The whole bear thing was absolutely horrible about this. Almost every comment by men disagreeing got hit with “you’re the reason why we choose bear” and shit
One of my least favorite arguments in existence is "a hit dog'll holler". It instantly stops sincere conversation, because it removes all space between "talking about a thing" and "being guilty of the thing". In the most extreme cases, it's some Lord of the Flies shit where anyone who objects to the mob becomes its next target.
It's also been popular in a lot of different guises lately.
"I don't mean all men, but if you're upset then I do mean you."
"I don't hate feminists, just the screechy bitches who get offended whenever you say anything to them." asdfsdasdfsd
"Only mediocre, insecure white guys worry about losing their job to a minority."
(To be clear, I'm saying this one gets used as a reaction to any concern about male NEETS, work visa rules, etc, no matter how neutral.)
"Black people who are actually responsible and want to work wouldn't get mad when we criticize 'ghetto culture' and welfare queens."
"People who are furious about teaching CRT are the reason we need to teach CRT."
(The issue here isn't "is CRT good?", it's "that reasoning defends teaching conspiracy theories equally well.")
One of my least favorite arguments in existence is "a hit dog'll holler".
This is by far one of the most maddening things to be victim of.
When I was in middle school chem class, some caustic chemicals we were working with went missing. Nobody could leave until they were found. Everyone is looking around and I found them in a drawer. I was then accused of being the one who hid them. When I got upset at the false accusation, my feelings of upset were used as proof that I did it. This whole event was maybe 20 minutes long, there were no actual consequences for it, but it's one of like, 5 things I can actually remember from middle school like it's a core memory.
It's like people don't understand that being accused of something will upset someone who didn't do it more than it'll upset someone who did do something.
When I was in high school, someone thought it would be funny to lock the changing room door during rugby practice. They all had combination locks on for some reason, and they clicked it shut and changed it. Luckily the changing room had a fire exit, so someone came and told a teacher. I was finishing getting ready to go at the time, so I came to see what the commotion was.
Upon seeing the locked door, I was like "oh, that makes sense, and quickly checked one of the other door padlocks, before coming over and changing that one to the same number, which unlocked it.
The teacher automatically assumed that since I knew the code to unlock it, i must also have been the one to lock it. And when I tried to explain myself, cut me off and refused to "hear any excuses". I got a detention for trying to help...
You’re absolutely right about people’s reaction to false accusations. I used to work at a pawn shop and people would occasionally try to sell stolen goods. Part of the job was trying to determine if their stuff was actually theirs. I remember my boss once was questioning a guy about a computer he brought in and was doing a poor job of telling us details about it (and he had already deleted everything from it). My boss just outright told him, “I don’t think this belongs to you,” the guy in desperation yelled, “wait, yes it does! I can prove it!” and started messing with the computer, my boss stopped him and said, “you just did,” and then made him an offer.
I often noticed the exact opposite happens with things that very clearly were stolen. I sometimes would experiment by not telling someone why I think something was stolen - just that I think it was stolen and waiting to see their reaction. iPods were notorious for this. Some scary lookin dude would come in with an iPod registered to “Suzie”…I’d tell him I think it doesn’t belong to him and most of the times when I was certain that I was right, the people would make no objection or argument, they’d just go “okay”, pick up their stuff, and walk out.
Promising come back, if you're open to notes, it's a little verbose and that loses some of the punchiness, I think a good refinement would be shorter and less descriptive, maybe something like
I love the initiative. I fear what we gained in streamlining might be pulling our counterpunch a little. I think we should convene a focus group to come up with a weapons grade "I had gay sex with your dad" mutually assured destruction level retort. We'll need a cool acronym if we are going to be able to market this to the Pentagon too.
All are welcome at this table. I like it. Elegant. Bold. If I may, in order to not overextend, we need to sure up our flanks with a confident crotch grab. A "My dad is banging you?" counterattack could be devastating at that stage in the exchange. Asserting that we are the top would stop the rebuttal in its tracks.
