ObjectivityIncarnate

👆 Found the gooner.

Actually, all they had to do was make the man in panel 1 and the man in panel 3 not the same man, to not have been shitty in the way I pointed out.

It’s very simple.

The thing is, I don’t blame women for valid self protective instincts.

I don’t think labeling men hypocrites counts as a “self protective” act.

I feel like you and many others feel like my issue is simply that panel 3 is there at all, and that I’m indignant about the notion of men reacting poorly to rejection. But that’s not my issue at all. I explain below.

Ghosting is antisocial bullshit, but it’s the easiest solution available to a potential for real, serious harm, especially when you are only one of some dozen guys one woman might be dealing with on the subject.

You’re misinterpreting the core of my distaste with the comic.

All the comic had to do to not be shitty in the way I’m criticizing it for, is have the men in panels 1 and 3 not be the same person. That’s all. Then I could at least understand a message like what you describe: ‘this is a shitty thing to do in a vacuum, but I feel like I have to do it, to not risk an unpleasant reaction’. But by nonsensically making it the same guy, when it’s basically never the same guy doing both things (do you really think men who have those kinds of outbursts when they’re rejected, are the ones wishing women would reject them overtly? Think about it), the author is shitting on decent guys who have a reasonable desire to not be ghosted, which is not mutually exclusive with understanding why women do it.

Does that make sense?

“Not all men, also women are bad”.

So we’re just lying now?

The ‘point’ they got across is that the author believes that men who express the desire for women to be more direct with them (presumably instead of ghosting them), are all hypocrites that react poorly to directness. At the very least, they unambiguously state that assuming that to be the case is the correct thing to do.

There’s no ambiguity about that. That is the message, and it’s inaccurate and sexist.

Are both ‘parts’ within the DMs with that person, or is ‘1’ in a regular post/comment, and then ‘3’ is in the DMs?

If the latter, I don’t think I can realistically verify at all if they’ve posted any significant amount, but with the former, I probably could.

Ah you’ve edited your comment

Sorry, I’m quick to revise if I think I could have written something better, or found supporting information, etc. I don’t think the content has really materially changed, though.

You can just go and look to confirm this, DMs aren’t private on lemmy.

I don’t know how to do this, nor am I really inclined to dig through someone’s stuff like that (and even if I did, I’d expect only the ‘panel 3’ part to be in the DMs, not the ‘panel 1’ part too). Can you link to one example of the same person doing both (panel 1 and panel 3) things? I’m genuinely interested to see.

Did you just link to yourself?

Yes, why write the same comment twice?

Thought that argument was so good you came over here to point at it, let me know?

It’s not an “argument”, anymore than “apples are fruits” is an “argument”. It’s stating a simple fact. It’s fallacious to conflate panels 1 and 3, and imply (via the 4th panel having the woman say she was correct to expect both characteristics in the same man) that the men who express the sentiment in panel 1 are the same ones who should be expected to react immaturely to honest/direct rejection.

If you write a comic where a person sees someone else do two things one after the other, and then expresses that they correctly expected them to do the second thing after seeing them do the first, that is a very obvious endorsement of assuming that people who do the first thing also do the second thing.

If it was a black guy who said he liked sports in panel 1, then she asked in panel 2 what sport was his favorite, and then he said basketball in panel 3, and panel 4 was identical (“Yup, that’s about what I expected!”), would you really think it was some crazy outlandish interpretation to read that as ‘the artist is saying that it’s correct to assume that black guys who like sports favor basketball’?

this isn’t an argument, nor a statement. For all we know, it’s an anecdote. Perhaps, even a dream.

You’re just being deliberately obtuse now.

If you think that the appropriate answer to “women feel scared to reject men because of common toxic behavior” is “but its not all men”…

Wow, I’ve rarely seen such a robust straw man built in such a short amount of time!

Despite the impressive construction, it is a construction. I didn’t say that.

No point in reading the rest of your comment, since it all follows from the ridiculous premise quoted above.

It’s like saying you’re confident there isn’t anyone who both advocates for polyamory and also insults people for being in a romantic relationship with more than one person at the same time.

Is it absolutely impossible that such a person exists? No, but it’s obviously going to be extremely rare, at best, because it makes zero sense for both characteristics to exist inside the same person. Therefore, I feel confident in saying ‘this is not a thing’, generally speaking.

To have the same person espouse the sentiment in panel 1, AND react badly to a rejection like in panel 3? The same guy?

No, that is absolutely not a common thing; even calling it “uncommon” is a massive understatement, I think. I’ve spoken to many women about that sort of thing (and shared stories of my own), and none who’ve ever shared screenshots with me of, or talked about, the ‘aggressive rejections’ they’ve experienced, has ever had it coming from a guy who also has voiced encouragement toward women directly/honestly turning men down. And I’ve spent entire afternoons having fun with a woman buddy who was going through her conversations on a dating app with me and showing me ‘highlights’ for us to laugh at together.

It’s never the same guy doing both things. Seriously, come on now.

I literally made NO REFERENCE to people with social anxiety whatsoever.

Yes, I am aware that you painted “incel” with only the stereotypical brush strokes.

Everyone who mentions incels in the internet is talking about the ones we see in the fucking internet.

Not everyone. This is the same as someone denigrating “feminists” by talking about all of the stereotypical man-hating behavior, and then when someone replies “hey, there are plenty of feminists who don’t act like that, most even, you shouldn’t generalize”, that person responds saying “everyone who mentions feminists on the internet is only talking about the stereotypical ones”.

‘I just meant the bad ones’ is not justification for generalizing, period.

I’d put a significant wager on this specific thing (meaning, the events of panels 1-3, all with the same singular man) never having happened to this person.

“When I call ‘women’ pieces of shit, I’m only talking about the bad ones”

Why do I get the impression you wouldn’t find something like the above convincing if you were on the other end of it?

This is the mentality of a racist who calls a black friend ‘one of the good ones’.

‘I only meant the bad ones’ is not justification for making generalizations about any demographic.

it says this was an expectation, not an assertion.

The comic ends not with an expectation, but with the statement that an expectation that already existed was correct. In other words, ‘it was correct of me to expect a man who says women should directly/honestly reject someone, to react badly when I directly/honestly reject him’

She is absolutely indirectly asserting that it is correct to expect ‘panel 1 men’ to hypocritically exhibit ‘panel 3 behavior’.

nowhere does it make the claim that all men who say “Women need to be more honest [etc]” are hypocrites

It shows the same man saying two hypocritical things, followed immediately by the woman saying that the panel 3 behavior is what she expected from the man saying the panel 1 statement.

Yes, it absolutely does make the claim that ‘panel 1 men’ are hypocrites. It could not be more obvious.

Without either

• adding another panel 1 man who doesn’t have the same bad reaction in panel 3
• having the reaction in panel 4 contain a recognition that this particular man isn’t the norm, as opposed to absolutely asserting that it is, with her ‘this is just what I expected the guy who said that stuff in panel 1 to do’ reaction

you can’t reasonably argue that the comic is saying “some”. It’s absolutely equivocating the panel 1’s and the panel 3’s.

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.

EDIT: Hm, maybe I mixed up what comment chain I was in, oh well.

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.

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.