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.
How are you simultaneously acknowledging that the ratio or amount implied matters and then generally disregard the core of that statement? Some and most are not remotely similar outside of being a quantity.
Topically - For what it’s worth we’re actually discussing the crux of my issue with the comic and why it’s reception is mixed. If, in the final panel, the author omitted the statement suggesting this [nearly always] happens… Does the comic change at all? Yes. It focuses on the event and the fact that the guy is being a twat. It invites the same discussion /without/ inserting a generalization of [most/a large %] men behave this way which… Shockingly isn’t recieved particularly well by people that agree that the behavior is deplorable … Yet are being included in the generalization. I’d expand on this further but I trust you can do so easily enough.
How are you simultaneously acknowledging that the ratio or amount implied matters and then generally disregard the core of that statement?
Because I’m not doing that - that there is a ratio implied is what’s important here. The values being referenced do not change that the structures those values appear within are identical.
Lemmy does have more sane than most people present… But not everyone is. And that is what I was making an observation on.
Your entire complaint with the comic hinges on them not having been clear enough about the ratio for your liking, not that it itself is somehow invalid. You’re mad that it can be interpreted poorly, but you’re not engaging with the ideas surrounding the comic that lead to the mixed reception, you’re fixated on the form of the comic itself.
Because I’m not doing that - that there is a ratio implied is what’s important here.
The core issue lies with making an apparent generalization about an [implied] majority of a sex’s behavior. That’s making a sweeping generalization and painting a lot of people in a pretty negative light. Dropping frame 4s comment (as I’ve mentioned earlier) does not detract from the story in the least… But does suddenly stop maligning the majority of a group.
You’re mad that it can be interpreted poorly, but you’re not engaging with the ideas surrounding the comic that lead to the mixed reception, you’re fixated on the form of the comic itself.
If I’m “mad” about anything it’s that people can use this comic and others like it to quietly [whistle] and subtly take shots at [groups of] people … Then dogpile on anyone who speak up about it. You, yourself, responded to the second highest commentor and had what you describe as a decent conversation with them. Not two comments into the thread where they point out the same issue do they get lept on immediately. Its not subtle behaviour. This thread is rife with it.
Alright, but you’re literally doing the exact same thing right here. You’re using a generalization about a group to make conclusions about the behavior of that group.
Its not subtle behaviour.
In reference to members of a group engaging in negative behavior, you characterize those people who engage in that behavior negatively. I’m a person, and I resent the implication that I might also unfairly dogpile someone discussing this topic based off the actions of this group.
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.
How are you simultaneously acknowledging that the ratio or amount implied matters and then generally disregard the core of that statement? Some and most are not remotely similar outside of being a quantity.
Topically - For what it’s worth we’re actually discussing the crux of my issue with the comic and why it’s reception is mixed. If, in the final panel, the author omitted the statement suggesting this [nearly always] happens… Does the comic change at all? Yes. It focuses on the event and the fact that the guy is being a twat. It invites the same discussion /without/ inserting a generalization of [most/a large %] men behave this way which… Shockingly isn’t recieved particularly well by people that agree that the behavior is deplorable … Yet are being included in the generalization. I’d expand on this further but I trust you can do so easily enough.
Because I’m not doing that - that there is a ratio implied is what’s important here. The values being referenced do not change that the structures those values appear within are identical.
Your entire complaint with the comic hinges on them not having been clear enough about the ratio for your liking, not that it itself is somehow invalid. You’re mad that it can be interpreted poorly, but you’re not engaging with the ideas surrounding the comic that lead to the mixed reception, you’re fixated on the form of the comic itself.
A form you also use.
The core issue lies with making an apparent generalization about an [implied] majority of a sex’s behavior. That’s making a sweeping generalization and painting a lot of people in a pretty negative light. Dropping frame 4s comment (as I’ve mentioned earlier) does not detract from the story in the least… But does suddenly stop maligning the majority of a group.
If I’m “mad” about anything it’s that people can use this comic and others like it to quietly [whistle] and subtly take shots at [groups of] people … Then dogpile on anyone who speak up about it. You, yourself, responded to the second highest commentor and had what you describe as a decent conversation with them. Not two comments into the thread where they point out the same issue do they get lept on immediately. Its not subtle behaviour. This thread is rife with it.
Alright, but you’re literally doing the exact same thing right here. You’re using a generalization about a group to make conclusions about the behavior of that group.
In reference to members of a group engaging in negative behavior, you characterize those people who engage in that behavior negatively. I’m a person, and I resent the implication that I might also unfairly dogpile someone discussing this topic based off the actions of this group.
(edit: clarity)