this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2026
447 points (80.1% liked)
Comic Strips
21141 readers
1943 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The point is not how common or uncommon this is. The point is the phenomenon itself. Also, your personal experience in how common this is cannot be used as a basis for knowing the general prevalence. The truth is, it does happen. Not all men, but always men.
"Not all X but it's always X" is a common neonazi saying. Using it in a different context can even be a dogwhistle in some cases
Thanks for pointing that out. I have zero interaction with neonazis and didn’t know.
It's also a pretty stupid argument, tbh. Which is why it's used very often by neonazis.
How so?
What do you want to say with it?
We are talking about men not wearing condoms and you point out that it's only men who can and don't wear condoms. Like, yeah, of course, because its only men that can wear condoms.
So that point of the argument becomes a tautology without actual direct meaning. It turns from being an argument into a pure attempt of framing/manipulation, and that's not good style in a discussion.
Apart from it not making any sense in the context of this discussion, the argument itself is pretty flawed in general usage too. The general chain of discussion is usually like this:
So it shifts the argument. It goes from "All X are Y" to "Some X are Y", while not acknowledging that shift. It's a variant of the Bailey and Motte fallacy.
The "it's always X that are Y" inversion is usually done in a tautological way.
"Not all muslims are islamist terrorists, but it's always muslims that are islamist terrorists." -> Sure, because to be an islamist you need to be a muslim, but there are tons of non-islamist/non-muslim terrorists too.
The point is to throw off the person you are talking to, because that tautological part cannot be disproved, and that might make someone stumble in posing a counter-argument.
My point is that saying “not all men” every time a problem is addressed is undermining the discussion. Until you have experienced the relentless harassment of women by a subset of the male population, funnily enough present in every country on Earth, please don’t lecture me on bias.
saying "not all men" every time all men are held accountable for what a tiny minority of men do*
Fixed.
The only thing it "undermines" is the sexist generalization.
And this is what bullshit looks like.
Ok. Now what does an argument look like?
Do I actually need explain what misandry looks like, or why it's bad?