Derail from Feminist Gamer: Catcalling on the Streets

[Shadowy Man]

I have encountered this logical fallacy not just in this argument but in other kinds as well. I don't know the formal name (if there is one), but it's when someone tries to negate an argument because they can find an exception.

"Some women aren't offended, therefore catcalling can't be bad."
"Such and such scientist disagrees, so the theory isn't proven."
"Some women *choose* to wear a burqa, so it can't be oppressive to women."

Does anyone know if this has a formal name?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I have encountered this logical fallacy not just in this argument but in other kinds as well. I don't know the formal name (if there is one), but it's when someone tries to negate an argument because they can find an exception.

"Some women aren't offended, therefore catcalling can't be bad."
"Such and such scientist disagrees, so the theory isn't proven."
"Some women *choose* to wear a burqa, so it can't be oppressive to women."

Does anyone know if this has a formal name?

It's called the Shadowy Man Fallacy. We named it after the guy who came up with it because we all think that guy is awesome.

 

[Rhea]

I have encountered this logical fallacy not just in this argument but in other kinds as well. I don't know the formal name (if there is one), but it's when someone tries to negate an argument because they can find an exception.

"Some women aren't offended, therefore catcalling can't be bad."
"Such and such scientist disagrees, so the theory isn't proven."
"Some women *choose* to wear a burqa, so it can't be oppressive to women."

Does anyone know if this has a formal name?

Appeal to extremes?
Reductio ad Absurdum

 

[Shadowy Man]

Appeal to extremes?
Reductio ad Absurdum

That doesn't seem right. It's not that someone is extending the argument to some extreme, it's that they're trying to say that because something isn't *always* true then a claim that something is *generally* or even *almost always* true has no merit.

I was thinking it is something like "Argument from exception to the rule", but I couldn't find anything that quite matched that.

 

[bilby]

Appeal to extremes?
Reductio ad Absurdum

That doesn't seem right. It's not that someone is extending the argument to some extreme, it's that they're trying to say that because something isn't *always* true then a claim that something is *generally* or even *almost always* true has no merit.

I was thinking it is something like "Argument from exception to the rule", but I couldn't find anything that quite matched that.

It seems to be a subset of the fallacy of composition - what is true for one part of the group is assumed therefore to be true of all parts of the group.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

 

[Rhea]

What is the point that you think this cartoon makes?

 

[Nexus]

What is the point that you think this cartoon makes?

That social justice warriors engage in hyperbolic victim hood.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What is the point that you think this cartoon makes?

That social justice warriors engage in hyperbolic victim hood.

This is the kind of logical fallacy I think I'm asking about. Just because there might be one example of someone who overreacts, doesn't mean that the vast majority of reactions that others have are nullified.

"We should shut down all social welfare programs because I saw a guy buy cigarettes with food stamps."

 

[Arctish]

What is the point that you think this cartoon makes?

It's an example of Reductio ad Absurdum.

Or else it's about women oppressing men by telling lies about them.

Or it's about men who think that just because some guy almost raped a woman and she had to spray him with mace to get away, that's no reason for her not to be happy and flattered when another guy comes along and singles her out for flirtatious attention despite her sad face and distressed body language.

Or it's a reminder to women that just because some men are violent rapists doesn't mean that all of them are, and the appropriate response to the clueless ones is to walk away; just be sure to report the rapists to the police and alert your fellow citizens via social media.

 

[ksen]

I have encountered this logical fallacy not just in this argument but in other kinds as well. I don't know the formal name (if there is one), but it's when someone tries to negate an argument because they can find an exception.

"Some women aren't offended, therefore catcalling can't be bad."
"Such and such scientist disagrees, so the theory isn't proven."
"Some women *choose* to wear a burqa, so it can't be oppressive to women."

Does anyone know if this has a formal name?

Yes, it's called the #notallmen fallacy.

 

[NobleSavage]

 

[Nexus]

This is the kind of logical fallacy I think I'm asking about.

Its not a fallacy, its saying quit being a crybaby wallowing in victim-hood. If someone says something to you on the street you're not a victim. If someone says something in a crude way you're still not a victim. Being a victim means you were legitimately harmed in some way or a reasonable expectation of harm was threatened not that your got your feelings hurt. I've had gays come up to me in public parks and ask to suck my dick. I wasn't the "victim" of some ravenous queer. I was simply approached by a gay that thought acting in a very forward manner would get results. But I wasn't a victim.

 

[Axulus]

This is the kind of logical fallacy I think I'm asking about.

Its not a fallacy, its saying quit being a crybaby wallowing in victim-hood. If someone says something to you on the street you're not a victim. If someone says something in a crude way you're still not a victim. Being a victim means you were legitimately harmed in some way or a reasonable expectation of harm was threatened not that your got your feelings hurt. I've had gays come up to me in public parks and ask to suck my dick. I wasn't the "victim" of some ravenous queer. I was simply approached by a gay that thought acting in a very forward manner would get results. But I wasn't a victim.

