this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
526 points (83.1% liked)
memes
9312 readers
1612 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I love this trend, because anybody who provides a serious answer whatsoever has already fallen for its trap. It's such an absolutely absurd scenario that's just specific enough to be divisive, and just vague enough that you can fill in the gaps with any preconceived notions of your own. It's impossible to provide any answer in which you can't be made to look like a clown, because every answer comes with baked-in counter arguments to it. Any answer you provide makes you look either heartless or clueless.
It almost makes me appreciate rage-bait as an art form.
EDIT: Some of you seem to have made some assumptions on my stance, and fail to realize the irony in doing so. The fact that anybody felt the need to have a multi-comment argument against this comment only proves my point, which is that it's 100% rage-bait, and you guys keep falling for it.
Bill Burr's commentary on the issue
"Would you rather encounter a bear or a (black or muslim) man" is a good way to produce different results
Yeah because it turns out people can smell manipulative gotcha questions from a million miles away
Or, you know, just listen to women.. Revolutionary, I know, and seemingly impossible to some, but that's literally all you need to do to not be "trapped" (magically managing to claim victimhood where there is none, as per usual), instead of outing yourself, just like OP suggests.. Β―\(γ)/Β―
I thought the victim was the bear, he doesnβt want some random ass woman bothering him shitting in the forest.
If you treat every person you meet as a predator, eventually you will only be left with those who are. The rest will just leave you to your own business and only the predators will pursue, yes?
Like, so incredibly no
Women don't treat every man they meet as a predator, they treat every man as possibly a predator, which we are. You aren't the target of sexism if a woman in the same bar as you keeps a lid on her drink.
No
Just curious, no to what? I am not challenging the idea of the thought experiment or the visceral fear that some people have toward a man vs a wild animal, just seems odd to me downplay one side and increase the risk of the other. In this thought experiment where we are using a meek bear, does it change if we use a polar bear. Does it change using a mountain lion or lion? A leapord? A rabid dog?
You appear to have significantly misinterpreted my comment, and proved my point in doing so.
Would you say the same if the argument was about the inherent danger of black men? If a bunch of white women were online saying black men are dangerous we wouldn't say that black men calling it out were "magically claiming false victimhood" we'd say those women's fears, even if they are truly felt, are a product of prejudice and unfair and they're spreading of these ideas is damaging.
...but no one is making this racist except those trying to cause arguments, and those who don't understand what women are saying.
Yes, if someone said something racist and meant it, they'd be a racist. Women are not doing that.
So, being sexist is ok, but being racist isn't. Got it.
... But no one is being thrown into the woods with a random stranger or a bear. Like the original question this is a hypothetical meant to prove a point. The original point seems to be "the average man is dangerous" , this is meant to show that point can be prejudiced/sexist. It's meant to show that the argument that some people are saying they're afraid of a group therefore we must validate that fear can lead to some bad places and shouldn't be used. This argument is at the core of what the comment I replied to.
No, women are just being sexist
You seriously think women are equally afraid of white men as they are of black men, or Muslim men, or immigrant men?
The answer is no. Which is why right wing groups astroturfed this meme in the first place - to otherize minority groups and increase xenophobic policies. All under the name of protecting women/feminism
Which is what always happens - we need to protect our virginal women from the foreign hordes. Fascism has a pretty simple playbook
I'm pretty sure every woman I regularly interact with has realized that white men are scarier than men of color, by and large. Have you been paying attention for the last 8 years?
To all the men of color who keep getting disproportionately murdered and seen as superpredators? To all the white women who cross the street everytime they see a black man? To all the white mothers who refuse to send their kids to the public school because it's too """dangerous"""?
Yes I have noticed that.
Well you've also missed the point. It's to provoke introspection in men. Not a debate on statistics.
Well it's failed MASSIVELY then.
I didn't talk about statistics, nor did I answer the question at all. I fully get the point; I think you've missed the point if that was your takeaway from my comment.