• angrystego@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    What do you mean? They were used as examples of random groups of people. They’re good examples of that, right? Just like postmen, cyclists, gingers, diabetics… They’re groups of people that have one thing in common and can be completely different in many other aspects.

      • angrystego@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        You’re right, in many ways it isn’t, but I don’t think it’s relevant in this context. We’re talking generalization when it comes to random groups. When you’re a cyclist, it’s reasonable to think you like cycling. It’s not reasonable to judge your morality, taste or family status. It works for all kinds of groups. We’re talking about the fact that groups of any kind are not homogeneous.

        • satans_methpipe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Some groups are very much homogeneous by design. Religious dimwits and police come to mind. I judge the morality of those groups all the time and I sleep fine. Meanwhile I feel kinda bad for swiping whichever way is ‘reject’ on dating apps. I’ll agree that is not right for most groups. But groups founded on hatred (police and rekigion) or for the purpose of being obnoxious/attention seeking (ABATE motorcycle chapters) can absolutely be generalized.

          Now keep in mind we’re discussing in a thread where the top level comment was from an admitted Nazi sympathizer.