3 ms·
> There are plenty of people who are saying implicitly I understand you think they are saying all men, but unless you can read minds over the Internet, that’s
by calcifer 9y ago
> There are plenty of people who are saying implicitly
I understand you think they are saying all men, but unless you can read minds over the Internet, that’s just your opinion.
But more than that, saying “men are sexist” does NOT imply “all men”. It means “a large-enough-to-be-generalized number of men are exist”.
If you think it means literally all men (and hence feel attacked by it), in my opinion, on some level, you are sexist and are just trying to avoid discomfort/guilt by spouting #NotAllMen.
- manfredo 9y agoI don't think this is how people usually communicate. Referring to a group without a qualifier refers to the majority, or all. Consider the following sentence: "Women can't code" Not only is it true for a substantial portion, it's true for the majority of women (and men, for that matter). But would you criticize those who object to the statement?
- wruza 9y agoThis "NOT" seems to be overcapitalized, since it is usually "" in a regular context, as other commenter already noted. It is not a private opinion, it is how language rules define it. From complete redefinition of terms on the fly and going to you-are mind reading in just two sentences, it seems very probable that your argument is either purely emotional or projective or lacks enough logic. When using mirrored version of "girls suck at math", don't expect a different reaction from those who may be actually good at it. Even if someone temporarily accepts this "large-enough-to-be-generalized" definition, it may have a hard time to retain "large" part, because a number on topic is not more than 156/55000, assuming that 156 is a unique set.