Is your argument that scientists are not people, or that scientists are incapable of pushing their opinions on others?

Because people push opinions on others, scientists or not. In fact, using evidence to argue for a certain type of philosophy or belief IS "pushing an opinion" - opinions are not bad if they're true, and popularizing true opinions is the entire goal of public education.

In short, your distinction is not, and it is meaningless even if it could be.

That's the thing with generalizations - they're simplified models with imprecision, not necessarily wrong. And if someone uses a generalization like "all people who use generalizations are irrational and wrong", that tells you something about their own reasoning capability.

"If".

Yes, in that's a general statement about what all Americans are doing. But to say that it makes "Americans live in America" wrong is not quite right, either.

Wiki claims that American diaspora is estimated at 3~6 million. Out of an American population of 300 mil, that's 1~2%. So "Americans live in America" is 98% true. If you want to say the statement is wrong, it's 2% wrong, 98% right.

If you're going to try to force people to always say "the majority of American live in America" or "98% of Americans live in America" instead of "Americans live in America" every time it comes up, you're being pedantic for the heck of it.

Generalization is necessary to communication. Every topic has a nigh infinite number of details, and the choice of which level to discuss it at is arbitrary.

My point is that it is justifiable to use generalizations when they are true, or mostly true. I used an inane generalization just to get something that would be 100% correct, or close to it. The existence of manboobs does not change whether or not the statement "Women have boobs" is a generalization.

Cats don't have boobs, though they do have mammaries. Bad generalization of boobs you used there. If you got that one thing wrong, do we need to disqualify 100% of what you say?

Because if we applied the "modern feminists are not rational => generalization => bigot => irrational => IGNORE" chain of logic, apparently yes.

No, not oppressed.

That girl-favoring standards exist outside of college classrooms, such that people don't even bat an eye at phrases that wouldn't be acceptable after a quick search and replace.

Wouldn't fly in the community I hung out with, but fair enough. Odd for a guy to be wearing 3 shirts, though.

Doesn't prove the point I was arguing against though - which claimed women are hugely oppressed outside a feminist classroom, which balances out any shenanigans inside the feminist classroom.

I think we're talking about force in different senses. You're talking about the opinion holder forcing someone to agree with him.

I'm talking about the opinion hearer feeling a force to agree with the opinion because it's true (reflects reality). The conflict involved in cognitive dissonance has a type of force exerted by the two competing beliefs.

However, it is unfair to blame that "violence" (cog. dissonance) on the person who shared the opinion; the problem is the original expected belief that contradicted reality, and reality will correct that sooner or later.

You found that someone is willing to sell those T-shirts on the Internet. Okay.

Now where did you see a guy wearing those shirts in a public setting? Did he trigger any controversy? The girl I mentioned did not.

Read carefully. What was his experience with feminist professors?

So I stated those generalizations. Did that make me irrational and incapable of discussion?

Generalizing is part of abstraction and understanding big picture relationships. That you can nitpick it does not make it wrong. If you used the fact that you personally lived outside the US to claim that Americans do not live in America, you are far more wrong than the generalization is.

And no, the presence of manboobs is irrelevant to the claim that women have boobs.

You just used a generalization on slashdotters, therefore you are irrational and should be ignored.

See the point yet? Generalizations are not evil, or remotely indicative of defective thinking.

"Be bigoted against bigots", however, is self-defeating. It's bigotry to exempt certain types of bigots from that treatment - so we find that there is a different principle at play, being against "bigots" is just the marketing.

Why would you expect as many "save the prince" games as "save the princess"?

Do you think girls dream about swooping in and saving their romantic love interest from danger, demonstrating their strength in body and character?

Do you think men and women are physical equals?

If the opinion is in line with reality, there is a sort of "force" involved - one is "forced" to accept the opinion is true, or deny reality itself.

However, if believing the truth causes violence to oneself, there are some important issues that need resolving. I suggest that that is good "violence".

If their intentions are to go after misogynists, you're right that targeting gaming and gamers is off.

But if their intentions are to go after a profitable industry ... US game industry has as much revenue as the US movie industry, and more importantly, has a lot of eyeballs.

On a cruise trip with a bunch of friends, one of the girls wore a shirt saying, "Boys suck, throw rocks at them." This was not inside a college classroom.

Do you think that anyone would own a shirt that says, "Girls suck, throw rocks at them", or "Blacks suck, throw rocks at them" and wear it in public with a second thought? Without any confrontation or controversy?

Are those women the intended audience of the game?

If they're not customers buying the product, why does it matter what they think about it?

You just made a gross generalization about a person based on a single sentence, ignoring everything else he said.

Did you even address his personal experience on why he thought that? No, because you categorized him as a bigot, which makes your bigotry against him okay.

Some generalizations are true. Americans live in America. Asian people have black hair. Women have boobs.

That you think the use of a generalization makes one unfit to be reasoned with is irrational. You completely skipped evaluating, "Is it true?".

Good point on the size. After zooming the pictures so that they're roughly the same size in my browser, the blocky pixels don't look *that* bad.

But goodness, the blurred version looks beautiful.

If only there was a source of new trees. Alas, we'll hit Peak Tree soon.

... AND when the autonomous car software/hardware systems are well-tested, mature, and stable.