I think generalising isn't really the problem, but rather unfair/untrue generalising. Particularly when done for the purpose of not initiating discussion.

(November 1, 2017 at 4:45 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I would also like to point out that it is impossible to have a discussion without generalizing. There is nothing wrong with making the generalization that "men are taller than women." People should be smart enough to recognize that a generalization is by its very nature an expression of normative properties. People who need all manner of qualifications like "some" and "most" and "many" aren't being reasonable. If I say that political progressives are left-wing, I suppose that could mean that some progressive some where is a right-winger, but no one would call that normative. So it doesn't make sense to call it false equivocation. If someone makes an thread or post about "Christians" it isn't hard to figure out if they are thinking about Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, or Presbyterians. I don't need anyone to qualify their generalizations. But heaven forbid anyone make a generalization about atheists suggesting that they are by and large naturalists or moral relativists even though those are clearly normative traits.

This isn't the sort of generalization this rule addresses.

"Leftists are fascists"
"Conservatives are racist"

...are the sorts we're addressing, and in *these* cases it's perfectly reasonable to require a qualification.

Quote:The unborn are human beings? Misogynist.
Gender Dysphoria is a medical issue? Bigot.
Religious artists shouldn't be compelled to create? Homophobe.
Personal choices and culture play a part in individual success? Racist.
Immigration laws should be enforced? xenophobe
Trump Supporter? White supremacist. KKK, etc.

So many straw men

---

How about insisting everyone on the left is the Taliban

---

And the only point you proved Wooter is that your as guilty as those you protest

Quote:"Conservatives are racist"

Yeah, I wonder where we ever got that idea?









Oh.  Right.

Next your analogy fails Wooter 

Christianity has absolute overarching themes that are essential regardless of denomination  . Atheism only equivalency is not believing in god thus the only thing point to without going into a false generalization .

I am extremely happy with this rule.

And that was my first thought, too. "This rule is awesome!"

My second thought was "Well, that's Min, Neo and Pool fucked!"

---

(November 1, 2017 at 12:40 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(November 1, 2017 at 12:34 pm)Joods Wrote: Poor min. Many times he posts threads with links that are news related or politics related and doesn't include much more than brief commentary. Is this to say that he can no longer include his witty one-liners?

We would rather see some attempt at starting a discussion. This is, after all, a discussion forum. We aren't a news site, people really shouldn't be getting their news from here at all, considering that in all likelihood there is a left-wing bias among members. I would rather like to see continuous, developing threads about certain newsworthy subjects that multiple small threads about every small thing that happens.

I 100% agree with the rule.

P.S. I get all my news from AF

---

(November 1, 2017 at 12:49 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I'm just saying what we'd prefer to see, I'm hoping the community can take that in mind when they create a new thread. There's no rule that says you have to encourage discussion, but it certainly helps when you do.

This announcement is more about provocation than anything.

Another reason I agree with this rule so much is that provocative threads provoke provocative responses and people can get into trouble for responding with provocative posts to a thread that provoked provocative responses . . . which isn't very fair. This rule makes everything far more fair. I know that the trolling rule itself also disallows troll threads but I feel like this rule makes it much clearer and more difficult for people to make troll threads - or unhelpful/provocative threads that provoke provocative responses which then get deemed "trolling" even when the responses are made by a person who clearly isn't a troll - and get away with it.

(November 1, 2017 at 4:45 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I would also like to point out that it is impossible to have a discussion without generalizing. There is nothing wrong with making the generalization that "men are taller than women." People should be smart enough to recognize that a generalization is by its very nature an expression of normative properties. People who need all manner of qualifications like "some" and "most" and "many" aren't being reasonable. If I say that political progressives are left-wing, I suppose that could mean that some progressive some where is a right-winger, but no one would call that normative. So it doesn't make sense to call it false equivocation. If someone makes an thread or post about "Christians" it isn't hard to figure out if they are thinking about Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, or Presbyterians. I don't need anyone to qualify their generalizations. But heaven forbid anyone make a generalization about atheists suggesting that they are by and large naturalists or moral relativists even though those are clearly normative traits.

Let me clarify that by "generalizations", in the context I was using, I meant things like "Christians are idots", "Atheists are pompous ass holes", "republicans are racist", "liberals are hypocrites", .... Or making threads to back up these generalizations by posting a story every time someone from one of these groups does something bad.