If a company says they prefer job applicants to have references, is that blind prejudice also?
This analogy is based on a reinterpretation of the original statement . Consider instead the trivially false statement: “if you don’t have references, you will be a lousy employee”.
I think you are confused, especially if you’re connecting this to violence.
Which “this”? Your statement seemed to imply that I should “accept as valid” (which I assume means something along the lines of “don’t publicly object to”) a sentiment or preference with an understandable evolutionary origin. Why not a preference for violence?
Granted, Alicorn’s way of expressing this fact was not especially PC from a male perspective.
According to you, her way of expressing this fact was to express a different fact.
To a guy, caring about who you know can sound “elitist”, in precisely the same way that guys’ concerns about various female characteristics can sound “shallow” and un-PC to women.
Thanks for draping me with stereotypes and assuming the worst, but that wasn’t my objection. I was objecting to the elevation of a mere social intuition or preference to the status of a logical truth (note the if-then, case-by-base logical structure of the original context). If Alicorn had said “I think it’s creepy when a guy doesn’t know any women”, I would not have replied.
If Alicorn had said “I think it’s creepy when a guy doesn’t know any women”, I would not have replied.
Understood, and fair enough. However, it would’ve been much more helpful if you’d just said that to start with, rather than answering her with a sweeping dismissal.
I personally don’t see what she said as that big a deal; I took the “something wrong” part as meaning “you have characteristics women in general will find undesirable” or “you lack characteristics that women in general will require”—and I see that as a true statement.
If you take this as meaning there is something morally or ethically wrong with you in some absolute sense -- as opposed to merely “wrong” for the result you desire—then I could see how you might consider it prejudice.
In my case, it’s easy to see Alicorn as speaking through the lens of a worldview in which it’s simply common sense that of course you would know other people, because otherwise you’d have to be some sort of creep, or at least have a terrible life that’s in urgent need of repair. And within the sphere of women’s social lives (in general), such an assessment is perfectly logical and sensible.
Your statement seemed to imply that I should “accept as valid” (which I assume means something along the lines of “don’t publicly object to”)
I mean, “understand why a human being might feel that way and separate your opinion of the behavior from your judgment of the person”—to disagree without being disagreeable, in other words.
Understood, and fair enough. However, it would’ve been much more helpful if you’d just said that to start with, rather than answering her with a sweeping dismissal.
I think it’s more helpful to sweepingly dismiss sweeping, incorrect generalizations of people that others may take to heart.
I took the “something wrong” part as meaning “you have characteristics women in general will find undesirable” or “you lack characteristics that women in general will require”—and I see that as a true statement.
I don’t, except in the tautological sense (“there’s something wrong with men who don’t know any women, and that something is women find them undesirable, because they don’t know any women”).
If you take this as meaning there is something morally or ethically wrong with you in some absolute sense—as opposed to merely “wrong” for the result you desire—then I could see how you might consider it prejudice.
Ah, I see. You’re talking about “wrong” in the sense that it’s wrong to have gay friends, if you want to meet Christians.
This analogy is based on a reinterpretation of the original statement . Consider instead the trivially false statement: “if you don’t have references, you will be a lousy employee”.
Which “this”? Your statement seemed to imply that I should “accept as valid” (which I assume means something along the lines of “don’t publicly object to”) a sentiment or preference with an understandable evolutionary origin. Why not a preference for violence?
According to you, her way of expressing this fact was to express a different fact.
Thanks for draping me with stereotypes and assuming the worst, but that wasn’t my objection. I was objecting to the elevation of a mere social intuition or preference to the status of a logical truth (note the if-then, case-by-base logical structure of the original context). If Alicorn had said “I think it’s creepy when a guy doesn’t know any women”, I would not have replied.
Understood, and fair enough. However, it would’ve been much more helpful if you’d just said that to start with, rather than answering her with a sweeping dismissal.
I personally don’t see what she said as that big a deal; I took the “something wrong” part as meaning “you have characteristics women in general will find undesirable” or “you lack characteristics that women in general will require”—and I see that as a true statement.
If you take this as meaning there is something morally or ethically wrong with you in some absolute sense -- as opposed to merely “wrong” for the result you desire—then I could see how you might consider it prejudice.
In my case, it’s easy to see Alicorn as speaking through the lens of a worldview in which it’s simply common sense that of course you would know other people, because otherwise you’d have to be some sort of creep, or at least have a terrible life that’s in urgent need of repair. And within the sphere of women’s social lives (in general), such an assessment is perfectly logical and sensible.
I mean, “understand why a human being might feel that way and separate your opinion of the behavior from your judgment of the person”—to disagree without being disagreeable, in other words.
I think it’s more helpful to sweepingly dismiss sweeping, incorrect generalizations of people that others may take to heart.
I don’t, except in the tautological sense (“there’s something wrong with men who don’t know any women, and that something is women find them undesirable, because they don’t know any women”).
Ah, I see. You’re talking about “wrong” in the sense that it’s wrong to have gay friends, if you want to meet Christians.