FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Not all men
Not all men
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ea monkey OP Man
over a year ago
Manchester (he/him) |
"Generalising any gender is not acceptable.
I’d say that generalising any group of people using one characteristic is not acceptable
Knob heads are just knob heads though right ?  "
#notallknobheads |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do women... ? Fuck off ya cunt, I'm not women I'm me.
Why do men....? Coz they're cunts
And the word of the day is..... "
I think I must be due on.
I could rip a mofos throat out whilst sobbing into a keg of phish food ice cream |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's kind of a non-argument which automatically applies to any statement 
LvM
If it’s a non argument, then why is it necessary to use it? "
It isn't. It's more of a meme than anything at this point
LvM |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's valid if someone says something like 'literally all men are evil!'
However, a lot of men seem incredibly thin skinned and will respond with 'not all men' when it's really not necessary.
Say the topic is something like male violence towards women - no, it's not all men, but unless someone is specifically claiming that it *is* literally all men, bringing up that fact is just distracting from the actual topic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's valid if someone says something like 'literally all men are evil!'
However, a lot of men seem incredibly thin skinned and will respond with 'not all men' when it's really not necessary.
Say the topic is something like male violence towards women - no, it's not all men, but unless someone is specifically claiming that it *is* literally all men, bringing up that fact is just distracting from the actual topic. "
This ^ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's valid if someone says something like 'literally all men are evil!'
However, a lot of men seem incredibly thin skinned and will respond with 'not all men' when it's really not necessary.
Say the topic is something like male violence towards women - no, it's not all men, but unless someone is specifically claiming that it *is* literally all men, bringing up that fact is just distracting from the actual topic. "
That’s some very good mansplaining  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ea monkey OP Man
over a year ago
Manchester (he/him) |
"It's valid if someone says something like 'literally all men are evil!'
However, a lot of men seem incredibly thin skinned and will respond with 'not all men' when it's really not necessary.
Say the topic is something like male violence towards women - no, it's not all men, but unless someone is specifically claiming that it *is* literally all men, bringing up that fact is just distracting from the actual topic. "
That’s the point that I was driving at. Is it necessary to feel the need to defend a gender?
If the comments or accusations don’t apply to you, then isn’t that enough? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's valid if someone says something like 'literally all men are evil!'
However, a lot of men seem incredibly thin skinned and will respond with 'not all men' when it's really not necessary.
Say the topic is something like male violence towards women - no, it's not all men, but unless someone is specifically claiming that it *is* literally all men, bringing up that fact is just distracting from the actual topic.
That’s some very good mansplaining "
If he'd been talking to a woman who was an expert on the subject maybe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Generalising any gender is not acceptable.
I’d say that generalising any group of people using one characteristic is not acceptable "
I've read on another that all Virgos are "nevrotic" , haven't googled it but it doesn't sound good ... Anyway isn't that a fact then ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ea monkey OP Man
over a year ago
Manchester (he/him) |
"It's valid if someone says something like 'literally all men are evil!'
However, a lot of men seem incredibly thin skinned and will respond with 'not all men' when it's really not necessary.
Say the topic is something like male violence towards women - no, it's not all men, but unless someone is specifically claiming that it *is* literally all men, bringing up that fact is just distracting from the actual topic.
That’s some very good mansplaining "
I think that’s just called explaining |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ea monkey OP Man
over a year ago
Manchester (he/him) |
"Generalising any gender is not acceptable.
I’d say that generalising any group of people using one characteristic is not acceptable
I've read on another that all Virgos are "nevrotic" , haven't googled it but it doesn't sound good ... Anyway isn't that a fact then ? "
I’d put it in the maybe pile |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's valid if someone says something like 'literally all men are evil!'
However, a lot of men seem incredibly thin skinned and will respond with 'not all men' when it's really not necessary.
Say the topic is something like male violence towards women - no, it's not all men, but unless someone is specifically claiming that it *is* literally all men, bringing up that fact is just distracting from the actual topic.
That’s some very good mansplaining
I think that’s just called explaining"
I’m messing.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Depends on context
e.g.
You: All men are bastards.
Me: Not all men!
Valid.
Agreed but in the relevance of gender politics or if talking about something that ‘men’ do, then is it valid?
 "
If it is something that 'men' do then saying 'not all men' seems utterly butterly....
Give me an example of 'what men do' please..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's valid if someone says something like 'literally all men are evil!'
However, a lot of men seem incredibly thin skinned and will respond with 'not all men' when it's really not necessary.
