196

16224 readers

3935 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

617

Rule/rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The post suggests that there are only two options in the scenario: they are either secretly trans, or they are a bigot trying to belittle and insult trans women. They don't leave any nuance for a different option. Dare I say that they have a rather binary way of thinking...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Ohhh, you read the "and if" as being exhaustive. If they said "either... or" then I'd be with you, but they just listed 2 possible scenarios.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No, I read the "win/win" as listing there only being two possible scenarios. They are saying you either win or you win. "Win/win" reads as "win or win", so there is your "either... or", but even then you don't need to say specific words to be able to imply exclusivity.

Example:
"You must be joking, and if not, then you are a fool" Notice how in that sentence I did not use "either/or", yet I still implied only two possibilities? Well, that sentence is homogenous to the sentence in OP's post. I just used "if/then" instead of "either/or".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You said "and if not" which is binary, but "if [predicate] [x] and if [predicate] [y]" is not generally exhaustive.