Not All - Revision history

Xzenu: /* Identity fragility intersecting with the "Not All" fallacy */

2020-09-29T11:56:36Z

‎Identity fragility intersecting with the "Not All" fallacy

Xzenu: /* Identity fragility intersecting with the "Not All" fallacy */

2020-09-29T11:56:21Z

‎Identity fragility intersecting with the "Not All" fallacy

Xzenu at 11:55, 29 September 2020

2020-09-29T11:55:57Z

Xzenu: Created page with "To do a "Not all" is to make the claim that not all people in a certain category is in a certain way. While this claim is true for all categories except those for which it is..."

2020-07-12T19:30:39Z

Created page with "To do a "Not all" is to make the claim that not all people in a certain category is in a certain way. While this claim is true for all categories except those for which it is..."

New page

To do a "Not all" is to make the claim that not all people in a certain category is in a certain way. While this claim is true for all categories except those for which it is tautologically false, the claim can still be anywhere between being an reasonably on topic objection to being an unreasonable level of derailment.

While a "Not All" can be used in regards to any category, the most famous version is "Not All Men".

Below follows three ways in which doing a "Not All" can be bad, good, or ambiguous - each of them using "Not All Men" as an example.

=="Not all" as only unjustified derailment==
When someone is bringing up an actual problem without generalizing about any category, others can pointlessly bring the conversation down by arguing as if generalizations had been made.

Example: After a woman has been sexually harassed by two different guys, her friends argue that everyone should respect each other and that those who go over other people's boundaries should stop doing that. Some guy finds this argument to be very offensive, and angrily retorts that "not all men are like that" - acting as if the friends had been arguing that all men are always sexual harassers and that no women are ever sexually harassers.

=="Not all" as only reasonable objection==
When someone is doing [[monolithization]] or spreading [[stereotypes]], others can call them out on it and argue for more nuance. Those who are doing the monolithization or similar can then use the [[thought-terminating cliché]] of dismissing valid criticism as "not all X", as if that would somehow invalidate the criticism.

Example: A man who sometimes sexually harass women tries to justify his bad behavior by arguing that "this is just how we men are". A woman [[representation bias|who grew up in a misogynistic family and is really tired of certain men who has been close to her]] agrees with him. Someone who's trying to stand up against this [[normalization]] of sexual harassment points out that most men don't behave like that, but gets dismissed by a "not all men" said in a mocking tone.

=="Not all" in ambiguous situations==
Situations are often much more complex than in the two examples above.

Example: A rant against sexual harassment has a lot of good points, but also uses an oversimplified rhetoric which could be interpreted as if all men would be guilty and as if all women would be innocent. Thus it becomes an issue of balance between upholding nuance and upholding momentum.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:56, 29 September 2020
Line 22:		Line 22:


−	==Identity fragility intersecting with the "Not All" fallacy==	+	==[[Identity fragility]] intersecting with the "Not All" fallacy==
	Lets take a story in three steps, with the character labels in ''italic''...		Lets take a story in three steps, with the character labels in ''italic''...

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:56, 29 September 2020
Line 22:		Line 22:


−	==Identity fragility intersecting with the "[[Not All]]" fallacy==	+	==Identity fragility intersecting with the "Not All" fallacy==
	Lets take a story in three steps, with the character labels in ''italic''...		Lets take a story in three steps, with the character labels in ''italic''...

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:55, 29 September 2020
Line 20:		Line 20:

	Example: A rant against sexual harassment has a lot of good points, but also uses an oversimplified rhetoric which could be interpreted as if all men would be guilty and as if all women would be innocent. Thus it becomes an issue of balance between upholding nuance and upholding momentum.		Example: A rant against sexual harassment has a lot of good points, but also uses an oversimplified rhetoric which could be interpreted as if all men would be guilty and as if all women would be innocent. Thus it becomes an issue of balance between upholding nuance and upholding momentum.
		+
		+
		+	==Identity fragility intersecting with the "[[Not All]]" fallacy==
		+	Lets take a story in three steps, with the character labels in ''italic''...
		+
		+	Step 1.)
		+	Some people are doing categorist things against people who belong to a certain category of people, for example the ''local managers'' in a corporation refusing to give a certain ''employee'' a raise or promotion simply because this employee happens to be black or white or homosexual or heterosexual or Athist or Christian.
		+
		+	Step 2.)
		+	Someone speaks up against the discrimination in step one, this ''speaker'' tells about how the acts of the local managers (and of those who behave in the same way) are unfair both against the ''employee'' personally and to people of the ''employee''s category in general.
		+
		+	Step 3.)
		+	Some ''bystander'' feels offended by the ''speaker''. This bystander is not employed at the corporation and doesn't know any involved people personally. Hoever, the ''bystander'' shares a category with the ''local managers'', and feels that the ''speaker'' has somehow offended everyone in the category: THis ''bystander'' treats the ''speaker'' as if pointing out the unfairness of these ''local managers'' and of other people who behave in the same way would somehow mean that ALL managers/whites/blacks/heterosexuals/homosexuals/christians/atheists are mean people like that. So now the discussion is all about how the ''speaker'' is the villain and about how the ''bystander'' is the real victim here.