Serious question here guys. I think that the conclusion would be people have agreed that we don't owe one another a lot, but we do owe each other some base level of respect which apparently covers sexism, racism, ageism, etc.
This then brings up the question: what is counts as a base level of respect?

Why don't you kill a stranger and steal their money and identity. Neither one of you owe respect or even common courtesy to each other. And it would certainly benefit you.

>>28744685
Because I would get sent to jail and buttraped for it since basically everyone as agreed that you at least owe another person enough not to kill them and take them for everything they have (unless you're a saudi arabian prince apparently).

>>28744049
>logic
>feminism

choose one

>>28744660
neetbux

making original comments makes my dick so hard

People confuse manners for respect.

>>28744049
>Nobody owes you respect.

Then why are we here? We're all in this board because we feel an injustice has been done to us by various people on our lives. If this was true, why are we here?

>>28744049
Because you're judging a book by its cover, and you do it so much that it becomes a part of your identity
It's stupidity, really. You're defaulting to making quick and simple judgments instead of evaluating whoever or whatever you come across on an individual, and more accurate, basis.

>>28745191
I don't have an answer. I'm just reflecting on the fact that guys often make an extra effort for people they have romantic feelings for to earn their affections and no matter what we do differently nothing seems to work, and frequently (when it's a guy) feminists will go on some tirade about how it doesn't matter what we do we aren't owed anything. But if nobody owes anybody anything... well you know the rest.

Basically I would agree with the fact that sometimes (and frequently for us men in the dating scene), you put in work and sometimes it doesn't pay off. That's just how the world works. Maybe you worked extra hard for that promotion and didn't get it, or something else, whatever. And just because you try to get close to someone and make their lives easier or bring some value to their life, does not mean that they will give us what we want. The self doesn't decide when something is earned (I guess unless you're deciding you went to the gym and therefore earned a chocolate bar or something). Whoever is supplying it decides when it is earned.

I think we're here because we don't like the idea that we might put in work and not get anything from it (as has frequently happened) and so we push for the idea that we ourselves as individuals decide when we're owed something. Either that or we're just bored on a Saturday afternoon and are browing this place out of habit.

Basically though. I don't believe that we get to decide when we're owed something, the people who have what we want decide it. And by extension, we decide when someone else has earned our respect. We may have decided that a stranger is owed enough basic civility that I don't go and kill and rob the poor schlub and then sell his ID and kidneys, but if I'm his boss, I decide when he's owed a promotion or a raise. Or if I'm the head of a country club I get to decide if a woman is owed a place there. If it's a guys hideaway, then she is never owed it.

>>28745426

You should always judge a book by its cover though. Appearances is the single most important trait that tells you everything you need about a person. You may not be able to tell if someone is good based on looks alone, but you can tell if a person is bad based on looks along. It's called heuristics and there is nothing bad about it whatsoever.

>>28745637
You can only judge by appearance, you never perceive anything except appearances. That isn't my point.

My point is when you're so confident in the associations you've formed between x appearance and y concept, you'll apply that association to others who have that appearance when it may not truly exist, or you may fall prey to confirmation bias-like thinking, discarding or skipping over traits and potentially new concepts that don't already fit into your worldview. You're intentionally narrowing your ability to perceive and cutting yourself off from new information, creating a safe space where you can confirm and reconfirm your ideology until it blows up to almost cartoonish levels (see /r9k/).

>>28745771
So I guess my point is, sexism causes you to overlook certain appearances in favor of one of the simplest divisions between humans.

You can safely assume that you know certain things about a person based on their sex, but you can't assume that you know them entirely.

>>28745426
I have 2 questions for you:
Are generalizations bad?
Are generalizations a necessary part of life?

I'll give a metaphor for an example.
Assume that there is a lottery, if you win you'll be living quite happily and comfortably for say 2 years. You also get a pin-on button that lets others know you won.
Each ticket to play costs $5 and realistically you have the time to play once a week (since you aren't a NEET and have a job at McD's to pay the bills).
The only condition is that you have no idea how often someone wins this lottery, it's not a TOTAL mystery since you see other people with the winners button though walking around.

Do you play at all? If so how often? If you don't win after a while do you stop playing and just assume everyone with a winners button got really lucky? What if you win but only very rarely?
Is it stupid to keep using up resources and time to play if you never win? Or is it stupid to generalize and assume that you will probably not ever win instead of evaluating each play on an individual basis?

In the case of any of the 'isms winning would be equivalent to finding an individual that violates your previously held generalizations.
Is it bad to generalize if you never win? Maybe. But if you don't it might lead you to ruination, in which case generalizing is necessary to thrive, even if you never get that fancy button and money.

I just use statistical information when judging strangers.

If I pass a black male, he has high chances of being a criminal in comparison with white males. The same works for women. While there are less statistics on issues like this, from my own analyzations on the majority of women I've interacted with, most are shallow, materialistic and focused completely on their social standing. They don't understand the consequences of their actions, which is why many of them are SJWs (or at least agree with what SJWs stand for), because they can't see how detrimental all of this feminism bullshit is for society.

