No generalization is entirely true in all cases. Including this one.
Yeah and I have a friend – Moron McMadeup – who supports ISIS. But he believes in a secular society where all faiths, including having no religious convictions at all, are respected, and is an staunch feminist. He also deplores what happened in attacks such as on Charlie Hebdo.
So there you go – Mr McMadeup means we cannot make a statement about supporters of ISIS.
Yes obviously there’s hyperbole here, to make the point clear. One fucking idiot who votes for a party despite being against everything that is their platform doesn’t refute the idea that the supporters of that platform are bad people.
But sure, if you want to put an end to this tangent then let’s just say that people explicitly supporting the Republicans in 2021 are bad or ignorant people. We good?
This is all starting to get pretty silly, as the three preceding posts indicate. SenorBeef’s initial post on this subject that seems to have got you so worked up was well written and was accurate insofar as it accurately describes what a significant and growing segment of the Republican party has become, particularly under Trump where it has gone from being more and more extremist to having completely lost its mind. That there are exceptions doesn’t change this basic general fact. Just like you have a very large proportion of Republican senators who are bat-shit crazy Trump enablers; the fact that there are a few traditional old-school conservatives among them like Mitt Romney and Ben Sasse doesn’t change that fact.
OK, let me see if I’ve got this. Someone who pushes an old lady in front of a bus is no different from someone who pushes an old lady from in front of a bus because, after all, they both push old ladies around. And the difference between a cannibal and a vegetarian is simply a matter of dietary preference.
But — just to be clear — the guy I’m talking about actually does favor a lot of the items in the Republican platform instead of being “against everything that is their platform”: he thinks that Trump lies about plenty of stuff, and says so, but keeps voting the way he does because he supports right-wing causes. What you wrote there seems to address some other point entirely.
I’m in no hurry to make like SenorBeef: why make a statement that someone could disprove with a single counterexample? If you want me to weigh in on individuals I know, then I’ll tell you whether I think they’re bad or ignorant; and if you want to discuss this or that position, then I’ll do likewise; and if you want to ask me how I voted and why, then I’ll oblige — and it seems to me that I can do all of that without needing to declare that literally everyone supporting Republicans in 2021 is bad or ignorant.
If he’d phrased it that way in the first place, I wouldn’t have taken issue with his post.
When making generalizations about a large group, it stands to reason that there are going to be exceptions. Harping on the fact that you know an exception and that therefore the generalization is false strikes me as counterproductive nitpicking. It’s counterproductive because it undermines an important and broadly accurate observation.
IOW, if you’d phrased your criticism as merely highlighting an exception to a broadly accurate observation, rather than asserting that the observation was “false”, I wouldn’t have taken issue with your criticism.
I would say that the bulk of Democrats are 45-60. Even a so-called leftist like Alexandria O-C is like a 35-40. Bernie is no lower than 30.
Such as? I mean things from the actual platform now, not things they once upon a time professed support for, like personal responsibility or respect for the rule of law.
Also, I could add to my analogy that my ISIS friend agrees with ISIS’ promotion of the muslim faith. So, he counts as a true ISIS supporter and now you can’t diss ISIS supporters.
Even your counter-example seems ignorant to me; if he disagrees so much with what is at the absolute forefront of republican policy and identity right now then he should not vote republican. Or, at the least, begrudgingly vote for them while outwardly condemning many of their recent actions, and taking offense at you labelling him a republican.
If he’s just saying “Well I am vehemently opposed to virtually everything the GOP is doing recently, but I’m a republican through and through and I’ll always vote for them!” then he’s a fucking twat.
(I’m enjoying this cursing…The Pit is fun!)
Pretty much the Fox News Greatest Hits: he’s against abortion, loves gun rights, wants plenty of statues to stay up, rants about folks who kneel at thus and such times, thinks bakers shouldn’t have to make wedding cakes for gay couples — and you can probably fill in the blanks from here, right? If, say, I asked you to build a sentence around “transgender” and “women’s sports”, I’d figure you could slap together his position on that one in short order; and while I haven’t yet heard his take on the latest news about Dr Seuss, I‘m pretty sure I know how to bet.
