Dyed hair is a malfunction? Not in my book.
Stereotyping is a malfunction.
Yeah Eonwe, you know, like those social-justice activist stereotypes with the hippie long hair and the hipster soul-patch goatees.
Many stereotypes have some degree of truth to them, even if we don’t like it.
And goodness knows that the neon-haired social-justice activists have a lot less to complain about, when it comes to stereotypes, than the small-penised gun enthusiasts or the repressed-molester SSM opponents.
There will indeed be members of those groups who fit those stereotypes. Like I said, stereotypes exist for a reason; they don’t just appear out of nowhere.
Gee, and here I thought you were opposed to people stereotyping gun enthusiasts as trying to compensate for small penises:
Of course, that was over ten years ago, so maybe your views have changed in the interim.
There will be members of any large group who fit any stereotype. Including stereotypes of other groups entirely, and those which are the opposite of those attributed to them.
Yup. They exist for the reason of allowing those people who want to shove other people into a box without looking at them to do so.
It ain’t a feature. It’s a bug.
It’s more just tiresome rather than offensive at this point. Also, in a positive development, there are lots more women involved in shooting nowadays. I genuinely can’t recall the last time I encountered a “Gun owners have small dicks” insult in the wild; it’d be several years at least.
On the subject of stereotypes though, an unpopular truth is that a lot of gun owners do fit some of the less pleasant stereotypes - particularly the right-wing racist and paranoid ones- and while it’s by no means the majority of enthusiast gun owners, it’s a loud and visible number so I can totally understand why so many people out there think gun owners as a group are racist and paranoid right-wingers.
Ah! I see. The sign said long haired freaky people need not apply.
Vote Nixon/Agnew!
And is that a good thing, in your view? That people are less willing now than formerly to stereotype gun owners about their physical characteristics, such as the size of their penises?
If so, then wouldn’t it also be a good thing if you were less willing to stereotype social justice activists about their physical characteristics, such as the color of their hair?
ISTM that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if it’s okay for you to stereotype SJW types about their hair color because “stereotypes exist for a reason”, then it’s okay for other people to stereotype gun enthusiasts about their penis size because “stereotypes exist for a reason”.
I believe I said I totally understood why people stereotyped gun owners in a certain way, so yes, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander in a broad sense. Not so much once you know a person individually, of course.
Also, it’s a lot easier to draw a correlation between visible characteristics (bright hair and having “issues”, being a gun enthusiast and being a conspiracy theorist) because those things are visible on the surface - you can see someone with bright hair being an SJW on the internet or at a rally, you can see someone whose profile pic is them in camo with an AR-15 making paranoid comments on social media.
It’s a much more understandable stereotype than speculating on the size of someone’s genitals, since exposed genitals and firearms are not (fortunately) commonly encountered together in public for pretty much anyone to see and draw inference from.
Less bothered by the hair thing than I am about the implication that caring about social justice is a “malfunction”.
Well, now you’re just saying things he didn’t say. He clearly stated “other assorted malfunctions”. I imagine he’s talking about piercings, vapers, vegans, PETA members, and people who cry at parties.
Well, he can clear it up, because it’s not immediately evident which “malfunction” the other assorted ones are other than.
I’m sure “resents having being colonized and not keen to have it happen again” is on the list, somewhere.
And you can see lots of people with non-dyed hair at left-wing rallies, and you can see lots of gunowners not making paranoid comments and in fact very often calling for various forms of gun control.
But not, of course, if you’ve already got your eyes shut.
Yeah, I noticed that one, too. I suspect it’s part of the stereotyping. The stereotypers get to lump everyone arguing for justice into one box labeled ‘silly people with silly hair colors’ – and then they think they don’t have to pay any attention to what any of those people are actually saying.
Right, an echo chamber is far more soothing.
Yeah, like Dopers come to these boards to be “soothed”, rather than to argue with everybody they can find about everything they can think of.
When conservatives lose arguments with liberals they tell themselves it’s just because liberals are “conforming” to “orthodoxy” and need a “hive mind” and an “echo chamber” etc. Wilfully disregarding the fact that liberals tend to be much more tolerant of dispute and disagreement, and much less threatened by argumentative challenges, than conservatives are.
Just because we’ve decided to draw some lines in the sand about outright bigotry and hate speech doesn’t mean we can’t tolerate being argued with. Hell, we argue with each other all the time, whether or not we can find any intelligent and rational conservatives (a rapidly shrinking population, alas) to argue with us.
This… is true. But that’s kind of the point of these boards. I’ve been mocked and made fun of, too. But a lot of the things I’ve said or done deserve to be scrutinized. I Still need to learn a lot, and maybe a few things to “teach”. Overall I’m confident where I stand.
And…
What do you mean about bigotry and hate speech!?
The sort of stuff madmonk28 was talking about back in post #261, which is explicitly addressed in the Revised Forum Rules for the BBQ Pit thread: