Why do women always have to be constantly, and overtly, friendly and amicable towards everyone? Even though that often comes off as flirty and attracted/interested in that person?
No one else does this. And it often leads to miscommunications between all parties involved.
You are just socially inexperienced or being willfully ignorant because you want a gf.
they are weak weak creatures, most of them. they cant handle the fact that people might not like them.
boys can be fat, or ugly, and still live fulfilled lives. girls, have shown constantly, they simply cannot endure a tough world. they are deluded, theyre whole gender.
some smart ones will even delude themselves that they are doing the world a favour, and will go to great lengths to prove how they can make the world better.
there is no such thing as a genuinely cruel women. a woman can be a bitch due to vanity, a bully..BUT there is never a woman who is equal in understanding cruelty or conflict like a man does.
she can never look at someone and mean something. every inch of the world has to be something special to her. every nasty moment is something she endlessly parades around forever, shoehorning it in every conversation, talking about how tragic she is, and how worldy she is.
depressed women? ive never met one. one who truly get to the stage and says 'there is no meaning, and im tired'.
even the smartest...like the 0.001% and the 0.0001% of that group which is vocal...only they are somewhat mature-like resembling of a normal man.
its why women are writers. they are exceptionally delusional, and train great imagination to barely hold their delusions
"no one else does this"
so like... less than half the population doesn't do this...
who cares. stop trying to understand women and just ignore them.
I've never seen anyone BUT women violating those BASIC social rules. Not one. If I tried what they do to another guy, I would've most certainly had the shit kicked out of me. And if a guy tried that with me, I would've definitely done the same.
Those levels of friendliness are highly, socially inappropriate for people you're not already close to. And completely autistic.
Can you give an example of the sort of behavior you are talking about? Right now it just sounds like you have trouble distinguishing between genuine interest and an outgoing girl with a bubbly or flirty personality. A lot of female friendly behaviors like casual touching and talking about feelings are easily misinterpreted as interested when a woman is oblivious to it (or even if she is flirting, is really just passing the time, some people are just like this).
Women have a choice:
>accept the cold hard truth that every interaction with a male is a part of some strategy of theirs to try and fuck you, every exchange is an attempted transaction
or
>pretend that every guy is just nice to you because people are nice, the world is a beautiful friendly place where people are nice to you for no reason at all
most girls choose the latter just to stay sane. Unfortunatly it makes men like you and me insane
gb2 reddit jess
i found the american
i live in america where fake niceness is the way of life
women especially are fake nice because they want everyone to like them, even people they don't like themselves
Some people like to be kind and genuinely good people. Not all women are like this though, some are bitter cunts and some are socially awkward.
Sources: Vag, SAD and observation from outside adventures.
>smiling
>physical closeness
>attempts to "be nice" to you, even when it isn't really warranted or necessary
>unusually chatty even when you're not all that engaged
>treating others like a kin or friend, even though no such relationships have been established
That's just weird, and not something you do with non-friends, non-significant others, and non-family members. In turn, coming off like you're romantically/sexually interested in them, that you're some kind of snake oil salesman trying to swindle them, or that you're looking for something specific with them, etc.
girls suck. we know girls suck. this topic has been proven again and again. ignore all women, problem solved.
Nietzsche said something like flirting was the natural way for her to communicate but she usually knows when it's appropriate to stop.
Also, he said their happiness is proportional to how effective the flirting is.
Just his opinion though.
Not trying to be an asshole to you or anything but you sound EXACTLY like this autistic dude I used to know. Same thought process, thought that EVERY GIRL was flirting with him just for showing basic human decency (this is smiling, being nice, chatting, friendliness) and blamed women instead of his own lack of social understanding. Even yelled at me to "STOP BEING NICE TO ME IF YOU DON'T LIKE ME THEN" when I was literally treating him like my other female/male coworkers, had to hide in an office away from him/never smile/engage him in conversation at all or he'd get pissed at me for "pretending". I know I'm being unfair and you probably aren't violent like that at all but if this is a common confusion for you maybe you should consider looking inward instead of blaming half the population for your misinterpretations
But those "friendly" and "nice" gestures are the complete opposite, American. And is overstepping their boundaries and violating them. You don't do this to people you're not familiar with; that's a huge faux pas. The rare times this is acceptable to do with a stranger is if you're attracted to them and want to communicate that to them; but even that's a crapshoot, and could be a sexual misconduct case waiting to happen. And either way, you're just disregarding basic social cues like your little autist friend.
no, he's right. there's no reason to be THAT nice and friendly to a stranger unless you're interested in them, or have met before. nothing more. or else it's rude, and coming on way too strong.
>but they aren't trying to come onto you
just because they weren't intentionall doing so, doesn't mean that's how it communicates. if somebody feels that you were hitting on them and violating their personal boundaries, you probably were.
See, you're trying to impose your cultural frigidity on friendly American girls when there is nothing wrong with them, it's you. I actually think it's a faux pas to not be friendly and nice to people you interact with. I'm really trying to think of a situation where this behavior would obviously be rude or imposing on someone's boundaries and I can't. Most women will stop flirting or being friendly if it isn't reciprocated, or even amp up the politeness if they feel threatened or afraid. I know I did the second response by accident a few times at the scary autist because it's instinct to try and diffuse a conflict that way.
>little autist friend
More like aggressive scary autist that made me/other women coworkers so afraid and uncomfortable he was fired.
>basic human decency (this is smiling, being nice, chatting, friendliness)
Unless you live in the US, those aren't basic human decency to strangers.
The goalposts keep shifting here. First OP was complaining girls do this towards everyone and now it's only strangers. Even so, most people won't be bothered if a complete stranger smiles at them or strikes up conversation without getting all suspicious or angry they were "fake flirting"
>See, you're trying to impose your cultural frigidity on friendly American girls when there is nothing wrong with them, it's you.
Congratulations: you're a racist.
>I'm really trying to think of a situation where this behavior would obviously be rude or imposing on someone's boundaries and I can't.
Easy: do you know this person? Are you close to them? Do you have a relationship with them in which both parties consider each other friends, kin, family, significant other? If not, then it's rude and disrespectful. And since were mentioning coworkers, that's even more inappropriate.
>Even so, most people won't be bothered if a complete stranger smiles at them or strikes up conversation without getting all suspicious or angry they were "fake flirting"
I once punched a guy in the face for doing that. I've even had people get in my face and cause a ruckus if I've done it without realising (I get lost in thought easily). :/
>racist
You're ignorant, no idea what race you are. If anything I'd be ethnocentric, which I'm not, you are by not respecting American culture.
I can't reason with someone that would be personally offended by a coworker being friendly with them. You are retarded, and I don't think it's because of your culture.
Congrats, you're also a retard AND unhinged
>Even so, most people won't be bothered if a complete stranger smiles at them or strikes up conversation without getting all suspicious or angry they were "fake flirting"
I do. I'm probably not going to express it, but I definitely get be unnerved by random strangers smiling at you, or even approaching you for a conversation. Especially if it's from a man.
Most people see themselves as interesting and good, so they like when others confirm the positive concept of themselves. Being liked feels good, makes you like the other person more, and promotes confidence, trust, mutual protection, and cooperation. Men don't do this because their self-concept is based on independence more than interdependence.
>You're ignorant, no idea what race you are.
Don't need to. As long as your remarks are against another race, ethnicity, AND culture, it's racism.
>If anything I'd be ethnocentric, which I'm not
Racists/ethnocentrists always say they're not.
>you are by not respecting American culture
And you're a racist by forcing American values onto non-Americans, and assuming said values are across the board.
>I can't reason with someone that would be personally offended by a coworker being friendly with them.
Again, because you're a racist who doesn't understand non-American cultures. And two, if they're offended by whatever it was you were doing, then it wasn't friendly, even if you meant to be. Impact matters more than intent, after all.
>You are retarded, and I don't think it's because of your culture.
Again, you're a racist.
>No one else does this.
Unless the feeling's mutual you're supposed to at least try and get along with the rest of the adult world.
>friendly behaviours like casual touching and talking about feelings
That's a friendly behaviour? Like if a woman touches you it still doesn't mean anything? Or if she talks to you about something it also doesn't mean anything?
Damn
>You're a racist
Woah, slow down there, no need to bring out the big guns
I think you're confusing people here.
where I come from, even something simple as smiling or trying to talk to people can be offensive enough to get you punched in the face. whether by me or someone else. it's generally not smiled upon (ironically) to be warm and what you call friendly to strangers; and encurs only negative reactions. and if physical harm does bestow upon you, and the police were told the events leading up to it, they're just tell you "well maybe you shouldn't have pissed him off like that" and go home.
americans are typically ignorant of how other cultures handle social cues and body languages and what have you. and typically assume theirs is universal and found in other parts of the world. despite that obviously not being true, and this thread a cringy reminder of such.
Ok then, where the fuck are you from so I know who I'm being racist towards and know to never visit if the rest are like you? Even if you're from an autistic nordic country you don't sound typical at all, just can't understand how anyone could negatively interpret a friendly conversation or smile so strongly and vehemently. What offends you? You feel manipulated or misled? You feel like it isn't genuine? What is your fucking problem?
>smiling or talking to people gets you punched in the fucking face
>police blame you for getting hit
Barbaric. Do you live in Somalia
>where the fuck are you from so I know who I'm being racist towards and know to never visit if the rest are like you?
From the rest of the world, American.
>just can't understand how anyone could negatively interpret a friendly conversation or smile so strongly and vehemently.
Because it isn't friendly, dipshit. If they react that way so "strongly" and "vehemently," then it wasn't friendly.
>What is your fucking problem?
Assholes like you.
Where are you from, cause to honest it sounds pretty nice
I live in europe. why would you even assume non-european/american countries? :x
You are a disgusting obnoxious faggot.
> As long as your remarks are against another race, ethnicity, AND culture, it's racism.
NO it's not. Stop making up definitions on the spot, you autistic little shit. A culture is not a race, and therefore not racism.
>And you're a racist by forcing American values onto non-Americans, and assuming said values are across the board.
That's not racism, again. That's cultural Imperialism. Stop using words you don't understand, brainlet.
To say impact matters more than intent always is a sweeping generalizing statement that is often made by retards who only take everything at face value.
You cannot into subtext because you are autistic.
> I'll just call everything racism! That'll invalidate any arguments directed at me
People like you cause actual racism. Keep making yourself a target, you'll get yours one day.
Not him but why not? Most of the world is more violent than America and Europe on average.
Why can't you just say where you're fucking from? Are you ashamed or paranoid?
Ah, so you were a Jow Forumstard after all.
>A culture is not a race
Culture is as imbued into race as much as skin colour.
>and therefore not racism.
Completely wrong.
>That's not racism, again.
>That's cultural Imperialism.
>You just described two things that're basically the same.
>You cannot into subtext because you are autistic.
> I'll just call everything racism! That'll invalidate any arguments directed at me
>People like you cause actual racism. Keep making yourself a target, you'll get yours one day.
Don't you have a Trump rally to attend?
Yeah, it's totally normal to get this bothered at a friendly smile in every other part of the world but America, totally, I'm just the freak.
Do you even think before you type?
>it's the same person because they disagree with me!
Holy shit you really are a brainlet
but it is common for people to take exception from strangers smiling at them. maybe not in america, but over here that's impolite, and not in the least bit respectful and friendly as you're claiming. :/
> Ah, so you were a Jow Forumstard after all.
Couldn't be further from the truth. Also not the person you were arguing with. You just keep making wrong assessment after wrong assessment.
> Culture is as imbued into race as much as skin colour.
No. No matter how much you try to make it so. And even if it would, wouldn't that be you justifying racism? Or are you saying every culture around the world needs to be respected even when it stomps on basic human rights?
