1w ago

So proud!

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

563 comments

Yeah and I'm asking them to use their definition in comparison
To be clear, no you weren't. Hence the confusion.
But since you've clarified: obviously using any term to unfairly accuse someone of being or doing something is a bad thing. Is that a real question?
- That's exactly what I was doing hence the twice repeated question, you can claim a lot of things but that isn't one that has legs.
  Correct, both are based on assumptions that are as offensive as the assumption that they're mansplaining or a dei hire or whatever.
  My point is that you can't use either without yourself being bigoted enough to come to a conclusion based on bigoted assumptions so how are they substantially different?
  
  Them:
  Definition of "Mansplaining"
  You:
  Isn’t that misandry to assume the man is a sexist
  That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge
  They didn't make any assumptions, nor did they explain anything that "requires prior knowledge" -- because they gave a definition of a term, not a scenario. Your questioning only makes sense if they were talking about a scenario. It makes no sense as a follow up to a definition.
  Anyways, that's just meta noise.
  Correct, both are based on assumptions that are as offensive as the assumption that they’re mansplaining or a dei hire or whatever.
  My point is that you can’t use either without yourself being bigoted enough to come to a conclusion based on bigoted assumptions so how are they substantially different?
  You're free to call women bigoted for how they feel about their lived experience regarding condescension from men. Just as I'm free to judge that as incel behaviour.
  
  Yes the way they defined is use requires someone to know the intent of the speaker which means they know them or they're simply assuming and my assertion is that isn't substantially different then assuming someone doesn't know something because of their sex.
  And you can call someone bigoted for saying something in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable solely based on their sex. I don't see the difference.
  
  But you can't callout a man for being misogynistically condescending to a woman. Got it.
  
  I'd love to know how seeking clarification implies your my or anyone else's ability to say what they want. I know I haven't said or knows that at worst all I want is to know how making assumptions based on sex isn't bigoted. I get how condescending to someone because they are a woman is bigoted, can you see how assuming someone is a bigot rather than ignorant based solely on their sex is by definition bigoted?
  
  I get how condescending to someone because they are a woman is bigoted
  Right, but you've also claimed it's impossible to believe that's happening without being a bigot.
  Your logic concludes that any women who thinks a man is being misogynistically condescending to them is a bigot.
  
  Nope, I've said you need to know the speakers intent. So either you already know them or their intent otherwise you're simply making a conclusion based largely on their sex and your perception.
  
  And how can you know that intent without being a mindreader?
  
  To know them. No one is asking you to make bigoted assumptions, I'm specifically asking not to.... That's sorta my point. Once you gender something unnecessarily you're by definition treading water is abject bigotry.
  
  I mean, even if you think you know them, that's still an assumption.
  But let's grant you that, because congratulations, you've answered your own question! That's exactly how you can use the term "mansplaining" without being a bigot. By knowing that that's what they are doing.
  
  Max comment depth reached. Bringing this back up to where it was first relevant:
  It’s by definition discriminatory because it’s a statement of discrimination no one said anything about it being abusive. It’s not just not necessarily derogatory whereas mansplaining always is.
  To call a behavior "misogynistic" is to express a low opinion of it, or detract from the character of the person exhibiting that behavior.
  
  Ok?
  No. Look at the definition.
  feeling, showing, or characterized by hatred of or prejudice against women : of, relating to, or being a misogynist
  Context implies at times a low opinion though that is not express to the meaning nor does it imply the word is derogatory.
  Discriminatory ≠ derogatory.
  
  Context implies at times a low opinion
  I can't think of a single example of a time where a woman would be assessing a man's behavior towards her, deem it to be misogynistic, but not as a low opinion.
  
  Sure, now is that the only way to use that descriptor? No.
  Can you find a way to use "mansplaining" that isn't using the term derogatorily? No because it's an insult that happens to be a descriptor while misandrist or misogynist are descriptors that can be insults.
  
  Sure, now is that the only way to use that descriptor? No.
  Can you think of an example?
  
  you’re comfortable calling women bigots for calling out one of the most common forms of misogyny they experience.
  
  Lol that's your proof I'm "anti-woman", neat. It's good to know you're only pursuing arguments you've already agreed aren't what you're claiming they are.
  Go away troll.
  
  Where did I agree to that?
  
  Read homie.
  And again if you insist we play this game. Define my sex, what am i?
  
  So you were lying. I never said that. What a surprise!
  Woman-hater and a liar. What else will you reveal yourself to be!
  
  If that's what you need to feel better about yourself, sure.
  Ah so you're lying.
  I dunno what I'll reveal about myself but you certainly revealed that you're a sexist and generally a bigot.
  To you apparently equality in phraseology is anti woman, super logical.
  Answer the question, am I a woman. Define woman.
  
  I wonder what started you down this path of hating women so much.
  I'm gonna bet it's mommy-issues.
  
  I'm not desperate for anything -- it's just so obvious how far you're willing to weasel to avoid admitting you cornered yourself with your own logic.
  Simple as, hold yourself to the standard you screeched about incessantly.
  
  50 comments going "why don't you answer the question?!" are objective proof otherwise.
  What standard is that.
  What personal details did I make up.
  Why did you call me Danny.
  Was it an attempt to dead name me.
  Define woman
  And last but not least are you sure I'm anti woman not anti feminist? I've tried to explain the difference to you and you just breeze on past.
  
  So we can add hypocrite to the list too. Yikes.
  
  I'm glad you're at least honest about that fault.
  What standard is that.
  What personal details did I make up.
  Why did you call me Danny.
  Was it an attempt to dead name me.
  Define woman
  And last but not least are you sure I'm anti woman not anti feminist? I've tried to explain the difference to you and you just breeze on past.
  
  no u
  Lol
  
  I'm willing to answer the question I just need to know what it is. Again to my knowledge what you're demanding is an example, is that what you're referring to as a question you need an answer for or is there an actual question you'd like to provide so I can answer it.
  You can say I'm deflecting but this is maybe the 7th time I've asked you to state the question and you refused. At this point your response is that I won't answer a question I don't know and that is somehow deflecting. To me it's you refusing to state the question you want an answer for, I'll give you an example.
  What standard is that.
  What personal details did I make up.
  Why did you call me Danny.
  Was it an attempt to dead name me.
  Define woman
  And last but not least are you sure I'm anti woman not anti feminist? I've tried to explain the difference to you and you just breeze on past.
  
  Now you want to pretend you didn't screech at me repeatedly to just read.
  Cute.

563 comments