Fine but how common is denial of the normal distribution/within-group variation in practice? What win is #NotAll? Educating a few idiots?
-
-
-
If ~everyone already knows caveats of generalization—there's variation within groups—what does
#NotAll win other than a cheap counterpoint? -
It's the only way to object to racism, sexism, homophobia etc. By objecting to negative generalisations. Men are violent! No, most are not.
-
But ~everyone already knows the limits of generalization. We are objecting to the violence, then narrowing down perps & root causes. Fair.
-
Yes, that is. Saying 'men are rapists' or something is not.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I kinda agree, Helen. Thing is, the term "NotAll" has become cliched now - even worse, it's often used in parody (i.e.
#NotAllNazis) - so people no longer take it seriously. I think a better strategy would be to show people examples of individuals who don't fit the generalization -
Well, I'm not necessarily suggesting using the term. Most of the time the respondent hasn't when accused of doing
#NotAll.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I felt the need to make this about its close cousin.pic.twitter.com/1W6z7UKXQ5
-
Really helpful! "All cats have four legs. Rover (woof!) has four legs. Therefore Rover is a cat. Is this Aristotle's Syllogism? Relevant.
-
Exactly. Also called “Affirming the Consequent”. “If A, then B. B. Therefore A”. Feminist “thought” is infested with it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
#NotAllGeneralisations. Sorry, I just couldn't resistThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why do people imagine that not caricaturing powerful groups is somehow a favour to them, rather than a commitment to a realistic outlook?
-
and far better preparation for dealing with them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
>the argument goes Not always. Remember the "yesall" tags?
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
-
That's not even half. So you can't even say most, really lol. In that case you'd say "most don't want Shariah Law."
-
And opinion polls are relatively useless as it's typically only a small sample size of the target demographic.
-
It shows 4 in 10 but what was the sample size? If it's 4 in 10 but only say 500 out of 30,000 were polled (hypothetical here) that would be
-
Woefully inaccurate. So, overall, regardless of what the demographic or question of a poll may be, always be aware of a sample size and
-
Its comparison to the population of that demographic :3
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.