Comment

So if you say like “people farm beans” that’s wrong because not all people farm beans? Presumably not all of the people in those two groups, it even every community within them, use the three sisters method, so is it still wrong?

Or is it just that it’s ok to say “<plural> does <x>” without meaning “all <plural> do <x>”?

source

Sort:hotnew top

cheesybuddha@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
It’s not wrong.

We all learned how categories like this work in school - squares are rhombuses but rhombuses aren’t necessarily squares. It’s weird that some people would argue like against that.

source
- hoppolito@mander.xyz ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  Well I do think there’s a certain tipping point where this categorisation breaks down to just ‘technical’ correctness.
  
  If I live in a village and there’s a dude called Toby who regularly gets drunk and shits in the main square, but he’s the only one to do it, I’d be a little miffed if a newspaper ran the headline ‘people in this village shit in the main square’. If a newspaper somewhere else ran with ‘people in this country shit in the main square’ most would agree that this veers into being wrong, though technically correct.
  
  If Toby had one friend he always did this with, for me the general consensus wouldn’t change. But what if he brought out the whole pub to do it or more people joined in? That may change things.
  
  That line is what people are arguing whether it’s crossed here or not. If most of Native Americans did it, sure the category will apply. But if only two out of dozens do? May be a different context (and closer to what is an ‘essentialization’ of those cultures)
  
  source