DeletedUser
Guest
you have a tendency to turn threads into personal arguments.
<3
you have a tendency to turn threads into personal arguments.
Mike has a tendency to turn threads into his own personal arguments, get used to it :icon_wink:.
[/spoil]That's not at all what he said. He did not say it's "ok to be ignorant" he said it is ok to stereotype. Which it is. Stereotyping is an extremely useful tool for the survival of social groups and individuals. Take your example, the year is 1940, you are a Jewish person, you see a German approaching. What do you do? Do you A: assume they are a Nazi and flee? or B: say to yourself "not all Germans are Nazis, I shouldn't stereotype" and approach as normal? The reason I specify the year 1940 is because in present day nobody stereotypes Germans as Nazis, in 1940 they may have, and rightfully so, for their survival sake. Let's take your other example "Hispanics like beans" You are now a bean grower and producer, who will you market to? Stereotypes are almost always used in marketing, and with great success. Stereotypes exist for a reason, they don't just pop out of thin air. They come from observation and experience. if anything your viewpoint is ignorant to the realities of the world we live in.
There is another dinstinction with stereotypes that you are incorrectly adding in on your own behalf. You keep specifically adding "all" in order to weaken the argument for stereotypes. Yet nobody with any sense ever says "all" hispanics eat beans or "all x do y" Stereotypes are just "X does Y"
It is understood and accepted that there are and will be exceptions. Perhaps you should listen to yourself, you are being willfully ignorant and foolish.
Stereotyping is absolutely invaluable to make judgments which are critical to making decisions. Survival depends upon it. In order to make any sort of decision you must use the data at hand, to willfully throw out any data available because it might hurt somebodies sensibilities is stupid.
[spoil][/spoil]
Thanks for adding valid points to the conversation, however, lets get back to the original argument that started it all. You are claiming that it is OK for forum readers to assume that since one member of a tribe is being an idiot, it is safe to conclude through stereotyping, that (i dont want to use the word "all") MOST of the tribe members must be as-well because that tribe doesnt censor their members
The best example i can find are Sqid and Glynjack. Although these players dont like me, I have respect for them because they speak their mind. Sqid says he wouldnt have allied W2V if here were duke, and he wouldnt mind attacking them. Glyn says attacking MoM sounds like fun. I doubt Niyah or Rukoh can prevent them from expressing their opinions. However, I'm not going around claiming that because these players share their thoughts, that MoM-W2V despise each other guts with no respect for one another.
[/spoil]I think your taking the wrong approach to this argument. If a player expresses his idea in a clear concise and respectful manner it reflects well on that person and their tribe. Therefore there is no need for the leader to intervene unless the said member is expressing something totally against the leaders wishes. You stated yourself that you respect these players, therefore they must be portraying themselves well to gain the respect of any 'enemy' (shall we say :icon_cool player, and in turn portraying there tribe well.
The point being made is when people portray themselves as a 'troll', abusive or unrespectfull poster it reflects on the tribe, because he is a member of a tribe. MoM/RW/W2V/OhYeah are only names and can change at any moment, it is the members that create a tribe, and a tribe is nothing without it's members. So if a member speaks in a degrading/unrespectfull manner he is rightly tarnishing his tribe because he belongs to it. I seen it before and on this world where a leader has had to tell a member/ entire tribe :icon_eek: to be quite on the forums. It's called Propaganda for a reason, because the public impression is swayed by what is said. :icon_cool:
[spoil][/spoil]
If Rand is against me then i must be wrong :icon_redface:
I take back everything i said, one person does represent an entire group. The world is a better place now. :lol:
I think I've found my new job!
Sick of 2Hot clogging up your thread?
Want to have peace on PnP?
Can't read important posts due to 2Hot?
Sick of seeing that ugly Avatar? :icon_neutral:
Contact Rand @ Rand_althor your friendly forum exterminator. :icon_cool:
[spoil][/spoil]
You are claiming that it is OK for forum readers to assume that since one member of a tribe is being an idiot, it is safe to conclude through stereotyping, that (i dont want to use the word "all") MOST of the tribe members must be as-well because that tribe doesnt censor their members
I think I've sufficiently and succinctly covered why that happens.
suc·cinct (sk-sngkt)adj. suc·cinct·er, suc·cinct·est 1. Characterized by clear, precise expression in few words; concise and terse:
Really Greg? Really?
Im getting too old for this shit.
Agreed.
Gregoun writes a book in response :icon_wink:
well at least the externals came alive, thanks biscuit and nemesis
History has shown over and over again that people keep company with people most similar to them. When you see photos of street gangs, do you ever seen an odd man out? You certainly don't, they all look like thugs.
1) Is one person truly reflective of the sampled group they belong to?
2) Can the image of one person's thoughts or actions influence the perception of said group?
To answer:
1) No. This is obvious, as you have pointed out. A person, picked at random from my previous example of a religion, maybe an extremist, someone who never really practices it but believes in it, etc. This does not make their views representative of the sample they are taken from. So no; the argument between Mike and Nem isn't truly reflective of Ohyeah at all.
However, with that being said:
2) Will arguments like the ones between Mike and Nem lead to stereotyping and to generalisations about Ohyeah players? Definitely. Just like the terror attacks led to the general ignorance and stereotyping of some "Eastern" [not trying to offend anyone as most religions are global now!] religions (which, by and large, turned into racism and unfair harrasment, but in some cases (significantly lower) had positive outcomes where bombers were caught much earlier because of racial profiling.) [/spoil]
I must say Greg, I'm surprised by how knowledgeable you are. The spoil'd text above pretty much sums everything up. I'm starting to see where you're coming from and agree. It seems i took an extreme stance when i started this, but your answer sounds just about right.
[spoil][/spoil]
Thanks for adding valid points to the conversation, however, lets get back to the original argument that started it all. You are claiming that it is OK for forum readers to assume that since one member of a tribe is being an idiot, it is safe to conclude through stereotyping, that (i dont want to use the word "all") MOST of the tribe members must be as-well because that tribe doesnt censor their members
The best example i can find are Sqid and Glynjack. Although these players dont like me, I have respect for them because they speak their mind. Sqid says he wouldnt have allied W2V if here were duke, and he wouldnt mind attacking them. Glyn says attacking MoM sounds like fun. I doubt Niyah or Rukoh can prevent them from expressing their opinions. However, I'm not going around claiming that because these players share their thoughts, that MoM-W2V despise each other guts with no respect for one another.
Hey, not my fault if you can't be bothered to read it all.... :icon_cool: It beats the pointless flaming going on, by a long shot.