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’.
Alright and while you may disagree with them, that is beside the point: where is there a logical fallacy? It does not make the assertion that all men are X/Y or that all men who say X will say Y, it makes the assertion that their expectation, that a man who does X will often say Y, was correct. That is not a logical fallacy.
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’.
Alright and while you may disagree with them, that is beside the point: where is there a logical fallacy? It does not make the assertion that all men are X/Y or that all men who say X will say Y, it makes the assertion that their expectation, that a man who does X will often say Y, was correct. That is not a logical fallacy.
Commenters furiously scrambling out to reject the premise that all men are artists capable of producing the Mona Lisa