Idk man, I had a very reasonable discussion with the commentor you’re responding to yet I support the comic. If you look through the comments here, they’re absolutely chock full of people patiently explaining their perspective, and then comments like yours which are openly dismissing those people before ever engaging with them. You’re being unfair, in a way very similar to what you criticize the comic for doing.
The comic in a vaccum could just be a commentary on the aritists own experience… Sure. I’ve seen some of their other work - and on other subjects it’s perfectly fine. They “appear” to have had a pretty unfortunate experience with men and dating. That sucks, but presenting that opinion in the last panel is where it goes awry. It can be pretty easily interpreted as a blanket statement… And a quick glance around this post seems to confirm (some-not-all) are using it to push that blanket (bad faith) statement as if it were absolute.
Not all people are reasonable. Perhaps the author didn’t intend for it to be interpreted as such: But it’s very easy to see how it could be - and based on comments here… is.
Edit: coffee.
If you look through the comments here, they’re absolutely chock full of people patiently explaining their perspective
Yes. Two different perspectives - yet one is being maligned. By and large, there are reasonable commenters here. Lemmy does have more sane than most people present… But not everyone is. And that is what I was making an observation on.
and then comments like yours which are openly dismissing those people before ever engaging with them.
Considering the reaponses I’ve made this far - I’d suggest I seem to be engaging quite a bit. I am dismissive of a number of logical falicies for what should be apparent reasons, though.
You’re being unfair, in a way very similar to what you criticize the comic for doing.
Its funny you say that. I bring up a similar point in a different response - where I believe the reception would be quite different if the sexes were reversed in the comic. Its not a wild observation to make. I think its worth discussing.
No that was a criticism of how you’re making the exact same kind of generalization that you are criticizing the comic for making. There’s no gender inversion, and indeed that discussion is being had elsewhere here and it’s quite interesting, but my comment there is just directly calling out your hypocrisy.
…And a quick glance around this post seems to confirm (some-not-all) …
I went ahead and bolded it. I’d recommend rereading that block of text again. It was composed when I was waiting for the caffine to hit but I’m absolutely certain I was being fair in my assessment.
That isn’t my point though - I’m highlighting how what you’re doing there is exactly what the comic is doing. That you explicitly rather than implicitly hedged your generalization has no bearing on this, because both were hedged.
The fact that I clearly acknowledge “some” vs the “anticipated result” would be akin to saying: “a piece of pie” and “most of the pie” is exactly the same thing. Ratio matters in discussion which is exactly why i asserted that point earlier… And now.
Sure, ratio matters - which is why both you and the comic acknowledge it. But both you and the comic acknowledge it, even though you evidently think the comic did not acknowledge it enough. You are doing exactly the same thing the comic is doing, but you’re criticizing the comic for being able to be misinterpreted, while you yourself rely on the same semantic structure to make your own point.
Idk man, I had a very reasonable discussion with the commentor you’re responding to yet I support the comic. If you look through the comments here, they’re absolutely chock full of people patiently explaining their perspective, and then comments like yours which are openly dismissing those people before ever engaging with them. You’re being unfair, in a way very similar to what you criticize the comic for doing.
The comic in a vaccum could just be a commentary on the aritists own experience… Sure. I’ve seen some of their other work - and on other subjects it’s perfectly fine. They “appear” to have had a pretty unfortunate experience with men and dating. That sucks, but presenting that opinion in the last panel is where it goes awry. It can be pretty easily interpreted as a blanket statement… And a quick glance around this post seems to confirm (some-not-all) are using it to push that blanket (bad faith) statement as if it were absolute.
Not all people are reasonable. Perhaps the author didn’t intend for it to be interpreted as such: But it’s very easy to see how it could be - and based on comments here… is.
Edit: coffee.
Yes. Two different perspectives - yet one is being maligned. By and large, there are reasonable commenters here. Lemmy does have more sane than most people present… But not everyone is. And that is what I was making an observation on.
Considering the reaponses I’ve made this far - I’d suggest I seem to be engaging quite a bit. I am dismissive of a number of logical falicies for what should be apparent reasons, though.
In what way?
So when you do it it’s perfectly justified, but if you were to write that exact sentiment down in a comic…?
Its funny you say that. I bring up a similar point in a different response - where I believe the reception would be quite different if the sexes were reversed in the comic. Its not a wild observation to make. I think its worth discussing.
No that was a criticism of how you’re making the exact same kind of generalization that you are criticizing the comic for making. There’s no gender inversion, and indeed that discussion is being had elsewhere here and it’s quite interesting, but my comment there is just directly calling out your hypocrisy.
And I quote:
I went ahead and bolded it. I’d recommend rereading that block of text again. It was composed when I was waiting for the caffine to hit but I’m absolutely certain I was being fair in my assessment.
That isn’t my point though - I’m highlighting how what you’re doing there is exactly what the comic is doing. That you explicitly rather than implicitly hedged your generalization has no bearing on this, because both were hedged.
The fact that I clearly acknowledge “some” vs the “anticipated result” would be akin to saying: “a piece of pie” and “most of the pie” is exactly the same thing. Ratio matters in discussion which is exactly why i asserted that point earlier… And now.
Edit: clarity.
Sure, ratio matters - which is why both you and the comic acknowledge it. But both you and the comic acknowledge it, even though you evidently think the comic did not acknowledge it enough. You are doing exactly the same thing the comic is doing, but you’re criticizing the comic for being able to be misinterpreted, while you yourself rely on the same semantic structure to make your own point.