However, neighbours told local reporters they heard gunfire before alerting authorities.
What an actually completely ridiculous sentence, lol. You mean to tell me that they didn’t alert authorities just for the fun of it, and heard gunshots a few hours later?
Is “never learning how to set vertical alignment” one of the spaces under “poor life choices”? /s
A full audit every year, and then you simply tax any wealth over the 500M mark. It’s that easy.
If, hypothetically, those audits ended up costing more than the additional tax revenue they yield, resulting in overall tax revenue decreasing, would you still want to do it?
why it would be wrong to take everything from the rich except, say, 500 million.
It’s wrong because theft is wrong. Just because the thing you’re stealing is something the victim can do without, doesn’t magically make it not theft.
So theft it remains, and wrong it remains, because theft is wrong.
Pretty simple, really.
Can you show a single example of someone actually expressing this sentiment, though? I’ve seen “quotes” like this hundreds of times, but never anyone on the ‘other side’ ever actually make this argument.
Holy false dichotomy.
I don’t know if “give” is a fair word to use there, lol
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.
I think that you ignore an important part of the picture when you ignore perceptions of you as part of your identity.
But I’d argue that allowing those perceptions to shape your identity, to any extent, is equivalent to forfeiting part of who you are to them, and allowing others to define you. That seems really unhealthy to me.
Have you seen the Clayton Biggsby sketch on the Chappelle show with the blind black white supremacist? He had no knowledge of being black, but I think most people would still argue that it formed a major part of his identity regardless of his own concept of himself.
I have, and yeah, I guess I just don’t see it that way. His identity ironically clashed with his biology, but it doesn’t make sense to me that an aspect of yourself you have literally no knowledge of can be considering part of your “identity”.
Maybe I just see the concept of “identity” as borne of, and residing fully in, one’s own consciousness.
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.
When you’re talking about gay folk and same sex attraction conceptually, you don’t call it “homosexualism” or “gayology”. You would use the term homosexuality or same sex attraction.
Okay, so if I want a single word, “transgenderality”? That really just sounds bizarre, I have to say. Not to mention I’ve never seen any person talking about trans issues ever say/write that.
The issue is explicitly the “ism”. The -ism suffix is used to denote political and ideological beliefs
That’s only one way that suffix is used, and it’s assumption on your part that when you see that suffix, that that’s the way it’s being used. In other words, I think you should allow for the possibility that it ain’t that deep. Was it not obvious from the context of what/how I was writing that I wasn’t coming from a transphobic place?
-ism is used for all sorts of nouns that simply describe a state of being (e.g. autism, alcoholism, absenteeism), and that’s all I aimed for. And from what you said in your comment, it seems like this is uncharted territory, if there’s no actual single word term regularly employed for this particular state of being—all of your examples are multiple words.
P.S. By the way, I’m not at all dissuaded by something that is inherently benign being popular among shitty people—in my opinion, all the more reason to take it away from them, by using it benignly more often than they use it pejoratively. It was successfully done with “queer”, I say keep that train running!
👆 Found the gooner.