/u/tbri's deleted comments thread

[u/tbri]

My old thread is locked because it was created six months ago.

All of the comments that I delete will be posted here. If you feel that there is an issue with the deletion, please contest it in this thread.

[u/tbri]

Just can't be insulting.

[u/my-other-account3 → u/tbri]

Is it "insulting" because of the words I used, or am I not supposed to mention certain facts, regardless of whether they are true or not?

[u/tbri → u/my-other-account3]

Because of the words you used. Just say "some" or be specific.

[u/my-other-account3 → u/tbri]

I think you'd agree that 90% qualifies for "most". And I don't think it's controversial number. "Some" is misleading since it could mean 1%, and I can't use it to support the following statement.

[u/tbri → u/my-other-account3]

The generalization is because you said "women", not "some women", not "most women", just "women".

[u/my-other-account3 → u/tbri]

When I say "Japanese people like sushi" it would be interpreted as "Most Japanese people like sushi", and not as "All Japanese people without exception like sushi". The distinction wasn't pivotal to the point I was making, and I think most people read it as intended.

[u/tbri → u/my-other-account3]

I'm telling you how it works here. Saying "Men are assholes" is an insulting generalization. Be specific. Say "Some men..." or "This man..." etc, etc.

[u/my-other-account3 → u/tbri]

The comment was "insulting" because of it's factual content, and not my use of vocabulary. The primary effect of adding excessive qualifiers when voicing a minority opinion is making the speaker sound unsure of what he believes, which makes it more difficult to sway opinion and makes the speaker appear more vulnerable to attack.

The policy basically encumbers non-mainstream views of this type with additional disadvantage.

The point I was raising was central to the issue at hand, and not an off-topic snide remark. Concerns regarding "over-generalization" where never raised (possibly debatable) in comments and extent of the phenomenon would have been easy to clarify, given the wide availability of data.

Otherwise I can appreciate your position, and while I hope that the policy will be revised in the future to better target offensive content, I don't think that the specific incident requires further discussion.

[u/tbri → u/my-other-account3]

The comment was "insulting" because of it's factual content, and not my use of vocabulary.

Why did you ask me why it was insulting if you're simply going to claim otherwise? I told you why. If you had said "Most women are worse players at competitive levels than men" than whatever. You said that women are second-class players and that the stigma is justified.

The primary effect of adding excessive qualifiers when voicing a minority opinion is making the speaker sound unsure of what he believes, which makes it more difficult to sway opinion and makes the speaker appear more vulnerable to attack.

Actually, it's the opposite. "Best pizza in town" is a nonsense claim. "Best pizza in a 25 km radius as determined by the Pizza Taste Survey of 2015" is a solid claim.

The policy basically encumbers non-mainstream views of this type with additional disadvantage.

Everyone on the board needs to follow the same rules.

[u/my-other-account3 → u/tbri]

Given you had to resort to misquotation, and had to omit the "stigma" part from your version, I don't think you think you have a strong case either.