BTW by your logic you are racist for not respecting American culture.
You fucking RACIST.
> Completely wrong.
Imagine being this stupid.
> You just described two things that're basically the same.
You wouldn't know a word's definition if someone hit you in your tiny sack with a dictionary.
> B-But trump
Don't you have a shrink meeting to attend to? Your obsession with America and American politics is the lefty autist's getaway. I'm not American you retard. People like you have no identity or sense of resolve, so you latch on to popular agendas trying to make a hero out of yourself.
You're no hero. You are a sad little man with no personality.
>Yeah, it's totally normal to get this bothered at a friendly smile in every other part of the world but America, totally, I'm just the freak.
I do. Everyone else as well.
>I'm just the freak.
It would definitely make you a creeper.
You people are completely lacking in human decency. I would loathe to live in a place like yours were it's taken for granted you are to be treated like shit for cracking a smile. Goddamn gestapo.
>Couldn't be further from the truth.
Action speak louder than words. Behaviour says more than resolve. And intent matters more than impact.
>No. No matter how much you try to make it so.
Then you are completely wrong and don't understand any of this.
>Or are you saying every culture around the world needs to be respected even when it stomps on basic human rights?
All cultures should be approached and treated based on their terms, not that of your culture.
>BTW by your logic you are racist for not respecting American culture.
>You fucking RACIST.
Pot calling the kettle black.
Congratulations: you're still a racist.
>You people
excuse me?
>Action speak louder than words. Behaviour says more than resolve. And intent matters more than impact.
You literally just spout things you think sound cool in sequence. You're not really saying anything. But glad you agree Intent is what matters even thou two posts ago you were talking in reverse. Atleast keep up with your own bullshit.
>Then you are completely wrong and don't understand any of this.
> N-No ur wrong!
How about you pull me the definition for both then, 'tismo? Surely ypu can back your claim. I'l warn you ahead, I accept ACTUAL definitions only, not retarded blogs and revisionism.
>All cultures should be approached and treated based on their terms, not that of your culture.
Sure. When its cultural differences that emanate from being different and growing differently. Not when it stomps human right. You realize you are protecting slavery and human ownership this very moment, arent you?
>Pot calling the kettle black.
You argue like a 12 year old that things doing GOT'EMs is how yoy ein an argument. You are noth worthy of actual discourse.
>Congratulations: you're still a racist.
Keep misusing that word, you're making it all the more meaningless.
This vapidness is why you are lonely m8. It was never women's fault.
>he believes in cultural relativism
Im a bitchy cold woman and TRUST ME those women who are capable of being friendly have it easier. Thats exactly what society pressures women to be, basically happy slaves. you get treated worse if you try to rebel against those ideals by not smiling all the time or presenting yourself as this flower.
>You literally just spout things you think sound cool in sequence. You're not really saying anything.
Tu quoque.
>How about you pull me the definition for both then, 'tismo? Surely ypu can back your claim.
Burden of proof would be on you. You're also asking for definitions for terms and words without actually specifying them.
>Not when it stomps human right. You realize you are protecting slavery and human ownership this very moment, arent you?
That's only a justification for enforcing your own views and opinions on other cultures who don't share them, and blatant racism.
>You argue like a 12 year old that things doing GOT'EMs is how yoy ein an argument. You are noth worthy of actual discourse.
Ad hominem.
getting uppity about how cultures do things differently than yours, attacking them for practises you find offensive, referring to them as 'you people,' expressing that you wish to avoid 'you people,' inability to understand how certain gestures can be friendly/hostile depending on where you are, interpret a cultural practise as 'barbaric' and assuming it as non-white, and claiming one culture is attacking your own is usually de rigueur for racism.
I don't think I've ever seen any definitions of racism that didn't include culture, because cultures are always hand-in-hand with certain ethnic groups. Like how strong, forceful enunciations are hand-in-hand with Germanic ethnic groups. Or how reservation and selectivity between friend groups are hand-in-hand with Slavics.
>Tu quoque.
