I’ve noticed you use that as a cop-out a lot whenever someone calls out your flawed arguments.
There’s “reading the situation differently” and there’s “blatantly fallacious logic being used to justify a moral pedestal.”
After all the grandstanding you do while casting shame on anyone who disagrees with you, you don’t get to backtrack by saying “Oh, we’re just reading the situation differently.” No, there’s such thing as “You’re just wrong.”
Being able to admit when you’ve been wrong is a strength, not a weakness. It’s okay to let go of your feelings of moral supremacy, they’re not serving you.
Ah y’all have raked me over the coals quite a bit over this. Fine. Whatever lol defend this cheating jerk who can’t stop himself from endangering everyone by drinking and driving over and over again.
I’m sure his texting game is A+ and he totally just forgot to text or something. I don’t know why this image would then be circulated around for discussion, but whatever.
The people of Lemmy would like to believe they have an open mind but when you get down to it, they’re as open minded and progressive as any group of people online. You will get dog-piled here for “wrong-think” just as vehemently as you would on mainstream social media.
This shit was posted because its two shitty celebrities who’s texts we can humorously read into. That you have reacted so makes me think you have some level of personal investment in not seeing that tiger woods is being shitty in these texts.
Nope. Scroll up and read my first comment where I clearly state I’m not defending him because he’s a magat piece of shit (in addition to the DUIs and infidelity).
But just because someone is a bad person doesn’t mean you can make up whatever you want about him. That’s called an ad hominem, and is an obvious fallacy.
What I’m saying isn’t “actually I think Tiger’s behavior in general is okay.” What I’m saying is “It’s perfectly fine to not respond to a text within an hour, and focusing your ire on that is missing the point.”
People can take an hour or more to respond to a text. Just because Tiger’s a shitty person doesn’t mean waiting an hour to respond is what makes him shitty. Nazis ate food every day, does that mean everyone who eats food is a nazi?
Its not so much the hour it took to respond for me but that she felt the need in the first place to placate him after making a joke. That indicates to me that she is used to him being pretty volitaile. Which checks out given that he is tiger woods.
He can’t control how she feels. For all the arguments that women are preconditioned by society to already be placating by default, to turn around and assume that the particular guy in question is the reason she feels the need to be placating is kinda disconnected from the broader feminist narrative.
Unless you cherry-pick every situation based on what suits your preconceived notions the best, in which case what actually sets you apart from a maga? That’s literally the same thing they do, and it’s not made less disingenuous by the fact that there’s a kernel of truth to it (i.e., Tiger is a shitty person, but the particular argument you’re making is still disingenuous)
Bro you are too emotionally invested in this argument. You want to claim im doing ad-hominem while calling me MAGA for not reading into these texts the same way you have. Trust me it is not that serious. Velma can be abrasive but she usually has a real point to make.
Women have been generally conditioned into being placative because it keeps them from getting hurt.
I’m not emotionally invested at all, that sounds like something you’re imagining.
You want to claim im doing ad-hominem
All I pointed out was that it’s an ad hominem to attack an innocuous action just because the person is a jerk. That’s literally what an ad hominem is. I wasn’t “claiming” anything, just stating the simple truth.
while calling me MAGA for not reading into these texts the same way you have.
I didn’t “call” you maga, I said you’re using the same disingenuous and irrational style of argumentation that they use.
Trust me it is not that serious.
If it’s not that serious then why are you and Velma making a big deal out of the fact that he took an hour to respond? I’d agree that it’s not that serious, but you’re the one trying to make a mountain out of that molehill, so don’t DARVO me about taking it too seriously.
Women have been generally conditioned into being placative because it keeps them from getting hurt.
Yeah, isn’t that what I just said? That kinda contradicts your previous point that it’s somehow his fault that she feels the need to be placating.
At least maintain consistency in your arguments instead of contradicting yourself whenever it seems convenient for you.
Thanks. Yeah I’ve gathered as much which is why I don’t let it bother me.
I’ve been on the Internet long enough, probably longer than most of these guys who have a grudge against me, so I’m not surprised by the group think or that it would turn against a vocal woman easily.
No one has a grudge against you, you just have a habit of making disingenuous arguments and then resorting to pedestal standing when people push back.
You can’t just hide behind “I’m a woman, so you can’t disagree with me!” That clearly doesn’t work whenever a woman disagrees with you, as we’ve already seen before.
Just because you’re wrong about something doesn’t mean everyone disagreeing with you is having “group think.” And it’s not sexist to disagree with you when you make a bad argument.
That was my read as well.
I guess people are allowing their annoyance at me to justify defending shitty people like Tiger fucking Woods.
But Lemmy doesn’t have a sexism problem lol
So we can make up anything we want about Tiger Woods, and no one can disagree because then they would be defending a cheater?
This whole thread is textbook Ad Hominem
You’re describing Velma’s entire post history.
He’s an asshole in these texts. We’re just reading the situation differently.
