Probably because those assholes tend to be charismatic. It's all down to the writing.Zachary Amaranth said:Why do gamers like assholes so much?
I mean, seriously, most of the most popular gaming characters are jerks, douchebags, bastards and/or sociopaths. Why the bastard attraction?
...Or would this be an unfair question, despite it applying the same standards? Hell, it applies a better standard.
Probably that explains everything: the "queen bee" trope is the one that gives way to the "bad *****" thingy.Ghaleon640 said:I remember a bunch of high school girls that fit into everything you're talking about.
Well a lot of times "*****" is the only flavor of badass we're given to choose from. Apparently somewhere along the line it was decided that there's only so strong and ruthless a woman can be without also being a *****. So this sort of "***** threshold" developed where you've got the badass but nice chicks on one side, but if you REALLY want somebody who is guaranteed to not give into the pressure and require comforting or backup, she's got to be a total ***** in order to be on the other side of that threshold.Happyninja42 said:-snip-
Don't forget that that, women are also EVIL! And wish to steal money from innocent men.Cronenberg1 said:Dude I know right! Also vaginas whats up with that? like what are they hiding in there? Probably secret plans to impose the matriarchy, that's why they never let me get in there.Rayce Archer said:Oh my god all you people are giving this dude straight answers instead of the mockery he deserves.
"All women like bitches in fiction. Bitches like that stupid ***** Buttercup in Powerpuff Girls, she's such a total *****!"
OP, here's your answer. Women like bitches because they like jerks instead of nice guys, and all women are secretly bi even though they won't even look at you twice. It's a conspiracy to keep you alone instead of providing you with the sex you deserve for being a good dude. Now curl up under your fedora and take a nap.
Okay, that was amusing.Vault101 said:and I don't wanna talk to no Color-Scientist....she be tellin lies and gettin the guys pissed
I did immediately after bring up that people only raise the issue with women. It was kinda my point.I'm gonna have to slightly disagree here...I feel we give at least a little more leeway for male charachters to be bastards than women charachters
In gaming? That's hilarious. Those assholes are often as charismatic as the "bitches" or less. This sounds like rationalisation.AJ_Lethal said:Probably because those assholes tend to be charismatic. It's all down to the writing.
I'll be honest: I only can come up with Tommy Vercetti and Officer Tenpenny as examples in gaming right now; I'm kinda out the loop :/Zachary Amaranth said:In gaming? That's hilarious. Those assholes are often as charismatic as the "bitches" or less. This sounds like rationalisation.
I liked Cameron Diaz's character in Bad Teacher but I don't know if she's truly bitchy.Johnny Novgorod said:Do they? I don't know anybody who likes "***** characters" on any count.
A generalization is specifically intended to imply that large numbers of X group does or thinks or is Y. Terms surrounding any discussion about a generalization will usually sound a lot like absolutes.zhoominator said:The whole question of this is though whether these numbers are actually that large. Length of hair is something that can be empirically measured by masses of people you need know nothing about to come to a determination of whether women have longer hair than men.Lightknight said:Is it improper to talk in generalities when discussing large numbers of people? Do we really still need to preface all of our generalizations with "Ok, I know not all, but in general..." before asking a question? I think now that society has successfully demonized things like racism and sexism that our general assumption is the person is talking in generalizations.
The issue is in instances like this are the words "in my personal experience". Believe it or not, we don't get to know a particularly large number of people within our lifetime. More than just limiting the number of people used to base generalisations on though, is that we tend to only interact with a very narrow subset of people.
So yes, if you are basing your conclusions only from your personal experience, then you SHOULD concede that any conclusions you come to will be generalisations and likely inaccurate ones at that. If you actually have evidence taken from a larger sample size picked at random (like a decent scientific study will do), that's another matter.
Otherwise, it's just stupid arrogance really.
Breaking how...? Forgive me if my following response would have been somehow altered had you completed that sentence.DoPo said:It is quite important, yes. First of all, generalisations generally suggests what you generalise holds true for most if not all of the generalised population. This is not always the case, OP specifically and continuously claims it is indeed not the case, yet the question carries a different meaning.Lightknight said:Is it improper to talk in generalities when discussing large numbers of people? Do we really still need to preface all of our generalizations with "Ok, I know not all, but in general..." before asking a question?