Misuse of a term.
>Burden of proof would be on you. You're also asking for definitions for terms and words without actually specifying them.
> Cultural imperialismcomprises theculturalaspects ofimperialism. Imperialism here refers to the creation and maintenance of unequal relationships betweencivilizations, favoring the more powerful civilization. Thus, cultural imperialism is the practice of promoting and imposing a culture, usually that of a politically powerfulnation, over a less powerful society; in other words, thecultural hegemonyofindustrializedoreconomically influential countrieswhich determine general cultural values and standardize civilizations throughout the world.
>racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
Your turn.
>That's only a justification for enforcing your own views and opinions on other cultures who don't share them, and blatant racism.
You're saying alot of unsubstantiated bullshit while im talking about real things. Learn the things you argue or fuck off.
>Ad hominem.
Again, misuse of a term. I attack the way you argue, not your character, in that sentence.
An actual attack I did was in the following sentence, which is based on a fact YOU established in how your ranting began.
And here is where you fall: you assume im white.
You, my friend, are the real racist. Im not white, I am an advocator for human right and decency. You assumed I am because you associate whites with ignorance, imperialism, and "over friendliness" or whatever.
I called 'you people' ans you assumed rsce when I am just talking about frigidity. You could be a slav, an arab, a white, an asian, and this still applies.
Congrats racist, you played yourself.
Culture and race have links but are not the same. Disliking culture =/= disliking race. Google Racism. First result == not culture.
>bitchy cold woman
You're just as basic as flowery women.
"everyone" sry i can't relate
>> Cultural imperialismcomprises theculturalaspects ofimperialism. Imperialism here refers to the creation and maintenance of unequal relationships betweencivilizations, favoring the more powerful civilization. Thus, cultural imperialism is the practice of promoting and imposing a culture, usually that of a politically powerfulnation, over a less powerful society; in other words, thecultural hegemonyofindustrializedoreconomically influential countrieswhich determine general cultural values and standardize civilizations throughout the world.
>>racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
Definitions fallacy.
>I attack the way you argue
That is an attack on the character.
>An actual attack I did was in the following sentence, which is based on a fact YOU established in how your ranting began.
Ad hominem AND tu quoque.
>And here is where you fall: you assume im white.
>You, my friend, are the real racist. Im not white, I am an advocator for human right and decency. You assumed I am because you associate whites with ignorance, imperialism, and "over friendliness" or whatever.
I called 'you people' ans you assumed rsce when I am just talking about frigidity. You could be a slav, an arab, a white, an asian, and this still applies.
>Congrats racist, you played yourself.
Whether or not other people act racistly does not suddenly mean you are racist yourself.
>Disliking culture =/= disliking race.
disliking a culture is racism. :/
>Google Racism. First result == not culture.
first google results say that the term and standards for racism "do not fall under a single definition" or "fall under a variety of conditions and factors." and from the third results and onward make mention of culture. :/
>racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
That definition is so off, and a popular misconception Americans have been assert any time they riot.
Racism is when a person's race, ethnicity, or culture is a contribution in how you view, or approach them, as a human being. That's basically it. It doesn't have to be prejudice or discrimintory, hostile or friendly, or even negative or positive. It just has to be a situation where their racial/ethnic/cultural backgrounds affect how you see them. Everything else simply falls into different types of racism (racial prejudice, racial bigotry, racial discrimination, etc).
Definitions like "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior" are popular misconceptions that only politicise the word, and applies unnecessary is-oughts to it.
Top class bait. Cant even respond to that, you literally made up a fallacy. 7/10 I'm impressed.
So you ignore the most objective definition and decide to add baggage to it based on your personal conjectures of it.
Congrats, im racist you're racist, everyone who ever lived and communicated with people of differing national origins is racist. You made a word meaningless.
>So you ignore the most objective definition
>racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior
isn't an objective definition, and is going with the popular misconceptions around the topic. As well as pushes it to specific side and connotation, even though the word itself doesn't actually choose either (which further gets in the way of the whole "objectivity" part).