It's still unwanted attention. Constantly getting unwanted attention can be really annoying. It can be a major inconvenience. This is indeed a harm due to the fact that the person would've been better off without the unwanted attention. Just because it isn't major harm doesn't mean the harm is nonexistent.

 

[dismal]

Its not a fallacy, its saying quit being a crybaby wallowing in victim-hood. If someone says something to you on the street you're not a victim. If someone says something in a crude way you're still not a victim. Being a victim means you were legitimately harmed in some way or a reasonable expectation of harm was threatened not that your got your feelings hurt. I've had gays come up to me in public parks and ask to suck my dick. I wasn't the "victim" of some ravenous queer. I was simply approached by a gay that thought acting in a very forward manner would get results. But I wasn't a victim.

It's still unwanted attention. Constantly getting unwanted attention can be really annoying. It can be a major inconvenience. This is indeed a harm due to the fact that the person would've been better off without the unwanted attention. Just because it isn't major harm doesn't mean the harm is nonexistent.

Every day I go through life people do things that annoy and inconvenience me. If we set the bar of victimhood this low I was victimized when someone in front of me at Starbucks took too long to order.

 

[Axulus]

It's still unwanted attention. Constantly getting unwanted attention can be really annoying. It can be a major inconvenience. This is indeed a harm due to the fact that the person would've been better off without the unwanted attention. Just because it isn't major harm doesn't mean the harm is nonexistent.

Every day I go through life people do things that annoy and inconvenience me. If we set the bar of victimhood this low I was victimized when someone in front of me at Starbucks took too long to order.

Regardless of the word you want to use to describe the situation, ordering really slow when you have a line behind you inconveniences those behind you. It wastes their time. They would've been better off had you ordered faster (by planning out your order ahead of time, for example, or letting the person immediately behind you go ahead if they are ready and you are still deciding). It's a matter of bad behavior making someone's life a little bit worse. What's wrong with calling it out so that people are at least aware of the inconvenience that they are causing?

 

[credoconsolans]

This is the kind of logical fallacy I think I'm asking about.

Its not a fallacy, its saying quit being a crybaby wallowing in victim-hood. If someone says something to you on the street you're not a victim. If someone says something in a crude way you're still not a victim. Being a victim means you were legitimately harmed in some way or a reasonable expectation of harm was threatened not that your got your feelings hurt. I've had gays come up to me in public parks and ask to suck my dick. I wasn't the "victim" of some ravenous queer. I was simply approached by a gay that thought acting in a very forward manner would get results. But I wasn't a victim.

Were you ever afraid that they might not take your ignoring them for an answer?

Were you ever afraid that they might overpower you and force you to suck their dicks?

If your answer is no, then the situation is not the same for you as for women.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Or it's about men who think that just because some guy almost raped a woman and she had to spray him with mace to get away, that's no reason for her not to be happy and flattered when another guy comes along and singles her out for flirtatious attention despite her sad face and distressed body language.

Personally, I kind of think the cartoonist intended us to realize that the man she was blogging about is also the man in panels 2, 3, and 4.

 

[Arctish]

Or it's about men who think that just because some guy almost raped a woman and she had to spray him with mace to get away, that's no reason for her not to be happy and flattered when another guy comes along and singles her out for flirtatious attention despite her sad face and distressed body language.

Personally, I kind of think the cartoonist intended us to realize that the man she was blogging about is also the man in panels 2, 3, and 4.

A sad woman encounters a cheerful man. His cheerful and friendly greeting makes her even sadder. He persists in spreading goodwill which makes her cry. Later we see her raging on the internet and telling lies about him.

So, it's either an attempt to belittle the concerns of women experiencing harassment on the streets by means of Reductio Ad Absurdum, or it's a "women lie" cartoon. To quote Rhea:

"What is the point that you think this cartoon makes?"

 

[repoman]

Ok, let's imagine the woman in the cartoon really was approached by a fully happy and nonsexualizing man on the street (not a "damn, you are fine!" vibe at all). Then grant that she blows it out of proportion and misconstrues the man's intent. Now why would she do that? This is where the real debate about the cartoon lies.

Some random guesses would be:

She had be truly catcalled by real perverts recently and is hyper alert and sensitive. So she is mad at the previous men in fact. I myself have been paranoid about other people wishing me ill after one person fucked me over badly.

This one may be what the cartoonist thinks - that she has been brainwashed by feminists to see all men as rapists or harassers.

Any other ideas?

----------------------------------

Let me add that the chance of a friendly non-sexual greeting from a man (who would just as likely say the same thing to a grandma or grandpa) on the street being seen as harassment is likely low in the first place. Most people who are not under a lot of stress can read peoples intent fairly well. So a highly stressed woman might misread.

So has the cartoonist approached a lot of woman with sexual intent that he thinks he is being slick at hiding it. Then he wonders why they are upset? Dumbass, people can read your intent, no matter the situation be it as a car salesman or hitting on a woman or just saying hi.