Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Kupok

"We're not all like that you know."

by
This is an easy statement to toss out because it is always true. But if this is the only statement you can use to defend a group you represent, you really need to take a look at your group.

I understand that radicals are loud. But every group often has members the group refers to as leaders, even if they are simply revered members. And those "Leaders" not loudly condemning the actions of those "Loud Radicals" is silent agreement with them.

"We're not all like that" isn't even a statement you should make. If you disagree with the terrible practices of an alleged member of your community, you state outright, "Those hosers are wrong, I, and most of us, Don't consider them apart of our group, and I'm sorry you were exposed to that shit."
Viewed: 47 times
Added: 5 years, 4 months ago
 
Stumpycoon
5 years, 4 months ago
What annoys me is it's always said in defence of the people who "are like that" in a group, and said to stop the people trying to solve some problem.  

Like "not all christians are gay bashers" or "not all muslims are terrorists" and "not all republicans are racists".  No sh#t...but...why are the people making those excuses/apologies always doing so to defend the people who are a problem?  Like (almost) every catholic will try to block any attempt to investigate catholic priest pedophilia and wail "we're not all like that!"...well no, but, they're definitely helping perpetuate the problem by defending the perpetrators from any and all criticism.

Just a pet peeve of mine.

There was a time back in the 80's when I saw someone critical of "their own group" for its problem members.  Those were the days...
MaDrow
5 years, 4 months ago
Holy Crap~ So true D:)=|

Honestly that's also why I -on purpose- not categorize myself in some groups. But still I put a tag on myself which loosely matches the avoided group which I would likely categorize myself to.

In the end you're better off to not categorize yourself based on likings/hobbies/other things. Because it polarizes communities in a I-he/she-we-they-situation. That's also why I'm glad that IB lacks a groups-function. Noone is getting better from that and even more drama and collisions between people would occur with that.
Kupok
5 years, 4 months ago
Unfortunately, You don't always get to choose your groups. Sometimes you are a member of a group by virtue of existing, or even loosely associating with it ^^;
MaDrow
5 years, 4 months ago
True that~

Though, I want to add this in my first comment, but ok. Guess why I don't count myself as furry, but as rule34-evangelist, while some -even a couple of my friends- believe that I'm a furry? Just because the negative image which other people have about it.
 
SmutBunny
5 years, 4 months ago
I can agree with that
Zarphus
5 years, 4 months ago
the loudest voice of any group is usually the least fitting candidate to speak on its behalf.
Kupok
5 years, 4 months ago
I get that, and most leaders of those groups condemn the actions.

This is about those radicals being allowed to speak for the group due to the silence of leaders and revered members.
Stumpycoon
5 years, 4 months ago
Which means often they are leaders, like the evangelical christian movement, in which cases they have oddly moderate followers saying "we're not all like that".
Zarphus
5 years, 4 months ago
im just adding a point to the convo, which more or less agrees with your initial statements.
Stumpycoon
5 years, 4 months ago
And a good point, also.
Yiffox
5 years, 4 months ago
I am totally like that
Stumpycoon
5 years, 4 months ago
You're alright, most of the time.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.