Wrestling Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

· None but ourselves
3,658 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
By news I don't only mean big world events but "People were offended by something" type stories. I see this on a daily basis so here's what drives me nuts:

1) Weaving unrelated stories into a continuous narrative​

Students in Alabama complained about something, students in Michigan complained about something else - these students complain about everything!

Every student you read about is his or her own universe, not part of some ongoing narrative - that's just the way you consume the information.
This is part of my daily "It's not the same people!" frustration: "The IWC/Twitter/'you people' say [wrestler] should turn heel then when he turns heel you say he shouldn't have turned heel! You can't win!" Not only have you definitely heard this, you've probably said it so give yourself a slap and listen closely: It's not the same people!

This occurs when rather than saying "A guy named ReignsHater365 said [x] and a girl named RomanEmpire3Ever says [y]", someone says "[Group] say x and then y! [Group] can't make up its mind". Bad enough when it's wrestling, outright dangerous when it's social/world politics.

2) The seesaw effect ("You can't win!")

"They" do not "complain no matter what" because there is no "they". From your (irrelevant to all but yourself) observer position, everybody else is "they" but in reality we're all just individuals doing our own thing independently.

At some point this century, the adage "You can [please/fool] some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time but you can't [please/fool] all of the people all of the time" was wiped from most people's memory. Some people want Outcome A, others want Outcome B: If Outcome A occurs then Camp B will complain, if Outcome B occurs then Camp A will complain. This is offensively obvious yet how often do you hear "*They* complain no matter what"?

Are you expecting a time at which all human beings share the same likes and dislikes? If so, slap yourself again and let's move on.

3) 'They' won't stop complaining​

"I understood the complaints at first but this has gotten ridiculous! They're still complaining and I'm sick of it now.

Then stop staring at a screen or piece of paper and reading their expressed opinions! It isn't that [Group] won't stop complaining, it's that a revolving door of different individuals are voicing their complaints one after another and you're foolish enough to keep reading them, somehow expecting Jonny Examplename to say "Actually I won't vent about my recent experience because some people might have grown tired of reading about people's experiences yet lack the sense to stop reading them"

Question: Are YOU "they"?
Apparent answer: Me? No, I'm a unique individual observing others.
Command: Slap thyself

Some people think I'm narcissistic. Well at least I don't think I'm the only person for whom all others are just interchangeable performers on a stage with myself being the all seeing audience of one.

In the odd case that it is the same individual, ask yourself: Am I clicking on thread after thread about a celebrity's blog or Twitter feed only to complain that I'm sick of hearing their opinions? You know what to do.

Final Round) HOW MANY of them?​

Muslims complained did they? What percentage? Gay/black/transgender/disabled/feminist/Christian/atheist/any-other-group-that-doesn't-include-you complained did they? How many of them did versus how many did not?

If we were physically unable to say "[Group did something]" without stating roughly what percentage of them did, half the so called news stories would vanish. "0.7% of LGBT people were offended by..." doesn't have the same ring to it as "LGBT people were offended...AGAIN" now does it?

"A small portion of individuals are offended by different things at different times!" doesn't have the 'Sky is falling in' quality as "Everyone's constantly offended by everything", does it?

If 38% of responders complained that "people are too sensitive" and didn't find it offensive, 18% of responders complained that is was indeed offensive and 44% of responders didn't give a shit one way or another then how the hell does it make sense to characterise the response as "People got offended"?

The fatal flaw in our ungoverned brain here is the any amount greater than two individuals qualifies as "people". Example: "Americans support Donald Trump" - this can be technically true but so can "Americans reject Donald Trump". The obvious question then is HOW MANY do versus how many do not. Any time you hear the lazy and unintelligent "[People] did [something]" ask yourself what proportion of them did.

Or just slap yourself. Thanks for reading.

TL;DR version: Basically I explain how terrorists are not that bad when you get to know them, it's well worth the read.

· Banned
4,161 Posts
there is a difference between; these people were offended and these people were offended but are willing and able to be pro active about it because they want to see actual change actually happen rather than leave fate to the powers that be

· Banned
2,233 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: lectoryo
227 Posts
Brain washed zombies, we're already over run with them! The planet is fucked

· Registered
3,535 Posts
Political correctness pushes a collectivist agenda, which is they wish to force the general population to think all the same way, speak the same way, believe the same way...

So, yea I'll continue generalizing them of course :p , because that's what they are doing to the population. They can dish it out, but they sure can't take it :p

As for random generalizations, I believe they exists moreso because that's how we tend to store and sort memories of stuff that isn't important to us, so it reflects in our language, which you can't force someone to speak how you want them to. A simple example is automobiles to me aren't important, so I call all of them "cars", I don't really get into specifics unless I'm talking about a specific one in particular, the topic's importance is very low, as I'm not interested. But to a collector, hobbyist mechanic, or someone who works in cars all their lives and it's their passion, they will tend to be specific as it's of greater importance. Where "PC" comes in is when I'm bitching about cars, the collector don't like me lumping them all together I shouldn't do that, he wants the power to force me not to do that. That strive for power to control what others do and say is "PC". But since cars are of no importance to me, no matter what the collector says I can't force something that holds zero interest to me to become of major interest, so the collector rants, raves, complains, but nothing he can do can make the topic of any greater importance to me thus my speech will reflect it. Eventually collector pisses me off then you get the backlash of 'anti-pc'.

That's my opinion on how things are working... and while I may be totally wrong, in general, (pun intended) that's how it seems to me.

Although, when I personally generalize on something, I always try to throw in a "In my opinion" just to make it clear I'm not "speaking for someone or on behalf of some 'group'". I think the act of "speaking for others" is a lot worse than generalizing and of course this sentence began with "I think", but opinions are like assholes as "they" say


· Premium Member
6,285 Posts
Generalization can also occur under the saying 'birds of a feather flock together' which in a society example breaks down to if neighbors, family, friends & even complete strangers share a common fan appeal (or political ideals) they herd together in 'cliques' (or as in case of a forum they form a group) and support/defend all members involved. The best classic novel that perfectly shows this occurs past, present & future is Lord of the flies by William Goulding which, as everyone knows, describes stranded children/teens on an island who originally develop their own 'society' until a conflict occurs that leads to a divide by common beliefs/support and ends up in a brutal 'us vs them' survival of the fittest.

This mentality of group gatherings is for forcing opinions in the safe knowledge that their 'members' will support them if a forced differing view challenges the 'queen B' resulting in a backlash of character attacking & worse. Here is where 'They' or 'We all think..' developed from as having a clique backing allowed 'Them' to be in a position to push a forced opinion through majority vs minority and, at worse, heckling tactics to create ridicule against a minority ensuring majority maintains advantage.

Cool thread btw OP.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.