I'm pretty sure it's not men, it's just men exactly like you
view the rest of the comments
I have you tagged "the reason women choose the bear" over your behavior the last time that came up - you have a long long history of being an incel and claiming any criticism of a man is criticism of all men, which you're doing yet again in this thread.
Does voyager app have this tag feature?
Yes. Long press a username and it'll bring up a menu that allows you to create a tag
I think so... but also PieFed has it innately.
What? Where? How? App or web UI?
PieFed offers user tagging in both its web UI and in the API so that any app using it could pull from them, although regarding the latter I am not sure which ones actually do or not (Mlwm reportedly does, surely I would think that Blorp would as it touts itself as offering greatest compatibility with PieFed, etc.).
Blorp dev here. Blorp does have user tagging, but it actually stores all that data client side. I had no idea PieFed had user tagging built in. It would be nice to integrate with the PieFed API, but it would be a little tricky.
Currently, if you tag a user in Blorp, that tag is stored at the app level. You can login to your app with a Lemmy and a PieFed account simultaneously. If you tag a user from your PieFed account, you will still see that user tag after you switch to your Lemmy account.
If we did tagging at account level instead of app level, the user tags you see would change base on which account you switch to.
Thank you so much. I have now tagged you "helpful" and it shows up everywhere except for this exact comment. Weird. maybe it just takes some time to propagate, although I don't see why.
Just found out Boost also has this feature. Neat.
I do wish it was innate to lemmy like it is in piefed so they'd (theoretically?) carry over between mobile and web, but yeah it's very nice.
I've been trying to find out how to do that on Boost.
Halp.
Click on profile. Press three dots in upper left of phone screen, click "Tag User".


Criticism of a person's behavior when that's the subject at hand is not an ad homeniem, it's the argument. You've got a long history of misapplying logical fallacies and taking these sorts of commentaries where a man is portrayed negatively incredibly personally and then poorly defending your claims.
For example: elsewhere in this thread, where you've refused to back up your claims that the author is a "well documented" misandrist. If it's well documented, it should not be a burden for you to provide evidence, and yet you refuse repeatedly.
I'm directly criticizing two separate things: your behavior, and your claim that pizzacake is a well documented misandrist. That your behavior is remarkably predictable around these issues doesn't invalidate your claim; we get the conclusion that your claim is baseless from the way you refuse to support it.
Neither of those are an ad hominem or a whattaboutism, and you would be well served by finding out what those terms represent before you try and defend yourself with them.
Saying it does not make it so. It seems to me that referencing your prior behavior and attacking your lack of sources are both relevant and productive for discussion, while misusing fallacies to shut down arguments you don't like is, ironically, a rhetorical fallacy. They aren't deflecting by randomly bringing up some unrelated characteristic (for example: you shouldn't trust this influencer's opinion on food, I have it on good authority that they're a terrible parent!), they're calling back to your previous behavior in similar situations (for example: you shouldn't trust this influencer's opinion on food because they have a history of giving people food poisoning!). That isn't ad hominem, or whataboutism.
If your character and actions might be damming to your arguments, attacking them is attacking your argument, especially when also attacking your sources! Ironically, continuing to attack the comic artist without citing sources is ad hominem, by definition.
For the most part I like lemmy, but the community is incredibly incel-heavy. One of the most successful forms of bait on here (besides political trolling) is posting any even slightly contentious topic about women's experiences in society or things like institutional sexism. Seriously, keep an eye out - it's depressingly predictable.
it’s well documented?
i only found recipe results for pizza cake and i have no interest in reaching out to her on whatever other social media platform im not on
so all the reddit threads had nothing of value then i started reading the kiwifarms forum post then i realised i don’t give a shit
reddit, knowyourmeme, and ... kiwiframs!
You, Sir*, just played yourself
* not gendered
"infamous Redditor"
Aka "woman who won't submit/sleep with me and had opinions that hurt my feefees"
Got it
Are you said this comic shows misandry? Or just the artist in general?
Are you taking her anti trump comics to be anti men? Your search screenshot in a different thread was just for controversy, not misandry as you initially claimed. I've seen several pro lgbt comics from her, so saying she's anti equality seems disingenuous.
Can you link to some of these comics?
