Where’s the logical fallacy? Sure, there’s a fair bit of prejudice and generalisation-based discrimination against men in this comic, but no logical fallacies as far as I can see. Perhaps you could help me spot it in this comic?
And I’ve personally become accustomed to being called a slut for not wanting random hookups with men while online dating, so it’s not about logic anyways.
It’s not. It presents a pattern of behavior as hypocritical, it does not make the assertion that this scenario is hypocritical therefore all men are hypocritical. At most it asserts that everyone who says the 1st panel is hypocritical, but since that’s the subject of the inherently hyperbolic premise it’s a real big stretch to say it’s fallacious (without entrenching yourself in the claim that all hyperbole is fallacious - which is true, but is effectively meaningless since that inconsistency is the whole objective of using a hyperbolic structure)
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.
Yes, I did explicitly address that. This is a hyperbolic presentation - nowhere does it make the claim that all men who say “Women need to be more honest [etc]” are hypocrites, it presents the situation that men who say “Women need to be more honest [etc]” are so often hypocrites that the narrator is unsurprised when this once again turns out to be the case.
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.
But it textually says the opposite of what you’re saying it’s claim is - it says this was an expectation, not an assertion. Nowhere does it make that the claim you’re claiming it claims. Saying “this is commonly the case” is not the same thing as saying “this is always the case”.
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’.
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.
This whole genre of comics is so cringe, they’re basically moral outrage click bait with cartoons.
They have this in common:
Low-effort drawing (at least this one is not that bad)
Forced scenarios to put characters at the polar opposite of the moral spectrum.
Trying so hard to generate indignation.
I don’t mean that the problem isn’t real, but this is a circlejerk with too many cartoonists already. In a few years we’ll be embarrassed of having participated in this trend of imaginary situations while doing nothing IRL.
I’ve heard this happening (in various different ways) from countless women that I’m friends or acquintances with.
If I, a former /r/KotakuInAction visitor who managed to fall out of the alt-right pipeline, who also has pretty bad rejection sensitive dysphoria, can learn how to be rejected without getting violent, or even mildly annoyed, anyone can. The reason people don’t is because they don’t want to and want to blame women for the fact they act like complete cunts.
People don’t realize is that there’s a taste for literally everything. If you spend any time on fandom spaces you’ll see women thirsting for dudes, real or not, that most people don’t consider conventionally attractive. The reason no one dates incels is not because of their body type, or because they’re nerds, or any other excuse they can think of, it’s because they’re pieces of shit and it reflects on their personality, and no one likes people who have a shitty personality. Hope that explains it to you.
The reason no one dates incels is not because of their body type, or because they’re nerds, or any other excuse they can think of, it’s because they’re pieces of shit and it reflects on their personality, and no one likes people who have a shitty personality.
There are plenty of people who are incels that do not fit this definition, and it does no one any good (you making yourself feel morally superior doesn’t count) to generalize them all based on Internet stereotypes.
What if anxiety and/or trauma prevents you from being able to even try to initiate romantic contact with someone, or ever allow yourself to be vulnerable to the degree required to make any sort of actual connection? Does that make you a “piece of shit”, too?
The majority of people who have no sex/relationships, against their will, are not the stereotypical “incel”.
Obviously I’m talking about people who DO fit the internet incel stereotype, who would act like the man in the damn comic. I don’t know how you managed to pull out something completely irrelevant when I’m on topic.
I literally made NO REFERENCE to people with social anxiety whatsoever. I HAVE IT. Everyone who mentions incels in the internet is talking about the ones we see in the fucking internet. Someone not getting laid is not automatically an “incel” in the internet sense unless they feel entitled to women’s bodies.
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.
can learn how to be rejected without getting violent, or even mildly annoyed, anyone can. The reason people don’t is because they don’t want to
it’s because they’re pieces of shit and it reflects on their personality, and no one likes people who have a shitty personality
Rejection makes people feel bad as a rule. That’s not an excuse for treating others badly, and there’s ways to learn to have a healthier mindset, but I think it’s worth mentioning that it’s ok for people to at least feel the way they do and that having the “wrong” emotions in response to things doesn’t make you a bad person. It just means you might have to work harder to make sure to treat others with decency.
Well yeah rejection kinda sucks but you gotta take it in stride. If you get any type of violent response to rejection however I question if you’re actually capable of handling it.
Both scenarios are real. As in there are guys who just want girls to be forward and not give vague mixed messages. Then there are also guys who feel entitled to women.
People from scenario A are usually not the same kind of people who do scenario B. Yet this comic portrays both to be the exact same person and then just blames “guys” in general for it.
Edit: this is not the first time I’ve seen comics from this creator, and they mostly seem to involve this exact pattern.