>Congrats, im racist you're racist, everyone who ever lived and communicated with people of differing national origins is racist.
Racism isn't exclusive to certain individuals or groups.
>Why do women always have to be constantly, and overtly, friendly and amicable towards everyone?
women are usually only that way if they have an ulterior motive, you are hard press to find a girl who is amicable, friendly and just acts like a regular dude if she is no interested in the guy or like I said has an ulterior motive.
this meme is the biggest load of shit ever, and this thread was written by a semen slurping slut jut to get attention.
> misconception
Its an ages old definition. If you wsnt to reinterpret it for the modern age, go ahess. Im not playing that game because what are words lol.
> pushes it to a specific side
What side?
Definitions are mutyally agreed upon ideas of what a thing means. Of ypu do not agree, or content it, thats fine, but it doesnt mean your definition of it is any more correct than the commonly agreed upon one.
> Racism isn't exclusive to certain individuals or groups.
Yet you allegedly assume i'm American and likely white, assuming you are the 'you people' poster.
You're avoiding the final conclusion - you're racist.
And according to your definition of it - thats perfectly fine. Because the rainbow for what is racism is now so broad, its basically meaningless. Its literally classified now as " oh japanese people bow so I have to bow in the meetin-- SHIT IM RACIST NAO" - according to your logic.
So then, what IS your point?
>Its an ages old definition.
Many misconceptions are.
>What side?
A negative one for what is ultimately a neutral term.
>Definitions are mutyally agreed upon ideas of what a thing means.
Definitions are set when a culture or society believes them to be such. Which obviously isn't always right.
>but it doesnt mean your definition of it is any more correct than the commonly agreed upon one.
Tu quoque.
>You're avoiding the final conclusion - you're racist.
Whether or not someone's racist doesn't suddenly mean you aren't.
>And according to your definition of it - thats perfectly fine.
Applicative.
>oh japanese people bow so I have to bow in the meetin-- SHIT IM RACIST NAO
Even something like that can be racist, considering factors and context (practising a cultural custom when you're not from that culture isn't an uncommon way to offend that culture).
>Many misconceptions are.
According to you.
>A negative one for what is ultimately a neutral term.
Glad to see we agree that you say being racist isnt even a bad thing. Tbh I dont care if you see it as bad or not on a personal basis, but stop using as a slur or s sign of bad character if thats what you believe, makes you a hypocrite.
>Definitions are set when a culture or society believes them to be such. Which obviously isn't always right.
Its as right as a definition can get since word definitions for conceptual ideas isnt a science. Nice that you are jist repeating what I said, though I do not see the point.
>>but it doesnt mean your definition of it is any more correct than the commonly agreed upon one.
>Tu quoque.
Thats not how this fallacy is used. I just called out that you are saying the most commonly agreed definition is less agreeable than yours. Tu quoque is when you attack a person's claims based on the person's own hypocracy regarding his own actions, regardless of repevance to the claim.
>Whether or not someone's racist doesn't suddenly mean you aren't.
Cool. Not sure where you got that from. I literally called everyone including me racist. Are you even reading or are you just repeating a mantra?
>And according to your definition of it - thats perfectly fine.
>Applicative.
... what?
>Even something like that can be racist, considering factors and context (practising a cultural custom when you're not from that culture isn't an uncommon way to offend that culture).
Ok. I ask again. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
>According to you.
Ad hominem.
>Tu quoque is when you attack a person's claims based on the person's own hypocracy regarding his own actions, regardless of repevance to the claim.
You're describing an ad hominem. Tu quoques is when you side step and go for the premise and backing of the argument, instead of the argument itself.
Wrong on both accounts. Check your definitions.
I just did and rechecked them five times, and
>Tu quoque is when you attack a person's claims based on the person's own hypocracy regarding his own actions, regardless of repevance to the claim.
Is an ad hominem, while
>when you side step and go for the premise and backing of the argument, instead of the argument itself
is tu quoque.
Oh and btw
> You're describing ad hominem.
