this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
613 points (99.8% liked)

196

16501 readers
22 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] conneru64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure where you read that in this post, because I don't see it.

[–] CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year 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...

[–] conneru64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[–] CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year 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".

[–] conneru64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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