588
manbearpig
(quokk.au)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
588 points (100.0% liked)
People Mastodon
462 readers
41 users here now
People tooting stuff. We allow toots from anyone and are platform agnostic (Mastodon, BlueSky, Twitter, Tumblr, FaceBook, Whatever)
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
What the actual fuck.
You took their reply and twisted its meaning completely then you put it in quotes as if somebody had actually said that.
And then you complain about fallacies and brain-dead discourse? Oh the sweet, sweet irony...
Like how the reply twisted the original meaning of ‘this is what’s wrong with choosing the bear’ into ‘you deserve to be mauled’
I laughed aloud at this one - you're very correct. My grammar isn't perfect, but I try... I've had people point out that I use commas in chats, as if that's a crazy thing to do.
Twitter was invented years ago, and I saw stupidity manifest. The concept was to force people into dumbing down their statements, and it was character limited to make things as worse as they could get.
Twitter won, though. And then, years later, Musk took it over. So now we have this... Even the people we agree with seem to have been impacted. And oh man, AI is going to strip anything left fully away for those that use it for their writing.
You're reinterpreting the comment and doing so in a way that misses the crux of their argument.
They are commenting on the cartoon being a vengeance fantasy against women. Which it is.
Why you would put in quotes your own interpretation of what they said?
I think you are guiltier of this internet braindead than Carter, you are simplifying and twisting their message, when the concept is quite clear.
You are talking about fallacies while committing fallacies, just to obscure the real situation here.
The original cartoon is misogynistic and the reply is pointing that out. It is as simple as that.
You're telling that he don't have a grin on his face? You go to so much effort to faint the ignorance about the obvious "you get what youn deserved" tone of the work.
You're better than this. Or at the very least you should strive to be.
A bear wouldn't have made such a post in the first place. So already men is worse.
Bear - kills someone. Man - posts something. Man is worse. Is that what you're saying?
I never saw a bear do a mass shooting, or sentence someone to life in prison, or waterboard someone, or build an oil pipeline, or pass a tax cut for the rich. Men are way more powerful than bears, so they have to be better. Strength is for protecting the weak.
no. clearly no. bears are opportunist cowards. you can deal with them quite easily. yes, they're dangerous, but they're not ever actively problems.
i'm curious why you're judging the bear by the worst possible outcome rather than the most likely outcome and the man by this specific outcome.
The vast majority of bears have never hurt anyone.
So... Have the vast majority of men.
Men kill thousands of people every day. Bears don't.
I'd be concerned if they did, considering there's about a billion times less interaction between people and bears.
Edit: A billion times less is literally still understating the difference...
Which bear has killed someone? Nowhere in the debate is an actual bear present.
And even if there was a bear, are you going to ignore all the killing men has done in the same time frame?
There is no logical fallacy. They are responding to a self-identified incel (the mgtow hashtag in the picture). They know what they are about, and it is a waste of time pretending they are not.
Also, it ignores the clear intended meaning of the work to attack the artist for a completely different interpretation.
To be clear, I am fully in camp Death of the Author, but if that is how you analyze art, you do not also get to attribute your interpretation back to the original artist.
This is particularly annoying in this instance, because "your argument just proves my point" is a thought terminating cliche that is highly utilized in this particular discourse, from the side that the commentator appears to be from.
What's the clear intended meaning of the work?