Conspiracy theories are popular because people often prefer easy answers to reality. And “gays womens disableds bad” is a very easy answer, as it absolves [thanks maccentric] people that are not in those groups from blame.
How is what you’re imagining any better than simply “gays womens diableds good” as a lazy and simple answer, so you can put the blame for society’s problems on other people, and take no responsibility for learning and growing as people yourselves?
…as a lazy and simple answer, so you can put the blame for society’s problems on other people, and take no responsibility for learning and growing as people yourselves?
It’s bad because, exactly as you have displayed, people will hyper focus on trigger words, while ignoring everything else that gets said.
Ok, but your original comment was pretty much a non-sequitor.
Saying that it’s bad to say that those groups of people are bad doesn’t mean that anyone is saying that those groups of people are good as a simple answer. But frankly, saying those groups are good is probably a better answer than saying they’re bad.
We have homophobes, misogynists, and ableists, so there are definitely people who explicitly think those groups are bad.
Meanwhile, the people advocating for the rights of those groups are not saying that all people in those groups are virtuous and can do no wrong… they’re advocating for equal rights and opportunities.
Besides. I’m fine with “women are good” being the starting point rather than “women are bad”…lol
It’s only a non-sequitur if you hyperfixate on the part inside quotes while ignoring the central thrust: That attempting to reduce large populations down to simple catch phrases will never end well in the long run. Too many people argue fervently over how we should label broad segments of society, to the point that they attack anyone suggesting that they shouldn’t be doing that by assuming those people must just want the opposite, but equally reductive, perspective to be true.
As I recall, the comment you replied to said that we shouldn’t label broad segments of the population in a certain way. Then you said we shouldn’t label broad segments of the population in a different way.
As I mentioned, homophobia, misogyny, and ableism are all well-documented phenomenon. The original comment suggested those things are bad. Since they involve labeling broad strokes of the population as bad (specifically, gay people, women, and people with disabilities), I take it you’re opposed to those things?
It’s been taken off Wikipedia but there was a video a few years ago pointing out fox news only became profitable when they switched to the brown people bad and fear rhetoric. There was a theory name for it but it’s since been scrubbed from the internet. That’s the basis of conservativism.
There’s nothing in this conversation that you could even consider a strawman, yet, so I don’t know what you think that word means.
However, I must just assume you aren’t part of a minority community if you haven’t been affected by people constantly bitching about how some piece of media is too woke now because it had a woman/gay person/trans person/person of colour existing in the content. Yes, they are a vocal minority. But it is by no means uncommon to encounter them.
You may see substantially less of it on Lemmy since it is a predominantly left leaning space in general, and the left tends to be more accepting of non cishet white male presence
This sounds weird to me. What is easier than just trusting the official information? This is exactly what conspiracy theorists are complaining about actually. That ordinary people just trust the information they are given by credible sources.
If anything, people who believe the standard information are the laziest, no?
So the “easy answers” part sounds a bit weird. The easy answers are right there on TV and the internet on the first search hit.
It’s more that those answers don’t make sense to conspiracy theorists. I guess you can tell them to get a degree in science and then it will make sense to them, but that won’t happen.
But it’s interesting how others can appearently explain how things work to conspiracy theorists in a way so they feel they understand and don’t doubt the information. Because it makes intuitive sense to them.
Maybe too much of science is hidden behind complicated layers that normal people just don’t understand and can’t understand.
Conspiracy theories are popular because people often prefer easy answers to reality. And “gays womens disableds bad” is a very easy answer, as it absolves [thanks maccentric] people that are not in those groups from blame.
How is what you’re imagining any better than simply “gays womens diableds good” as a lazy and simple answer, so you can put the blame for society’s problems on other people, and take no responsibility for learning and growing as people yourselves?
But this is more case of “gays women disabled people exist”
Assholes: “how could you!? All stories should be about me, and only me!”
Threads like this are really helpful for identifying unreachable people (yes, I mean you)
Why is it wrong to say women, gay people, and people with disabilities are good?
In media, there are villains who are women, gay, or who have disabilities, so it’s not like they’re exclusively “good guys”…
It’s bad because, exactly as you have displayed, people will hyper focus on trigger words, while ignoring everything else that gets said.
Ok, but your original comment was pretty much a non-sequitor.
Saying that it’s bad to say that those groups of people are bad doesn’t mean that anyone is saying that those groups of people are good as a simple answer. But frankly, saying those groups are good is probably a better answer than saying they’re bad.
We have homophobes, misogynists, and ableists, so there are definitely people who explicitly think those groups are bad.
Meanwhile, the people advocating for the rights of those groups are not saying that all people in those groups are virtuous and can do no wrong… they’re advocating for equal rights and opportunities.
Besides. I’m fine with “women are good” being the starting point rather than “women are bad”…lol
It’s only a non-sequitur if you hyperfixate on the part inside quotes while ignoring the central thrust: That attempting to reduce large populations down to simple catch phrases will never end well in the long run. Too many people argue fervently over how we should label broad segments of society, to the point that they attack anyone suggesting that they shouldn’t be doing that by assuming those people must just want the opposite, but equally reductive, perspective to be true.
As I recall, the comment you replied to said that we shouldn’t label broad segments of the population in a certain way. Then you said we shouldn’t label broad segments of the population in a different way.
As I mentioned, homophobia, misogyny, and ableism are all well-documented phenomenon. The original comment suggested those things are bad. Since they involve labeling broad strokes of the population as bad (specifically, gay people, women, and people with disabilities), I take it you’re opposed to those things?
Funny because you are the first person I hear to say thing.
It’s been taken off Wikipedia but there was a video a few years ago pointing out fox news only became profitable when they switched to the brown people bad and fear rhetoric. There was a theory name for it but it’s since been scrubbed from the internet. That’s the basis of conservativism.
That’s a great thing! You’ve managed to avoid the torrent of awful people spouting those ideologies.
Sounds like a strawman…
It really isn’t. Companies absolutely love using it as an excuse for why their shit product sold like shit, but these people are absolutely out there.
Go spend 10 minutes on 4chan’s /v/ideogames board or /b/ - Random board for the most obvious and quick demonstration.
Double edit: will respond to your response
There’s nothing in this conversation that you could even consider a strawman, yet, so I don’t know what you think that word means.
However, I must just assume you aren’t part of a minority community if you haven’t been affected by people constantly bitching about how some piece of media is too woke now because it had a woman/gay person/trans person/person of colour existing in the content. Yes, they are a vocal minority. But it is by no means uncommon to encounter them.
You may see substantially less of it on Lemmy since it is a predominantly left leaning space in general, and the left tends to be more accepting of non cishet white male presence
This sounds weird to me. What is easier than just trusting the official information? This is exactly what conspiracy theorists are complaining about actually. That ordinary people just trust the information they are given by credible sources.
If anything, people who believe the standard information are the laziest, no?
So the “easy answers” part sounds a bit weird. The easy answers are right there on TV and the internet on the first search hit.
It’s more that those answers don’t make sense to conspiracy theorists. I guess you can tell them to get a degree in science and then it will make sense to them, but that won’t happen.
But it’s interesting how others can appearently explain how things work to conspiracy theorists in a way so they feel they understand and don’t doubt the information. Because it makes intuitive sense to them.
Maybe too much of science is hidden behind complicated layers that normal people just don’t understand and can’t understand.