In most debates

This isn’t a debate. I’m not attempting to persuade you. This is a discussion. I am criticizing you. I am discussing your initial and subsequent behavior that is self-evident in this discussion in a critical manner.

You cannot win, nor lose, a discussion - that just doesnt make sense - and that is in no small measure why I’ve refused to engage with you when you bring in unrelated topics to debate. Allowing a debate to expand from the initial topic could allow someone, acting in bad faith, to conflate the new debate topics and the initial discussion topic (my criticism) as being inherently linked, and thus imply they are points that someone could “win” or “lose”.

I have no interest in this discussion becoming a debate - I have made my assertions, have maintained those assertions consistently and those assertions have since been shown to be completely validated. There continues to be nothing that I need to add to that.

I’ve found Rhodia is very inconsistent with their production quality (and I don’t love waxed papers), but for flip notebooks/sketchbooks they’re a solid choice.

For calligraphy, Tomoe River is a classic (even after the whole sanzen drama its still great paper), but I also really love Iroful, Canson Imagine 200gsm, and any of the Strathmore Mixed Media papers. It depends on the ink I’m using and the effect I’m going for, really, but if I had to pick one Iroful is probably the best all-round calligraphy paper (better shading than TR but with less impressive sheening)

There’s been no psychoanalysis, cyclical or otherwise, occuring here. Simply a recounting of your directly observable behavior and the things you have said.

I have repeatedly emphasized how, in this discussion, I have stayed on the single topic of criticizing your behavior. You have already admitted that you have approached these discussions in bad faith. As a result I’m not interested in entertaining what I am unfortunately forced to consider might be, given your earlier admissions, less-than-genuine attempts to engage in discussion.

It’s not my opinion that you do things like that, its your own stated position. I don’t enjoy having to assume you’re not acting in good faith, but when you admit you don’t engage in good faith, the only reasonable thing for me to do is to assume you were telling the truth.

Again, my intial justified criticism of your behavior is the topic here, and once again that’s the sole topic I am willing to entertain in this discussion.

Words and context

And from these basic parts we derive all language.

While engaging with you here, the discussion has never been anything other than about my criticism of your behavior. I have never expressed an opinion of you beyond your behavior being that of a redditor (and criticisms of it stemming therefrom). Neither were my initial criticisms “baseless” - you confirmed they were completely accurate yourself. The focus has not increased, nor has there been an opportunity for you to guide me back on topic, because I have never departed from this topic - despite you repeatedly presenting new topics, which I have not engaged with as they are not relevant.

If you take a recounting of your behavior as somehow an expression of an opinion, I would suggest you modify your behavior so that when presented with it you do not feel the need to be defensive.

Again, my criticism of you has remained the only topic, and it has remained fully justified.

(Forgive me if there’s a delay in explaining this again, I’m going to go read a book for a while so I will not be checking my notifications for a bit.)

This line of discussion has never been about your ideas

No, this is still true; while you have been attempting to insert your ideas into a discussion about your behavior, this discussion has never been about your ideas, only your behavior. Even my one concession to discussing your ideas, asking you to tally the numbers of comments presenting in the way you describe, was entirely said in support of the discussion of your behavior.

You’ve also continued not to engage in good faith, for example you’re now trying to present my staying focused on one topic of discussion as being somehow “cyclical” as a way to present yourself as above this discussion. You also attempt to characterize your admission that you were trying to manipulate me as “just a joke”.

To reiterate the point: the initial criticism is and remains absolutely accurate, by your own admission.

Alright, but you’re literally doing the exact same thing right here. You’re using a generalization about a group to make conclusions about the behavior of that group.

Its not subtle behaviour.

In reference to members of a group engaging in negative behavior, you characterize those people who engage in that behavior negatively. I’m a person, and I resent the implication that I might also unfairly dogpile someone discussing this topic based off the actions of this group.

(edit: clarity)

I’ve been into calligraphy for years now - it’s a wonderful hobby with anywhere between absolutely none (pseudocalligraphy with a pencil/bic) and a very low cost to entry (blackletter with a parallel pen) that I seriously encourage anyone to try out! Just be warned that it’s a gateway drug to the fountain pen hobby, which uh.
…
…
quickly becomes a not-cheap hobby. Good god.

It’s a subreddit for posting news articles about the violence women can experience with regards to this exact topic, it literally is 100% real life. Did you just not click the link?

How are you simultaneously acknowledging that the ratio or amount implied matters and then generally disregard the core of that statement?

Because I’m not doing that - that there is a ratio implied is what’s important here. The values being referenced do not change that the structures those values appear within are identical.

