Women were talking about men in general. Some men took it as though they specifically were being targeted. If women don’t feel comfortable running alone at night because men can be predators, men in general should listen. When I hear that, I don’t take offence. I’m with you, I’ve never done anything. But we should be trying to figure out ways that women can feel more comfortable around men. Women shouldn’t need to feel like they have their guard up, and listening is the first step.
Whites were talking about blacks in general. Some black people took it as though they specifically were being targeted. If white people don’t feel comfortable running alone at night because blacks can be predators, black people in general should listen. When I hear that, I don’t take offence. I’m with you, I’ve never done anything. But we should be trying to figure out ways that whites can feel more comfortable around blacks. Whites shouldn’t need to feel like they have their guard up, and listening is the first step.
Every time you hear a claim about women/men replace with white and blacks, if you sound like a racist asshole, then you’re being a sexist asshole. This also applies for other stuff, including just reverting roles, if just by doing that you’re able to make your argument sound straight from the KKK, you know it’s a bad argument.
That’s not to say that women shouldn’t feel like that, or that there isn’t a problem in our society, but the same can be said about white/black situation. The difference is that most people (at least non racist assholes) understand that a higher criminality among black people has nothing to do with their skin tone, and is instead a consequence of historical factors perpetuated by social injustice, so they understand why generalized statements such as the one you made are problematic. But with the men/women people in general think it’s different, they think that men are inherently more violent or whatever, so their broad statements get less judgement, let’s not forget that up until recently that was also the general consensus about race as well.
In short if you do broad generalizations like that you ARE being an asshole, and people will feel attacked. And what’s worse is that those people are more likely to then align with someone who opposes your views which oftentimes means right wing Nazis just because they’re not attacking them.
Because at its core your argument is “group of people X feels threatened by group of people Y, but group Y should listen and not feel attacked if someone from group X tells them group Y is dangerous”. Replacing group X and Y by any group of people should give you an idea of why this is a bad argument. In other words I’m just applying analogical reasoning to your argument to showcase that in an analogous situation the same argument would be considered aggressive.
Granted, it’s not always possible to substitute groups, but if your counterargument is that the substitutions are not analogous you need to present evidence of why that is the case. In other words, why do you think this argument applies to women who are afraid of men but not to whites that are afraid of blacks.
Look, I’m not the person you replied to, let’s start with that. Second, no, I don’t have to justify countering that absurd sophism that you did. It’s on you to make sense in the first place
Ok,sorry, didn’t see it was someone different, in any case at its core his argument was that.
You’re making a claim that those two are different, it’s impossible to prove a negative so I can’t prove that they’re not different because even if I pointed to 99 metrics that made it the same that doesn’t mean that there doesn’t exist a metric by which they’re different.
I’ve explained my reasoning, they’re analogous groups, so if you can point to a relevant metric by which they’re different then my argument would be invalid. Let me explain, one could argue that it’s different because women are mostly attacked by men, but statistically speaking whites are also attacked more by blacks, and again one can easily see that that’s a bad argument to claim blacks are criminals, therefore the other form of it is a bad argument to claim men are rapist. Any meaningful metric I can think of has the same problem, i.e it also applies to the white/black version.
And no, you’re not forced to reply, but that does sound like confirmation that you couldn’t think of any meaningful metric by which my analogy fails.
I am listening, and what I’m hearing is that I, as an innocent person, am a source of terror for someone I’ve never met because of a fact of my biology that I have no control over. I have no ability to change the feelings of someone else, because no matter what, those feelings are only able to be changed by the person feeling them. I can say I’m innocent and not a threat until I’m blue in the face, I can act as non-threatening as I possibly can, I can leave women alone in public. None of that matters because I’m not the one with the power over those feelings.
You say you’re listening but all you’re hearing is how what is being said affects you.
You appear to see yourself as a victim. This makes you more dangerous than a bear.
The bear won’t take a women’s fear of it personally. It will want to avoid confrontation.
You will definitely take it personal. You appear willing to confront them for their fear. You will demand they not be afraid of you, because you are innocent. The scenario is one of a thousand reasons they choose the bear.
No. You’re not a source of terror. But people don’t know that. They just see a man. The issue isn’t with you, it’s with common experiences women have had with men.
There are so many bears that don’t hurt humans. But humans carry bear spray just in case the one they encounter is dangerous.
The issue isn’t with you, it’s with common experiences women have had with men.
And that’s exactly the problem. I’m not those men. I have no intention of acting like those men. Yet I’m still scared that I’m going to get pepper sprayed anyway just for asking a woman for directions.
