All of which points towards my original “talking past each other” post.
Tubbs
Styx Host
But I'm done with the topic because it's VERY clear that the actual discussion of the principle is not going to get anywhere.
It would make a great Purg thread with the right OP.
Agreed that continuing this here is pointless, but there is no animus in my argument with orfeo on this.
Perception is a bugger, innit.