Also: why do blond people like McDonalds? why do black people listen to Bon Jovi? why do Christians drink tequila? why do Serbians put ice in their drinks? Even though each of these questions generalizes a population, all of them also carry the implicit meaning that what this part of the population is odd and/or not shared with the rest of the world. This is verbal segregation and itself carries ideas across. Phrasing is important. If you don't want to say "Serbians are weird for putting ice in their drinks, even though it's only some of them that do it", then don't phrase it in that way. Not to mention you're breaking how
I'm sorry, you incorrectly inserted the term "all" in there. Or at least, from glancing back over the OP I'm not seeing the word all in there at this moment. So that's your bias, not the OP's. You inserted that yourself while reading the post unless an edit has happened since to clarify. Something that I'm perfectly will to believe but am not seeing.OP pretty much said "I asked some women and they said X, why do all women think X". That's the context of the question. If OP wanted to ask something different, then he communicated it wrong. Also, if OP wanted to ask something different as he keeps pleading then it seems it's either "I asked some women something and they said X, why did they say X" which is useless to ask as OP knows these women and OP already asked them. Alternatively, the question actually is "I asked some women and they said X, why would a woman say X" which is really no different in terms of verbal segregation to the initial meaning.Lightknight said:Now, if the context seems to indicate that all (as in every single member) likes X then sure, the question should be raised.
"Generalize" is not "all". All is stereotyping. Generalizing is discussing in terms of aggregate numbers. For example, why do people dislike physical pain? That's a generalization because most people don't like pain but there are absolutely masochists out there. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with discussing generalities. That's how we discuss large groups in any meaningful way. Whether the generality is right or wrong and whether there are any negative/positive implications to be derived from said generality.Then maybe those people need to actually learn how these work. "Some I know , therefore I'll generalise that all " is not that.Lightknight said:But I'm pretty tired of people having to explain how stereotypes and generalizations work before getting to their point.
Not sure what that sentence does there - I'm pretty sure it belongs somewhere else, so ignore it.Lightknight said:Breaking how...? Forgive me if my following response would have been somehow altered had you completed that sentence.
Many people in this very thread say the same thing I did. So it's not me controlling it, and if OP is throwing fits trying to explain what he meant, then that DOES suggest he didn't word it properly to begin with, now doesn't it?Lightknight said:I'm sorry, I just don't see why you get to control how commonly used phrases work or don't.
Why is OP generalising women? Why not "people"? As I explained, it's verbal segregation and also by generalising to women it does imply it's...well, women as even generalised it's quite specific. Had OP said "people" then yes, it'd fit, but again - segregation.Lightknight said:If I'm asking an honest question with such a phrase, I'm not sure I really trust people who don't understand generalities with understanding whatever topic I'm inquiring about.
OP asked. I answered. You asked. I answered. It wasn't the first, nor the last to suggest it, as well. But thank you for inventing a devious plot behind my actions. It's me - it's all me, of course. All the other people you've been trying to explain are wrong for correcting OP are probably my puppets or something - I don't know, please make it up - you seem to have little trouble with it.Lightknight said:Now, did you personally think the OP was specifically saying that every woman across the globe likes ***** characters? Did you really think that or did you just show up to balk about the semantics?
And failing miserably.Lightknight said:I'm really asking that and am not trying to offend.
I like how you say that and then you go on and correct people for their usage of the common phrase. And that they are wrong, and you are the sole holder of the true meaning. Nice one.Lightknight said:If you're just here as a grammar police then you're forgetting that common use overrides traditional use of phrases.
Generalising is collapsing large amount of instances into a general form. While it's not "all" it's "large enough numbers to be prevalent/norm" and almost a substitute of "all" - it's "all (except this one and that one)". Instance of A, which are generalised in B but don't hold true for the generalisation are exceptions, e.g., metal is solid at room temperature, except mercury. If you truly want to say "some As have trait X" then generalising that into "Category B has trait X" does not work.Lightknight said:"Generalize" is not "all". All is stereotyping. Generalizing is discussing in terms of aggregate numbers.
Do you or OP have evidence to suggest this holds true for women at large? OP keeps claiming it's not, it's just some of them, so, I'd hazard a guess that the answer is "no".Lightknight said:That's how we discuss large groups in any meaningful way. Whether the generality is right or wrong and whether there are any negative/positive implications to be derived from said generality.
The question makes no sense as I explained before.Lightknight said:someone who just has a question and is open enough to ask it.
