None of the men who say the things in panel 1 are the same ones who say the things in panel 3.
Men are not a monolith. The panel 1 men are on your side re the panel 3 men. Don’t push them away with sexist generalizations.
Also, women do this plenty as well (google “nice girls”), you just don’t hear about it as much, even though I suspect the % of women who do it is comparable to the % of men (if not more, which I think may be the case, based on the second bullet point below), simply because women experience a lower absolute number of rejections, as a sex, than men do, by virtue of the following:
- They do the approaching far less often on average. Only the ‘approacher’ can be the one who gets rejected, after all
- On the absolute scale, men are definitely less likely to reject a woman who approaches them, than the other way around
- This means women in general have less experience with rejection, and that likely leads to being less likely to handle it maturely, on average
- I’m also fairly sure men are also less likely to publicly ‘call out’ a woman, when she does react poorly to a rejection, than the other way around
And for a mini-anecdote along those lines: I’ve personally been called the f-slur for rejecting a woman who propositioned me while having a boyfriend I was aware of.
Some of the men in panel 1, will also act like the men in panel 3.
This is why I liked online dating. Those bullet points are almost eliminated.
Also, sometimes it’s men ignoring those actually interested in them. Be it too high standards or just incompatibly. I’m single, but I’m fairly certain I’ve friendzoned more people than who have friendzoned me, and I’m no Adonis or anything.
I have plenty of wishy washy reasons I did it at the time, but ultimately I probably just need therapy.
I understand your point, but it does not matter whether men are panel 1 or 3, when the interaction is short you can’t tell which reaction it will be. The problem is that panel 3 men exist at all, and that society normalizes it to be like that. “Men will be men” and all that is the problem. I totally get why women would be guarded because of it. Our job as men is to point out toxic behavior when it happens. That’s it.
The problem is that panel 3 men exist at all
Panel 3 women do, too. Some people are just shitheads.
society normalizes it to be like that.
That’s simply not true. There is a reason neither men nor women are ever the ones willfully broadcasting this behavior: society absolutely does not justify this behavior. It’s invariably the one on the receiving end calling them out (and the fact that it is seen as “calling them out” in the first place is more evidence that it is not a socially acceptable behavior).
“Men will be men” and all that is the problem.
Can you find a single, solitary example of a man being shown to react immaturely to being rejected posted online somewhere, and anything even close to the majority of the response being anything resembling “men will be men”? I contend you’re fabricating this.
I totally get why women would be guarded because of it.
Do you also “totally get” why someone wouldn’t trust black people after having a bad experience with a person who is black? Because this is the exact same line of reasoning white supremacists use.
Our job as men is to point out toxic behavior when it happens.
It’s not men’s job to socially police men. It’s everyone’s job to socially police everyone. It’s ridiculous to insinuate that it’s any more a male’s responsibility to call out bad behavior, just because the one behaving badly is also male.
Username checks out.
“Sorry” = not honest
She deserved to be called a birch salient
Don’t wait for the proposition before replying to the first bit. It’s extra-embarassing to get to shoot your shot after broaching the subject only to be shut-down.
Girls are even worse about this, and they’ll still ask you out and call you moron/must-be-gay-for-being-uninterested even if you reply to that first bit with “well, I like this other girl…” or “I tried that with …”
I’ve seen guys like this but I don’t get it. Why get angry that someone isn’t into you? Just move on. Geez. Like, do you think she will change her mind if you insult her? What’s the logic here? Just a bruised ego? Little man syndrome?
What’s the logic here? Just a bruised ego?
Yes, coupled with a lack of maturity—a bruised ego alone does not a ridiculous rejection response make.
It’s the exact same reason women do it, when they do. There are plenty of posts on the ‘nice girls’ subreddit over the years of a woman doing the exact same ‘you’re ugly anyway’ nonsense as an immediate reaction to rejection.
This is a human phenomenon, not a male one.
Just be honest…to the potentially dangerous PoS who might attack you, follow you home, stalk you, worse…
So many men “in the game” are literally like this. Especially behind their interests’ backs, talking shit with other guys. I witnessed way worse from my small former social circle, and even back then I felt kinda ashamed of my sex.
So many
Don’t extrapolate your social circle onto the entire population. If someone else’s social circle contains no one like this, are they then justified in saying it’s overblown and extremely rare? Somehow I doubt you’d think so.
This is no different from someone rationalizing/justifying a mistrust of black people based on the face that they were mugged once, and the mugger was black.
That was a bit of hyperbole… I didn’t mean a majority of men. Like a few particular jerks in a class, basically.
But they were so prolific that their ‘body count’ was pretty high. Hence I think it’s fair to extrapolate a sample as a justification of this meme, as even ‘a few’ bad eggs can have enough of a disproportionate effect to justify the stereotype.
But they were so prolific that their ‘body count’ was pretty high.
…are we still talking about incels, here? Because ‘incel with a high ‘body count’’ is kind of like saying ‘triangle with four sides’, lol.
Instant confirmation that she made the right decision.
If you’re not interested save us both the drama and just shoot me in the back of the head.
Stupid Fat Bath Salt!
I’m still trying to figure out why he said “stupid fat bush shit”…
Have you ever taken a stupidly fat shit in a bush before? There’s not even toilet paper around, you’ll have to use dry leaves that crumble in your hands. I’m still traumatised.
Stupid fat bush shit.
Shit near the treeline, more moss. Sphagnum moss. It’s moist, soft, and grows in big thick clumps so you don’t get any on your hands.
I don’t know, dry seems bad, but is “moist” even better? This really seems like a no-win situation.
It’s nature’s wet wipe.
look at this loser who doesn’t have toilet paper with them at all times 🫵
/j
The only thing I can figure out is its vertically “Stupid Bitch” and “Fat Shit”, otherwise I cant figure it out
It’s “Bitch Slut”
Yeah that makes sense then lol
deleted by creator
That’s so mean!!! I’m gonna cry all day in my Saved By The Bell pillow.
🎶It’s alright🎶
Some of the men in panel 1, will also act like the men in panel 3.
Every time someone says not to ghost them, they turn out to be extra ghostable.
I thought both were women.
Curly haired men in absolute shambles right now.
Had my first try of this with a classmate who decided I was dumb and proceeded to place his feet on my chair, touching my ass, at 11. 😁👍 no men since then fortunately
Was there some particular reason he never wanted to do it after lunchtime? /s
Oh, so every comic from this person is a logical fallacy.
I’ve heard this happening (in various different ways) from countless women that I’m friends or acquintances with.
If I, a former /r/KotakuInAction visitor who managed to fall out of the alt-right pipeline, who also has pretty bad rejection sensitive dysphoria, can learn how to be rejected without getting violent, or even mildly annoyed, anyone can. The reason people don’t is because they don’t want to and want to blame women for the fact they act like complete cunts.
People don’t realize is that there’s a taste for literally everything. If you spend any time on fandom spaces you’ll see women thirsting for dudes, real or not, that most people don’t consider conventionally attractive. The reason no one dates incels is not because of their body type, or because they’re nerds, or any other excuse they can think of, it’s because they’re pieces of shit and it reflects on their personality, and no one likes people who have a shitty personality. Hope that explains it to you.
The reason no one dates incels is not because of their body type, or because they’re nerds, or any other excuse they can think of, it’s because they’re pieces of shit and it reflects on their personality, and no one likes people who have a shitty personality.
There are plenty of people who are incels that do not fit this definition, and it does no one any good (you making yourself feel morally superior doesn’t count) to generalize them all based on Internet stereotypes.
What if anxiety and/or trauma prevents you from being able to even try to initiate romantic contact with someone, or ever allow yourself to be vulnerable to the degree required to make any sort of actual connection? Does that make you a “piece of shit”, too?