Say the topic is something like male violence towards women - no, it's not all men, but unless someone is specifically claiming that it *is* literally all men, bringing up that fact is just distracting from the actual topic.
That’s some very good mansplaining
If he'd been talking to a woman who was an expert on the subject maybe."
It’s a good explanation. I doubt it would be construed as such I’m only messing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ea monkey OP Man
over a year ago
Manchester (he/him) |
"Some just like to use hashtags rather than explain their position in a debate. "
But if they actually explain their position, then they’d have to actually debate. Far easier to hashtag and run |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Depends on context
e.g.
You: All men are bastards.
Me: Not all men!
Valid.
Agreed but in the relevance of gender politics or if talking about something that ‘men’ do, then is it valid?
If it is something that 'men' do then saying 'not all men' seems utterly butterly....
Give me an example of 'what men do' please..... "
Leave the toilet seat up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Depends on context
e.g.
You: All men are bastards.
Me: Not all men!
Valid.
Agreed but in the relevance of gender politics or if talking about something that ‘men’ do, then is it valid?
If it is something that 'men' do then saying 'not all men' seems utterly butterly....
Give me an example of 'what men do' please..... "
Pee from their willy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's valid if someone says something like 'literally all men are evil!'
However, a lot of men seem incredibly thin skinned and will respond with 'not all men' when it's really not necessary.
Say the topic is something like male violence towards women - no, it's not all men, but unless someone is specifically claiming that it *is* literally all men, bringing up that fact is just distracting from the actual topic.
That’s some very good mansplaining
If he'd been talking to a woman who was an expert on the subject maybe.
It’s a good explanation. I doubt it would be construed as such I’m only messing. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's valid if someone says something like 'literally all men are evil!'
However, a lot of men seem incredibly thin skinned and will respond with 'not all men' when it's really not necessary.
Say the topic is something like male violence towards women - no, it's not all men, but unless someone is specifically claiming that it *is* literally all men, bringing up that fact is just distracting from the actual topic. "
I always think it's valid. In serious discussion that is. Not if it's just about to get jiggy or we are all out having a drink or i'm in the company of seething man haters with short fuses and long sticks...... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Some just like to use hashtags rather than explain their position in a debate.
But if they actually explain their position, then they’d have to actually debate. Far easier to hashtag and run"
Precisely! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Depends on context
e.g.
You: All men are bastards.
Me: Not all men!
Valid.
Agreed but in the relevance of gender politics or if talking about something that ‘men’ do, then is it valid?
If it is something that 'men' do then saying 'not all men' seems utterly butterly....
Give me an example of 'what men do' please.....
Pee from their willy "
Good Girl P.P. In this case the person who says ...... not all men ........ would be a dickhead, if it's a serious discussion that is.
If it's a joke and someone is trying to win a game etc....... it's permissible to regress for the fun of it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Depends on context
e.g.
You: All men are bastards.
Me: Not all men!
Valid.
Agreed but in the relevance of gender politics or if talking about something that ‘men’ do, then is it valid?
If it is something that 'men' do then saying 'not all men' seems utterly butterly....
Give me an example of 'what men do' please..... "
Put their arm behind the headrest when reversing, actually that’s not true, I’ve seen men reverse with their hands still at ten to two on the steering wheel. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's valid if someone says something like 'literally all men are evil!'
However, a lot of men seem incredibly thin skinned and will respond with 'not all men' when it's really not necessary.
Say the topic is something like male violence towards women - no, it's not all men, but unless someone is specifically claiming that it *is* literally all men, bringing up that fact is just distracting from the actual topic. "
Do you not think it is the way online "discussion" are formulated now? You see it all over these threads. Trying to position something in text which is often and sometimes deliberately clumsily stated, to a group of complete strangers and often only stated to elicit a response and some kind of recognition or connection. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ea monkey OP Man
over a year ago
Manchester (he/him) |
"Depends on context
e.g.
You: All men are bastards.
Me: Not all men!
Valid.
Agreed but in the relevance of gender politics or if talking about something that ‘men’ do, then is it valid?
If it is something that 'men' do then saying 'not all men' seems utterly butterly....
Give me an example of 'what men do' please..... "
Ok, A generality being such as ‘men commit r#pe’ is the statement ‘not all men’ necessary or is it just shifting the conversation away from the discussion of sexual violence to one of semantics?
If someone red |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can't be the only one reading #notallmen as no tall men or even no tall knobheads or am i ??"
