~$|>>> Onlyfans! <<<|$~

Really not sure what your point is there, sorry :/

This isn’t a kafka trap, though I understand the confusion - the fandom site you linked to appears to have a faulty understanding of what it is. To be a kafka trap requires accusation.

The yucky example from your fandom page about a parent criticizing progressive policies to support non-binary students is a great example of how this doesn’t work: for it to be a kafka trap, the accusation that they (hate non-binary/are themselves non-binary) would have to be made in response to their concerns and then their denials be taken as an admission. Just raising them initially is not a kafka trap.

And that isn’t what’s happening in the above comment, either. People aren’t being criticized for defending themselves, people are being criticized for

• A: Their behavior while defending themselves
• B: That they have self-identified as feeling they themselves were being criticized, or that they feel the behavior in the comic is worth defending.

To be a kafka trap they would have to have been directly accused (“Hey I think you’re a shitty person”) and then because they’re defending themselves (“You say you’re not a shitty person?”) have the conclusion drawn that they are a shitty person (“Only shitty people say they’re not shitty people”).

Criticizing them for feeling that they were the one being accused is not a kafka trap. Were I to say “I think people who are paranoid are bad” and some random passerby were to say “Well I’m for one not bad!” it would be pretty reasonable to draw conclusions about them considering themveslves to be paranoid.

This comic is not criticizing all men. This comic is criticizing men who engage in a depressingly quite common pattern of behavior. There’s an extremely interesting discussion to be had about why that pattern of behavior is so common when so many men aren’t the ones doing it (basically a loud minority can make an outsized impact on broad perceptions) but in their haste to attest to how offended they are, that never seems to be considered.

I doubt that most of the people attacking this comic aren’t at all guilty of what the comic is criticizing. But that doesn’t make the comic at all wrong, or the experiences of the many women in this comment section somehow made up.

Expecting it, and allowing that expectation to dictate your interactions, aren’t the same thing. In this comic alone she anticipates the reaction, but still interacts with him as though the sentiment he’s expressing is sincere. She behaved quite reasonably.

I’m not exactly shocked you’re not engaging with the more important part of my comment, though I want to be clear that I’m not trying to indicate a broad pattern of behavior wherein everyone who doesn’t understand fallacies will then strive to avoid answering uncomfortable questions about their personal values.

Also, and I don’t ask this lightly, are… you trying to gaslight me about this, or are you just wrong? I haven’t been ultimately countered about the misuse of fallacies here once, in fact everyone seems to have dropped it once someone presents the specifics of how their premise isn’t valid - yourself included. It seems pretty soundly settled in the comments that there isn’t a fallacy here, or if there is it’s not one of the ones that’s been presented.

… This is sparta!

The point is that I believe both of them - but you dont. Why? Where’s the difference for you? Both of them push one side or the other of the same “rhetoric”, and they’re in no way contradictory. Do you simply believe only the one you agree with?

(I did engage with the fallacy stuff, and unless there’s something new none of the fallacies you’ve presented are applicable to this comic, as has been patiently explained every time you bring them up.)

Lemmy does have more sane than most people present… But not everyone is. And that is what I was making an observation on.

So when you do it it’s perfectly justified, but if you were to write that exact sentiment down in a comic…?

If being called a redditor is what you think of as “harsh” you need to go back to reddit, you’ll never survive here.

If anything she’s going to be even more careful than most women about this. The creepy guys that hang around outside waiting for her to get off work are doubtlessly more openly malicious, but it’s not as though the threat is somehow trivial for the average woman.

So to your mind, what makes ObjectivityIncarnate’s anecdote believable, but the comic author’s not?

So you agree that it’s an anecdote?

Idk man, I had a very reasonable discussion with the commentor you’re responding to yet I support the comic. If you look through the comments here, they’re absolutely chock full of people patiently explaining their perspective, and then comments like yours which are openly dismissing those people before ever engaging with them. You’re being unfair, in a way very similar to what you criticize the comic for doing.

Everyone here understands what they meant. If you wanna criticize just do it, playing coy like this just makes you look like a redditor.

Except when it doesn’t… eugh bug chasers are the one kink I will happily shame.

It’s mostly the second example, people misunderstanding positive interactions in comments as a tacit indication I want to take the relationship to further sexual grounds, but there are sure examples where a positive conversation will start where they decry the duplicitous behavior of men and then they themselves will devolve to the behavior they initially criticize.

That’s quite rare for it to be so explicitly-as depicted-in-the-comic here on lemmy, but it does happen.

(edit: spelling!)

You’re welcome to go and look them up, but for my own safety I’m not going to single out one particular person (with a history of being extremely hostile to me personally) to be publicly shamed - and I ask that while I obviously cannot stop you, if you do end up looking through them you also don’t single them out publicly.

Gonna just refer you back to my edit instead of retyping it all. Also it’s going to be an uphill struggle to argue that internal inconstancy or brazen deception are rare traits in humans.

And that anecdotal experience is what you’re basing this conclusion on? That it can’t reasonably have happened to someone else?

(Ah you’ve edited your comment but my point still stands. However I’ll add that I can personally attest that yeah, it often is the same person who will express support for me being straightforward in my interactions with them who then respond with hostility when I explain I don’t sext/cyber/cam/want-to-be-sexual/etc. Even on lemmy I still regularly get interactions like this. You can just go and look to confirm this, DMs aren’t private on lemmy. It is by no means all men, but it very much does happen.)

Have you ever asked any of the women in your life about their experience with this? It’s really not an uncommon nor abstract thing.

Alright and while you may disagree with them, that is beside the point: where is there a logical fallacy? It does not make the assertion that all men are X/Y or that all men who say X will say Y, it makes the assertion that their expectation, that a man who does X will often say Y, was correct. That is not a logical fallacy.