• jsomae
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    That makes sense. Perhaps sweeping generalisations should be avoided out of concern such a response could be triggered. FWIW, there are loads of sweeping generalisations about women too. Even the ones that look innocuous bother me.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Maybe! I meant to write in my previous one but forgot: often when the person is making the sweeping generalization in this kind of context, they’re upset. They’re annoyed. They’re not going to be their most kind, patient, self. You probably wouldn’t be if some strangers just told you they were going to [threats and insults].

      So while it’s in a sense true that we should avoid broad generalizations, I think it’s fair to cut someone slack in this kind of context. They are probably not looking to be nitpicked.

      Think about times you’re annoyed. Like, let’s say FedEx just delivered you a smashed package for the third time in a row. You go “FedEx sucks they always ruin my packages”. You probably don’t need or want someone to go “actually, them deliver more than 99% of packages with no problems. Maybe you should [unsolicited advice]”. It doesn’t matter if that’s true. That’s not what you’re looking for in that moment.

      All of that aside, yeah, we should be mindful of speaking in absolutes.