Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Just proves the point (Score 1) 1220

No, it just made you wrong, and if you are wrong about the basics, a logical reader will assume you wrong about everything else (unless proven otherwise to a higher standard).

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 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 you are creating a strawman in which I make a stupid false dichotomy.


Not all Americans live in America. Is that a generalization?

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.

It's not irrelevant. It points out the inanity of the claim.

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.

Comment: Re:Just proves the point (Score 1) 1220

And I have personally seen someone wearing at least 3 of those shirts in public.

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.

Comment: Re: Her work (Score 1) 1220

Force requires an actual action. If you decide your only choices are to believe, or deny reality, it sounds like you already agree with the opinion, and have some cognitive dissonance because it conflicts with what you expected to believe. Notice how the other party isn't involved in any of that? Those actions are all your own.

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.

Comment: Re:Just proves the point (Score 1) 1220

No, because he posted none.

Read carefully. What was his experience with feminist professors?

I'm an American who doesn't live in America. I work in IT, I think the average guys boobs are bigger than women's.

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.

When the generalization is used as a character assassination, then yes. You post on slashdot, therefore you must be a mysogynist. There is no rationalizing with such a bigot, therefore, there is no rationalizing with you. That's the logic the original poster used, and the responder made fun of. Does it work?

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.

Comment: Re: Her work (Score 1) 1220

If it were *only* an issue of bad writing and not of sexism, you'd expect as many "save the prince" games as "save the princess" games.

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?

Comment: Re: Her work (Score 1) 1220

Notice the whole claim of "violence" is predicated on the word "forcing," which in this case is a verb. Notice the complete lack of action though. So just from that we can see it is a false accusation; the only action taken was giving his own opinion. But you lie, and claim he took an action to "force" his opinion on you. But you're not forced to believe every opinion you hear; that is silly, and shows a misunderstanding even over the word opinion. Then you double down on the lie, by claiming the "force" not only exists, but was violent.

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".

Comment: Re:*Dons asbestos suit* (Score 1) 1220

I've played video games since 1990; I do not hate women; My hobby does not hate women; The vast majority of people who play video games do not hate women. Please, Sarkeesian's of the world, turn your attentions to the people who do.

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.

Comment: Re:Just proves the point (Score 0) 1220

Yeah, hi that's called "Existing every damn day as a woman" everywhere outside of feminist classes in college.

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?

That's how games get released with no female character options, or female NPC's with redonkulous boobs, because the guys making the game just never put in a second to think "how will women, who are a huge factor in life, think about this".

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?

Comment: Re:Just proves the point (Score 1) 1220

There, you've made a gross generalisation about a whole group of people and therefore this one in particular. It is not possible to debate with *you* on this topic because instead of listening to her videos and bringing up points to disagree with you launched into:

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?".

Comment: Re:Is this really good news? (Score 1) 233

Again, this is a very good thing, it is a long and ever changing road, but just like the universe this is, as the nature of all things, a move towards less entropy and is natural in any system.

Small quibble, entropy increasing is the natural order of the universe and things.

Am also not sure maximum entropy in economy is a stable/wealthy/better one. (entropy as measure of chaos/disorder)

Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.