wonderingwanderer comments on Tiger Woods cheating texts

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 month ago (1 child)

Nope. Scroll up and read my first comment where I clearly state I'm not defending him because he's a magat piece of shit (in addition to the DUIs and infidelity).

But just because someone is a bad person doesn't mean you can make up whatever you want about him. That's called an ad hominem, and is an obvious fallacy.

What I'm saying isn't "actually I think Tiger's behavior in general is okay." What I'm saying is "It's perfectly fine to not respond to a text within an hour, and focusing your ire on that is missing the point."

People can take an hour or more to respond to a text. Just because Tiger's a shitty person doesn't mean waiting an hour to respond is what makes him shitty. Nazis ate food every day, does that mean everyone who eats food is a nazi?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Elting@piefed.social -2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

Its not so much the hour it took to respond for me but that she felt the need in the first place to placate him after making a joke. That indicates to me that she is used to him being pretty volitaile. Which checks out given that he is tiger woods.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

He can't control how she feels. For all the arguments that women are preconditioned by society to already be placating by default, to turn around and assume that the particular guy in question is the reason she feels the need to be placating is kinda disconnected from the broader feminist narrative.

Unless you cherry-pick every situation based on what suits your preconceived notions the best, in which case what actually sets you apart from a maga? That's literally the same thing they do, and it's not made less disingenuous by the fact that there's a kernel of truth to it (i.e., Tiger is a shitty person, but the particular argument you're making is still disingenuous)

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] Elting@piefed.social -7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

Bro you are too emotionally invested in this argument. You want to claim im doing ad-hominem while calling me MAGA for not reading into these texts the same way you have. Trust me it is not that serious. Velma can be abrasive but she usually has a real point to make.

Women have been generally conditioned into being placative because it keeps them from getting hurt.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

I'm not emotionally invested at all, that sounds like something you're imagining.

You want to claim im doing ad-hominem

All I pointed out was that it's an ad hominem to attack an innocuous action just because the person is a jerk. That's literally what an ad hominem is. I wasn't "claiming" anything, just stating the simple truth.

while calling me MAGA for not reading into these texts the same way you have.

I didn't "call" you maga, I said you're using the same disingenuous and irrational style of argumentation that they use.

Trust me it is not that serious.

If it's not that serious then why are you and Velma making a big deal out of the fact that he took an hour to respond? I'd agree that it's not that serious, but you're the one trying to make a mountain out of that molehill, so don't DARVO me about taking it too seriously.