The man who fatally shot a woman who was in a car that turned into the wrong driveway was sentenced Friday to 25 years to life for his second-degree murder conviction.
Just because you have a firearm doesn’t make you part of the “gun people” generalization.
Actually that’s kinda exactly what it means when people say “all gun owners blah blah blah.”
Do you fantasize about getting to shoot your gun? Have you tied your identity to your arsenal of guns? Do you feel the need to open carry at the grocery store? Do you open fire on cars in your driveway?
No, no, concealed (especially after Buffalo), and the last one is called “crime.”
No? Then you’re not in the “gun people” group being talked about. People who own guns are not the same as the “gun people”, or “gun nuts”/“ammosexuals”.
Disagree. If I say all women are sluts, but then some nun says “well I’m not,” I can’t claim I wasn’t talking about “all women” when I said “all women.” It’s preposterous. By that same coin, when someone says “all gun owners,” they can’t claim to "only be talking about the bad ones.” One should instead be more specific, like say “irresponsible gun owners blah blah blah,” if one wishes to make the distinction between “all” and “bad.”
*Disclaimer: No, I don’t believe all women are sluts, I was using it as an example of a stupid generalization specifically. I shouldn’t have to add this disclaimer, but we all know I have to before some cheesedick decides that was my argument and argues with a strawman.
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.
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.
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.”
Actually that’s kinda exactly what it means when people say “all gun owners blah blah blah.”
No, no, concealed (especially after Buffalo), and the last one is called “crime.”
Disagree. If I say all women are sluts, but then some nun says “well I’m not,” I can’t claim I wasn’t talking about “all women” when I said “all women.” It’s preposterous. By that same coin, when someone says “all gun owners,” they can’t claim to "only be talking about the bad ones.” One should instead be more specific, like say “irresponsible gun owners blah blah blah,” if one wishes to make the distinction between “all” and “bad.”
*Disclaimer: No, I don’t believe all women are sluts, I was using it as an example of a stupid generalization specifically. I shouldn’t have to add this disclaimer, but we all know I have to before some cheesedick decides that was my argument and argues with a strawman.
“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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.”