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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?