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?
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.
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.
Lol that’s your proof I’m “anti-woman”, neat. It’s good to know you’re only pursuing arguments you’ve already agreed aren’t what you’re claiming they are.
I’d love to know how seeking clarification implies your my or anyone else’s ability to say what they want. I know I haven’t said or knows that at worst all I want is to know how making assumptions based on sex isn’t bigoted. I get how condescending to someone because they are a woman is bigoted, can you see how assuming someone is a bigot rather than ignorant based solely on their sex is by definition bigoted?
Max comment depth reached. Bringing this back up to where it was first relevant:
It’s by definition discriminatory because it’s a statement of discrimination no one said anything about it being abusive. It’s not just not necessarily derogatory whereas mansplaining always is.
To call a behavior “misogynistic” is to express a low opinion of it, or detract from the character of the person exhibiting that behavior.
I can’t think of a single example of a time where a woman would be assessing a man’s behavior towards her, deem it to be misogynistic, but not as a low opinion.
Nope, I’ve said you need to know the speakers intent. So either you already know them or their intent otherwise you’re simply making a conclusion based largely on their sex and your perception.
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?
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?
Them:
You:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So we can add hypocrite to the list too. Yikes.
I’m glad you’re at least honest about that fault.
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.
Lol
Lol that’s your proof I’m “anti-woman”, neat. It’s good to know you’re only pursuing arguments you’ve already agreed aren’t what you’re claiming they are.
Go away troll.
Where did I agree to that?
Read homie.
And again if you insist we play this game. Define my sex, what am i?
So you were lying. I never said that. What a surprise!
Woman-hater and a liar. What else will you reveal yourself to be!
But you can’t callout a man for being misogynistically condescending to a woman. Got it.
I’d love to know how seeking clarification implies your my or anyone else’s ability to say what they want. I know I haven’t said or knows that at worst all I want is to know how making assumptions based on sex isn’t bigoted. I get how condescending to someone because they are a woman is bigoted, can you see how assuming someone is a bigot rather than ignorant based solely on their sex is by definition bigoted?
Max comment depth reached. Bringing this back up to where it was first relevant:
To call a behavior “misogynistic” is to express a low opinion of it, or detract from the character of the person exhibiting that behavior.
Ok?
No. Look at the definition.
Context implies at times a low opinion though that is not express to the meaning nor does it imply the word is derogatory.
Discriminatory ≠ derogatory.
I can’t think of a single example of a time where a woman would be assessing a man’s behavior towards her, deem it to be misogynistic, but not as a low opinion.
Right, but you’ve also claimed it’s impossible to believe that’s happening without being a bigot.
Your logic concludes that any women who thinks a man is being misogynistically condescending to them is a bigot.
Nope, I’ve said you need to know the speakers intent. So either you already know them or their intent otherwise you’re simply making a conclusion based largely on their sex and your perception.
And how can you know that intent without being a mindreader?