Unfortunately dangerous men don’t wear signs around their necks. They just look like normal dudes. It’s the false positive vs false negative. A false positive results in the woman walking away and maybe an awkward moment between two people. A false negative can result in being raped and/or murdered. That’s really what it boils down to. Women just want to stay safe.
That’s on you, pal. I don’t feel entitled to anything but the same basic respect I give anyone, man, woman, or otherwise. All I want is not to be looked at as an existential threat just for existing and I really don’t think that’s unreasonable.
Are you fucked in the head? I am a man and I take no insult to this. In fact I agree, I would also rather be in the woods with a bear than with a random man. Imagine it differently for a second to maybe gain some perspective. Would you rather spend the night in the forest or in jail with the scariest ass don’t drop the soap motherfuckers and no guards? That’s basically what this question is like for women. A bear is generally just going to ignore you.
You are taking the bait, this question was never about the actual answers, but rather the male response to being told that we men pose a risk to women, this question was just asked to generate responses from men, proving their point that men are angry and dangerous.
Yes, you’re a man, so you should suffer because equality, hurr durr. And you’re a misogynist if you say something. And you’re a racist if you point out it’s the same as saying “black people are [insert stereotype here]”.
Welcome to online interactions of the latest decade! Luckily I don’t encounter this hostility for having been born with a penis in real life, otherwise I’d probably just gone and killed myself, it’s unpleasant enough being the public enemy online.
But hey, everything’s fair when it comes to revenge equality!
Yea like the brother never inherited the family business, and the brother was sold off to a rich older lady to marry, or the brother for goes university in place of his sister, the brother having a bastard child meant he was ostracized from the family and sent to a Catholic nunnery to learn the ways of god.
Women have historically been repressed through out many culture in history and even to present wealth be damned.
So were men. And children. And everyone in between, unless they had money. We’re not living in a patriarchy and haven’t for quite a few millennia. It’s the rich ruling the poor.
It’s toxic to not want to be treated like a monster for something I didn’t do?
Women were talking about men in general. Some men took it as though they specifically were being targeted. If women don’t feel comfortable running alone at night because men can be predators, men in general should listen. When I hear that, I don’t take offence. I’m with you, I’ve never done anything. But we should be trying to figure out ways that women can feel more comfortable around men. Women shouldn’t need to feel like they have their guard up, and listening is the first step.
Every time you hear a claim about women/men replace with white and blacks, if you sound like a racist asshole, then you’re being a sexist asshole. This also applies for other stuff, including just reverting roles, if just by doing that you’re able to make your argument sound straight from the KKK, you know it’s a bad argument.
That’s not to say that women shouldn’t feel like that, or that there isn’t a problem in our society, but the same can be said about white/black situation. The difference is that most people (at least non racist assholes) understand that a higher criminality among black people has nothing to do with their skin tone, and is instead a consequence of historical factors perpetuated by social injustice, so they understand why generalized statements such as the one you made are problematic. But with the men/women people in general think it’s different, they think that men are inherently more violent or whatever, so their broad statements get less judgement, let’s not forget that up until recently that was also the general consensus about race as well.
In short if you do broad generalizations like that you ARE being an asshole, and people will feel attacked. And what’s worse is that those people are more likely to then align with someone who opposes your views which oftentimes means right wing Nazis just because they’re not attacking them.
lol that doesn’t make any sense. Why would you replace something with something completely different and expect it to work the same ?
Because at its core your argument is “group of people X feels threatened by group of people Y, but group Y should listen and not feel attacked if someone from group X tells them group Y is dangerous”. Replacing group X and Y by any group of people should give you an idea of why this is a bad argument. In other words I’m just applying analogical reasoning to your argument to showcase that in an analogous situation the same argument would be considered aggressive.
Granted, it’s not always possible to substitute groups, but if your counterargument is that the substitutions are not analogous you need to present evidence of why that is the case. In other words, why do you think this argument applies to women who are afraid of men but not to whites that are afraid of blacks.
Look, I’m not the person you replied to, let’s start with that. Second, no, I don’t have to justify countering that absurd sophism that you did. It’s on you to make sense in the first place
Ok,sorry, didn’t see it was someone different, in any case at its core his argument was that.
You’re making a claim that those two are different, it’s impossible to prove a negative so I can’t prove that they’re not different because even if I pointed to 99 metrics that made it the same that doesn’t mean that there doesn’t exist a metric by which they’re different.
