Receipts?

Pug pretty regularly pushes back against tankies, so I would love to see what you're basing that take on...

I mean, I didn't keep a log or anything. But a quick trip through your admin's post history pre-election starts to paint a pretty good picture of what the culture was like there:

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/29417533

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/29416957

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/28989130

I don't think those are therapists you've been seeing...

Correct

Correct about what, exactly? This?

Then so is saying they’re being misogynistic. Simple as.

Because if so, then you've contradicted yourself.

misogynistic isn’t explicitly derogatory while mansplaining always is

So what? Plenty of derogatory words exist, that doesn't mean using them inherently makes you a bigot/sexist/misandrist.

And my point is you didn’t answer the question in your linked comment either.

Yes I did. I even screenshotted it, and linked you to it, but for some reason you're incapable of taking it in. Very odd indeed.

sex specific derogatory terms for things that need not be gendered.

If it wasn't gendered, then it wouldn't be misogynistic and therefore wouldn't be mansplaining. It's a specific form of misogyny, which is gendered.

Also, what's femsplaining?

Saying they’re mansplaining is sexist.

Then so is saying they're being misogynistic. Simple as.

I've asked you repeatedly to square up the difference, but you just keep dodging.

I could, and you could have linked the comment. What’s your point?

My point was obviously that you shouldn't have needed a link or screenshot in the first place.

You still dodged the question

No I didn't.

why do you think a specifically sexist term from it’s very inception isn’t sexist

I don't think that.

Correct.

Perfect! So we agree that a woman can, without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc, believe a man is being misogynistic towards her. You also confirmed this is true for condescension.

And as we've established, mansplaining is misogynistic condescension. Therefore, if it is possible for a woman to believe a man is being misogynistically condescending without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc, by definition it is possible for her to believe he is mansplaining without herself being a bigot/sexist/etc.

You finally got there!

Link doesn’t work for me, you know you can just link comments correct?

You know you can just scroll up a few comments correct? But let me hold your hand some more: https://lemmy.nullspace.lol/comment/4452

This is definitely not new. They were very much pushing the "Kamala and Trump are the same" narrative before the election.

An incorrectly used one, sure.

I've arrived.

Them:

Definition of "Mansplaining"

You:

Isn’t that misandry to assume the man is a sexist

That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge

They didn't make any assumptions, nor did they explain anything that "requires prior knowledge" -- because they gave a definition of a term, not a scenario. Your questioning only makes sense if they were talking about a scenario. It makes no sense as a follow up to a definition.

Anyways, that's just meta noise.

Correct, both are based on assumptions that are as offensive as the assumption that they’re mansplaining or a dei hire or whatever.

My point is that you can’t use either without yourself being bigoted enough to come to a conclusion based on bigoted assumptions so how are they substantially different?

You're free to call women bigoted for how they feel about their lived experience regarding condescension from men. Just as I'm free to judge that as incel behaviour.

Yeah and I'm asking them to use their definition in comparison

To be clear, no you weren't. Hence the confusion.

But since you've clarified: obviously using any term to unfairly accuse someone of being or doing something is a bad thing. Is that a real question?

It wasn't an explanation about how to assess whether someone is mansplaining or not -- it was a definition of what mansplaining is.