1226
Watery-Wiles đ¸
(jlai.lu)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
1226 points (98.9% liked)
Comic Strips
12655 readers
1224 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
... The fuck?
You seem really offended that women were underrepresented in historical conflicts. You're going to have a hard time finding anyone who says otherwise.
What I am saying is that women have worn armor (even for non-ceremonial purposes) at a few points in history.
At the end of the day, you're the one getting butthurt about a comic on the internet.
Yes, I am offended that more women were not knighted and partook in the most violent battles in history!
Now what I am saying, from start to finish= I made a stupid joke, albeit historically correct, that the one other improbable thing about the image, apart from the naiads, was that there is a woman in armor.
That is it. Let me help you:
Descriptive statement = the sky is blue
Prescriptive statement = blue is ugly
See, I described something, stated a fact, and you are the one who took offense, you and presumably most other women here, because all you ever hear is the word "woman" and regardless what one says you're like a kerberos gatekeeper growling at it because you're just so ready to fight inequality at every turn, to the point where you can't allow facts to stand on their own.
Are you equally offended by these statements:
A) Men are on average taller than women
B) Women on average live longer than men
C) Men are more violent than women. On average.
?
That's what makes this funny to me, the fact how that you are so attached to labels that you will never accept any reality contrary to it.
Now if you just calm down, we can discuss it if you would like. Would you? Or are arbitrary judgments more your thing?
I really donât understand the point of this whole argument.
You wanted to point out how a woman in a knightâs armor is, historically, statistically improbable. Ok.
What did the other comments want to achieve? No one, at any point, argued that female knights were a common occurrence.
I don't know. What does it say in those comments? I sure as fuck didn't say anything else, until someone came along and tried to correct me with extreme outliers.
So you tell me, I have no idea what the argument is about myself, I have asked previously to have that determined, but got called names instead so I'm not sure what's up or down here.
Then I donât understand what your point is.
If you were trying to say that women in an armor were extremely uncommon, then comments about some of them existing should just reinforce your claim, they were so rare that you could probably list them all.
If you were arguing in absolutes instead, saying that at no point in history a woman has ever worn an armor, then bringing outliers to the discussion is a legitimate correction, since even a single one existing breaks the absolute.
In both of those cases, you asking for a second woman in armor or ten thousand male knights are non-sequiturs, because them existing or not doesnât change anything in the previous statements. So one has to guess your point is neither of those, but a third one instead, which I really didnât understand.
If I have to guess, the âargumentâ about you is that no one really understood the point of your comments, so theyâre arguing with you about what they think you mean. Which is wrong, of course, but you should clarify that if you want to have a meaningful discussion. Making sarcastic comments doesnât help clear up things.
Five people upvoted you without reading what you said. That's my problem.
>Complains about people not answering his questions and belittling him
>Proceeds to not answer questions and belittle others
I mean, I tried to put good will in it but it seems it was pointless.
Buddy, meds. Now.
Now you're straight up bullying me. That's not cool.
It's not bullying, I'm not trying to insult you. At this point based on your other comment mentioning suicide I'm genuinely concerned for your mental health and physical well-being.
Victim: "They ganged up on me because they didn't like what I said!"
Bullies: "Nuh uh, she started it, and she called our mothers fat hairy cum guzzling prostitute hog fuckmunchers! Swer on me mums!"
See, it's ok when you do it, and you know that, and I know that you know that I know that. You fucking psychopath.
Get help. Please. You are not well.