4 ms·
That wasn't the implication. The issue is an hypocritical assertion. If treating a large group as a unified actor is improper, then giving another group another
by reallydude 7y ago
That wasn't the implication. The issue is an hypocritical assertion. If treating a large group as a unified actor is improper, then giving another group another label and doing the same thing...because it's that group is in a different classification, is also improper. The fact these views live in the same comment, is ironic.
ie
> I would caution against trying to paint "developers at Google" using broad stroke
> a leapfrog for the masses
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20600789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20600789
- wutbrodo 7y ago> If treating a large group as a unified actor is improper, then giving another group another label and doing the same thing...because it's that group is in a different classification, is also improper. I think this is the logical leap that people aren't understanding. Generalizing means assuming things about individuals based on their group membership: OP wasn't saying it's a moral failing, but that it leads to inaccurate assumptions when applied to the heterogenous group in question. What's the analogy to using the term "the masses"?
- reallydude 7y ago> OP wasn't saying it's a moral failing The morality and intent is irrelevant to my core assertion. A criticism of contravariance (if that makes it clearer) followed by a usage of it is unexpected hypocrisy, which is ironic.