3 ms·

Notice that the comment mentioned harassers not "men", so maybe you are jumping the gun a bit there. The idea that "all harassers are harassers" sounds pretty s

• coldtea 9y ago
  >Notice that the comment mentioned harassers not "men", so maybe you are jumping the gun a bit there I'm not discussing the parent comment itself (that would be extremely narrow focused). I'm answering the ideas expressed in the comment, based on the general context, and how we've seen things play out in the world.
  • dguaraglia 9y ago
    So you are making a general argument on the toxic role such generalizations have? ;) I understand where you are coming from, but I feel like jumping to conclusions about anything related to this story is way too soon.
    • coldtea 9y ago
      >So you are making a general argument on the toxic role such generalizations have? ;) Yes, on the toxic role SUCH (not ALL) generalizations have. So no need for sarcasm ;) (Generalization, I'd say, is both the start point of knowledge, and the start (or maybe end?) point of prejudice. It's a tool. If it's not representative, or if it's representative but misreads the causes why it is so -- e.g. "blacks are overrepresented in jails because they're an inferior race with crime in their dna", it's harmful. Otherwise, it allows us to use abstractions, which elevate our thinking just like a higher level programming language does).