The point of the comic is that there is a number cases who are actually the same people in scenario A and scenario B. Not all the people, but those people do exist, and the number is so high, every woman who dated for some time had those encounters, every single one.
There will always be outlyers. But the “yup, about what I expected” at the end of the comic draws this behaviour as something universal you can just expect, which is simply untrue.
The number being high is just plain nonsense. Obviously everyone who has done dated will at least have met one such person. That a statistical inevitability.
Should I regard women as spoiled, entitled brats simply because I have happened to meet two or three in my life? Should I consider black people as untrustworthy, dirty swindlers because I met ONE who was?
Should I make a comic about how hypocritical all people are because I met a few that were nice, but also a few that just sucked?
If you have any rational bone in your body the obvious answer would be “no”.
draws this behaviour as something universal you can just expect
Not universal, ubiquitous enough that you can fear it and expect it. This inability of understanding the difference between “all” and “a lot” is quite common both in general, and especially in this scenario. Especially prevalent in the form of “well, I’m not like that, therefore people like that are exceptionally rare”, regardless even of the correctness of this statement.
Let’s demonstrate this on an example that will not trigger your innate misogyny:
I live in a country where trains are notoriously unreliable. I come to a station, and my train is late. I write a post “damn, my train is late again, just as I expected”. You come to this post, and say “You’re stupid because not all trains are late, and by the way my trains are always on time, so you’re lying actually, and also it’s your fault because sometimes people miss their trains”.
Oh, so every comic from this person is a logical fallacy.
When this kinda comic triggers you so hard its super telling for everyone else.
Hello there, Kafka.
Who says I’m “triggered so hard”? XD
What if it’s the damn noses triggering me and not the plot?
(No, but seriously, edit those damn upside down location indicators out and the comic would be several orders of magnitude better.)
Probably would have been a way different comment I imagine.
Where’s the logical fallacy? Sure, there’s a fair bit of prejudice and generalisation-based discrimination against men in this comic, but no logical fallacies as far as I can see. Perhaps you could help me spot it in this comic?
And I’ve personally become accustomed to being called a slut for not wanting random hookups with men while online dating, so it’s not about logic anyways.
I’m just a random person scrolling through the comments, but it’s a strawman fallacy in this instance.
I see what you mean.
the OOC, thinks men should women not reject them no matter whats, thats what hes really saying.
Do you want to maybe try writing that again
And when you ask how you can be both a virgin and a slut they make you eat a lipstick and shove you in a locker
This falls under the fallacy of composition.
The error is treating a group as if it were a single, internally consistent person, and then accusing that “person” of hypocrisy.
Therefore: men who say either X or Y are hypocrites.
That conclusion only follows if it’s the same individuals doing both X and Y. When it isn’t, the reasoning breaks.
Precisely this.
It’s not. It presents a pattern of behavior as hypocritical, it does not make the assertion that this scenario is hypocritical therefore all men are hypocritical. At most it asserts that everyone who says the 1st panel is hypocritical, but since that’s the subject of the inherently hyperbolic premise it’s a real big stretch to say it’s fallacious (without entrenching yourself in the claim that all hyperbole is fallacious - which is true, but is effectively meaningless since that inconsistency is the whole objective of using a hyperbolic structure)
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.
Yes, I did explicitly address that. This is a hyperbolic presentation - nowhere does it make the claim that all men who say “Women need to be more honest [etc]” are hypocrites, it presents the situation that men who say “Women need to be more honest [etc]” are so often hypocrites that the narrator is unsurprised when this once again turns out to be the case.
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.
But it textually says the opposite of what you’re saying it’s claim is - it says this was an expectation, not an assertion. Nowhere does it make that the claim you’re claiming it claims. Saying “this is commonly the case” is not the same thing as saying “this is always the case”.
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’.
Commenters furiously scrambling out to reject the premise that all men are artists capable of producing the Mona Lisa
No, you’re the logical fallacy!
Good luck finding a Latin phrase to criticize my foolproof tactic of redirecting my attacks away from the argument and to the person.
Uh… Arugula ad for hummus!!
Sounds delicious!
Not only is a strawman only an informal logical fallacy, this isn’t even close to being a strawman - it’s hyperbolic representation.
It’s a variant of fallacy of composition.
It isn’t, the central premise of that fallacy does not apply here. Also, again, it’s an informal fallacy.
Every comic is a logical fallacy if you can’t identify a logical fallacy.
If you really want to tie your brain into a knot, consider that every Argument From Fallacy is a Fallacy.
That’s my favorite one. I have a personal fallacy where I don’t believe anyone who brings up fallacies. You’re a liar and a thief.
Fuck me. Can’t argue with that logic.
This one very obviously contains a logical fallacy, though.
Did you just link to yourself? Thought that argument was so good you came over here to point at it, let me know?