I’ve explained my reasoning, they’re analogous groups, so if you can point to a relevant metric by which they’re different then my argument would be invalid. Let me explain, one could argue that it’s different because women are mostly attacked by men, but statistically speaking whites are also attacked more by blacks, and again one can easily see that that’s a bad argument to claim blacks are criminals, therefore the other form of it is a bad argument to claim men are rapist. Any meaningful metric I can think of has the same problem, i.e it also applies to the white/black version.
And no, you’re not forced to reply, but that does sound like confirmation that you couldn’t think of any meaningful metric by which my analogy fails.
How is it any different? It’s discrimination. Not cool, no matter which group is doing it to which other group.
I am listening, and what I’m hearing is that I, as an innocent person, am a source of terror for someone I’ve never met because of a fact of my biology that I have no control over. I have no ability to change the feelings of someone else, because no matter what, those feelings are only able to be changed by the person feeling them. I can say I’m innocent and not a threat until I’m blue in the face, I can act as non-threatening as I possibly can, I can leave women alone in public. None of that matters because I’m not the one with the power over those feelings.
You say you’re listening but all you’re hearing is how what is being said affects you.
You appear to see yourself as a victim. This makes you more dangerous than a bear.
The bear won’t take a women’s fear of it personally. It will want to avoid confrontation.
You will definitely take it personal. You appear willing to confront them for their fear. You will demand they not be afraid of you, because you are innocent. The scenario is one of a thousand reasons they choose the bear.
A bear isn’t trying to find a dating partner in a human woman…
You’re sick in the head if you think being depressed over being labelled an existential threat makes me dangerous.
Found the incel.
Feel better?
deleted by creator
No. You’re not a source of terror. But people don’t know that. They just see a man. The issue isn’t with you, it’s with common experiences women have had with men.
There are so many bears that don’t hurt humans. But humans carry bear spray just in case the one they encounter is dangerous.
And that’s exactly the problem. I’m not those men. I have no intention of acting like those men. Yet I’m still scared that I’m going to get pepper sprayed anyway just for asking a woman for directions.
You’re afraid that a woman might pepper spray you if you scare her, while she’s afraid you’ll kill her if she upsets you.
Unfortunately dangerous men don’t wear signs around their necks. They just look like normal dudes. It’s the false positive vs false negative. A false positive results in the woman walking away and maybe an awkward moment between two people. A false negative can result in being raped and/or murdered. That’s really what it boils down to. Women just want to stay safe.
Buddy, you’re throwing off such strong “nice guy” vibes you’re squicking me out, and I’m a 50-something year old, hairy, straight dude!
That’s on you, pal. I don’t feel entitled to anything but the same basic respect I give anyone, man, woman, or otherwise. All I want is not to be looked at as an existential threat just for existing and I really don’t think that’s unreasonable.
Are you fucked in the head? I am a man and I take no insult to this. In fact I agree, I would also rather be in the woods with a bear than with a random man. Imagine it differently for a second to maybe gain some perspective. Would you rather spend the night in the forest or in jail with the scariest ass don’t drop the soap motherfuckers and no guards? That’s basically what this question is like for women. A bear is generally just going to ignore you.
No one thinks you’re a monster. We simply don’t know if you are one. Women’s safety is more important than your feelings, period.
Which is how Emmitt Till was murdered
Because this logic is mainly used to target and murder black and brown men, and always has been in the United States
You are taking the bait, this question was never about the actual answers, but rather the male response to being told that we men pose a risk to women, this question was just asked to generate responses from men, proving their point that men are angry and dangerous.
Yes, you’re a man, so you should suffer because equality, hurr durr. And you’re a misogynist if you say something. And you’re a racist if you point out it’s the same as saying “black people are [insert stereotype here]”.
Welcome to online interactions of the latest decade! Luckily I don’t encounter this hostility for having been born with a penis in real life, otherwise I’d probably just gone and killed myself, it’s unpleasant enough being the public enemy online.
But hey, everything’s fair when it comes to
revengeequality!The tables have turned my friend O.o
But seriously I hardly notice this stuff, and females have historically been treated miserably
*People not born into wealth and power
FTFY
Yea like the brother never inherited the family business, and the brother was sold off to a rich older lady to marry, or the brother for goes university in place of his sister, the brother having a bastard child meant he was ostracized from the family and sent to a Catholic nunnery to learn the ways of god.
Women have historically been repressed through out many culture in history and even to present wealth be damned.
Yes, but women get treated worse.
So were men. And children. And everyone in between, unless they had money. We’re not living in a patriarchy and haven’t for quite a few millennia. It’s the rich ruling the poor.
. <— the point
X <— you
. <— the point
Y <— you
Nobody said the man is you bro…
“It’s okay, you’re one of the good ones. Not like those uppitty n******.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalization