You're viewing part of a thread.
The choice may have been controversial, but the number of men telling women they are being stupid and irrational for picking the bear was unnecessary. Not to mention that it totally explained why women pick the bear.
It's a fallacy to put one vs many in an argument like this.
Individual men were hurt by feeling classified as more dangerous to a random woman than a bear in the woods when their lived experiences place them well below that threat, even though they are aware that there is a portion of men who are more dangerous to random women in the woods than the average bear, but their responses were taken as an attack on women rather than an expression of personal indignation and further proof that men are dangerous.
Individual women got to express their experiences and opinions in a way that got through to a lot of men and other women what they felt as a whole, but since groups are unable to address individual responses eloquently and on an even level, they trampled over a lot of innocent men.
There are no winners in scenarios like these, and anything you add or subtract from the argument paints you in a bad light.
The only winning move is not to play.
It's one thing to say that you feel hurt by the idea that a woman would choose a bear over you. It's another to argue that they are wrong to make that choice and that women are just being irrational. You have every right to feel hurt and to express that you feel hurt. You don't have the right to tell anyone else what choice to make. That's the line that was crossed. That's where they were no longer innocent men. Of course you're not going to win an argument when you try to control other people's choices. The entire reason women choose the bear is because of men trying to control them. You don't have to like that choice, but you do have to accept it because it's not your choice to make.
That's the real winning move...accepting women's choices, no matter how "wrong" you think it is.
I have no dog in the fight. I'm merely a spectator commenting on what I see.
So you can draw whatever conclusions you wish about the side that I'm picking in this debate and you're going to be wrong.
Individual men were hurt by feeling classified as more dangerous to a random woman than a bear in the woods when their lived experiences place them well below that threat
It's quite obvious which side you've picked. You talk about men's lived experiences while complaining that women talking about their lived experiences "trampled over a lot of innocent men."
There's no point in debating this. If you're really just a spectator, then you wouldn't be actively arguing about it. But I don't have to play along with this. That's my choice...
Like I said. You're wrong.
I definitely understand how women would be afraid of encountering a random man in the forest. I also understand that the advantage of encountering a bear is that they would know to immediately run the fuck away. And I can understand how that scenario makes them feel.
Just because I can see the other side does not mean I endorse the other side. Broaden your mind
I also understand that the advantage of encountering a bear is that they would know to immediately run the fuck away.
You've completely missed the point of picking the bear. It has nothing to do with the bear. Have a nice day.
You and @Bonehead@kbin.social if you would please take this argument to DMs. This type of back and forth has gotten my posts removed multiple times in the past for no fault of mine and I don’t want that happening again. Thank you.
I literally don’t care about the bear thing at all but the truth remains that women telling storries about their SA were harrased into deleting their accounts. That behavior is never okay and it is not cherry picking to reference such things in discussion of the overall tone of the platform. End of discussion.
Don't worry. When I tell someone "Have a nice day.", that means I've blocked them and will no longer engage with them.
Thanks homie.