I’m directly criticizing two separate things: your behavior, and your claim that pizzacake is a well documented misandrist. That your behavior is remarkably predictable around these issues doesn’t invalidate your claim; we get the conclusion that your claim is baseless from the way you refuse to support it.
Neither of those are an ad hominem or a whattaboutism, and you would be well served by finding out what those terms represent before you try and defend yourself with them.
Saying it does not make it so. It seems to me that referencing your prior behavior and attacking your lack of sources are both relevant and productive for discussion, while misusing fallacies to shut down arguments you don’t like is, ironically, a rhetorical fallacy. They aren’t deflecting by randomly bringing up some unrelated characteristic (for example: you shouldn’t trust this influencer’s opinion on food, I have it on good authority that they’re a terrible parent!), they’re calling back to your previous behavior in similar situations (for example: you shouldn’t trust this influencer’s opinion on food because they have a history of giving people food poisoning!). That isn’t ad hominem, or whataboutism.
If your character and actions might be damming to your arguments, attacking them is attacking your argument, especially when also attacking your sources! Ironically, continuing to attack the comic artist without citing sources is ad hominem, by definition.
Sources?! You need fucking Data? You need a scientific study to discern the precise level of sexism of Pizzacake? Did you ask for sources when Kanye West was in the news for chanting “Heil Hitler”? If not does that mean you need a news article about it from the New York Times or some shit? Did you ask for sources on altright comic artist StoneToss?
I have, multiple times now, demonstrated that a very large number of people recognize this artist as sexist with specific examples going back many years.
Nope, you’ve repeatedly asserted a large number of people recognize her as sexist.
The only thing that approaches having “demonstrated” her “well-documented” misandry is the single incredibly begrudging example you provided - one that multiple other people have also referenced, and which is at very worst a quite bad take from an otherwise pretty progressive artist.
You’ve refused to show anyone this well documented pattern of misandry, but you’re quick to claim you have. And that kind of openly deceptive behavior is exactly why it’s so important to ask for sources.
First:
What an absolutely spectacular example of Argumentum ad populum! Unfortunately no, just because you got upvotes does not establish your claim that it’s well documented. “Many people believing” something does not make that something true (#EdgyAthiestHumor). But well done on finally finding a real logical fallacy!
Second:
“You claim this is well-documented but refuse to show us that documentation”
*“Well you’re sealioning!”
No. Sealioning is a bit like DARVO: while they are useful concepts in sociology, you cannot simply throw the terms out like Pokemon and expect them to do all the work for you.
Yes, I know you begrudgingly provided a single link, I talked about that. Your single link didn’t at all establish your claims, as multiple people have explained. Asking for actual proof of your claims is not bombarding you with requests, it’s a single request that you have utterly failed to address.
You gotta realize this is just not a great look for you.
No, buddy, the argument was “Well documented misandrist”. That you’re trying to present it like it’s always been “Lots of people think that she is [xxxxx]” is a textbook example of shifting the goalposts, another informal logical fallacy. You’re on a role finding these!
“I have, multiple times now, demonstrated that a very large number of people recognize this artist as sexist with specific examples going back many years.”
You said
Nope, you’ve repeatedly asserted a large number of people recognize her as sexist.
Criticism of the criticism of a person’s behavior, via attacking the person and not the argument, is Ad Hominem, and also Whataboutism.
I’m directly criticizing two separate things: your behavior, and your claim that pizzacake is a well documented misandrist. That your behavior is remarkably predictable around these issues doesn’t invalidate your claim; we get the conclusion that your claim is baseless from the way you refuse to support it.
Neither of those are an ad hominem or a whattaboutism, and you would be well served by finding out what those terms represent before you try and defend yourself with them.
Saying it does not make it so. It seems to me that referencing your prior behavior and attacking your lack of sources are both relevant and productive for discussion, while misusing fallacies to shut down arguments you don’t like is, ironically, a rhetorical fallacy. They aren’t deflecting by randomly bringing up some unrelated characteristic (for example: you shouldn’t trust this influencer’s opinion on food, I have it on good authority that they’re a terrible parent!), they’re calling back to your previous behavior in similar situations (for example: you shouldn’t trust this influencer’s opinion on food because they have a history of giving people food poisoning!). That isn’t ad hominem, or whataboutism.
If your character and actions might be damming to your arguments, attacking them is attacking your argument, especially when also attacking your sources! Ironically, continuing to attack the comic artist without citing sources is ad hominem, by definition.
Sources?! You need fucking Data? You need a scientific study to discern the precise level of sexism of Pizzacake? Did you ask for sources when Kanye West was in the news for chanting “Heil Hitler”? If not does that mean you need a news article about it from the New York Times or some shit? Did you ask for sources on altright comic artist StoneToss?
I have, multiple times now, demonstrated that a very large number of people recognize this artist as sexist with specific examples going back many years.
Nope, you’ve repeatedly asserted a large number of people recognize her as sexist.
The only thing that approaches having “demonstrated” her “well-documented” misandry is the single incredibly begrudging example you provided - one that multiple other people have also referenced, and which is at very worst a quite bad take from an otherwise pretty progressive artist.
You’ve refused to show anyone this well documented pattern of misandry, but you’re quick to claim you have. And that kind of openly deceptive behavior is exactly why it’s so important to ask for sources.
My top level comment alone has 18 upvotes. And I have linked for you sealioning assholes.
First:
What an absolutely spectacular example of Argumentum ad populum! Unfortunately no, just because you got upvotes does not establish your claim that it’s well documented. “Many people believing” something does not make that something true (#EdgyAthiestHumor). But well done on finally finding a real logical fallacy!
Second:
“You claim this is well-documented but refuse to show us that documentation”
*“Well you’re sealioning!”
No. Sealioning is a bit like DARVO: while they are useful concepts in sociology, you cannot simply throw the terms out like Pokemon and expect them to do all the work for you.
Yes, I know you begrudgingly provided a single link, I talked about that. Your single link didn’t at all establish your claims, as multiple people have explained. Asking for actual proof of your claims is not bombarding you with requests, it’s a single request that you have utterly failed to address.
You gotta realize this is just not a great look for you.
The argument was “sizeable number of people think this way.”
No, buddy, the argument was “Well documented misandrist”. That you’re trying to present it like it’s always been “Lots of people think that she is [xxxxx]” is a textbook example of shifting the goalposts, another informal logical fallacy. You’re on a role finding these!
I said
You said
Skill issue on your part.