Holy False Equivalence, Batman

bluefootedpig · 2025-01-17T23:55:46+00:00

Did the lifeguard say, "Everyone is running, everyone is in trouble!"?

Also, did lifeguard blame you for not telling the kids "no running"? That by allowing kids to run, and her not saying anything, she is actually just as guilty as the kids.

eli_ashe · 2025-01-18T00:24:46+00:00

its amazing the lengths these people go to, rather than just not be total fucking assholes to men.

like, they will spend their whole lives striving to find arguments to justify just being complete pieces of garbage to men.

Sky-kunn · 2025-01-18T01:02:32+00:00

Yeah, this analogy falls apart quickly. There's a big difference between generalizing about a group based on a few individuals' actions and addressing specific, in-the-moment behavior, and that's where the pool analogy fails.

"No running" targets a directly observed, immediate action that breaks a rule and creates a clear safety hazard in that specific situation. It's not a sweeping statement about everyone at the pool or a judgment on their character; it's an instruction to stop a particular action. On the other hand, statements like "men are trash" are often used as (often unfair and statistically dubious) generalizations or as a shorthand way to call out systemic issues and cultural norms. It's a (flawed) method of discussing broader trends. To make the pool analogy more accurate, consider the statement "rapists are trash." This comparison works better because it focuses on a specific group, a subset of a larger one, similar to pool-goers.

Therefore, a statement like, "Males who are criminals, stop being criminals, you suck," is comparable to "stop running." It would be ridiculous for males to respond with, "Excuse me, not all men are criminals" – that would be a deflection. However, this is distinct from saying "men are trash," which was the original point. In the context of generalizing about the male population, as opposed to calling out the bad actions of individuals within the group, phrasing and wording matter a lot because they determine how people will understand your message. It's important to differentiate between calling out misbehavior and engaging in prejudiced language, and that's why the pool analogy is weak. The "men are trash" statement isn't aimed at a specific behavior of a specific subset of men, like "running" or "raping," but it's used as a broad, often unfair, generalization about all men.

Sandwhale123 · 2025-01-18T01:31:28+00:00

Bitch, how it my fault that you suck at articulating and start using generalizing language like men this, men that instead of saying some men

EL_overthetransom · 2025-01-18T01:43:57+00:00

The analogy would be the lifeguard screaming KILL ALL KIDS!

AigisxLabrys · 2025-01-18T00:08:23+00:00

I’m not falling for this Motte and Bailey.

Fantastic-Tale · 2025-01-18T02:02:49+00:00

Not the only wrong aspect here, but anyway.

In this analogy, lifesaver broadcasts the message. Not shouts in your ear, doesn't look at you specifically.

And you on your side just ignore it.

Some people complaining about men won't accept that. They would need specifically you to listen and get mad if you ignore.

That's the difference.

trainedfor100years · 2025-01-18T05:01:05+00:00

Found a quote that shuts down that 'women are not a monolith' argument pretty well.

Mysterious-Citron875 · 2025-01-18T11:35:49+00:00

So, can we say the same thing about women?

Oh wait, that's mysoginy 🤭

TisIChenoir · 2025-01-18T12:14:46+00:00

It doesn't even make sense syntaxically speaking. When the lifeguard says "kids, it's forbidden to run around the pool" to some kids, he is adressing said kids directly.

Whenever someone says "men this, men that" they are adressing men as a group. They don't say "this man did this" or "some men do this". It's Men they are referring to.

Anyway, if they wouldn't accept this defense for "women are gold-diggers" because it's generalizing, they shouldn't accept this defense whenever they generalize.

Sleeksnail · 2025-01-19T04:11:24+00:00

They can't really think, can they? At this point it's obviously on purpose.

Itsdickyv · 2025-01-18T10:17:57+00:00

…and when we’re not at the metaphorical pool, what then?

PM_ME_YOUR_MUSIC4FB · 2025-01-19T05:01:19+00:00

The equivalent would actually be a lifeguard saying "women always run at the pool."

Kumquat_conniption · 2025-01-18T01:17:12+00:00

Makes sense to me. The reason the person that is sitting does not go and shout "not all of us are running" is because it's only hit dogs that holler. And y'all keep hollering "not all men" so... I mean yeah it is not all men but it is definitely the men that interrupt to say "not all men" LMAO

Title	Holy False Equivalence, Batman
Author	meeralakshmi
Upvotes	133
Comments	26
Date	January 17, 2025 11:47 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/EverydayMisandry
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/everydaymisandry/comments/1i3uag4/holy_false_equivalence_batman/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/EverydayMisandry/holy-false-equivalence-batman.1541433 https://theredarchive.com/post/1541433

Comments