“We’re just reading the situation differently.”
I’ve noticed you use that as a cop-out a lot whenever someone calls out your flawed arguments.
There’s “reading the situation differently” and there’s “blatantly fallacious logic being used to justify a moral pedestal.”
After all the grandstanding you do while casting shame on anyone who disagrees with you, you don’t get to backtrack by saying “Oh, we’re just reading the situation differently.” No, there’s such thing as “You’re just wrong.”
Being able to admit when you’ve been wrong is a strength, not a weakness. It’s okay to let go of your feelings of moral supremacy, they’re not serving you.
Personally, I’d say it’s more so the cheating that makes him an asshole rather than how he texts.
Ah y’all have raked me over the coals quite a bit over this. Fine. Whatever lol defend this cheating jerk who can’t stop himself from endangering everyone by drinking and driving over and over again.
I’m sure his texting game is A+ and he totally just forgot to text or something. I don’t know why this image would then be circulated around for discussion, but whatever.
The people of Lemmy would like to believe they have an open mind but when you get down to it, they’re as open minded and progressive as any group of people online. You will get dog-piled here for “wrong-think” just as vehemently as you would on mainstream social media.
Fallacious arguments aren’t “wrong-think,” and waiting an hour before responding to a text isn’t “silent treatment.”
Sometimes, a person is just wrong, and you don’t get to arbitrarily call people sexist just to defend a wrong position.
Nobody here is defending Tiger’s behavior, they’re just saying waiting an hour between texts isn’t silent treatment.
Critique him on any number of shitty behaviors, but not responding within an hour isn’t one.
This shit was posted because its two shitty celebrities who’s texts we can humorously read into. That you have reacted so makes me think you have some level of personal investment in not seeing that tiger woods is being shitty in these texts.
Nope. Scroll up and read my first comment where I clearly state I’m not defending him because he’s a magat piece of shit (in addition to the DUIs and infidelity).
But just because someone is a bad person doesn’t mean you can make up whatever you want about him. That’s called an ad hominem, and is an obvious fallacy.
What I’m saying isn’t “actually I think Tiger’s behavior in general is okay.” What I’m saying is “It’s perfectly fine to not respond to a text within an hour, and focusing your ire on that is missing the point.”
People can take an hour or more to respond to a text. Just because Tiger’s a shitty person doesn’t mean waiting an hour to respond is what makes him shitty. Nazis ate food every day, does that mean everyone who eats food is a nazi?
Its not so much the hour it took to respond for me but that she felt the need in the first place to placate him after making a joke. That indicates to me that she is used to him being pretty volitaile. Which checks out given that he is tiger woods.
He can’t control how she feels. For all the arguments that women are preconditioned by society to already be placating by default, to turn around and assume that the particular guy in question is the reason she feels the need to be placating is kinda disconnected from the broader feminist narrative.
Unless you cherry-pick every situation based on what suits your preconceived notions the best, in which case what actually sets you apart from a maga? That’s literally the same thing they do, and it’s not made less disingenuous by the fact that there’s a kernel of truth to it (i.e., Tiger is a shitty person, but the particular argument you’re making is still disingenuous)
Bro you are too emotionally invested in this argument. You want to claim im doing ad-hominem while calling me MAGA for not reading into these texts the same way you have. Trust me it is not that serious. Velma can be abrasive but she usually has a real point to make.
Women have been generally conditioned into being placative because it keeps them from getting hurt.
I’m not emotionally invested at all, that sounds like something you’re imagining.
All I pointed out was that it’s an ad hominem to attack an innocuous action just because the person is a jerk. That’s literally what an ad hominem is. I wasn’t “claiming” anything, just stating the simple truth.
I didn’t “call” you maga, I said you’re using the same disingenuous and irrational style of argumentation that they use.
If it’s not that serious then why are you and Velma making a big deal out of the fact that he took an hour to respond? I’d agree that it’s not that serious, but you’re the one trying to make a mountain out of that molehill, so don’t DARVO me about taking it too seriously.
Yeah, isn’t that what I just said? That kinda contradicts your previous point that it’s somehow his fault that she feels the need to be placating.
At least maintain consistency in your arguments instead of contradicting yourself whenever it seems convenient for you.
Thanks. Yeah I’ve gathered as much which is why I don’t let it bother me.
I’ve been on the Internet long enough, probably longer than most of these guys who have a grudge against me, so I’m not surprised by the group think or that it would turn against a vocal woman easily.
Appreciate you chiming in!
No one has a grudge against you, you just have a habit of making disingenuous arguments and then resorting to pedestal standing when people push back.
You can’t just hide behind “I’m a woman, so you can’t disagree with me!” That clearly doesn’t work whenever a woman disagrees with you, as we’ve already seen before.
Just because you’re wrong about something doesn’t mean everyone disagreeing with you is having “group think.” And it’s not sexist to disagree with you when you make a bad argument.