Why do people always assume you're part of a group just because you're defending them?
Why do people always assume you're part of a group just because you're defending them?
Have we really become so unempathetic as a society that the act of putting yourself in others' shoes is unbelievable to the point that people assume you must be part of the group you're defending? So I often see people being unfairly discriminatory and mean to certain types, attributes or qualities of people, which I know some would be offended and hurt by. But whenever I stick up for them, I get comments like this: "Tell me you're x without telling me you're x". "F*** off, x". A good example is gay people or trans people. I get heavily criticised for defending them and people immediately assume that I'm gay or trans just because I'm expressing that I empathise with how they're treated in society and think people should be kinder toward them. There are lots of other examples but I'm worried I'll be antagonised here just by saying them, so I picked some slightly more socially acceptable ones (yes there are some far less socially acceptable things than LGBT these days, in my experience, despite the rampant LGBTphobia).
Polarization and an us-vs-them attitude has permeated the culture of the United States. IMO it's one way the ruling elites keep us working class people too busy fighting each other to do anything about the corrupt corporations that run everything.
One good way to lower the temperature is to do what you're doing: practice empathy. Folks should always try to empathize with others, especially people they don't agree with. Nobody thinks of themselves as the villain of their own story.
It's helpful if we make a good faith effort to try to understand where other folks are coming from, and try to meet them where they are. Easier said than done in this "Twitter wars" environment, but a necessary tool in digging us out.
60What sometimes helps is to use more words to explain what you mean, and keep calm and respectful even if they go off anyways
Shorter soundbites are fun, but they don't capture the nuance. Saying "I agree with X, but also think Y" makes it clear what you think.
If someone still tries to pick a fight, it'll be clear to everyone else reading the comment chain. Can't win over everyone, but this might win over some while avoiding another pointless argument
6You know the ruling class is not behind every policy. Polarization is certainly not a policy they try and encourage in governments. Sometimes the working class has to take blame for their behaviour.
3
Oh so you're part of that group that defends people?
30Such a pussy
2
1: It's extremely common for people to be biased in favour of a group they're part of, since they benefit from that support.
2: It's also extremely common for group members to pretend to be outsiders when supporting their group, precisely because of (1). "Oh well, if this person is supporting the group despite being an outsider, they must be super-altruistic, and therefore their cause must be super-righteous."
3: If a group meets with widespread disapproval, then one way to silence external support for it is accusing the supporter of (2) - suggesting that not only are they one of the hated group, and also showing how dishonest the group members truly are.
4: Dunking on out-group members - especially via (3) - strengthens the bond of the in-group.
26And 5), calling shitty people out on their shit… really pisses them off, so they get nasty in response.
5
Allies are important; haters know that; and so, haters will hate on allies too.
Just consider the history of the term "n—r-lover".
20Empathy for other groups isn't universal. For some, they are approaching an opinion from a tribal point of view, and therefore disagreement with the policy is disagreeing with the tribe.
But it can go further than that. I've had cases where I've tried explaining how things work, and people take that as agreeing with it and therefore I'm part of the other tribe. The idea that people are calm and logical is played out many times as being false.
18I get that when I try to explain to people what is meant by "Black people can't be racist"; the difference between overt and systemic racism etc. It's frustrating that they refuse to even acknowledge the meaning even if they disagree with it. They will continue to argue against the wrong point.
2
I think it's because no one has the time to actually explain themselves which leads to reactionary events. I dealt with this a lot during 2020. Eventually getting hate from everyone. Also these days social media and news etc has everyone drugged up basically.
There's too much preemptive conversation and not enough reality?
18Because people lack both critical thinking skills and an imagination.
18Assholes are very often people who don't understand empathy because they have none.
18I think it stands to reason that on particular levels you're aligning yourself with "them". But... that's the whole point of empathy...its only when you see pieces of yourself in others that you can empathize with their existence or experience.
I guess its the human tragedy....we're all so much alike in our struggles, it's just the theatres that are different. But for some, that difference is enough to obscure the mirror and people see a monster where its just a reflection.
18I wonder if part of it is a lack of patience. So many people, especially online, want to jump to a conclusion as quickly as possible, like what they see in twitter or sms, or similar social media.
While I admit I can be wordy, I’ve been interrupted in conversations after the first few words, where someone has already concluded the opposite what I was trying to say
17While I admit I can be wordy, I’ve been interrupted in conversations after the first few words, where someone has already concluded the opposite what I was trying to say
This habit really grinds my gears sometimes. Especially yesterday. I'm going to rant about this because I didn't get the chance to actually converse about it yesterday. It will be excessively wordy and petty.
So yesterday I was conversing with a co-worker about having encountered an animal in my backyard. I say conversing but what I really mean is being disappointed.
Anyway I'd seen an animal and didn't know what it was so I asked their opinion. Was in the back yard and I heard loud noises like a horse breathing hard from it's nose.
When I finally caught a glimpse it was only briefly and just saw it from behind *Small, pig like tail *Short orange and black fur *Pig like body structure, short legs, round behind *Extremely slow, it "ran" from me at walking pace.
Along with some other things. Began to tell him about it and the first thing I mentioned was the orange and black fur. Was mid sentence trying to elaborate on the rest of the details when he asserted:
"It was a fox!"
It was anything but a fox. I know what foxes look like and explained that to them, along with attempting to explain other observations that would rule out the possibility of it being a fox.
