@OldTimes said in #80:
>
Cherry-picking is selectively using evidence to fit a narrative while ignoring the broader context. Pointing out a study's limited sample size or internal contradictions isn’t cherry-picking—it’s basic scrutiny.
You dismiss historical barriers as irrelevant simply because they were "corrected before birth," yet their effects persist in opportunity, representation, and cultural perceptions. That’s not genetic memory; it’s systemic reality.
Disagreement isn’t the issue. The issue is when disagreement disregards context, oversimplifies complex issues, and dismisses legitimate concerns as insignificant.
And just to clarify, you used an abusive word
@WuraolaA said in #79:
>
@OldTimes said in #80:
> You are right on one thing though, I don't agree with you.
I don't think you agreeing or disagreeing with the post makes any difference...you re just another man with your opinions, so agree or disagree all you want, the post is out and its reaching many people who can really make an impact...
Welcome to the NewTimes :)
@WuraolaA said in #81:
> Cherry-picking is selectively using evidence to fit a narrative while ignoring the broader context. Pointing out a study's limited sample size or internal contradictions isn’t cherry-picking—it’s basic scrutiny.
>
> You dismiss historical barriers as irrelevant simply because they were "corrected before birth," yet their effects persist in opportunity, representation, and cultural perceptions. That’s not genetic memory; it’s systemic reality.
>
> Disagreement isn’t the issue. The issue is when disagreement disregards context, oversimplifies complex issues, and dismisses legitimate concerns as insignificant.
>
> And just to clarify, you used an abusive word
So, first you accuse me of cherry-picking when I raise critiques about the studies you link to me, and then you tell me that I'm not cherry-picking, but rather conducting basic scrutiny? It's clear you're copying and pasting responses from ChatGPT, and the conversation has become so detached that it's now giving you answers that contradict your own argument, yet you continue to copy-paste them.
I haven't used any abusive language. If I have, you need to clearly quote the specific part of my 'incriminated' message.
@RandomGoPlayer said in #83:
> Nah, doing it because you are being condescending to women complaining about this kind of crappy behaviour. You are part of the problem, and you are actively bringing this problem in this comment section. this has nothing to do with my position and everything to do with how awfull you are behaving right now.
"@RandomGoPlayer said in #82:
> Just because you are carefull in your wording doesn't mean you are not doing personal attacks. You are. read yourself. Or maybe you're so oblivious that you don't understand what you write yourself... In both cases it doesn't let you look that good.
>
> "Yet, your need to cast yourself as both the protagonist and the 'victim' leads you to willingly sacrifice an undefined number of men on the altar of vanity."
> interesting how you seem to cast men as the "victims" here :D I don't know about you, but I for one do have fun with your blatant contradictions. If you think men are in any way shape or form discriminated against, you should try Feminism : It's the idea that we should try and work towards gender equality. It would put men on equal footing with women, that's what you want right?
>
> Thanks for illustrating how useless it is to give in to your demands of sources. You are not able or willing to understand them and to accept them for what they are.
Don’t get worked up, you're late for the spotlight and by offering no constructive comments but just simple insults, you're irrelevant. I'm not being condescending towards women, I simply don’t accept personal opinions as facts.
The resources that were linked to me included sexist and misogynistic articles, proving they hadn’t even been read. Pointing this out to the person who shared such articles makes me 'part of the problem' (of what problem, exactly).
But don’t worry, the person involved already said I was cherry-picking and right after that I wans't.
@Computah23 said in #84:
> I don't think you agreeing or disagreeing with the post makes any difference...you re just another man with your opinions, so agree or disagree all you want, the post is out and its reaching many people who can really make an impact...
>
> Welcome to the NewTimes :)
Your contribution to this discussion is merely auxiliary, almost symbiotic; akin to a Roman patrician throwing tomatoes from the stands of the Colosseum: feeling part of the spectacle, yet too coward to step into the arena.
If catchphrases represent the pinnacle of your rhetorical satisfaction, feel free to continue indulging in the self-congratulation of crafting slogans that convey nothing of substance.
Perhaps what’s stopping you from commenting as much as you'd like are those complex chess CAPTCHAs to solve.
@OldTimes said in #88:
> Perhaps what’s stopping you from commenting as much as you'd like are those complex chess CAPTCHAs to solve.
As I've told you I don't have time to argue, I'm more than occupied with other productive conversation and actions than to waste time here arguing with you...as the original poster said, you desperately need someone to argue with but you are getting none so you can keep arguing with yourself.
The post is out and its creating the awareness that it's meant to do...and believe it or not, you've been very instrumental in that. That's something I'm grateful to you for. .so keep the argument going(even if it's against yourself) <3
And yes the Captchas are interesting, Kudos to Lichess for them.
@OldTimes said in #85:
> So, first you accuse me of cherry-picking when I raise critiques about the studies you link to me, and then you tell me that I'm not cherry-picking, but rather conducting basic scrutiny? It's clear you're copying and pasting responses from ChatGPT, and the conversation has become so detached that it's now giving you answers that contradict your own argument, yet you continue to copy-paste them.
>
> I haven't used any abusive language. If I have, you need to clearly quote the specific part of my 'incriminated' message.
Do you even read your own messages?
You asked:
@OldTimes said in #80:
> Is pointing out that a study was conducted on a total of 7 participants cherry picking?
> Noticing that one of your studies actually discredits your own theories and is even misogynistic, since it claims that women have 'biological disadvantages', is that cherry picking too?
>
> And I replied
@WuraolaA said in #81:
> Cherry-picking is selectively using evidence to fit a narrative while ignoring the broader context. Pointing out a study's limited sample size or internal contradictions isn’t cherry-picking—it’s basic scrutiny.
I explained the difference between cherry-picking and scrutiny, saying that if what you said was all what you did, it would be scrutiny, not cherry- picking.
But that’s not what you actually did.
You dismissed one study for having only seven participants, even though stereotype threat is a well-documented phenomenon with extensive research backing it.
You fixated on a mention of biological differences while ignoring that the study examined multiple factors contributing to gender disparities.
Instead of engaging with the overall body of evidence, you nitpicked minor details to discredit the argument as a whole.
That is what you did. That is cherry-picking.
Now, I guess it’s clear who’s actually copying and pasting responses.
And regarding the abusive statement—you called someone "stupid." That’s why I deleted the message.
If you conveniently forgot about that, well, I suppose that’s just another sign you’re copying and pasting without actually reading what you wrote.