you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 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

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (3 children)

    Why is it an obvious simplification?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago* (2 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments