It’s not. It presents a pattern of behavior as hypocritical, it does not make the assertion that this scenario is hypocritical therefore all men are hypocritical. At most it asserts that everyone who says the 1st panel is hypocritical, but since that’s the subject of the inherently hyperbolic premise it’s a real big stretch to say it’s fallacious (without entrenching yourself in the claim that all hyperbole is fallacious - which is true, but is effectively meaningless since that inconsistency is the whole objective of using a hyperbolic structure)
It’s making a (weak) generalization that such conduct can typically be expected.
Would the ironic derision in the comic work as well if the guy in the first panel were a different guy?
No: we’d scratch our heads & think well, those are different guys.
It’s hyperbole operating on the same kind of faulty generalization that gives us stereotypes.
Rhetorically, it’s not that far removed from boomer humor.
“A priest and a rabbi walks into a bar…”
“The joke is stupid because it gives a generalization that all the priest and rabbis are always walking into bars” - you, the intellectual.
Nah, that’s a conventional structure/genre lacking any commentary on typical expectation.
If the rest of the joke posed ragebait derision that only works well by asserting a generalization, then the analogy would be better.
Read better.
it does not make the assertion that because this scenario is hypocritical therefore all men are hypocritical.
I didn’t say it did.
What it does do is equivocate the ‘panel 1 men’ and the ‘panel 3 men’, and by pointing out the hypocrisy of those two behaviors, they are therefore implying that you’re a hypocrite if you say what’s in panel 1.
Yes, I did explicitly address that. This is a hyperbolic presentation - nowhere does it make the claim that all men who say “Women need to be more honest [etc]” are hypocrites, it presents the situation that men who say “Women need to be more honest [etc]” are so often hypocrites that the narrator is unsurprised when this once again turns out to be the case.
nowhere does it make the claim that all men who say “Women need to be more honest [etc]” are hypocrites
It shows the same man saying two hypocritical things, followed immediately by the woman saying that the panel 3 behavior is what she expected from the man saying the panel 1 statement.
Yes, it absolutely does make the claim that ‘panel 1 men’ are hypocrites. It could not be more obvious.
But it textually says the opposite of what you’re saying it’s claim is - it says this was an expectation, not an assertion. Nowhere does it make that the claim you’re claiming it claims. Saying “this is commonly the case” is not the same thing as saying “this is always the case”.
it says this was an expectation, not an assertion.
The comic ends not with an expectation, but with the statement that an expectation that already existed was correct. In other words, ‘it was correct of me to expect a man who says women should directly/honestly reject someone, to react badly when I directly/honestly reject him’
She is absolutely indirectly asserting that it is correct to expect ‘panel 1 men’ to hypocritically exhibit ‘panel 3 behavior’.
Alright and while you may disagree with them, that is beside the point: where is there a logical fallacy? It does not make the assertion that all men are X/Y or that all men who say X will say Y, it makes the assertion that their expectation, that a man who does X will often say Y, was correct. That is not a logical fallacy.
it does not make the assertion that this scenario is hypocritical therefore all men are hypocritical.
nowhere does it make the claim that all men
not the same thing as saying “this is always the case”.
does not make the assertion that all men are X/Y
You keep using the word all or always unlike the comment.
Did you know some generalizations aren’t universal?
are so often hypocrites
is a generalization that likewise doesn’t follow due to the fallacy shown in the comment.
Consider a pile of coins.
Some have heads side up, some have heads side down.
It doesn’t follow to any level of generality that coins individually have heads side both up & down.
The comic depicts a pattern of conduct as sensible to typically expect: that’s a generalization.
Based on what?
Faulty generalizations are the basis of stereotypes.
Unfounded assertions, faulty generalizations, & stereotyping are fallacies.
This falls under the fallacy of composition.
The error is treating a group as if it were a single, internally consistent person, and then accusing that “person” of hypocrisy.
Therefore: men who say either X or Y are hypocrites.
That conclusion only follows if it’s the same individuals doing both X and Y. When it isn’t, the reasoning breaks.
