null

joined 5 days ago
[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Just so we're clear, you believe that using the term "misogyny" is discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of the opposite sex?

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 0 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

When it’s a sexist term

By your definition, misogyny is a sexist term. Maybe that's what you're missing in all of this.

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 3 points 2 days ago

Receipts?

Pug pretty regularly pushes back against tankies, so I would love to see what you're basing that take on...

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I mean, I didn't keep a log or anything. But a quick trip through your admin's post history pre-election starts to paint a pretty good picture of what the culture was like there:

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/29417533

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/29416957

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/28989130

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 31 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I don't think those are therapists you've been seeing...

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

Correct

Correct about what, exactly? This?

Then so is saying they’re being misogynistic. Simple as.

Because if so, then you've contradicted yourself.

misogynistic isn’t explicitly derogatory while mansplaining always is

So what? Plenty of derogatory words exist, that doesn't mean using them inherently makes you a bigot/sexist/misandrist.

And my point is you didn’t answer the question in your linked comment either.

Yes I did. I even screenshotted it, and linked you to it, but for some reason you're incapable of taking it in. Very odd indeed.

sex specific derogatory terms for things that need not be gendered.

If it wasn't gendered, then it wouldn't be misogynistic and therefore wouldn't be mansplaining. It's a specific form of misogyny, which is gendered.

Also, what's femsplaining?

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (7 children)

Saying they’re mansplaining is sexist.

Then so is saying they're being misogynistic. Simple as.

I've asked you repeatedly to square up the difference, but you just keep dodging.

I could, and you could have linked the comment. What’s your point?

My point was obviously that you shouldn't have needed a link or screenshot in the first place.

You still dodged the question

No I didn't.

why do you think a specifically sexist term from it’s very inception isn’t sexist

I don't think that.

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (9 children)

Correct.

Perfect! So we agree that a woman can, without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc, believe a man is being misogynistic towards her. You also confirmed this is true for condescension.

And as we've established, mansplaining is misogynistic condescension. Therefore, if it is possible for a woman to believe a man is being misogynistically condescending without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc, by definition it is possible for her to believe he is mansplaining without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc.

You finally got there!

Link doesn’t work for me, you know you can just link comments correct?

You know you can just scroll up a few comments correct? But let me hold your hand some more: https://lemmy.nullspace.lol/comment/4452

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

This is definitely not new. They were very much pushing the "Kamala and Trump are the same" narrative before the election.

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 1 points 3 days ago

Who does the math?

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 0 points 3 days ago (11 children)

if you know a dude and they’re taking down to you and that’s a pattern they’re probably a misogynist.

Okay, so if the man is "probably" being misogynistic, that's enough that a woman can believe they are being misogynistic without herself being a bigot/sexist/misandrist?

You did not.

And yet, miraculously, I can produce this screenshot!

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 7 points 3 days ago

An incorrectly used one, sure.

view more: ‹ prev next ›