1073
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] crossal@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago
[-] Steeve@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because turning addition into an analogy about gender it's meaningless and stupid, but we've got this weird obsession with turning shit into metaphors and pretending that it proves something.

[-] brcl@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

It literally proves that two separate things can be equal. It’s an eloquent and poignant way of saying “you’re wrong.” And they are wrong, because the only argument was they’re not equal because they’re different.

If they wanted to talk about hormones and muscle mass and other physical things, then yes, your point is valid. But they made a very stupid argument and were proven wrong.

[-] Steeve@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

There is absolutely no situation where reducing a conversation on gender to basic algebra isn't stupid, but like I said, the initial comment is stupid and deserves a stupid response. It was a good response, but I think we can all admit the conversation itself was stupid and meaningless.

[-] PM_ME_STEAM_KEYS@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago

There is absolutely no situation where reducing a conversation on gender to basic algebra isn't stupid

Except this one. If you're going to be so fundamentally wrong that you can be refuted by elementary arithmetic, why should anyone bother putting any more thought into it than that? No, you can't reduce gender relations to a basic math question, but you can reduce thst guy's take without missing anything important.

[-] Steeve@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

I think you should go read my comments again, because we're saying the same thing here.

[-] 520@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

There is absolutely no situation where reducing a conversation on gender to basic algebra isn’t stupid

If they were doing so in totality (ie: all conversations on gender being compared to basic algebra) then I'd agree with you. However the response is so targeted, in it's content and in the context of going after a specific respondent who was saying that things that are different cannot be equal, that I don't think they fall into this trap.

this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
1073 points (96.6% liked)

Murdered by Words

1212 readers
1 users here now

Responses that completely destroy the original argument in a way that leaves little to no room for reply - a targeted, well-placed response to another person, organization, or group of people.

The following things are not grounds for murder:

Rules:

  1. Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone else.
  2. Discussion is encouraged but arguments are not. Don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
  3. No bigotry of any kind.
  4. Censor the person info of anyone not in the public eye.
  5. If you break the rules you’ll get one warning before you’re banned.
  6. Enjoy the community in the light hearted way it’s intended.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS