Except when it doesn’t… eugh bug chasers are the one kink I will happily shame.

It’s mostly the second example, people misunderstanding positive interactions in comments as a tacit indication I want to take the relationship to further sexual grounds, but there are sure examples where a positive conversation will start where they decry the duplicitous behavior of men and then they themselves will devolve to the behavior they initially criticize.

That’s quite rare for it to be so explicitly-as depicted-in-the-comic here on lemmy, but it does happen.

(edit: spelling!)

You’re welcome to go and look them up, but for my own safety I’m not going to single out one particular person (with a history of being extremely hostile to me personally) to be publicly shamed - and I ask that while I obviously cannot stop you, if you do end up looking through them you also don’t single them out publicly.

Gonna just refer you back to my edit instead of retyping it all. Also it’s going to be an uphill struggle to argue that internal inconstancy or brazen deception are rare traits in humans.

And that anecdotal experience is what you’re basing this conclusion on? That it can’t reasonably have happened to someone else?

(Ah you’ve edited your comment but my point still stands. However I’ll add that I can personally attest that yeah, it often is the same person who will express support for me being straightforward in my interactions with them who then respond with hostility when I explain I don’t sext/cyber/cam/want-to-be-sexual/etc. Even on lemmy I still regularly get interactions like this. You can just go and look to confirm this, DMs aren’t private on lemmy. It is by no means all men, but it very much does happen.)

Have you ever asked any of the women in your life about their experience with this? It’s really not an uncommon nor abstract thing.

Alright and while you may disagree with them, that is beside the point: where is there a logical fallacy? It does not make the assertion that all men are X/Y or that all men who say X will say Y, it makes the assertion that their expectation, that a man who does X will often say Y, was correct. That is not a logical fallacy.

But it textually says the opposite of what you’re saying it’s claim is - it says this was an expectation, not an assertion. Nowhere does it make that the claim you’re claiming it claims. Saying “this is commonly the case” is not the same thing as saying “this is always the case”.

Yes, I did explicitly address that. This is a hyperbolic presentation - nowhere does it make the claim that all men who say “Women need to be more honest [etc]” are hypocrites, it presents the situation that men who say “Women need to be more honest [etc]” are so often hypocrites that the narrator is unsurprised when this once again turns out to be the case.

It isn’t, the central premise of that fallacy does not apply here. Also, again, it’s an informal fallacy.

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’s “Bitch Slut”

Not only is a strawman only an informal logical fallacy, this isn’t even close to being a strawman - it’s hyperbolic representation.

Nobody has died in a nuclear blast yet - it’s hard to argue with that kind of result. Unfortunately, soft power is slow.

it’s your responsibility to help change things for the better

Yeah, we know. We’re working on it.

This time tho we’re keeping the nukes.

We’re not the target audience here, this is a message to putin that they’re sick enough of his shit to explicitly call out his strategy. It’s part of a gradual escalation.