Worst of Social Justice

[Thejebusfire]

[ironbite]

He's not...totally wrong in that statement.

[Sigmaleph]

Debatable. But either way, the problematic part is not so much the factual accuracy as the fact that someone can say that without realising the pattern he's matching to ("Not all Muslims are terrorists, but..." "Not all black men are thugs, but..." "Not all women are whores, but..."). The unspoken implication is often that "negative behaviour X is more common among group Y, this revels something fundamentally wrong about group Y". Was he trying to say that? Probably not. But the obliviousness bothers me.

[I am lizard]

Debatable. But either way, the problematic part is not so much the factual accuracy as the fact that someone can say that without realising the pattern he's matching to ("Not all Muslims are terrorists, but..." "Not all black men are thugs, but..." "Not all women are whores, but..."). The unspoken implication is often that "negative behaviour X is more common among group Y, this revels something fundamentally wrong about group Y". Was he trying to say that? Probably not. But the obliviousness bothers me.

And now Ultimate Paragon exclaims "I think you just hit the nail on the head!"

[I am lizard]

And then Witchyjoshy disagrees with Paragon.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Debatable. But either way, the problematic part is not so much the factual accuracy as the fact that someone can say that without realising the pattern he's matching to ("Not all Muslims are terrorists, but..." "Not all black men are thugs, but..." "Not all women are whores, but..."). The unspoken implication is often that "negative behaviour X is more common among group Y, this revels something fundamentally wrong about group Y". Was he trying to say that? Probably not. But the obliviousness bothers me.

And now Ultimate Paragon exclaims "I think you just hit the nail on the head!"

Beat me to it.   

[I am lizard]

And then Ironchew disagrees with Witchyjoshy.

And then SCMM responds.

And then I am lizard says something irrelevant.

[Ultimate Paragon]

And then Ironchew disagrees with Witchyjoshy.

And then SCMM responds.

And then I am lizard says something irrelevant.

We've got a pretty good dynamic here.

[SpaceProg]

Here at FQA, we're nothing if not predictable.

[Dakota Bob]

Debatable. But either way, the problematic part is not so much the factual accuracy as the fact that someone can say that without realising the pattern he's matching to ("Not all Muslims are terrorists, but..." "Not all black men are thugs, but..." "Not all women are whores, but..."). The unspoken implication is often that "negative behaviour X is more common among group Y, this revels something fundamentally wrong about group Y". Was he trying to say that? Probably not. But the obliviousness bothers me.

And now Ultimate Paragon exclaims "I think you just hit the nail on the head!"

So you're at that stage in your relationship when you start completing each others sentences?

[Witchyjoshy]

And then Witchyjoshy disagrees with Paragon.

And then Ironchew disagrees with Witchyjoshy.

And then SCMM responds.

And then I am lizard says something irrelevant.

Actually, I found Sigma's response quite reasonable and would have agreed with Ultimate Paragon if I felt arsed enough to post my opinion on this matter.

No idea what Ironchew would have said though.

[Sixth Monarchist]

Here at FQA, we're nothing if not predictable.

That's because our attributes arise due to pressures in the forum environment and drift generated by occasional variation over time, rather than any overarching intelligent design. This means that the conversations get gradually more complex but not - as common misconception holds - any more intelligent or "better".

[Witchyjoshy]

Here at FQA, we're nothing if not predictable.

That's because our attributes arise due to pressures in the forum environment and drift generated by occasional variation over time, rather than any overarching intelligent design. This means that the conversations get gradually more complex but not - as common misconception holds - any more intelligent or "better".

How did that make perfect sense?

[Second Coming of Madman]

The fact that Sixth's Forum title is God scares me more than his observation, considering the terrifying intimate knowledge of our respective psyches in that post.

[chitoryu12]

Debatable. But either way, the problematic part is not so much the factual accuracy as the fact that someone can say that without realising the pattern he's matching to ("Not all Muslims are terrorists, but..." "Not all black men are thugs, but..." "Not all women are whores, but..."). The unspoken implication is often that "negative behaviour X is more common among group Y, this revels something fundamentally wrong about group Y". Was he trying to say that? Probably not. But the obliviousness bothers me.

It's the exact same thing as the "poisoned M&M" analogy. It implies that because a fraction -- even a small fraction -- is bad, the entire group should be treated with fear and distrust.

As always, it's only considered appropriate to apply it to traditional "oppressor" groups like white people and men. Because they think that racism and sexism literally don't apply to whoever's in power.