Found this in the wild
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (42)
sorted by:
It isn't, but if it were, then the logical fallacies should have been mentioned.
Are we looking at the same infographic?
Logical fallacies are things like 'begging the question', 'strawman', not 'The Peter Pan Charge', which no one has ever heard of, and won't ever be heard of again.
This is just accusations that (some) women level that the author does not like.
Let’s go back to what I said earlier. It’s a logical fallacy couched in emotional language. You get what this means correct? None of these statements make a rational argument, they are instead used to flip the chessboard.
I get it, but I'd like to see which logical fallacy. Most of these don't fit in any.
"You're a right-wing whacko" is an ad hominem - whether or not he is, has no relevance to the argument.
But "stop being so negative" isn't. Sometimes people are being very negative.
And some are actually a defense of generalizations. Like when it says that a woman is Bad for saying "I'm not like that". Apparently, because feminists make generalizations about men, we should do the same about women.
It could have been done better, but even then "OH MAN A LOGICAL FALLACY :OOo SEE! SEE! THEY'RE NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES!" doesn't exactly cut it when someone is deadset on humiliating you.
Most of these are attempts to frame you unfavorably, put words in your mouth to get you to backpeddle, or end a conversation entirely. If it is a woman, literally all you have to do is be smug and dismissive - and say "Yes" to any accusation that your position is disagreeable or faux pas. They can't stand it.
You cannot be humiliated without your own consent.
If I go to some black guy's house while he's leaving it and say "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER", should he feel humiliated? A lot of blacks are, but I think that's exactly the problem. You're putting too much power in the hands of other people.
You might pose the (correct) counterargument that an individual doing that is regarded by society as being a rather sad and pathetic creature, while the "man-shaming" comments by some women are regarded as acceptable (though that would just be online). But even then, what purposes does this serve? I don't get it.
In my long life of being immune to embarassment I can safely say that I can see its purpose, or atleast the impetus of the strong feelings involved with being made into a fucking idiot infront of everyone and being respected that much less for it. People are extremely hierarchal and this is an important social emotion to guard if you don't want to be the odd man out; being that the world is incredibly socially nepotistic. Even your health can take a hit from certain forms of hierarchal shame. I don't imagine that being less true on an individual level, atleast not in how you might respond hormonally.
Demoralization can of course be a matter of being too invested in the opinions of others and true humility can be its cure, but this is not the full picture of the concept and I don't think we always have as much control over the little arrows fired our way as we like to think we do and winning the small war means understanding what all the pieces on the board look like.
I can't imagine someone being embarrassed and looking the better for it. I'm not arguing against retaliating (verbally), only that it should be a rational calculation, because otherwise, you're prone to manipulation.
Can you imagine Donald Trump getting embarrassed? He might feel it, but if he does, he sure as hell never shows it.
Apparently, not a very welcome message, but c'est ca.