"Yes, but I'M not like that!"

Scythemantis

"I'm Christian, but I'M not homophobic!"

"I'm a man but I'M not a misogynist!"

"I'm a gamer but I'M not a fat disgusting useless slob!"

Good for you, chuckles, that's why you're not who I was bitching about in the first place.

You can't complain about any negative human behavior without a bunch of people getting defensive about how they're exceptions to it. If they're exceptions, why are they getting defensive? Exceptions should be assumed by all parties, and pointing out their obvious existence is an irrelevant point. Every complaint should not need some forced "oh, I know it's not EVERYONE" disclaimer...that's just coddling the overly sensitive.

Naas_Human

^ Generalizations in general can be pretty insulting, you know.

Scythemantis

But the whole problem is that everyone takes everything as a generalization. Saying you hate homophobic christians means you hate homophobic christians. Tolerant christians don't have any business getting pissy about it.

DonZabu

Been chipping away at you for a while, it seems like.

InsanityAddict

Depends entirely on how you formulate it. The less nuance the statement has, the quicker people will try to correct you with an "I'm an X but do not do Y/I have a bro who is an X but does not do Y/I know examples of X who are not Y". I'd assume the motive is smugness at perceived density rather than insecurity that the person in question would fall within said category.

Scythemantis

^^ It only happens to me once in a great while, since I'm not someone who often complains about anything publicly in the first place. Blogs I follow, however, suffer from this constantly. Oftentimes they even do specify that they're addressing only a minority, but people STILL rush to explain that they're not part of that minority when nobody implied they were.

LouieW

Scythemantis,

One explanation for that defensiveness may be that people believe that many of their fellow group members give it a bad name. For example, if you happen to think that most people see fans of anime/manga as obsessive otakus who deify Japan or who spout a lot of gratuitous Japanese, I guess it makes sense to want to point out that you are not like that.

In a similar vein, men and women might have good reason to separate themselves from negative stereotypes of both sexes in order to not be lumped in with people who support those stereotypes with their actions.

I think that spillover effect is a legitimate concern, especially when talking about religion. For instance, a Muslim may have good reason to react when people talk about hating violent Muslims even if he or she is nonviolent since people can and do make the leap that Islam inherently condones violence/terrorism. Thus, the nonviolent Muslim may either be seen as secretly supportive of violence or not a true believer. It seems fair to me to be quick to defend your own views when put in a bind like that because of the associations people can and do make between your group and its members.

I mean, you probably are right that people do not necessarily need to get that defensive about stuff like that, but what you call "coddling the oversensitive" others may consider displaying an appropriate amount of tact.

Bob

they can point this out in a way that isn't necessarily defensive. i realyl don't see why it's necessary to get so riled up over it. and yeah generalizations are bitches,

RedEyedAbyss

It would be nice if they supplied evidence.

Naas_Human

^"They", as in, the people making generalizations, or the people being defensive?

MillerCross

Burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, not on the person refuting the claim.

RedEyedAbyss

I was thinking the defendants, but the burden does lie on all sides. Though often the people making generalizations have plenty of evidence to lead to their conclusion inductively, and lots of people claim to, say, not be misogynist without backing it up *cough* *cough* *Nice Guy Syndrome* *cough*.

MillerCross

I'd argue that stereotypes and perceived majorities hardly count as valid arguments. 

Granted, a generalization can be made into an argument (As long as it's understood between the two parties of discussion that there are exceptions to said generalization) but I think they're rather weak arguments without any numbers to back them up.

RedEyedAbyss

Yeah, most evidence tends to be anecdotal in these cases, but actions speak louder than words when providing a counterexample.

Rereading the opening post, I think there's an issue with Scythemantis placing blame on the people rather than the behaviour. If it's the behaviour you have a problem with, then generalizing people for it only distracts from your actual point. No one likes having an argument take the form of a personal attack, and any such argument can be framed in less personal terms.

Scythemantis

My complaint however is that you can tactfully and distinctively complain about a behavior and still get these responses. For example, "I dislike furries who are pedophiles" vs. "I dislike how furries are pedophiles." In my experience either phrase would generate knee-jerk defensive comments.

Counterclock

Seems like most of this thread seems to be about the fact that you can't get away with making Generalizations.

FrodoGoofballCoTV

My complaint however is that you can tactfully and distinctively complain about a behavior and still get these responses. For example, "I dislike furries who are pedophiles" vs. "I dislike how furries are pedophiles." In my experience either phrase would generate knee-jerk defensive comments.

I suspect that in many cases the defenders are sick and tired of people ranting about how their particular group is known for having a smaller group of people who deserve the accusation.  They don't appreciate others continuing to bring it up.

 

There's also the fact that usually when people complain that "some X are Y", there's the often unintended implication that group X has a higher incidence of Y than any other group, and therefore there must be a problem with anyone who is X (similar to the Hitler Ate Sugar fallacy), when in fact, that's not necessarily true.

 

But I also sympathize with the OP.  There's a big difference between saying "I dislike furries who are pedophiles" and saying "I dislike how furries are pedophiles."  However, it's still a subtle difference, and a person whose berserk button has been pressed doesn't always listen to what you're really saying.

 

It's a complex issue, because the accuser always comes off as an insensitive jerk to the defender, but the defender is trying to avoid the truth and comes off as being overly reactionary at best.

RedEyedAbyss

"There's also the fact that usually when people complain that "some X are Y", there's the often unintended implication that group X has a higher incidence of Y than any other group, and therefore there must be a problem with anyone who is X (similar to the Hitler Ate Sugar fallacy), when in fact, that's not necessarily true."

Incidentally, that sounds a lot like the post-9/11 attitude to Muslims. The media constantly associated "terrorist" with "Islam", even if not directly.

Scythemantis

Seems like most of this thread seems to be about the fact that you can't get away with making Generalizations.

No, it's about whiny people taking non-generalized statements as generalized statements.How many times do I have to say that?

You can even SPECIFY that you're complaining about a minority and you still get a bunch of pointless "well, I'm not one of those" remarks.

And you know something? People care too much about generalizations anyway. The very term "general" already entails that it's not an absolute and that exceptions go without saying. I've never once gotten annoyed with someone making general statements about a group I resemble because the statements are general. That means they aren't a big deal and not worth getting annoyed over.

Naas_Human

^ I think the issue is that, complaining with X who are Y is suggesting that being Y is caused by being X. Or something like that.