Excuse the short post.

For the longest time I've noticed a very divisive and disingenuous tactic being used to essentially divide. I spotted this on CMV, which prompted this post:

The comments are filled with women agreeing, and men insisting women are wrong/lying about their choice.

It's creating the assumption it's split down the lines of sex and sets the potential framework for the continuation of the discourse. Basically, how individuals interact with it and who may then go on to provide their own views.

Typically when those views are expressed they're within that framework. Anything agreeable is seen as being from one camp, group, or demographic, and anyone disagreeing to any extent, is viewed as being within the other camp, or another group or demographic.

It's putting how the individual is perceived before the argument itself. One good, one bad. But that creates a contradiction, as if the individual doesn't express views within whichever side, it's used as either to prove the overall argument to be true (i.e even x agrees with it). Or to frame the individual as being submissive or seeking attention from a specific demographic (i.e pick me's).

In short, it's the continuation of a moral framework and any argument built upon it should be dismissed just outright out of principle. It's the moral collectivisation of individuals.

Potentially leading to the creation of a caricature. Something that doesn't necessarily need to reflect reality but one of a supposed opposition or opponent. Which then is used to deflect any othering views or criticism.

Think I've babbled on enough. Any insight, further views, or criticism is welcomed.