• null@lemmy.nullspace.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    It wasn’t an explanation about how to assess whether someone is mansplaining or not – it was a definition of what mansplaining is.

    • Madison420@lemmy.worldBanned from community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah and I’m asking them to use their definition in comparison, how exactly is saying “he’s mansplaining” substantially different then “dei hire”.

      Ed:

      https://lemmy.nullspace.lol/comment/66720

      Tl;Dr they’re ok saying sexist things because they are a vile human being.

      • null@lemmy.nullspace.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah and I’m asking them to use their definition in comparison

        To be clear, no you weren’t. Hence the confusion.

        But since you’ve clarified: obviously using any term to unfairly accuse someone of being or doing something is a bad thing. Is that a real question?

        • Madison420@lemmy.worldBanned from community
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s exactly what I was doing hence the twice repeated question, you can claim a lot of things but that isn’t one that has legs.

          Correct, both are based on assumptions that are as offensive as the assumption that they’re mansplaining or a dei hire or whatever.

          My point is that you can’t use either without yourself being bigoted enough to come to a conclusion based on bigoted assumptions so how are they substantially different?

          • null@lemmy.nullspace.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Them:

            Definition of “Mansplaining”

            You:

            Isn’t that misandry to assume the man is a sexist

            That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge

            They didn’t make any assumptions, nor did they explain anything that “requires prior knowledge” – because they gave a definition of a term, not a scenario. Your questioning only makes sense if they were talking about a scenario. It makes no sense as a follow up to a definition.

            Anyways, that’s just meta noise.

            Correct, both are based on assumptions that are as offensive as the assumption that they’re mansplaining or a dei hire or whatever.

            My point is that you can’t use either without yourself being bigoted enough to come to a conclusion based on bigoted assumptions so how are they substantially different?

            You’re free to call women bigoted for how they feel about their lived experience regarding condescension from men. Just as I’m free to judge that as incel behaviour.

            • Madison420@lemmy.worldBanned from community
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes the way they defined is use requires someone to know the intent of the speaker which means they know them or they’re simply assuming and my assertion is that isn’t substantially different then assuming someone doesn’t know something because of their sex.

              And you can call someone bigoted for saying something in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable solely based on their sex. I don’t see the difference.

              • null@lemmy.nullspace.lol
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not desperate for anything – it’s just so obvious how far you’re willing to weasel to avoid admitting you cornered yourself with your own logic.

                Simple as, hold yourself to the standard you screeched about incessantly.

                • Madison420@lemmy.worldBanned from community
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  50 comments going “why don’t you answer the question?!” are objective proof otherwise.

                  What standard is that.

                  What personal details did I make up.

                  Why did you call me Danny.

                  Was it an attempt to dead name me.

                  Define woman

                  And last but not least are you sure I’m anti woman not anti feminist? I’ve tried to explain the difference to you and you just breeze on past.