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.)
The point is that I believe both of them - but you dont. Why? Where’s the difference for you? Both of them push one side or the other of the same “rhetoric”, and they’re in no way contradictory. Do you simply believe only the one you agree with?
(I did engage with the fallacy stuff, and unless there’s something new none of the fallacies you’ve presented are applicable to this comic, as has been patiently explained every time you bring them up.)
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.
You’re welcome to go and look them up, but for my own safety I’m not going to single out one particular person (with a history of being extremely hostile to me personally) to be publicly shamed - and I ask that while I obviously cannot stop you, if you do end up looking through them you also don’t single them out publicly.
It’s mostly the second example, people misunderstanding positive interactions in comments as a tacit indication I want to take the relationship to further sexual grounds, but there are sure examples where a positive conversation will start where they decry the duplicitous behavior of men and then they themselves will devolve to the behavior they initially criticize.
That’s quite rare for it to be so explicitly-as depicted-in-the-comic here on lemmy, but it does happen.
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.
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.
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.
This isn’t misandry.
This is missndry.
No
… This is sparta!
So to your mind, what makes ObjectivityIncarnate’s anecdote believable, but the comic author’s not?
What makes the comic believable and the other guy not?
Anyway, see my other posts about fallacies.
The point is that I believe both of them - but you dont. Why? Where’s the difference for you? Both of them push one side or the other of the same “rhetoric”, and they’re in no way contradictory. Do you simply believe only the one you agree with?
(I did engage with the fallacy stuff, and unless there’s something new none of the fallacies you’ve presented are applicable to this comic, as has been patiently explained every time you bring them up.)
Yes, and you have been patiently countered. You might not like it, but this comic is a fallacy. There’s nothing else to be said.
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.
You’re welcome to go and look them up, but for my own safety I’m not going to single out one particular person (with a history of being extremely hostile to me personally) to be publicly shamed - and I ask that while I obviously cannot stop you, if you do end up looking through them you also don’t single them out publicly.
Are both ‘parts’ within the DMs with that person, or is ‘1’ in a regular post/comment, and then ‘3’ is in the DMs?
If the latter, I don’t think I can realistically verify at all if they’ve posted any significant amount, but with the former, I probably could.
It’s mostly the second example, people misunderstanding positive interactions in comments as a tacit indication I want to take the relationship to further sexual grounds, but there are sure examples where a positive conversation will start where they decry the duplicitous behavior of men and then they themselves will devolve to the behavior they initially criticize.
That’s quite rare for it to be so explicitly-as depicted-in-the-comic here on lemmy, but it does happen.
(edit: spelling!)
Thanks for taking the time to explain. As a man I appreciate it.
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
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.