adding another panel 1 man who doesn’t have the same bad reaction in panel 3
having the reaction in panel 4 contain a recognition that this particular man isn’t the norm, as opposed to absolutely asserting that it is, with her ‘this is just what I expected the guy who said that stuff in panel 1 to do’ reaction
you can’t reasonably argue that the comic is saying “some”. It’s absolutely equivocating the panel 1’s and the panel 3’s.
Thankfully, words used to imply quantities are reasonably good for estimating. If something occurs frequently enough to be expected - its not a particularly hard to gather it happens most of the time. Every is not most - sure… but that’s not what he said. He’s not forcing anything.
I’d put a significant wager on this specific thing (meaning, the events of panels 1-3, all with the same singular man) never having happened to this person.
To have the same person espouse the sentiment in panel 1, AND react badly to a rejection like in panel 3? The same guy?
No, that is absolutely not a common thing; even calling it “uncommon” is a massive understatement, I think. I’ve spoken to many women about that sort of thing (and shared stories of my own), and none who’ve ever shared screenshots with me of, or talked about, the ‘aggressive rejections’ they’ve experienced, has ever had it coming from a guy who also has voiced encouragement toward women directly/honestly turning men down. And I’ve spent entire afternoons having fun with a woman buddy who was going through her conversations on a dating app with me and showing me ‘highlights’ for us to laugh at together.
It’s never the same guy doing both things. Seriously, come on now.
And that anecdotal experience is what you’re basing this conclusion on? That it can’t reasonably have happened to someone else?
(Ah you’ve edited your comment but my point still stands. However I’ll add that I can personally attest that yeah, it often is the same person who will express support for me being straightforward in my interactions with them who then respond with hostility when I explain I don’t sext/cyber/cam/want-to-be-sexual/etc. Even on lemmy I still regularly get interactions like this. You can just go and look to confirm this, DMs aren’t private on lemmy. It is by no means all men, but it very much does happen.)
It’s like saying you’re confident there isn’t anyone who both advocates for polyamory and also insults people for being in a romantic relationship with more than one person at the same time.
Is it absolutely impossible that such a person exists? No, but it’s obviously going to be extremely rare, at best, because it makes zero sense for both characteristics to exist inside the same person. Therefore, I feel confident in saying ‘this is not a thing’, generally speaking.
Gonna just refer you back to my edit instead of retyping it all. Also it’s going to be an uphill struggle to argue that internal inconstancy or brazen deception are rare traits in humans.
Sorry, I’m quick to revise if I think I could have written something better, or found supporting information, etc. I don’t think the content has really materially changed, though.
You can just go and look to confirm this, DMs aren’t private on lemmy.
I don’t know how to do this, nor am I really inclined to dig through someone’s stuff like that (and even if I did, I’d expect only the ‘panel 3’ part to be in the DMs, not the ‘panel 1’ part too). Can you link to one example of the same person doing both (panel 1 and panel 3) things? I’m genuinely interested to see.
It’s a 4 panel comic. You need to allow for some brevity in the format to get the point across. The point you still see me how managed to completely miss.
Making it longer and more complicated was not going to help with your ability to comprehend.
The comic could have cut the 4th panel and not lost the point. In fact the presence of the 4th panel is the problem here. It makes a implied sweeping generalization which is by and large what (as best I can tell) a fair number of people (likely in said generalized group) take issue with.
Nothing really difficult to comprehend as far as I can tell. Generalized negative statements about generalized groups are usually made in bad faith. Simple as that.
So explain to me and the other posters who identified the same issue are incorrect in our interpretation… And you somehow are correct in yours. You’ve provided the equivalent of “nuh uh” to the argument.
The ‘point’ they got across is that the author believes that men who express the desire for women to be more direct with them (presumably instead of ghosting them), are all hypocrites that react poorly to directness. At the very least, they unambiguously state that assuming that to be the case is the correct thing to do.
There’s no ambiguity about that. That is the message, and it’s inaccurate and sexist.
Even if this did happen to her, that doesn’t mean that it’s a common or expected behavior across all men. It could have still actually happened even with all of your other posts remaining completely true
Without either
you can’t reasonably argue that the comic is saying “some”. It’s absolutely equivocating the panel 1’s and the panel 3’s.
Here’s the argument: people make comics about specific things that have happened to them.
Specific things that happen to people aren’t a problem. Having a message that literally says that specific thing is what always happens is not.
… that’s not what this says.
