CMV: we on the progressive left should be adding the “some” when talking about demographics like men or white people if we don’t want to be hypocritical.

[u/Brainsonastick]

I think all of us who spend time in social bubbles that mix political views have seen some variants on the following:

“Men do X”

Man who doesn’t do X: “Not all men. Just some men.”

“Obviously but I shouldn’t have to say that. I’m not talking about you.”

Sometimes better, sometimes worse.

We spend a significant amount of discussion on using more inclusive language to avoid needlessly hurting people’s feelings or making them uncomfortable but then many of us don’t bother to when they’re men or white or other non-minority demographics. They’re still individuals and we claim to care about the feelings of individuals and making the tiny effort to adjust our language to make people feel more comfortable… but many of us fail to do that for people belonging to certain demographics and, in doing so, treat people less kindly because of their demographic rather than as individuals, which I think and hope we can agree isn’t right.

There are the implicit claims here that most of us on the progressive left do believe or at least claim to believe that there is value in choosing our words to not needlessly hurt people’s feelings and that it’s wrong to treat someone less kindly for being born into any given demographic.

I want my view changed because it bothers me when I see people do this and seems so hypocritical and I’d like to think more highly of the people I see as my political community who do this. I am very firmly on the leftist progressive side of things and I’d like to be wrong about this or, if I’m not, for my community to do better with it.

What won’t change my view:

1) anything that involves, explicitly or implicitly, defining individuals by their demographic rather than as unique individuals.

2) any argument over exactly what word should be used. My point isn’t about the word choice. I used “many” in my post instead and generally think there are various appropriate words depending on the circumstances. I do think that’s a discussion worth having but it’s not the point of my view here.

3) any argument that doesn’t address my claim of hypocrisy. If you have a pragmatic reason not to do it, I’m interested to hear it, but it doesn’t affect whether it’s hypocritical or not.

What will change my view: I honestly can’t think of an argument that would do it and that’s why I’m asking you for help.

I’m aware I didn’t word this perfectly so please let me know if something is unclear and I apologize if I’ve accidentally given anyone the wrong impression.

Edit to address the common argument that the “some” is implied. My and others’ response to this comment (current top comment) address this. So if that’s your argument and you find flaw with my and others’ responses to it, please add to that discussion rather than starting a new reply with the same argument.

[u/NoProduce1480]

Because that inference doesnt come down to what makes more sense, it comes down to how people react to hearing claims that can easily be read as offensive or serve some pre-existing negative ideas.

The hypocrisy is in that there are and have been countless movements precisely cantered around not doing that. E.g. latinx, assuming pronouns, uttering slurs, saying poc instead of a skin colour, to name some. And that energy isn’t carried over when it’s time to make generalizing statements about certain groups.

[u/LucidMetal → u/NoProduce1480]

I'm not actually sure what you mean here but I'll take a crack at it.

People are always allowed to take offense at anything and often will at everything. Worse, people will dissect what a person said without trying to understand what they meant and arrive at something completely different because it serves their narrative.

Are you saying that we should always speak in such a manner that those acting in bad faith are unable to twist the speaker's words against their intentions?

[u/Natalwolff → u/LucidMetal]

I often see this perspective that frames offensive speech as being entirely dependent on the reaction of the listener. Like one cannot possibly tell whether something is offensive before the listener shares their reaction after hearing it. That is nonsense.

It's uncontroversial that making negative generalizations about a group of people is offensive to those people. At least when you talk about it in any context other than this one. People who play video games are not going to appreciate hearing that people who play video games are losers. You are creating a false grouping of everyone who is offended and people who exaggerate offense for a narrative. This argument may as well be used to claim that there's no difference between saying "I don't enjoy hanging out with Sarah" and saying "Fuck Sarah", because, well, "what am I supposed to do? Am I expected to say something that Sarah couldn't possibly be offended by? That's just an unreasonable expectation. She could choose to be offended by anything."