• hips_and_nips@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    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
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      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.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          At the end of the day, it is all very vague, subjective, and ill defined, and will lead to confusion when not defined further and by objective measures like responsibility which is commonly held to mean safety in this context. Applying your own secret meanings to “gun people” like “some guy I know is cool so he isn’t one” is just not a good basis for being understood by people who don’t also know “Steve” or whoever you deem responsible. You can disagree with that all you wish, but clearly that is the case being that I wasn’t the only one who thought it meant all gun people not just some gun people. I don’t particularly care about you or your state, but if one wants to be understood, they should take the words they write into account.

          Though if you said bread people, depending on context, if said like “bread people are idiots,” would assume you’re one of those “carnivore diet” people that refuses pasta, bread, and the like, or if said like “hey head over to the bread people and grab a loaf” I would assume you mean a literal bread shop. Fwiw.

          Same for car people. Just regular conversation? Yes, you’re correct. On c/fuckcars? No I assume they mean anyone with a car. All of lemmy is basically c/fuckguns, coincidentally, so when I hear it here I assume probably correctly they meant all gun owners and the entire conversation after is basically walking that back to “nuh uh I meant irresponsible ones, I just didn’t say that because reasons.”