• hips_and_nips@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    “Gun people” != “all gun owners”

    They didn’t say “all gun owners” they said “gun people” which to anyone with awareness can infer it means the people who tie their identity to their weapons.

    What a shitty analogy to women, I’m not even going to touch that.

    Would it have been clearer if the original comment said “irresponsible gun people”, sure, but it wasn’t and self-centered people want to be the victim when they haven’t understood they aren’t even in the group.

    I’m Dutch and even I could glean the intended meaning from the context.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah so if I say “woman people” I’m not talking about all of them, only a specific subsect that I failed to describe, and then I’m confused why people think I’m generalizing?

      C’mon, “gun people” is a clear generalization that clearly implies “all gun owners.” He could’ve said “irresponsible gun owners” to single out those who he wished to refer to, but he didn’t, thus the “confusion.” If it was actually his wish to single out those people, actually doing so in the future would help his posts not be misunderstood.

      Lol yes, don’t bother touching how dumb generalizations are, make them instead.

      So you’re telling me that making generalizations about a group is good, and if someone in that group feels like the generalization is unfair and doesn’t reflect them or reality, they should stop being a snowflake? You by chance voting for an orange this election?

      Ah, Dutch, that explains it. The Dutch love to generalize.