Is your concern how you treat those specific individuals who have demonstrated their beliefs? Or is it about pre judging future people who you will meet? The answer will look different.
If it’s about those particular dudes… consider learning more about them and showing them more about you. It may be powerful. If that puts you at risk then don’t do it. You are under no obligation. They already showed you who they are.
If it’s about others… have you already find yourself demonstrating prejudice? Had it happened yet, or is it just a fear? Biases are natural. Everyone has them. Recognizing them is the greatest defense. Huge. Stereotyping is a protective mechanism to help us figure out what is safe or important. It is a shortcut. It cuts down mental processing time by seeing not just a new individual sensation but also a thing that is part of a group that already is in a mental network with a web of associations. You learn more on an instant than you would by investigating every new thing. Even if it’s not perfectly accurate, it’s good enough for spotting tigers and strawberries.
Biases are shortcuts. But not everything deserves a shortcut. Getting to know another person sometimes means taking the long road.
Don’t feel ashamed that your mind wants to take shortcuts. It might help you feel safe. In a fraction of a second your brain might think, “He looks a lot like that guy that said he would hurt people like me.” But part of being human is being able to rise above that. Stop and think: is that the same guy? No. Let’s give him a chance and see what he’s about.
Or don’t. Stay safe. The risks of human relationships can be rewarding, but they are still risks.
I’m confused by the prompt. The Big Lebowski was an amazing movie with great social commentary, but it was poorly received and mostly only had a cult following.
Arrested Development was just okay, nothing special, but is talked about by everyone and absolutely overrated. It’s social commentary is nothing compared to Big Lebowski.
The two are antithesis of each other.
And then Firefly I have no idea what that even is. Is that a YA novel?
So your question is what’s the antithesis of all these unrelated things? Also what’s not underrated but has inadequate social impact, as if Big Lebowski or Arrested Development did have adequate social impact??
So if it wasn’t written in the average sentence structure, why is that poor reading comp and not poor writing comp? Couldn’t you argue either one, depending on who you want to criticize?
How can you say you’re good at making sure you’re understood and yet also say people struggle with reading comp? Are you saying that people don’t struggle with your words, but you watch them struggle with things others wrote that you understand? Are you sure about that? Or are you drawing self-serving conclusions here?
Ultimately that’s all this discussion can be. If you assert that there’s some sort of standard of “reading comprehension” and that some people lack this intelligence, you’re already starting a conversation that puts you above them. You float right on by the central struggle of human conversation - being understood - and just pick your favorite winners and losers.
No, this talk of “poor reading comprehension” is always such nonsense. Arrogant, defensive nonsense. It’s always peddled by people who get huffy when someone disagrees with them. Instead of considering anything wrong about what they said, they conclude that what they wrote is perfectly fine and the issue must be with whoever is criticizing them. And of course the issue is their intelligence. “Surely, no one would disagree with me if they actually understood what I meant! Those heathens ought read a book!”
When people clamour on about reading comp, I always just wonder: How could anyone be that naive? To think that human communication, stripped of the face, the voice, the presence, the context, the body language, reduced to text on a glowing plastic pop tart, would be so straightforward? How do you not see the myriad ways a single line can be interpreted? How do you not recognize the influence of all these different backgrounds, cultures, and experiences can have on how a single line is taken?
How the fuck can you reduce all of the nuance in language and text down to, “Oh, I guess you’re just an idiot”? And how many of you are eager to jump on things I say here, such as that word choice “idiot”? As if to say “That word wasn’t in the OP, you don’t get it!”, as if it wasn’t a deliberate choiced based on my interpretation of OPs claim, and as if that doesn’t just demonstrate the ambiguity of text? Or whatever other protests you’d make - I can think of a dozen things I wrote already that could be misread. I trust you to get it, and I truat you to ask if you don’t.
This shit is never simple! Stop reducing it to “reading comprehension” and deflecting all culpability from yourself while simultaneously disparaging others’ perspectives. If language were that straightforward, it wouldn’t be complex enough to handle human experience.
sub-lem? i dont care what you call it, I want you to know that this question and concept is always fucking stupid. just like you said, no one actually shares controversial opinions and no one knows how to handle the voting. biggest circlejerk question.
and if they did it’d just be the same bullshit like racism, oh so shocked that 15 teenage boys think its funny to say they hate mexicans
You have no reason to believe that. That’s a nice interpretation but all you heard is “People like them”. It’s uncomfortable to say they are stereotyping based on race. But that’s probably what’s going on.
Why else would you look for advice? “I don’t like bigots, what do I do?” I guess if that’s the only problem you are equipped to talk about then better to stick to it. I’m trying to help someone navigate out of bigotry because that’s the more important interpretation.