You're the one making the claims. He's just asking for a source.
Except you're the one making the claims. My concern is that maybe I've seen the comics and not caught the problematic tone, which would actually mean I'm not equally capable of finding the problematic works.
No one is asking you to find ALL her problematic works. Just a few would suffice.
That comic seems to be a hypothetical take on what it would be like if women treated some men the same way some men treated women. Basically a role-reversal.
It doesn't look like there's anything wrong with it at all.
https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/1dpptkk/talk/
Seems to be referenced fairly often by her detractors.
I’ve commented elsewhere that I think it’s a bad take.
Decide for yourself.
As a man, this comic is 100% accurate.
My partner is an AFAB enby and is struggling to get surgery for ovarian removal. They had a partial hysto a few years before we met. Before they had that surgery, while single and not wanting to have 48 day periods anymore, several male doctors delayed it because "Well what if your future husband wants kids? You're going to deprive him of that?"
They never wanted kids. We've been married 8 years, we're never having kids. My partner was sexually assaulted in high school. When she reported it, the male principle asked them "Well, what were you wearing?" They were sitting in front of him in a baggy sweater and track pants.
PC's take in this comic is a turn of reality. Men genuinely do talk to women like this. They don't take their health serious. They're over reacting or emotional. It's all in your head.
Any man who sees this comic and takes offence to it, congratulations, you're the fucking problem.
Are those phrases in the comic based on real comments that some men tell women? Absolutely.
Panel 2 is also very similar to how men get treated when having been robbed or sexually assaulted by a woman.
Panels 3 & 4 just straight up apply to what men get told. Different phrasing to what you’d expect but the exact same result.
If you haven’t experienced it then that is awesome for you. I’m not going to focus on anecdotes here or we could be here all week and this isn’t a pissing match of who has it worse.
Someone starving on the other side of the planet wouldn’t make my hunger any better would it?
Recognising that there is a degree of shared experience here is far healthier for everyone and statements like this
Any man who sees this comic and takes offence to it, congratulations, you're the fucking problem.
When you have zero knowledge of what someone else has experienced is only going to push them away and make their future reactions more extreme.
There is a growing divide between young men and women driven by online vitriol. It helps no one.
These experiences are all rooted in sexism and it negatively affects both men and women to differing degrees, sometimes under similar circumstances.
Nuance and understanding are far more difficult than knee-jerk rage but it is important to try.
I see where PC is coming from, but she has a blind spot for the things men hear, because she isn’t a man and hasn’t got that lived experience.
So it’s a bad take not because it’s factually wrong that women hear these things but because it is tone deaf to the fact that men get told shit like this every day.
Again… it’s not a pissing match. Having it worse doesn’t invalidate another person’s problems.
With Jago it was really simple. Someone put the bigoted comics in the comments and it was really easy to see they were bigoted.
With PizzaCake it's a whole thing! The people who don't like her refuse to give any evidence. It's almost like the evidence doesn't exist.
I remember one comic of hers was pretty tone deaf and caused a bit of a stir:
Not sure how to find it, but it was supposed to be a "imagine if women acted like this to men" as a way to point out problematic behaviors men have, but instead of picking things that never happen to men for the point to land she used things that actually already happen to men. This showed she was apparently unaware the reversal was true instead of ridiculous which, yikes.
That's the only thing I'm aware of though so not sure about "well documented". Maybe there's some social media posts that people didn't like or something? That's as much light as I can shed on the situation.
I think this is the one.
https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/1dpptkk/talk/
I get what she’s aiming at but it’s a complete miss in my opinion. Men absolutely get mocked for all of those issues.
The getting robbed reaction is also true of men who’ve been raped or sexually assaulted.
I’m not convinced she’s a full on misandrist but she’s had some bad takes. Hard not to have some misses when you’ve made that much content.
I mean, to be fair Stonetoss is both a shitty person, and a shitty artist.
Except Ellen isn't a Shitty racist white supremacist.
So you make an accusation, and when someone asks for proof, you tell them to go find it themselves?
The onus is on you to provide the proof. I could say you're a racist. If someone says you're not, I could say "Just go look it up". I get to sully your name and spread lies and never have to back up my accusation.
Doesn't seem fair, does it?