If only the comic author had crammed an entire dissertation worth of caveats in four panels to satisfy your need for completeness!
Actually, all they had to do was make the man in panel 1 and the man in panel 3 not the same man, to not have been shitty in the way I pointed out.
It’s very simple.
It’s not your artwork. You go make your own thing if you want something different.
It’s not. It presents a pattern of behavior as hypocritical, it does not make the assertion that this scenario is hypocritical therefore all men are hypocritical. At most it asserts that everyone who says the 1st panel is hypocritical, but since that’s the subject of the inherently hyperbolic premise it’s a real big stretch to say it’s fallacious (without entrenching yourself in the claim that all hyperbole is fallacious - which is true, but is effectively meaningless since that inconsistency is the whole objective of using a hyperbolic structure)
Commenters furiously scrambling out to reject the premise that all men are artists capable of producing the Mona Lisa
It’s making a (weak) generalization that such conduct can typically be expected. Would the ironic derision in the comic work as well if the guy in the first panel were a different guy? No: we’d scratch our heads & think well, those are different guys.
It’s hyperbole operating on the same kind of faulty generalization that gives us stereotypes. Rhetorically, it’s not that far removed from boomer humor.
“A priest and a rabbi walks into a bar…”
“The joke is stupid because it gives a generalization that all the priest and rabbis are always walking into bars” - you, the intellectual.
Nah, that’s a conventional structure/genre lacking any commentary on typical expectation. If the rest of the joke posed ragebait derision that only works well by asserting a generalization, then the analogy would be better. Read better.
Read better, said a person who’s media comprehension is so poor, they can’t read past their butthurt
You can’t even do a proper analogy or address relevant points raised, so you’ve got no business claiming powers to comprehend much.
You wouldn’t know what a proper analogy is even if it smacks you in the face
I didn’t say it did.
What it does do is equivocate the ‘panel 1 men’ and the ‘panel 3 men’, and by pointing out the hypocrisy of those two behaviors, they are therefore implying that you’re a hypocrite if you say what’s in panel 1.
Yes, I did explicitly address that. This is a hyperbolic presentation - nowhere does it make the claim that all men who say “Women need to be more honest [etc]” are hypocrites, it presents the situation that men who say “Women need to be more honest [etc]” are so often hypocrites that the narrator is unsurprised when this once again turns out to be the case.
It shows the same man saying two hypocritical things, followed immediately by the woman saying that the panel 3 behavior is what she expected from the man saying the panel 1 statement.
Yes, it absolutely does make the claim that ‘panel 1 men’ are hypocrites. It could not be more obvious.
But it textually says the opposite of what you’re saying it’s claim is - it says this was an expectation, not an assertion. Nowhere does it make that the claim you’re claiming it claims. Saying “this is commonly the case” is not the same thing as saying “this is always the case”.
The comic ends not with an expectation, but with the statement that an expectation that already existed was correct. In other words, ‘it was correct of me to expect a man who says women should directly/honestly reject someone, to react badly when I directly/honestly reject him’
She is absolutely indirectly asserting that it is correct to expect ‘panel 1 men’ to hypocritically exhibit ‘panel 3 behavior’.
Do you know the phrase:
“Hope for the best, but expect the worst”
?
Alright and while you may disagree with them, that is beside the point: where is there a logical fallacy? It does not make the assertion that all men are X/Y or that all men who say X will say Y, it makes the assertion that their expectation, that a man who does X will often say Y, was correct. That is not a logical fallacy.
You keep using the word all or always unlike the comment. Did you know some generalizations aren’t universal?
is a generalization that likewise doesn’t follow due to the fallacy shown in the comment.
Consider a pile of coins. Some have heads side up, some have heads side down. It doesn’t follow to any level of generality that coins individually have heads side both up & down.
The comic depicts a pattern of conduct as sensible to typically expect: that’s a generalization. Based on what? Faulty generalizations are the basis of stereotypes. Unfounded assertions, faulty generalizations, & stereotyping are fallacies.
Precisely this.