"I never said I didn't, just didn't agree with the armchair analysis that was going on earlier."
for god's sake IGAH, I was discussing a man who had shown an eager lack of respect for the sexual privacy of a woman, in public, numerous times, and found it particularly 'edgy' to do so to her male relative (thus buying into the 'i fucked ya woman' trope which is so familiar)
In addition, he displayed the fairly classic misogynist over-interest in the fact that women menstruate, and did so in a derogatory manner and situation.
My earlier example was this: "it would be perfectly fair to conclude that a person who says, of a black person with whom they'd had sex, 'but she's quite pale-skinned', is a racist."
In that situation, would you demand that we wait for another black conquest to corroborate that said person was racist? Or would you just accept that a process of basic deduction had gone on, and not question it?
You might disagree with the conclusion in that particular instance, perhaps because you had additional information: but to call it armchair analysis would be rather insulting, I think.
Are we not to draw conclusions unless we have the personal testimony of a witness?
Because that reallt would be dumb.