“Extrapolating things I didn’t say” is called inference, and you can claim something is beside your point but it doesn’t change the fact that your omission commits a logical fallacy. I do not defend shitty behavior, I demonstrate nuance, and yet I constantly see this response online to it. A nuanced position that contrasts your own does not necessarily agree with your opponent, and the ad hominem is just immature.
Committing the same logical fallacy as a “all lives matter” person does not mean I believe you to be the moral equivalent of one, regardless of my disagreement.
Pointing out something objectively shitty as shitty is not in debate. Doing so in omission of other key facts is the problem. Let me provide an example conversation, featuring person A and B, who are both going to be parents soon:
A: “I hope I have a girl!”
B: “I’d support whoever my child is!”
A: “I’d support my child even if they were born very sick!”
Both A and B are using a poor form of argument, which I don’t have a better name for than whataboutism, but is very adjacent to it. By saying “I’d support whoever my child is,” B is implying that A would not. By saying “I’d support them if they were sick,” A does the same. This is the same thing you’re doing when you say:
Dodges the point which was simply that something which is objectively shitty is shitty
You use this same rhetoric throughout your arguments, as do other commenters agreeing with you. I agree that thing is shitty because it was shitty. This is more equivocation. The point is not simply that “thing is shitty because of self evidence,” it’s that by saying this you form a false equivalence and minimize women’s experiences.
If you read nothing else, read this: My argument has nothing to do with whether or not pejorative generalizations are wrong, or to do with defending women who make such arguments. I agree with you on both of these points! My entire argument is that your response of “what if you did this to another group” while omitting the power imbalance that is intrinsic to this issue equates both groups, and therefore dismisses the existence of the power imbalance entirely.
You cannot reply to trans people saying “cis people are trash” with “what if you said that about trans people,” to black people saying “white people are trash” with “what if you said that about black people,” or the above example, or any other similar situation, without also including the nuance that a power imbalance does exist. To do so is to minimize their experience in a defensive position of privilege.
I do not want to be at ideological odds with you. I do not think “men are trash” is an okay thing to say. However, I understand that there is nuance here, and that hurt women are not the target of my ire; the unjust system that hurt them is.
I beg you, read this comment in full. You’ve painted me in your mind as a self righteous egotist, which couldn’t be further from the truth. I won’t continue a back and forth, but I do at least want you to understand that I’m just another person with a set of lived experiences, not a feminist demon from hell here to kick little boys. Men and women are both victims of the patriarchy. Have a good day.
All of this is exactly what I take issue with. You seem to make several assumptions, chiefly that I need a lecture about privilege. I don’t. Just because something can be more easily explained or understood doesn’t make it okay. I have been the target of racial and sexist hatred as a white male. The power imbalance explains it but makes it 0% less shitty. I make no excuses for those people who sought to make me feel awful and I think any defense or letting them off the hook is hurting society. This way of thinking teaches us that shitty misguided attempts at retaliation for mega shitty societal issues are okay as long as they can be understood.
I just read your comments multiple times and all I can come away with is that you think I don’t understand power imbalances which is completely wrong. Make whatever assumptions you want, but preaching something I already get… Is proving my point perfectly. The up and votes in this thread prove it further.
People just cannot seem to grasp that I can say “ya know what that’s shitty and shouldn’t be excused” without piles of other implied baggage which isn’t there. I don’t want or need to defend myself, I wanted to remind someone talking about needing to browbeat themselves for things they didn’t do that it’s really of no value to do that and further, that it’s actually harmful to uphold this unspoken belief that two wrongs make a right.
See I made the mistake of reading this one and it’s emblematic of exactly what I was getting at:
“Extrapolating things I didn’t say” is called inference, and you can claim something is beside your point but it doesn’t change the fact that your omission commits a logical fallacy. I do not defend shitty behavior, I demonstrate nuance, and yet I constantly see this response online to it. A nuanced position that contrasts your own does not necessarily agree with your opponent, and the ad hominem is just immature.
Committing the same logical fallacy as a “all lives matter” person does not mean I believe you to be the moral equivalent of one, regardless of my disagreement.
Pointing out something objectively shitty as shitty is not in debate. Doing so in omission of other key facts is the problem. Let me provide an example conversation, featuring person A and B, who are both going to be parents soon:
A: “I hope I have a girl!”
B: “I’d support whoever my child is!”
A: “I’d support my child even if they were born very sick!”
Both A and B are using a poor form of argument, which I don’t have a better name for than whataboutism, but is very adjacent to it. By saying “I’d support whoever my child is,” B is implying that A would not. By saying “I’d support them if they were sick,” A does the same. This is the same thing you’re doing when you say:
You use this same rhetoric throughout your arguments, as do other commenters agreeing with you. I agree that thing is shitty because it was shitty. This is more equivocation. The point is not simply that “thing is shitty because of self evidence,” it’s that by saying this you form a false equivalence and minimize women’s experiences.
If you read nothing else, read this: My argument has nothing to do with whether or not pejorative generalizations are wrong, or to do with defending women who make such arguments. I agree with you on both of these points! My entire argument is that your response of “what if you did this to another group” while omitting the power imbalance that is intrinsic to this issue equates both groups, and therefore dismisses the existence of the power imbalance entirely.
You cannot reply to trans people saying “cis people are trash” with “what if you said that about trans people,” to black people saying “white people are trash” with “what if you said that about black people,” or the above example, or any other similar situation, without also including the nuance that a power imbalance does exist. To do so is to minimize their experience in a defensive position of privilege.
I do not want to be at ideological odds with you. I do not think “men are trash” is an okay thing to say. However, I understand that there is nuance here, and that hurt women are not the target of my ire; the unjust system that hurt them is.
I beg you, read this comment in full. You’ve painted me in your mind as a self righteous egotist, which couldn’t be further from the truth. I won’t continue a back and forth, but I do at least want you to understand that I’m just another person with a set of lived experiences, not a feminist demon from hell here to kick little boys. Men and women are both victims of the patriarchy. Have a good day.
All of this is exactly what I take issue with. You seem to make several assumptions, chiefly that I need a lecture about privilege. I don’t. Just because something can be more easily explained or understood doesn’t make it okay. I have been the target of racial and sexist hatred as a white male. The power imbalance explains it but makes it 0% less shitty. I make no excuses for those people who sought to make me feel awful and I think any defense or letting them off the hook is hurting society. This way of thinking teaches us that shitty misguided attempts at retaliation for mega shitty societal issues are okay as long as they can be understood.
I just read your comments multiple times and all I can come away with is that you think I don’t understand power imbalances which is completely wrong. Make whatever assumptions you want, but preaching something I already get… Is proving my point perfectly. The up and votes in this thread prove it further.
People just cannot seem to grasp that I can say “ya know what that’s shitty and shouldn’t be excused” without piles of other implied baggage which isn’t there. I don’t want or need to defend myself, I wanted to remind someone talking about needing to browbeat themselves for things they didn’t do that it’s really of no value to do that and further, that it’s actually harmful to uphold this unspoken belief that two wrongs make a right.