Whites were talking about blacks in general. Some black people took it as though they specifically were being targeted. If white people don’t feel comfortable running alone at night because blacks can be predators, black people in general should listen. When I hear that, I don’t take offence. I’m with you, I’ve never done anything. But we should be trying to figure out ways that whites can feel more comfortable around blacks. Whites shouldn’t need to feel like they have their guard up, and listening is the first step.
Every time you hear a claim about women/men replace with white and blacks, if you sound like a racist asshole, then you’re being a sexist asshole. This also applies for other stuff, including just reverting roles, if just by doing that you’re able to make your argument sound straight from the KKK, you know it’s a bad argument.
That’s not to say that women shouldn’t feel like that, or that there isn’t a problem in our society, but the same can be said about white/black situation. The difference is that most people (at least non racist assholes) understand that a higher criminality among black people has nothing to do with their skin tone, and is instead a consequence of historical factors perpetuated by social injustice, so they understand why generalized statements such as the one you made are problematic. But with the men/women people in general think it’s different, they think that men are inherently more violent or whatever, so their broad statements get less judgement, let’s not forget that up until recently that was also the general consensus about race as well.
In short if you do broad generalizations like that you ARE being an asshole, and people will feel attacked. And what’s worse is that those people are more likely to then align with someone who opposes your views which oftentimes means right wing Nazis just because they’re not attacking them.
Because at its core your argument is “group of people X feels threatened by group of people Y, but group Y should listen and not feel attacked if someone from group X tells them group Y is dangerous”. Replacing group X and Y by any group of people should give you an idea of why this is a bad argument. In other words I’m just applying analogical reasoning to your argument to showcase that in an analogous situation the same argument would be considered aggressive.
Granted, it’s not always possible to substitute groups, but if your counterargument is that the substitutions are not analogous you need to present evidence of why that is the case. In other words, why do you think this argument applies to women who are afraid of men but not to whites that are afraid of blacks.
Look, I’m not the person you replied to, let’s start with that. Second, no, I don’t have to justify countering that absurd sophism that you did. It’s on you to make sense in the first place
Ok,sorry, didn’t see it was someone different, in any case at its core his argument was that.
You’re making a claim that those two are different, it’s impossible to prove a negative so I can’t prove that they’re not different because even if I pointed to 99 metrics that made it the same that doesn’t mean that there doesn’t exist a metric by which they’re different.
I’ve explained my reasoning, they’re analogous groups, so if you can point to a relevant metric by which they’re different then my argument would be invalid. Let me explain, one could argue that it’s different because women are mostly attacked by men, but statistically speaking whites are also attacked more by blacks, and again one can easily see that that’s a bad argument to claim blacks are criminals, therefore the other form of it is a bad argument to claim men are rapist. Any meaningful metric I can think of has the same problem, i.e it also applies to the white/black version.
And no, you’re not forced to reply, but that does sound like confirmation that you couldn’t think of any meaningful metric by which my analogy fails.
Every time you hear a claim about women/men replace with white and blacks, if you sound like a racist asshole, then you’re being a sexist asshole. This also applies for other stuff, including just reverting roles, if just by doing that you’re able to make your argument sound straight from the KKK, you know it’s a bad argument.
That’s not to say that women shouldn’t feel like that, or that there isn’t a problem in our society, but the same can be said about white/black situation. The difference is that most people (at least non racist assholes) understand that a higher criminality among black people has nothing to do with their skin tone, and is instead a consequence of historical factors perpetuated by social injustice, so they understand why generalized statements such as the one you made are problematic. But with the men/women people in general think it’s different, they think that men are inherently more violent or whatever, so their broad statements get less judgement, let’s not forget that up until recently that was also the general consensus about race as well.
In short if you do broad generalizations like that you ARE being an asshole, and people will feel attacked. And what’s worse is that those people are more likely to then align with someone who opposes your views which oftentimes means right wing Nazis just because they’re not attacking them.
lol that doesn’t make any sense. Why would you replace something with something completely different and expect it to work the same ?
Because at its core your argument is “group of people X feels threatened by group of people Y, but group Y should listen and not feel attacked if someone from group X tells them group Y is dangerous”. Replacing group X and Y by any group of people should give you an idea of why this is a bad argument. In other words I’m just applying analogical reasoning to your argument to showcase that in an analogous situation the same argument would be considered aggressive.
Granted, it’s not always possible to substitute groups, but if your counterargument is that the substitutions are not analogous you need to present evidence of why that is the case. In other words, why do you think this argument applies to women who are afraid of men but not to whites that are afraid of blacks.
Look, I’m not the person you replied to, let’s start with that. Second, no, I don’t have to justify countering that absurd sophism that you did. It’s on you to make sense in the first place
Ok,sorry, didn’t see it was someone different, in any case at its core his argument was that.
You’re making a claim that those two are different, it’s impossible to prove a negative so I can’t prove that they’re not different because even if I pointed to 99 metrics that made it the same that doesn’t mean that there doesn’t exist a metric by which they’re different.
I’ve explained my reasoning, they’re analogous groups, so if you can point to a relevant metric by which they’re different then my argument would be invalid. Let me explain, one could argue that it’s different because women are mostly attacked by men, but statistically speaking whites are also attacked more by blacks, and again one can easily see that that’s a bad argument to claim blacks are criminals, therefore the other form of it is a bad argument to claim men are rapist. Any meaningful metric I can think of has the same problem, i.e it also applies to the white/black version.
And no, you’re not forced to reply, but that does sound like confirmation that you couldn’t think of any meaningful metric by which my analogy fails.