We need to open our eyes to reality.

Daily, we are given a false testimony by social commentators and scientists about who we all really are, within a spiritually bankrupt paradigm illusion and falsehood.
You are not a baby boomer, you are not a millennial, you are not generation x, y or z. These are all labels that do not accurately describe anyone individual karma or any social group. This viral sociological trend, to apply over-arching labels to ourselves is reductivist paradigm that belittles undermines and many people in society at once. And it says more about our social sciences and commentators than about actual people.

Perhaps this is precisely it. We are conditioned for whatever reason - probably political - to speak about people in general terms. What are we doing? This clearly perpetuates ignorance and fuels bigotry and division. If you look at any contentious social issue going on at the moment you will find journalists and bloggers and commentators painting at least one social group in broad brush strokes with reductivist language, that ignore important details of social context or history.

So I emplore you all to please refrain from speaking about large groups of people in generalised terms, ever. I feel it could be a product of this media saturated age that we are living in, that we engage in this divisiveness so automatically, but it could also be something from antiquity. I'm sure both must play their part. Either way, if we want to progress beyond these barbarian instincts we need to think more carefully about the language we use when talking about people whose background is different than our own, whether they are from another country or students from your own.
Thank you your time in reading this thread and for your kind cooperation if you agree to my humble request.

a reply to: 0hlord

Great Post - I totally agree that we can't speak about people in such general terms, but it does serve a purpose in certain circumstances, thus making us all create "general perceptions" of certain groups of people in our own minds.

I totally agree though, thanks for sharing this insight

a reply to: 0hlord

But aren't you yourself speaking of a rather large group in general terms....the media? Might want to specify and not generalize them.

a reply to: 0hlord

I have fallen victim to what You speak of here. Even with no Ill intent, profiled grouping is how I have spoken of some 'groups' of People.

Perhaps it is as You say that this has been done on purpose to make some groups seems less important and others to be more important when talking about their plight's, in discussion circles...

Good Thread Topic! Thank You for putting this out there, here... Syx...

Never thought of it like that.. Smart!!

I mean clumping groups of people together under one "name" or "label" is pretty much ALWAYS frowned upon, so why is this okay???

On wait I forgot, it isn't! Good post

Yes, the Social Engineers want to prevent you from identifying a trend, a specific segment of society; they want to force you to identify a specific individual which 99.9999% of the world populous is unable to do (only the alphabet agencies are). This forces the masses into a "box" of political correctness at the expense of agendas run rampant with total impunity.

Perfect.

You've been owned, and you are controlled by the MSM, who are controlled by power, money and special interest.

We have a winner! You must be a millennial...

After all, no-one could possibly make it any more than a few decades -at most- on this planet without realizing that most stereotypes and generalizations are beyond true.

Most people are caricatures.

The violent husband, the layabout pothead, the criminal, the sentimentalist drunk, Even the racist fool.

Far too many people are close-minded about bigotry these days.

Society is real, social constructs are real, this silly reductionism of "We're all one man", is just that, silly reductionism.

a reply to: VictoriaCromwell

And political correctness intentionally obfuscates all these things in the name of individual "rights" at the expense of death by terror and fear. It's Social Engineering of the highest order.

Mankind will not survive as long as this mantra is allowed to prevail. "Terror" will only prevail. Why? ....

Because it works...(and this is just how 'they' want it to work)!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Indeed, and many overlook the fact that it doesn't matter much what you think of yourself, you are who you are, regardless of your own perceptions, which are often clouded. Seldom do people have reason to help you overlook your own faults.

Don't worry though, no need to fear the "Terror" you mentioned, Islam is the religion of peace.

(Reality, Islam is a f***e religion and a m*******s s****e one).

a reply to: VictoriaCromwell

It's not about "Islam" in general; it's about extremist Islam formed in a vacuum of anarchy. This is the evil; this is where the evil and terror forms. As I have stated on numerous threads; terrorism is not unique to Islam, all cultures have done it at certain points, but the one thing which stands out about the Islamic culture is...they really don't do much about it. Perhaps it's a tolerance thing, or maybe worse it's a fear thing, but they don't act on it in a meaningful way.

I have lived in Islamic countries for many years, and for the most part they are a peaceful people, but perhaps too tolerant. I haven't lived in countries like Afghanistan or Syria, but I know many from Iraq and even Iran.

The solution in my mind is to hold the Islamic world to the same standard as the rest of modern civilization. Tolerance as it relates to 'terrorism' is simply not acceptable. Screw political correctness. GET IT DONE!!

