null

joined 3 days ago
[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 3 points 1 day ago

Receipts?

Pug pretty regularly pushes back against tankies, so I would love to see what you're basing that take on...

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I mean, I didn't keep a log or anything. But a quick trip through your admin's post history pre-election starts to paint a pretty good picture of what the culture was like there:

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/29417533

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/29416957

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/28989130

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 31 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I don't think those are therapists you've been seeing...

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Correct

Correct about what, exactly? This?

Then so is saying they’re being misogynistic. Simple as.

Because if so, then you've contradicted yourself.

misogynistic isn’t explicitly derogatory while mansplaining always is

So what? Plenty of derogatory words exist, that doesn't mean using them inherently makes you a bigot/sexist/misandrist.

And my point is you didn’t answer the question in your linked comment either.

Yes I did. I even screenshotted it, and linked you to it, but for some reason you're incapable of taking it in. Very odd indeed.

sex specific derogatory terms for things that need not be gendered.

If it wasn't gendered, then it wouldn't be misogynistic and therefore wouldn't be mansplaining. It's a specific form of misogyny, which is gendered.

Also, what's femsplaining?

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Saying they’re mansplaining is sexist.

Then so is saying they're being misogynistic. Simple as.

I've asked you repeatedly to square up the difference, but you just keep dodging.

I could, and you could have linked the comment. What’s your point?

My point was obviously that you shouldn't have needed a link or screenshot in the first place.

You still dodged the question

No I didn't.

why do you think a specifically sexist term from it’s very inception isn’t sexist

I don't think that.

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Correct.

Perfect! So we agree that a woman can, without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc, believe a man is being misogynistic towards her. You also confirmed this is true for condescension.

And as we've established, mansplaining is misogynistic condescension. Therefore, if it is possible for a woman to believe a man is being misogynistically condescending without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc, by definition it is possible for her to believe he is mansplaining without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc.

You finally got there!

Link doesn’t work for me, you know you can just link comments correct?

You know you can just scroll up a few comments correct? But let me hold your hand some more: https://lemmy.nullspace.lol/comment/4452

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

This is definitely not new. They were very much pushing the "Kamala and Trump are the same" narrative before the election.

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 1 points 2 days ago

Who does the math?

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 1 points 2 days ago (6 children)

if you know a dude and they’re taking down to you and that’s a pattern they’re probably a misogynist.

Okay, so if the man is "probably" being misogynistic, that's enough that a woman can believe they are being misogynistic without herself being a bigot/sexist/misandrist?

You did not.

And yet, miraculously, I can produce this screenshot!

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 7 points 2 days ago

An incorrectly used one, sure.

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 1 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Wrong. I haven't added anything, just followed your reasoning.

Let's walk through it:

Scenario: A woman believes a man is being misogynistic towards her.

Your assessment: She can't actually know that he's intending to be misogynistic. Therefore she is making an assumption that it's based on sex/gender. By doing that, she is being bigoted/sexist/misandrous.

Based on your words:

That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge otherwise you’re simply saying it’s based on sex

requires someone to know the intent of the speaker which means they know them or they’re simply assuming

How do they “know” anymore then the man “knows” you aren’t aware of whatever it is they’re explaining?

They don’t, they assume, it’s just a bigoted assumption.

it makes them a bigot to simply assume shit based on sex

I've asked you to explain how this somehow doesn't follow, but all you can do is accuse me of being obtuse, or adding in random shit.

So again, the sound conclusion of your logic is: Any woman who believes a man is being misogynistic towards her is actually herself being prejudiced or discriminatory towards him.

As for this:

still avoiding two simple questions

I literally quoted them and responded directly to them in my previous response. What an absolutely pathetic attempt at gaslighting.

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (10 children)

We can dress it up however you like. Your claim is now: Any woman who believes a man is being misogynistic towards her is actually herself being prejudiced or discriminatory towards him.

Still a pretty whacky opinion, but if you like that better, who am I to stop you.

view more: next ›