But nah. Fox fox fox fox fox. Nothing I said mattered. What do I know? I was only there, know what a fox looks like which I thought would be the end of story but nope.
Just kept interrupting me with "it's a fox" and focusing on the orange fur. Ignored completely when I pointed out that it was pig shaped, short tailed, emitted horse/dog noises when breathing etc.
I gave up, it was just an attempt at lighthearted conversation anyway.
Funny part is, when we were leaving work together this same coworker has me stop on the way out. They walk me over and point to a dog with Auburn fur.
Why did they do this? To tell me that it was a fox. The dog was a fox. Not only do they tell me this but they go on to say "this is what you saw!"
I said it wasn't and that was the end of it. They had said their piece and corrected me, explaining to me how I had erroneously misidentified the mystery animal that I'd seen with my own eyes with a fox.
That was a dog. Beagle to be exact.
10
Anyone who does that is immature and doesn't deserve your consideration.
11People make countless baseless assumptions all the time. Educated people do so less, but no one is immune.
8pack mentality + ego
especially here
8because it's easier to make assumptions than to use critical thinking
8Yup. Circle the wagons! If ya ain't with us then you agin' us! Don't criticize me! And don't tell me to think! If ya hit my knee, I gonna kick! Twitch
6Because identity politics has taken over peoples ability for abstract thinking: aka if you are A you can't support arguments of B. Bc id you support B you ARE B.
Fuck these post marxist id politics.
5It takes mental effort to defend a group, or to engage in good faith discussion at all, really. People tend to pick up on key buzzwords that get thrown around a lot by certain groups and use those to gauge whether the discussion is going to be worth continuing. Concern-trolling and "I'm just asking questions" is quite common in these contexts, so both sides do this, to be honest.
2Hasn't been my experience, at least not in real life. I get -however- this happens on the internet. Some people barely read your posts and people on social media mostly reply to oppose and/or argue. Not to have a in-depth discussion.
2Inability to entertain the hypothetical https://youtu.be/9vpqilhW9uI
1This seems more like a rhetorical question than an actual question, since you're mostly answering it yourself.
Are you actually looking for answers, or just making a point?
(I'm not saying your point is invalid, of course...)
1Honestly wondering why people do this (why people immediately assume you must be part of any group you're defending). And I didn't think I answered that, but maybe I did and I missed it
5Humans naturally try to categorize things.
...I think.
It's almost like a yin and yang thing. Categorizing helps, but at the same time loses focus of the full spectrum.
3
Groups are just that fundamental to human psychology.
https://youtu.be/fuFlMtZmvY0?si=htB8ROCkPWWIer-A
This Kurzgesacht video actually touches on it.
1Look at it like this:
You’re in a position of privilege where your sexuality and gender identity are part of what constitutes “normal” for most people. All sexualities and genders are normal, of course, as far as I’m concerned. I’m going to guess by the nature of your post that you’re a cis-gender heterosexual male. You have a bit higher percentage of society that’s going to think of your positions as “normal” than, say, that of a gay man or a trans woman.
It’s like when a white person stands up against racism, or men march for women’s rights. When we tolerate intolerance, we allow it to spread. This is a good use of privilege. It’s expected that a gay person will be against homophobia and that a black person will be against racism. Being a “normal” person and being against those things is, by itself, calling out homophobia and racism. The community can use all the allies it can get.
I would point out one thing though. It sounds like you’re made uncomfortable being associated with the ideas behind the slurs. It’s fine to want to be seen as holding your identity, but it could also be because you harbor some negative stereotypes as well, perhaps unconsciously. I wouldn’t be insulted if someone thought I was black, or Mexican, or a trans man. If it’s an honest mistake on their part I might correct them (because it could lead to an awkward situation), but if someone were to call me an inapplicable slur, it would be just funny, not insulting. I might be offended that they thought it was okay to use such a word as an insult, but not that they thought they could insult me with it.
1I thought you were going political, and that has just become so divisive that there rarely seems to be a middle ground or any commonality. I used to think I had a good understanding of “the other side” even if I disagreed, but they might as well be aliens now. I believe that’s way too true in the US, regardless of your affiliation
0Defend the police and you are a boot licker on Lemmy.
-2The "on Lemmy" part of that sentence was completely unnecessary.
8A cop was ambushed and murdered in a post about a month back. It had quite a few comments and absolutely everyone of them was praising it. The down votes I got were a point of pride in telling people how scummy they were. This is a Lemmy problem. Other then some pretty far right websites, few social platforms have this kind of response. Is embarrassing.
2
Until gun violence comes up then suddenly they are the only ones responsible enough to have a total monopoly on defensive violence
-2Historically the role of the police was to catch escaped slaves, and to violently break strikes when unionised workers were fighting for their rights.
Their foundation was white supremacist violence and violence against the working class in order to keep wage slaves creating profit for the ruling class.
And that function continues today. The role of the police is literally to use violence to protect the private property of the ruling class and serve their interests.
Are you a working class person who defends the people keeping you enslaved? Then yes, you’re a bootlicker.
Also to jump in this thread when OP is talking about queer rights, we have several literal active genocides happening around the world - and the first thing you think of is “what about cops?” is utterly disgusting.
They can literally just get another job. Being a cop is not like your race, gender identity, etc. which you cannot change.
-2