Isn’t that the point though? The fact that the question was asked and rather than think “shit, could we be better?”, some men are literally seething with anger about it?
I imagine that black men view the question as particularly insulting
Because we live in a country that already perceives black men as animals.
So seeing so many women recently affirm that perception likely is extremely isolating. Because this is the sort of ideology that gets black men murdered
Because white tears cause black scars. As Emmitt Till found out
When men are seen as threats, this translates into the murder of men, particularly those who are in national minority groups. Black, brown, immigrant, Muslim, etc men are threatened by this type of discourse, at least within the United States
Which is kind of what BLM was all about - that black men are just people and are not dangerous super predators like many white people, including white women, seem to think
I would take any human over a fucking bear. It’s a bear. It is far more adapted to the woods than I am. At least with another human I have some chance. Jesus how are you people not terrified of a animal thathas claws, can climb trees, can outrun you, is stronger than you, and is a predator when presumably you would have nothing resembling a weapon on you.
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
Viral hypothetical “would you rather spend a night in the woods with a bear or a man”. Toxic men getting butthurt when women chose the bear
That entire question was just pure rage bait from the start, without even resulting in any useful data
To whoever asked the question in the first place, I congratulate you for comming up with the perfect rage bait question.
Isn’t that the point though? The fact that the question was asked and rather than think “shit, could we be better?”, some men are literally seething with anger about it?
I imagine that black men view the question as particularly insulting
Because we live in a country that already perceives black men as animals.
So seeing so many women recently affirm that perception likely is extremely isolating. Because this is the sort of ideology that gets black men murdered
why would black men find a thread full of comments about women fearing for their safety to be insulting?
Because white tears cause black scars. As Emmitt Till found out
When men are seen as threats, this translates into the murder of men, particularly those who are in national minority groups. Black, brown, immigrant, Muslim, etc men are threatened by this type of discourse, at least within the United States
Which is kind of what BLM was all about - that black men are just people and are not dangerous super predators like many white people, including white women, seem to think
It would depend on the man surely? And possibly the bear, now thinking 🤔
I would take any human over a fucking bear. It’s a bear. It is far more adapted to the woods than I am. At least with another human I have some chance. Jesus how are you people not terrified of a animal thathas claws, can climb trees, can outrun you, is stronger than you, and is a predator when presumably you would have nothing resembling a weapon on you.
The difference is, the bear doesn’t want to attack you.
You don’t know that.
You also don’t know the man does want to attack you.
It’s toxic to not want to be treated like a monster for something I didn’t do?
Nobody said the man is you bro…
“It’s okay, you’re one of the good ones. Not like those uppitty n******.”
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
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
How is it any different? It’s discrimination. Not cool, no matter which group is doing it to which other group.