In your comment, whether intended or not. It’s not a long comment. By “whatabouting” the idea of replacing men with any marginalized group, you are making a false equivalence via equivocation. By leaving out the crucial aspect of power imbalance, you minimize its role by implication. See: all lives matter in response to BLM.
Again, you don’t understand what a false equivalence fallacy is. So, you should really stop attempting to use it because doing so is make you look like a fool.
Whatabouting and false equivalences aren’t the same thing. I feel like I’m witnessing the death of irony here.
No, something wrong is still wrong, even if you feel bad about historical injustices. The power imbalance does not change this and also ignores every other intersection a white person could have.
You even drew a false equivalence the BLM which is the only actual false equivalence on this chain.
See the wiki pages of the fallacies you clearly don’t understand.
God forbid a rhetorical argument fall into multiple categories. I never said whataboutism and false equivalences are the same thing. You happened to do both. Equivocation has nothing to do with setting two things as equal, it’s the use of ambiguous language to avoid the bigger picture of an issue or to avoid committing to a stance. It is another form of logical fallacy. Via equivocation (omission and vague language) you omitted key facts (social power imbalance) that makes bringing up a connected, but not equivalent, issue (replacing men are trash with any other group, which is a form of whataboutism) a false equivalence.
You can say I don’t know what I’m talking about. That doesn’t make it true. Your equivocation of your whataboutism argument led to forming a false equivalence.
All lives matter in response to BLM is both whataboutism and a false equivalence. Just because someone didn’t say “what about” or "these things are equal doesn’t make those facts untrue. There is an implied “what about all those other lives, don’t they matter?” which in itself implies that the societal inequalities BLM rose in response to are equal to the pressures felt but the rest of “all lives.”
It’s always amusing to me to watch someone like the person you’re responding to try to browbeat an argument into submission by referencing pedantic technicalities and yet be so fundamentally wrong about what those technicalities actually mean.
Although on the topic of being pedantic, I kinda miss when whataboutism was called tu quoque. Really made the logical fallacy guys at least sound eloquent.
I’m pretty sure any time you put two multi-syllable words next to each other it is by default a scathing burn. You don’t actually need to know what those words mean, in fact not knowing makes the burn so much more savage.
Except all lives matter was created in bad faith. It wasn’t created to raise awareness of anything. It was created to punish black people for thinking they shouldn’t be killed over a basic traffic stop.
Women shitting all over all men as a “protest against the patriarchy” is the same kind of bad faith argument.
Especially to the young men who have never done anything to deserve that kind of vitriol. All it does to them is show them that women are callous and hate all men. So why tf should they care about women or their rights?
Hence why gen z males voted for Trump. Because they’ve been dejected by women just for existing with a penis.
You should read my longest comment within this larger thread. Truly read the whole thing, and its child comments, before forming your opinion. I clearly and explicitly state
I am not suggesting that it’s okay to make men feel responsible for the actions of people that share only a gender with them, nothing else.
and that doing so is unjust. Nuance isn’t the same thing as taking an opposing stance. I even go into the fact that women making such blanket statements likely do not hate all men. If you feel the same way after reading my full comment and understanding it, I’m happy to have a discussion about it, but by the context of your comment, I don’t believe you understand my stance, and therefore I don’t want to engage with it further.
In your comment, whether intended or not. It’s not a long comment. By “whatabouting” the idea of replacing men with any marginalized group, you are making a false equivalence via equivocation. By leaving out the crucial aspect of power imbalance, you minimize its role by implication. See: all lives matter in response to BLM.
Again, you don’t understand what a false equivalence fallacy is. So, you should really stop attempting to use it because doing so is make you look like a fool.
Whatabouting and false equivalences aren’t the same thing. I feel like I’m witnessing the death of irony here.
No, something wrong is still wrong, even if you feel bad about historical injustices. The power imbalance does not change this and also ignores every other intersection a white person could have.
You even drew a false equivalence the BLM which is the only actual false equivalence on this chain.
See the wiki pages of the fallacies you clearly don’t understand.
God damn bougouise feminists.
God forbid a rhetorical argument fall into multiple categories. I never said whataboutism and false equivalences are the same thing. You happened to do both. Equivocation has nothing to do with setting two things as equal, it’s the use of ambiguous language to avoid the bigger picture of an issue or to avoid committing to a stance. It is another form of logical fallacy. Via equivocation (omission and vague language) you omitted key facts (social power imbalance) that makes bringing up a connected, but not equivalent, issue (replacing men are trash with any other group, which is a form of whataboutism) a false equivalence.
You can say I don’t know what I’m talking about. That doesn’t make it true. Your equivocation of your whataboutism argument led to forming a false equivalence.
All lives matter in response to BLM is both whataboutism and a false equivalence. Just because someone didn’t say “what about” or "these things are equal doesn’t make those facts untrue. There is an implied “what about all those other lives, don’t they matter?” which in itself implies that the societal inequalities BLM rose in response to are equal to the pressures felt but the rest of “all lives.”
Lol
It’s always amusing to me to watch someone like the person you’re responding to try to browbeat an argument into submission by referencing pedantic technicalities and yet be so fundamentally wrong about what those technicalities actually mean.
Although on the topic of being pedantic, I kinda miss when whataboutism was called tu quoque. Really made the logical fallacy guys at least sound eloquent.
If one is to engage in pedantry, it can’t hurt to at least be correct. Calling me a “bougouise feminist” was hysterical though.
I’m pretty sure any time you put two multi-syllable words next to each other it is by default a scathing burn. You don’t actually need to know what those words mean, in fact not knowing makes the burn so much more savage.
Except all lives matter was created in bad faith. It wasn’t created to raise awareness of anything. It was created to punish black people for thinking they shouldn’t be killed over a basic traffic stop.
Women shitting all over all men as a “protest against the patriarchy” is the same kind of bad faith argument.
Especially to the young men who have never done anything to deserve that kind of vitriol. All it does to them is show them that women are callous and hate all men. So why tf should they care about women or their rights?
Hence why gen z males voted for Trump. Because they’ve been dejected by women just for existing with a penis.
You should read my longest comment within this larger thread. Truly read the whole thing, and its child comments, before forming your opinion. I clearly and explicitly state
and that doing so is unjust. Nuance isn’t the same thing as taking an opposing stance. I even go into the fact that women making such blanket statements likely do not hate all men. If you feel the same way after reading my full comment and understanding it, I’m happy to have a discussion about it, but by the context of your comment, I don’t believe you understand my stance, and therefore I don’t want to engage with it further.