> Tu quoque:
> "...It is often used as ared herringtactic and is a special case of thead hominemfallacy, which is a category offallaciesin which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument. "
> a special case of the ad hominem fallacy.
You were wrong in both assertion and definition.
No. Check again.
> Person A makes claim X.
> Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
> Therefore, X is false.
> Peter: "Person A is guilty of defrauding the government out of tax dollars."
> Bill: "How can you say that when you yourself have 20 outstanding parking tickets?"
> Tu quoque(Latinfor "you also") or theappeal to hypocrisy
What I did was lecel the playing, yoy say doing neutral stuff can be racist, O say by that definition, we are all racist, you avoid approaching this, I cement this amd prove by ypur logoc the meaninglesness of calling someon racist, you go on some false tirade about fallacies.
That cleared it up for you?
* What I did was level the playing field, you say doing neutral stuff can be racist, I say
** i cement this and prove by your logic
Sorry I was inattentive in my writing
No, that's completely incorrect. It CAN be adhominemic, but tu quoques are essentially focused and basing their assertion on the premise and consistency of the argument itself (which is typically hypocrisy, but not always). Ad hominems are generally just attacks or references to the character.
>That cleared it up for you?
And yes, and the definition you provided means that
when you side step and go for the premise and backing of the argument, instead of the argument itself
is tu quoque.
What a fucking shitshow. Imagine being this deluded, figures an animeposter would stoop to these lows.
> that is completely incorrect
> wiki definition
Listen if you're gonna act like you are the arbitrary adjudicator of definitions, im ending this discussion. Im not gonna debate with a disingenuous person with delusions of grandeur.
> And yes, and the definition you provided means that when you side step and go for the premise and backing of the argument, instead of the argument itself is tu quoque.
You dont HAVE an argumemt. You call everything racism, I say of this is how you approach it, the word is meaningless, and by your own actions you are racist too. This is not an "appeal to hypocracy" this is something YOU said, when you asserted my color and nationality by my attitude. I am not saying " your claim is false because you are prey of it", I am saying " its false because its not mutually agreed uppn, and If it IS a true statement, then by using racism as a slur or an offense, you are undermiming your own argument - that racism is a neutral, non-negative term and shouldnt be used to describe necessarily negative connotation.
I am calling you a hypocelrite because you are, but that is not the meat of my argument, your claim is false because under it, using racism as a slur is meaningless. That is to say, even if you DIDNT out yourself as racist on previous comment, I point out that by your logoc, calling otger people racist was meaningless to begin with.
These are the definitions, marked not by me or you but professionals. Either get with the program or find someone else to entertain you.
>Listen if you're gonna act like you are the arbitrary adjudicator of definitions, im ending this discussion.
Sorry, but the definitions you're using are skewed, inaccurate, and fall under the definitions fallacy, and being mishandled to assert other types of fallacies.
>You dont HAVE an argumemt. You call everything racism, I say of this is how you approach it, the word is meaningless, and by your own actions you are racist too. This is not an "appeal to hypocracy" this is something YOU said, when you asserted my color and nationality by my attitude. I am not saying " your claim is false because you are prey of it", I am saying " its false because its not mutually agreed uppn, and If it IS a true statement, then by using racism as a slur or an offense, you are undermiming your own argument - that racism is a neutral, non-negative term and shouldnt be used to describe necessarily negative connotation.
Tu quoque and ad hominem.
>I am calling you a hypocelrite because you are, but that is not the meat of my argument, your claim is false because under it, using racism as a slur is meaningless. That is to say, even if you DIDNT out yourself as racist on previous comment, I point out that by your logoc, calling otger people racist was meaningless to begin with.
Tu quoque + ad hominem.
>These are the definitions, marked not by me or you but professionals.
Definitions fallacy + ad verecundiam.
>Either get with the program or find someone else to entertain you.
Ad hominem.
> definitions fallacy
Fuck I fell for your bait again, thought you were a different person. You get a 9/10 fuck me that was good bait.