>>28745822
>>28745771
Yeah but the only way to check for confirmation bias is to actually look for the possibility that your generalization is wrong. You have to decide if this is worth the extra time it takes or if your generalization is good enough.

>>28745975
I don't think you have to continue actively seeking an individual that goes against your general mental construction of the world. The real pitfall comes from automatically assuming that your worldview is airtight and an absolute certainty.

>Are generalizations bad?
No, but recognizing them as absolute truth rather than a product of your own limited ability to perceive and your unfortunate need to act on your perceptions even though they may be flawed is.

>Are generalizations a necessary part of life?
On a very basic level, yes. I only know how to use my computer because I've generalized past experiences with other computers and applied that knowledge to this one. But humans display far more variety than everything that can be generalized, on the whole.

>>28745822

Looking back through history we see no woman has ever done anything of value, besides giving birth to the men who do things of value, and even then half of that came from men to conceive, and 100% from men to raise the child, so it's more like she was simply present while men did everything. Even now since the 20s where women have been shoehorned everywhere and preferentially given everything and more than they could ever need they never become more than dilettantes. There's no reason to believe it will ever change. It's just not worth the mental effort to take every woman serious.

I'm open to being pleasantly surprised but for now I automatically write off every female I see as a bad person. I'm rarely wrong in my assumptions, and when I have been it hasn't cost me anything.

>>28746098
If you're already behaving according to your confirmation biases, your generalizations will always seem like they're good enough, because you actively seek information that makes them good enough.

>>28746130
So is sexism from past experiences a necessary part of life even if you know your assumptions aren't guaranteed to be correct since you can't possibly look forever for someone to buck the trend?

> But humans display far more variety than everything that can be generalized, on the whole
also not so sure I agree with this but maybe I just spend too much time alone

>>28746130
Basically, it doesn't seem to make much sense to automatically impose your understanding of a situation onto the situation before you even bother to actually understand it.

You can always assume that you understand a situation based on previous situations that share characteristics with the situation you're trying to understand, but when you hone in on one single characteristic and assume all situations which share that characteristic, despite the potential for wild differences in other areas of the situation, are the exact same situation, you're liable to make flawed assumptions.

Knowing that someone is a woman just isn't enough information to go off of to assume that you know everything else about that someone. If you knew she was a woman, and if you actually saw her behaving incompetently, and if you actually saw her behaving like a slut or whatever, then making "sexist" assumptions about her would be safer. But if all you know is that she's a woman, the rest is actually in the dark and you're pretending it isn't. There's no reason to assume she's competent either, don't get me wrong, but you can also just admit that you don't know until something she herself does reveals something about her to you.

>>28746204
I don't disagree that if you already behave according to your bias then your generalizations will seems good enough, but just because they seem good enough does not mean that they are good enough or that you can't be open to revising your generalization.

>>28746365
You could instead choose to not bother filling in the blanks at all, and if it's so important to you that those blanks are filled, it's safer to derive assumptions about those blanks from the individual themselves instead of from other individuals you've encountered who share one of the broadest characteristics of humanity with them.

Instead of thinking "I'm right about you, specifically, until you prove me wrong", you can think "I don't know about you, specifically, until you show me something that makes me know about you, specifically."

Nothing wrong with acknowledging trends, but trends are not hard truths.

>>28746188
Also I don't think it's entirely true to say that women have never done ANYTHING of value (especially recently). Marie Curie is a classic example of someone who contributed to society. Another example would be the less known Rosalind Franklin, who helped Watson, Crick, and Wilkinson figure out the structure of DNA.

>>28746579
Marie Curie's husband did all the work.

Wolfgang Paulie's team was just a few months away from the same discover as Watson, Crick, and Franklin.

>>28746532
I can't speak for everyone but I'm not necessarily convinced I'm right when assuming something about someone, but I do assume I'm right, specifically because I don't know anything about the person. I know trends aren't flawless, but I (with some reservation) assume they are right unless proven otherwise.

I suppose you could just say "I assume nothing about you" and leave it at that but then I still don't owe you any respect. Then again I wouldn't owe any man any respect either unless proven otherwise. You're also left in a constant state of ignorance, although people do say that ignorance is bliss, so maybe if you want to be happy thats what should be done.

>>28746712
Marie Curie's husband did all the work? Really? Source?

And there's frequently competition in science between research groups, I don't think that devalues their work though. It is after all still a contribution.

>>28746840
>I suppose you could just say "I assume nothing about you" and leave it at that but then I still don't owe you any respect
I agree. Respecting someone because they're a woman when respecting people in general isn't your default mode of behavior is just as sexist as disrespecting that person.

>You're also left in a constant state of ignorance
But you also are, or have a chance of being, ignorant when you make broad assumptions. You're only pretending that you aren't, or at the very least you are ignorant to the idea that you might already be ignorant to begin with, potentially closing off avenues of correcting your ignorance depending on how you handle the situation.

>>28746188
>I'm rarely wrong in my assumptions
In my thirty years, I've learned that men who think like this end up to be bigger failures than me. Please stop this line of thought before you get too old to really change. I don't want to see another man go down like that.

>>28744049
>If nobody owes anybody anything

there's your problem m8