The majority of people who have no sex/relationships, against their will, are not the stereotypical “incel”.
That’s… Not the point I’m making at all.
The top two panels are scenario A.
The bottom two panels are scenario B.
Both scenarios are real. As in there are guys who just want girls to be forward and not give vague mixed messages. Then there are also guys who feel entitled to women.
People from scenario A are usually not the same kind of people who do scenario B. Yet this comic portrays both to be the exact same person and then just blames “guys” in general for it.
Edit: this is not the first time I’ve seen comics from this creator, and they mostly seem to involve this exact pattern.
Where’s the logical fallacy? Sure, there’s a fair bit of prejudice and generalisation-based discrimination against men in this comic, but no logical fallacies as far as I can see. Perhaps you could help me spot it in this comic?
And I’ve personally become accustomed to being called a slut for not wanting random hookups with men while online dating, so it’s not about logic anyways.
I’m just a random person scrolling through the comments, but it’s a strawman fallacy in this instance.
This falls under the fallacy of composition.
The error is treating a group as if it were a single, internally consistent person, and then accusing that “person” of hypocrisy.
- Men say X
- Men say Y
- X and Y are hypocritical
Therefore: men who say either X or Y are hypocrites.
That conclusion only follows if it’s the same individuals doing both X and Y. When it isn’t, the reasoning breaks.
It’s not. It presents a pattern of behavior as hypocritical, it does not make the assertion that this scenario is hypocritical therefore all men are hypocritical. At most it asserts that everyone who says the 1st panel is hypocritical, but since that’s the subject of the inherently hyperbolic premise it’s a real big stretch to say it’s fallacious (without entrenching yourself in the claim that all hyperbole is fallacious - which is true, but is effectively meaningless since that inconsistency is the whole objective of using a hyperbolic structure)
it does not make the assertion that because this scenario is hypocritical therefore all men are hypocritical.
I didn’t say it did.
What it does do is equivocate the ‘panel 1 men’ and the ‘panel 3 men’, and by pointing out the hypocrisy of those two behaviors, they are therefore implying that you’re a hypocrite if you say what’s in panel 1.
Precisely this.
And when you ask how you can be both a virgin and a slut they make you eat a lipstick and shove you in a locker
When this kinda comic triggers you so hard its super telling for everyone else.
Hello there, Kafka.
What if it’s the damn noses triggering me and not the plot?
(No, but seriously, edit those damn upside down location indicators out and the comic would be several orders of magnitude better.)
Probably would have been a way different comment I imagine.
Who says I’m “triggered so hard”? XD
Every comic is a logical fallacy if you can’t identify a logical fallacy.
This one very obviously contains a logical fallacy, though.
If you really want to tie your brain into a knot, consider that every Argument From Fallacy is a Fallacy.
That’s my favorite one. I have a personal fallacy where I don’t believe anyone who brings up fallacies. You’re a liar and a thief.
Fuck me. Can’t argue with that logic.
No, you’re the logical fallacy!
Good luck finding a Latin phrase to criticize my foolproof tactic of redirecting my attacks away from the argument and to the person.
This whole genre of comics is so cringe, they’re basically moral outrage click bait with cartoons.
They have this in common:
- Low-effort drawings (at least this one is not that bad)
- Forced scenarios to put characters at the polar opposite of the moral spectrum.
- Trying so hard to generate indignation.
I don’t mean that the problem isn’t real, but this is a circlejerk with too many cartoonists already. In a few years we’ll be embarrassed of having participated in this trend of imaginary situations while doing nothing IRL.
Not only is a strawman only an informal logical fallacy, this isn’t even close to being a strawman - it’s hyperbolic representation.
It’s a variant of fallacy of composition.
It isn’t, the central premise of that fallacy does not apply here. Also, again, it’s an informal fallacy.