Either way, your premise is incorrect because this isn’t an argument, nor a statement. For all we know, it’s an anecdote. Perhaps, even a dream.
Yes, why write the same comment twice?
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’?
You’re just being deliberately obtuse now.
No I’m not.
This whole genre of comics is so cringe, they’re basically moral outrage click bait with cartoons.
They have this in common:
I don’t mean that the problem isn’t real, but this is a circlejerk with too many cartoonists already. In a few years we’ll be embarrassed of having participated in this trend of imaginary situations while doing nothing IRL.
I’ve heard this happening (in various different ways) from countless women that I’m friends or acquintances with.
If I, a former /r/KotakuInAction visitor who managed to fall out of the alt-right pipeline, who also has pretty bad rejection sensitive dysphoria, can learn how to be rejected without getting violent, or even mildly annoyed, anyone can. The reason people don’t is because they don’t want to and want to blame women for the fact they act like complete cunts.
People don’t realize is that there’s a taste for literally everything. If you spend any time on fandom spaces you’ll see women thirsting for dudes, real or not, that most people don’t consider conventionally attractive. The reason no one dates incels is not because of their body type, or because they’re nerds, or any other excuse they can think of, it’s because they’re pieces of shit and it reflects on their personality, and no one likes people who have a shitty personality. Hope that explains it to you.
There are plenty of people who are incels that do not fit this definition, and it does no one any good (you making yourself feel morally superior doesn’t count) to generalize them all based on Internet stereotypes.
What if anxiety and/or trauma prevents you from being able to even try to initiate romantic contact with someone, or ever allow yourself to be vulnerable to the degree required to make any sort of actual connection? Does that make you a “piece of shit”, too?
The majority of people who have no sex/relationships, against their will, are not the stereotypical “incel”.
Obviously I’m talking about people who DO fit the internet incel stereotype, who would act like the man in the damn comic. I don’t know how you managed to pull out something completely irrelevant when I’m on topic.
“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.
I literally made NO REFERENCE to people with social anxiety whatsoever. I HAVE IT. Everyone who mentions incels in the internet is talking about the ones we see in the fucking internet. Someone not getting laid is not automatically an “incel” in the internet sense unless they feel entitled to women’s bodies.
Yes, I am aware that you painted “incel” with only the stereotypical brush strokes.
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.
Rejection makes people feel bad as a rule. That’s not an excuse for treating others badly, and there’s ways to learn to have a healthier mindset, but I think it’s worth mentioning that it’s ok for people to at least feel the way they do and that having the “wrong” emotions in response to things doesn’t make you a bad person. It just means you might have to work harder to make sure to treat others with decency.
Well yeah rejection kinda sucks but you gotta take it in stride. If you get any type of violent response to rejection however I question if you’re actually capable of handling it.
That’s… Not the point I’m making at all.
The top two panels are scenario A.
The bottom two panels are scenario B.
Both scenarios are real. As in there are guys who just want girls to be forward and not give vague mixed messages. Then there are also guys who feel entitled to women.
People from scenario A are usually not the same kind of people who do scenario B. Yet this comic portrays both to be the exact same person and then just blames “guys” in general for it.
Edit: this is not the first time I’ve seen comics from this creator, and they mostly seem to involve this exact pattern.
The point of the comic is that there is a number cases who are actually the same people in scenario A and scenario B. Not all the people, but those people do exist, and the number is so high, every woman who dated for some time had those encounters, every single one.
There will always be outlyers. But the “yup, about what I expected” at the end of the comic draws this behaviour as something universal you can just expect, which is simply untrue.
The number being high is just plain nonsense. Obviously everyone who has done dated will at least have met one such person. That a statistical inevitability.
Should I regard women as spoiled, entitled brats simply because I have happened to meet two or three in my life? Should I consider black people as untrustworthy, dirty swindlers because I met ONE who was?
Should I make a comic about how hypocritical all people are because I met a few that were nice, but also a few that just sucked?
If you have any rational bone in your body the obvious answer would be “no”.
Not universal, ubiquitous enough that you can fear it and expect it. This inability of understanding the difference between “all” and “a lot” is quite common both in general, and especially in this scenario. Especially prevalent in the form of “well, I’m not like that, therefore people like that are exceptionally rare”, regardless even of the correctness of this statement.
Let’s demonstrate this on an example that will not trigger your innate misogyny:
I live in a country where trains are notoriously unreliable. I come to a station, and my train is late. I write a post “damn, my train is late again, just as I expected”. You come to this post, and say “You’re stupid because not all trains are late, and by the way my trains are always on time, so you’re lying actually, and also it’s your fault because sometimes people miss their trains”.
There is no “a lot”.
Invalidating other people’s experiences is also something that is expected in this conversation.
I see absolutely nothing wrong invalidating someone with prejudice.