I don't read it that way, msbelle. A statement like "I may be misjudging conservatives but I have observed X behavior among them" is an invitation to extrapolate. Otherwise there's no reason to say it, no reason to add the non-caveat caveat. No reason to be "judging" a group for anything, since it's apparently not a data point.

And (eta: with regard to the assertion that people here do it all the time) I'm perfectly happy to call out someone who makes a broad, false generalization by a group unlikely to defend themselves here. We don't need lurkers or closeted conservatives to feel like this stuff goes unchallenged.

I could be wrong about rednecks, but I know a lot of rednecks who are more interested in their trucks and beer supply than their children and spouses.

I have zero problem judging somebody in France who aligned themselves with with the explicitly xenophobic/racist National Front under Le Pen.

Judging their treatment of pets??

sara, your neighbor's book looks fantastic. And yay for local bookstore shopping! Another local author here is having her launch at the big bookstore I love tomorrow night, and that's where I'm getting my copy. (Also because she can sign it!)

Judging their treatment of pets??

No, judging their choice in political party. Though I'm sure there are some pro-vivisectionist political parties that I'd disapprove of.

And to be clear, I have no problem calling out overgeneralization. Pretty sure I did that too. Pretty sure I want people to do that. I think it can be done in different ways.

Note to self: Descriptions of personal experience that include provisos for possible error and statements that such experience may not apply to the entire population and which are phrased to elicit conversation on such point are likely to result in being called out as judgemental and insulting to all the people who were theorized to actually exist. Keep such musings to oneself in the future, as one's personal experience and opinions are apparently cause for high dudgeon and outrage, not for reasonable counterpoint and respectful challenge.

IE, I came here for an argument, not abuse. Is that down the hall?

Hanne isn't really a neighbor (though not far from me) but she's neighborhood-adjacent. And cookie-commentator. She's also got books out on the history of virginity and one on sex and size and some erotica (none of which I've read, going to remedy that.) She's pro-oxford comma.

She's pro-oxford comma.

Another point her favor. Good woman. And I saw the history of virginity book on Amazon, too, and that looks really interesting.

If it is anything like her, it will be. So weird to be recommending an author based on cookie-chat. Can't wait to read more.