Stupid Sandwich
Stupid Sandwich
20 comments
-
"Some men". Fixed. Just add one word. The fact that you're so fixated on gaslighting people into thinking that generalizations are only okay when it targets the correct sex is very telling of your ignorance.
-
No one says "all men". You're implying it.
Dogs bark. Not all, of course. But no one says some.
-
"Men" is a classification set that includes all individuals of a sex. You're wrong categorically and philosophically, and the more you suggest otherwise the more you just look like a bigot.
-
“Men” is a classification set that includes all individuals of a sex.
Gender, actually. Men/man is a gender, not a sex. Male is a sex. If we're going to be pedantic, let's be properly pedantic about all of it I guess.
all individuals
I can't help if you see the world in strict absolutes. Most people don't do that. Most people understand that you can refer to a category without meaning literally every thing in that category 100% of the time.
Like when you said: "Other people have kind of touched on this already, but clients prioritize connections based on..." You clearly didn't mean ALL other people. Not every human on earth, surely. You meant some other people, but that those people were 'other'. Likewise, when people say men are the problem, they're talking about toxic/harmful men. Not all men, but they're all men.
Also, your post history is ... interesting. You are quite argumentative. There's an old saying, "If everything around you smells like shit, check your shoes." Maybe, just maybe, you're not surrounded by jerks.
-
-
Gender, actually. Men/man is a gender, not a sex. Male is a sex.
Ackchyually, both of these are true. If you agree that male is a sex, and "men" includes all males, then I think that means we're all squared up. Just because you're prejudiced doesn't mean you have to be obtuse as well.
I can’t help if you see the world in strict absolutes. Most people don’t do that. Most people understand that you can refer to a category without meaning literally every thing in that category 100% of the time.
You can refer to a category in this way. It's easy. You add a quantitative adjective. Everybody knows this from Kindergarten. I can't help if you're so bigoted that you object to the effort of adding one. single. clarifying word to distinguish correctly between all and some. IDGAF about whatever normative assertion you're pretending to be true, that doesn't make it correct.
Like when you said: “Other people have kind of touched on this already, but clients prioritize connections based on…” You clearly didn’t mean ALL other people. Not every human on earth, surely. You meant some other people, but that those people were ‘other’. Likewise, when people say men are the problem, they’re talking about toxic/harmful men. Not all men, but they’re all men.
"Other" doesn't classify all. It means additional. This is such a ridiculously asinine tangent designed to detract from the simple fact that you want to perpetuate bigotry.
Also, your post history is … interesting. You are quite argumentative. There’s an old saying, “If everything around you smells like shit, check your shoes.” Maybe, just maybe, you’re not surrounded by jerks.
This is my favorite part of dealing with people that know they're incorrect but bury their head in the sand anyways. It's outrageously funny. You can't support your statements with any coherent logic? Quick, press the "whatever the hell irrelevant ad hominem I can think of at the time" button! You're stuck in this foolish position now of arguing that I'm argumentative because you are incapable of making the effort of adding a single, 4-letter word as to not generalize people.
And it's nice that you think push back on misandry is pedantic and all, but I'm gonna keep telling it how it is. I'm definitely sensing an unusual waft of shit at the moment.
-
-
-
-
20 comments