I think she qualifies as a "magnificent bastard". Bitchy characters are like the bitchy posse in Mean Girls, or anyone Amanda Peet plays.viscomica said:I liked Cameron Diaz's character in Bad Teacher but I don't know if she's truly bitchy.Johnny Novgorod said:Do they? I don't know anybody who likes "***** characters" on any count.
Are the people in this thread in charge of mankind's language? If they are, please tell them that I'd like the word gay to return to the common vernacular as "happy" again. I mean, not to get rid of the current definition but just to share the spotlight. It's a gay day outside and I just want to prance, prance the day away without getting hit on by dashing young men with chisled buttocks... [/joke]DoPo said:Many people in this very thread say the same thing I did. So it's not me controlling it, and if OP is throwing fits trying to explain what he meant, then that DOES suggest he didn't word it properly to begin with, now doesn't it?Lightknight said:I'm sorry, I just don't see why you get to control how commonly used phrases work or don't.
This is why people ask questions. It's because they're ignorant about the topic. When you don't know something you should ask. Basic learning 101. That's why you response should have just been that all people like the *****/jackass hero because it means they're tough and independent of the people around them. Not "how dare you think ALL women are like X" even though he used the phrase correctly, without the word all. You just mentally inserted that in his question.Why is OP generalising women? Why not "people"? As I explained, it's verbal segregation and also by generalising to women it does imply it's...well, women as even generalised it's quite specific. Had OP said "people" then yes, it'd fit, but again - segregation.
Actually, I responded to you because you appear to be one of the most coherent and thoughtful posters. I figured I could have a legitimate conversation with you. Not that you were alone or evil in your intentions. You just took offense along with others so I was wondering the motive of "you people" if you will.OP asked. I answered. You asked. I answered. It wasn't the first, nor the last to suggest it, as well. But thank you for inventing a devious plot behind my actions. It's me - it's all me, of course. All the other people you've been trying to explain are wrong for correcting OP are probably my puppets or something - I don't know, please make it up - you seem to have little trouble with it.Lightknight said:Now, did you personally think the OP was specifically saying that every woman across the globe likes ***** characters? Did you really think that or did you just show up to balk about the semantics?
My apologies. But you have to admit that a lot of peopleAnd failing miserably.Lightknight said:I'm really asking that and am not trying to offend.
Correcting a grammar police for incorrectly policing people is different than being the original grammar police. Once the subject is breached then it's open for discussion. The grammar police is the one that speaks up when no one else asked. Not that you were the first, just that you were amongst a group of said grammar aficionados.I like how you say that and then you go on and correct people for their usage of the common phrase. And that they are wrong, and you are the sole holder of the true meaning. Nice one.Lightknight said:If you're just here as a grammar police then you're forgetting that common use overrides traditional use of phrases.
No, you're adding your own definition. Generalizations are by definition being derived from a limited number of instances. If you get enough instances together that are random enough you start to get into statistically relevant numbers which steers away from the general into the specific.Generalising is collapsing large amount of instances into a general form. While it's not "all" it's "large enough numbers to be prevalent/norm" and almost a substitute of "all" - it's "all (except this one and that one)". Instance of A, which are generalised in B but don't hold true for the generalisation are exceptions, e.g., metal is solid at room temperature, except mercury. If you truly want to say "some As have trait X" then generalising that into "Category B has trait X" does not work.
When you combine generalisation with a specific instance of the generalised form itself, it, again, implies that it holds true for all of these and/or that this specific instance is different than other sibling instances.
Women don't generally like action films like men do. Being that it's the action films that lend themselves to the *****/jackass protagonist then I would tend to lean towards this being more of a male thing with women who like action flicks being in the category too.Do you or OP have evidence to suggest this holds true for women at large? OP keeps claiming it's not, it's just some of them, so, I'd hazard a guess that the answer is "no".
Tommy Vercetti is an example of what I'm talking about, though. He's not really charismatic, he's just a douchebag. The only praise I can offer him is that in a world of grimdark douchebags, it was slightly refreshing to go back and watch a sociopath from a slightly brighter era. But he's not charming, except in the same sense one might conflate "bitchiness" for an endearing characteristic.AJ_Lethal said:I'll be honest: I only can come up with Tommy Vercetti and Officer Tenpenny as examples in gaming right now; I'm kinda out the loop :/