Sounds like a perfect low-information dumbass. And what might his position be on climate change? On coal mining? On the US pulling out of the Paris climate agreement? And what might be his views on universal health care? I can guess the answers. I don’t know why you defend this guy, just because you say he doesn’t believe that Trump had the largest inauguration ever. He’s still a menace to society. He may well be a “nice” person who is kind to dogs and children (unless they’re immigrant children). So was Hitler.
I can’t recall him mentioning climate change in general, or the Paris agreement in particular, or anything about coal mining or universal health care. But if someone announces that being a Republican in 2021 means believing stuff that he’s staked out the exact opposite position on, I can’t help but think to myself, well, no, that’s incorrect, is all.
Your continued brickheaded denunciation of a generalization makes my brain cells weep. Idiot nitpickers like you are the reason why people have found it necessary to insert banal and utterly obvious modifiers like “almost,” “generally,” “usually” and others in order to keep total assholes from derailing useful threads into endless digressions like this one. Every single person who read SenorBeef’s post - including you - knew exactly what he meant. Hell, the thread title - “The Republican Party is the Party of Evil” - is exactly the same level of generalization. But you didn’t bother to argue that. Why? Because it wouldn’t have served your purpose to waste everybody’s time with your trolling idiocy. You shit all over the thread deliberately when you saw the opportunity. This isn’t evil on the level of the Republican Party but it ranks high in the ranks of assholery.
It would seem very strange and surprising to me that his positions are so consistent with all Republican dogma – excepting only the most outrageous and juvenile of Trump’s narcissistic lies – and yet he would depart from those positions on major issues like climate change or health care. I mean, if he disagrees with them on such major issues, why is he a devoted Republican?
Even as relatively intelligent a Republican as Ben Sasse, when questioned on climate change, deflects the question by launching into a diatribe about the alleged astronomical costs of mitigation. Less intelligent ones like James Inhofe bring snowballs into the Senate chamber to “prove” that there is no global warming in the first place, referring to it as “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind”, and last I checked the majority of Republican lawmakers were of the same view. I guess those sweet, sweet campaign funds are a powerful motivator, but most of them seem stupid enough to really believe it.
No, I genuinely thought he’d meant what he’d stated. If, as you say, he’d inserted the modifier to begin with, there would’ve been no digression; and, once I asked him, he did his part to end the digression in no time flat with a perfectly satisfactory response.
That’s why I then replied: “If what you posted isn’t so — if you grant that being a Republican in 2021 doesn’t mean needing to believe that — then I’m all set.” Because, well, I was. The digression could’ve ended there; but other folks then jumped in to take issue with how I’d taken issue with what he’d written, and so I shrugged and replied to them.
Put yourself in my shoes for a moment: you look at the thread title, and think it suggests an argument about the party, and so you think, hey, let’s see what the argument is. And then you see a sentence that prompts you to think, no, that’s false. Now, maybe you’d nod approvingly upon leaping to the conclusion that he didn’t really mean it, or maybe you’d write him off upon leaping to the conclusion that (a) he really did mean it, and (b) he’s simply incorrect. Me, though, I’d — uh, ask him; and then, well, be satisfied with his answer.
I don’t believe I said that he disagrees with them on those issues, or that he agrees with them on those issues; only that I can’t recall him ever mentioning those issues.
You didn’t. You misinterpreted my meaning. I was just saying that if – IF – his views on those major Republican issues were diametrically opposed to Republican dogma, I would be very surprised, and wonder just what motivated him to be a devoted Republican, given his other dogmatic views.
Sorry, I have an excellent imagination - heck, I wrote science fiction for a long time - but there is no way I can imagine being that stupid. Apparently your head is congruent with the heads of Republicans who truly believe QAnon, a sinkhole where facts, logic, and context refuse to land for fear of being contaminated.
BTW, you were not satisfied with his perfectly fine answer. You kept bludgeoning the issue till it was past death. You’re a maroon.
Hey, Democrats fart, too.
#bothsides
Do you at least realize that I’m satisfied now? Because I can assure you that (a) I am; but let me add that (b) if, even now, someone came into this thread and asked me why I took issue with SenorBeef’s statement, I’d shrug and reply to that question.