Somehow YOU DECIDED that the artist was saying this happens every time. Because you wanted to be mad about that thing that no one said.
The fact that this happens sometimes is why women feel they cannot be honest in these situations most of the time.
Holy shit. Your inability to interpret nuance is astounding.
Comic: “Yup, about what I expected”.
Does not mean it happens every time.
Why are you so hellbent on forcing a reason to feel a victimized here?
Thankfully, words used to imply quantities are reasonably good for estimating. If something occurs frequently enough to be expected - its not a particularly hard to gather it happens most of the time. Every is not most - sure… but that’s not what he said. He’s not forcing anything.
Victimised? XD
No, I’m calling out misandry.
I’d put a significant wager on this specific thing (meaning, the events of panels 1-3, all with the same singular man) never having happened to this person.
Have you ever asked any of the women in your life about their experience with this? It’s really not an uncommon nor abstract thing.
To have the same person espouse the sentiment in panel 1, AND react badly to a rejection like in panel 3? The same guy?
No, that is absolutely not a common thing; even calling it “uncommon” is a massive understatement, I think. I’ve spoken to many women about that sort of thing (and shared stories of my own), and none who’ve ever shared screenshots with me of, or talked about, the ‘aggressive rejections’ they’ve experienced, has ever had it coming from a guy who also has voiced encouragement toward women directly/honestly turning men down. And I’ve spent entire afternoons having fun with a woman buddy who was going through her conversations on a dating app with me and showing me ‘highlights’ for us to laugh at together.
It’s never the same guy doing both things. Seriously, come on now.
And that anecdotal experience is what you’re basing this conclusion on? That it can’t reasonably have happened to someone else?
(Ah you’ve edited your comment but my point still stands. However I’ll add that I can personally attest that yeah, it often is the same person who will express support for me being straightforward in my interactions with them who then respond with hostility when I explain I don’t sext/cyber/cam/want-to-be-sexual/etc. Even on lemmy I still regularly get interactions like this. You can just go and look to confirm this, DMs aren’t private on lemmy. It is by no means all men, but it very much does happen.)
As if this comic isn’t an anecdote by which the author judges everyone with.
So you agree that it’s an anecdote?
No, I believe this is a made up scenario created by a misandrist. The more I see this person’s comics the more I’m convinced.
It’s like saying you’re confident there isn’t anyone who both advocates for polyamory and also insults people for being in a romantic relationship with more than one person at the same time.
Is it absolutely impossible that such a person exists? No, but it’s obviously going to be extremely rare, at best, because it makes zero sense for both characteristics to exist inside the same person. Therefore, I feel confident in saying ‘this is not a thing’, generally speaking.
Gonna just refer you back to my edit instead of retyping it all. Also it’s going to be an uphill struggle to argue that internal inconstancy or brazen deception are rare traits in humans.
Sorry, I’m quick to revise if I think I could have written something better, or found supporting information, etc. I don’t think the content has really materially changed, though.
I don’t know how to do this, nor am I really inclined to dig through someone’s stuff like that (and even if I did, I’d expect only the ‘panel 3’ part to be in the DMs, not the ‘panel 1’ part too). Can you link to one example of the same person doing both (panel 1 and panel 3) things? I’m genuinely interested to see.
It’s a 4 panel comic. You need to allow for some brevity in the format to get the point across. The point you still see me how managed to completely miss.
Making it longer and more complicated was not going to help with your ability to comprehend.
The comic could have cut the 4th panel and not lost the point. In fact the presence of the 4th panel is the problem here. It makes a implied sweeping generalization which is by and large what (as best I can tell) a fair number of people (likely in said generalized group) take issue with.
Nothing really difficult to comprehend as far as I can tell. Generalized negative statements about generalized groups are usually made in bad faith. Simple as that.
No. It really doesn’t do that, and you’re very much choosing to misinterpret this
So explain to me and the other posters who identified the same issue are incorrect in our interpretation… And you somehow are correct in yours. You’ve provided the equivalent of “nuh uh” to the argument.
The ‘point’ they got across is that the author believes that men who express the desire for women to be more direct with them (presumably instead of ghosting them), are all hypocrites that react poorly to directness. At the very least, they unambiguously state that assuming that to be the case is the correct thing to do.
There’s no ambiguity about that. That is the message, and it’s inaccurate and sexist.
Even if this did happen to her, that doesn’t mean that it’s a common or expected behavior across all men. It could have still actually happened even with all of your other posts remaining completely true