Lemmy does have more sane than most people present… But not everyone is. And that is what I was making an observation on.

Your entire complaint with the comic hinges on them not having been clear enough about the ratio for your liking, not that it itself is somehow invalid. You’re mad that it can be interpreted poorly, but you’re not engaging with the ideas surrounding the comic that lead to the mixed reception, you’re fixated on the form of the comic itself.

A form you also use.

But you’ve just completely justified my initial comment - you admit you were transparently attempting to manipulate them (and in this discussion did the same to me) instead of engaging in good faith.

This line of discussion has never been about your ideas, it’s been entirely about criticism of your behavior - which you have yourself just explained was completely correct.

The discussion is worth having

But not so worth having that you actually want to have it.

I don’t believe I have to say anything more here, my criticism stands as completely validated.

Sure, ratio matters - which is why both you and the comic acknowledge it. But both you and the comic acknowledge it, even though you evidently think the comic did not acknowledge it enough. You are doing exactly the same thing the comic is doing, but you’re criticizing the comic for being able to be misinterpreted, while you yourself rely on the same semantic structure to make your own point.

Hey lets do a quote-heavy reply, those are always fun!

by your opinion what is your take on redditors?

There’s a prevalent culture on reddit of being more concerned with the form an argument takes, doing things like trying to lay rhetorical traps or transparently feigning ignorance to bait out further responses, than with engaging in a constructive discussion.

That’s what you’re doing here, too - you’re attempting to dictate that my response is a forgone conclusion and thus shape the form of the argument. If you really were interested in this discussion on it’s own merits, you could simply have asked without trying to manipulate the response.

It did amuse me when that became the focal point of the discussion.

Well yes, I criticized your behavior and you responded to that - referencing the specific language I used only makes sense.

compared to the commenters like yourself that are rejecting […]

I very explicitly don’t say that you’re the one doing this, just that people who align with your stated position are also the doing this.

My behavior?

Yes, like what you’re doing in the first sentence of your reply with attempting to dictate the response I give you.

I’ve at least paid you the courtesy of reading your responses and replying to them.

How… kind? I’m genuinely unclear on what you meant by including this, are you implying I somehow haven’t read your comments, despite responding to them?

That isn’t my point though - I’m highlighting how what you’re doing there is exactly what the comic is doing. That you explicitly rather than implicitly hedged your generalization has no bearing on this, because both were hedged.

Nah, honestly I just didn’t engage with the rest of what you said because you demonstrated that you were going to take very mild criticism of your transparent behavior as a harsh personal insult.

If you’re really looking forward to it, I’d ask you to go and tally up the number of people saying “yes, all men are like this” compared to the commenters like yourself that are rejecting both the entire premise as even conceptually valid along with the possibility of this being based on an experience. Thus far, and I admit it’s a cursory reading, I have found no comments saying “yes, all men behave like this” and whole lot of comments saying things along the line of “I have had this experience and it is a common one for women to have, [some] men do behave like this”.

The pushback you’re getting is because of your behavior, not just because of your position.

No that was a criticism of how you’re making the exact same kind of generalization that you are criticizing the comic for making. There’s no gender inversion, and indeed that discussion is being had elsewhere here and it’s quite interesting, but my comment there is just directly calling out your hypocrisy.

Really not sure what your point is there, sorry :/

Expecting it, and allowing that expectation to dictate your interactions, aren’t the same thing. In this comic alone she anticipates the reaction, but still interacts with him as though the sentiment he’s expressing is sincere. She behaved quite reasonably.

I’m not exactly shocked you’re not engaging with the more important part of my comment, though I want to be clear that I’m not trying to indicate a broad pattern of behavior wherein everyone who doesn’t understand fallacies will then strive to avoid answering uncomfortable questions about their personal values.

Also, and I don’t ask this lightly, are… you trying to gaslight me about this, or are you just wrong? I haven’t been ultimately countered about the misuse of fallacies here once, in fact everyone seems to have dropped it once someone presents the specifics of how their premise isn’t valid - yourself included. It seems pretty soundly settled in the comments that there isn’t a fallacy here, or if there is it’s not one of the ones that’s been presented.

… This is sparta!

The point is that I believe both of them - but you dont. Why? Where’s the difference for you? Both of them push one side or the other of the same “rhetoric”, and they’re in no way contradictory. Do you simply believe only the one you agree with?

(I did engage with the fallacy stuff, and unless there’s something new none of the fallacies you’ve presented are applicable to this comic, as has been patiently explained every time you bring them up.)