Fauxmoi

359 readers

3 users here now

The Lemmy gossip sub.

Rules:

-Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.

-No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.

-No Ads / Spamming.

-No misinformation

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

velma@sh.itjust.works

501

Simon Pegg on the Cornell Rapists (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 5 days ago by velma@sh.itjust.works to c/fauxmoi@sh.itjust.works

282 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

This was always s pet peeve of mine, if "all men" is an obvious simplification, why is it that the people pointing it out are the stupid ones, and not the ones using an obviously weak argument?

Always seemed like self sabotage to me

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Why is it an obvious simplification?

[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

The post is complaining that the counter movement #notallmen is obviously right, and also that it's a trite counter argument to what is assumedly (and commonly) a claim of "all men X".

They are arguing that "All men X" should obviously not be taken as literally "all men", but as a shorthand for "systemically enough men that the behaviour continues to exist so that almost 30% of men will do X at some point in their life".

And that anyone saying "well, not all men" just isn't listening.

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's all true. Sorry, your first post confused me a bit. :p I couldn't tell who you were saying was using the weak argument.

[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

No worries, we're all confused here =)