You're reminding me of an institution that had a business leaders conference / networking event that used #entrepreneursexchange. I mean, who signed off on that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Depends on context
e.g.
You: All men are bastards.
Me: Not all men!
Valid.
Agreed but in the relevance of gender politics or if talking about something that ‘men’ do, then is it valid?
If it is something that 'men' do then saying 'not all men' seems utterly butterly....
Give me an example of 'what men do' please.....
Ok, A generality being such as ‘men commit r#pe’ is the statement ‘not all men’ necessary or is it just shifting the conversation away from the discussion of sexual violence to one of semantics?
If someone red"
In a case such as the above the response is totally unnecessary , but it's not a response i'd deal with at that point. Probably someone immature or with an agenda. Men commit grape is a fact ( no group sex jokes pls )
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You know ....... If someone said 'Men are raypists, I'd HAVE to say , Not all men......
Moot point really. "
Absolutely, but I doubt you'd stress that point if the group discussion was a bunch of r*pe victims talking out their trauma.
Time and place right? Like the much used analogy of the hypothetical dead kid's funeral where the eulogy is why the kid was special and making the perfectly valid point that all kids are special. It's a fact, but it's in poor taste to say it right then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"All men on here lie.
All women on here are narcissists.
Yes it applies.
So potentially you could be lying."
No potential about it.i do.especially on here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"ooops ... I did a dead horse sitter joke but thought it might go way of the mark for the outragers and moamgrabers.
Did you flog it?
Time , place and consequences
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ea monkey OP Man
over a year ago
Manchester (he/him) |
"You know ....... If someone said 'Men are raypists, I'd HAVE to say , Not all men......
Moot point really.
Absolutely, but I doubt you'd stress that point if the group discussion was a bunch of r*pe victims talking out their trauma.
Time and place right? Like the much used analogy of the hypothetical dead kid's funeral where the eulogy is why the kid was special and making the perfectly valid point that all kids are special. It's a fact, but it's in poor taste to say it right then."
Is it ever necessary to say that though? It’s not just a matter of time and place, it’s a case of understanding the nature of discourse. Would you ever say to someone (to extend the analogy), whilst they were talking about their child ‘all children are special’?
Why is it necessary to say “not all men” when it’s clear that it’s not all? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ea monkey OP Man
over a year ago
Manchester (he/him) |
"ooops ... I did a dead horse sitter joke but thought it might go way of the mark for the outragers and moamgrabers.
Did you flog it?
Time , place and consequences
"
This did actually make me laugh, bravo |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Namalt is the standard response to sweeping mysandristic statements as is Nawalt the same for sweeping mysongonistic statements.
If the world could stop the dividing sweeping statements, the argument would be null. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ea monkey OP Man
over a year ago
Manchester (he/him) |
"Namalt is the standard response to sweeping mysandristic statements as is Nawalt the same for sweeping mysongonistic statements.
If the world could stop the dividing sweeping statements, the argument would be null."
Or we could accept that if the statement doesn’t apply, then it’s not about us.
It’s unnecessary to grandstand a response regarding how a negative statement doesn’t apply, to people who don’t know you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You know ....... If someone said 'Men are raypists, I'd HAVE to say , Not all men......
Moot point really.
Absolutely, but I doubt you'd stress that point if the group discussion was a bunch of r*pe victims talking out their trauma.
Time and place right? Like the much used analogy of the hypothetical dead kid's funeral where the eulogy is why the kid was special and making the perfectly valid point that all kids are special. It's a fact, but it's in poor taste to say it right then.
Is it ever necessary to say that though? It’s not just a matter of time and place, it’s a case of understanding the nature of discourse. Would you ever say to someone (to extend the analogy), whilst they were talking about their child ‘all children are special’?
Why is it necessary to say “not all men” when it’s clear that it’s not all? "
I'm totally with you mate. The kid analogy is ridiculous in order to point out how ridiculous it is to say not all men or all lives matter, or whatever, when a torch is being lit to combat violence. Right?
Like our friend here who says all men on fab are liars, I'd happily disagree with him unless the discussion was about how men telling lies on fab has caused trauma and the prevalence of it happening was being flagged up on a thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ea monkey OP Man
over a year ago
Manchester (he/him) |
"I see your point. I think it’s used to call out the people making the generalisations."
I think the problem is that whilst generalisations are bad, it’s being used as a way to circumvent the actual topic of discussion. Are generalisations worse than the topic at hand? Usually no |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