Then, and only then, can we move on as a world populous. As long as this scourge is allowed to exist in society, any society, then we will be having these conversations.

not classifying people into groups and seeing them as individuals is one of the basics of Libertarianism

a reply to: seaswine

a reply to: 0hlord

We are all different and - and we are all the same - Schrodinger's Paradox

a reply to: VictoriaCromwell

BTW...I am far from a Millennial. At nearly 53 I probably identify with Baby Boomers or no generational name at all.

a reply to: VictoriaCromwell

it doesn't matter much what you think of yourself, you are who you are, regardless of your own perceptions, which are often clouded. Seldom do people have reason to help you overlook your own faults. 

Sorry, but you missed the point of this thread. I'm not saying that generalisations have no validity. I'm almost saying that, and we can discuss to what degree that is either true or untrue. What I am most defintely saying though is that taking them literally, is divisive, and using them in serious social commentary or even semi serious social commentary is intellectually inept and spiritually bankrupt.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Yes, the Social Engineers want to prevent you from identifying a trend, a specific segment of society; they want to force you to identify a specific individual

If you're trying to call me a hypocrit, you need think again.

There is as far as I'm aware no such trend of individuals forcing anyone to do anything of that nature.

But you need to understand even if it were, like all trends it would A) be context bound, and B) be fluid (evolving) and therefore temporary, like all trends. C) Trends are thoughts and actions, not people!

It's true that some trends are only exhibited by specific social groups. What important to understand is that only when a group identifies itself by such a trend can it be said that that trend is part of a groups identity... It gets pretty complicated when you get into the nitty gritty of the social science... But i remain convinced, its not a science. And I can use logic to prove why.

Even when you have a group of people lets say Muslims for example.... Muslims have beleive certain things, and maybe sometimes exhibit certain behaviour trends exclusive to Muslims... But to what extent those beliefs and behaviours constitute the complete identity of any given Muslim no one can claim to have any idea about. Not even if you ask Muslims? Why, because you're asking them based on the fact that they identify as a Muslim as the primary marker for appropriating the extent that they are or are not a defined by their religious faith, when there are 2 billion Muslims in the world.

The point I'm labouring over is that essentially no matter what observation you base your generalisation on, ie Muslim society is patriarchal, even if you sample size was tens of thousands strong, you still would be faced with the fundamental reality which is that the identity of those tens of thousands of Muslims is tens of thousands of times more complex than the conclusions you come to about Muslims based on that study. In other words it's a false paradigm that encourages people to think in terms of divisive caricatures.

Maybe someone can refute what I have just said, but I'm tired, so I'll look at it again tomorrow.

a reply to: 0hlord

No, I make no statement about you personally whatsoever.

My statement(s) stand on their own.

If they enlighten you then great. If they offend you then I'm sorry (for you), but so be it.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Exactly, and the point I'd wish people would get is that what Barack Obama and other panderers are doing is vile, they're hoping that if only we're nice to the radicals, then maybe they'll love us. That isn't going to happen.

This social fear of being labeled a bigot is ridiculous, people are more afraid of that than being a victim of a terror attack or murdered in cold blood by some gangster on the street. Good priorities those bleeding fools have about them.

Maybe, just maybe, lives are more important than the weak sensitivities of some effete collegiate fools who don't even know how to change a lightbulb.

a reply to: VictoriaCromwell

I'm more afraid of actually being a bigot than being called a bigot.

a reply to: 0hlord

Moral, intellectual, or spiritual bankruptcy aside, you can have all the individualistic sensibilities you like, and that's nice, I'm against most forms of collectivism myself. That doesn't change the fact that the mob is still there, pitchforks and all.

Millennials, boomers, gi's, and silents all have their own distinct characteristics, you're not likely to see a WW2 vet at a vape bar or a rave, nor would you see many millennials at a bridge club or a doo wop revival concert. The past is a foreign nation, therefore to a younger generation, their progenitors ought be foreign themselves.

Tribalism is everywhere, what else is youth fashion?

People are going to generalize, marginalize, and put you in a box, regardless of how much you want to be seen as an individual.

a reply to: 0hlord

I would posit one question torwards that statement, who gets to decide what makes you a bigot, yourself or others?

Secondly, and I think this is the point claydisk was making, are some stereotypes not true, useful even?

Lastly, who is more likely to commit a terror attack, a syrian refugee , or an englishman on a H1-B visa? If you answer in the positive as to the syrian, you're a bigot by the standards of the current....zeitgeist.