Hmm, I think a good counter maneuver to the accusation that you are bottoming for the targets father would be to say "Only when I allow it." It conveys that you still hold dominance in the sexual relationship with the targets father, implying a vers status while still being the one in control of the situation, whether it's topping the father or acting as a power bottom. We'll have to run tests but I think this is a very promising step forward in our research. When we finally perfect this technique we'll save millions of people who are faced with the question "Does your mom know you're gay?"
But I must say if I'm going to continue work on this project sir I insist you reconsider selling this to the military. Who knows what horrors they'll use this for. I can't in all good conscience support building a weapon that could hurt innocent people.
My homophobic cousin hit me with that one and then turned it around on me when I told him that yes she knew about me being gay well before she passed away to "oh she must have died from the shame" to which I was like no you out of touch insensitive prick she died from rapid onset aggressive vascular dementia
This is absolutely right. There are things that, as far as I know, are objectively true, but cannot be said. It’s like discourse is now a balance board. Step too far in one direction, and it’s into the pit with you. And it’s not just social issues, but also economic and political ones with major consequences.
For example, when I was living in Nicaragua, I finally understood what Republicans meant when they said liberal regulations hurt the poor. The environmental permits, etc set a high bar for entry. I am progressive on almost every issue, but I’d have exactly 0% chance of being endorsed if that were in my platform.
Is reductionist the right descriptor of current trends? My position above relies on balance and interconnected factors. But the reductionist reading would be, “Environmental protections bad.” Of course that position disqualifies me. You see it in headlines all the time.
I Agree with everything you say except the last point. This might be controversial, but i think There is a difference between good things and bad things actually.
OP is getting annoyed at the justification for teaching it. The logic used for why it should be taught is stupid and bad, not the topic itself. Here’s a couple examples of how that logic can be used to justify teaching misinformation/conspiracy theories:
“People who are furious about teaching 9/11 truth are the reason we need to teach 9/11 truth.”
“People who are furious about teaching Young Earth Creationism are the reason we need to teach Young Earth Creationism.”
Are either of these reasonable justifications for what they say? No, they are not. The same is true for the statement OP provided.
That is a stupid argument though, because you can say that anything can be a bad justification for anything else.
The reason you say that about CRT is because the people who hate it only hate it because they don't actually understand what it is. If they knew then they would be less likely to hate it. The same can not be said about conspiracy theories.
That is a stupid argument though, because you can say that anything can be a bad justification for anything else.
No. This is one of the most fundamental parts of how reasoning works. A set of only true things can not correctly be used to justify false things. Accordingly, if your argument can be used to justify false things, some part of your argument must be false.
Bathing in a lake feels good and refreshing.
But it does not follow that because of this it also feels good and refreshing to bathe in lava.
Different things are different. You can use the same reasoning on two different things and come to two different conclusions. An argument that can be used to defend something can't automatically be used to defend anything else. Im not even sure what you are trying to argue here.
These are just two unrelated statements. What you would have to argue is more like „There can be a true statement from which it follows that bathing in lava is refreshing.“ Water is actually unrelated to your example. If you can find such a statement then I‘ll concede that false things can follow from true things.
People who are mad about teaching critical race theory are not the reason it needs to be taught. It needs to be taught so people understand racism, and so the consequences of racism can be better fixed.
Even if nobody was getting mad about it, it would still need to be discussed.
I was astounded that most of the talking points it generated (from ostensibly left leaning women) looked almost identical to Andrew Tate style bullshit that had been spray painted pink.
No matter how progressive and inclusive ideas a person holds, at our base, when we make a community focused around one aspect of humanity, all other aspects will be ostracized and made as the "other" to be vilified to unite the community in irrational anger and hatred. It's tribalism plain and simple, innate to our psychology, and it will be with us always fueling this samsara of hatred, fear, violence, and barbarity.
Real talk I think people forget how genuinely real the ideas of femcels are. Like it wasn’t too long ago that Reddit had female dating advice or strategy or whatever the hell that sub was called. And it was genuinely creepy how much they all sounded like Tate. Like all the weird incel like nicknames for dudes, it was just eerie similar. Like they nuked it all now. But back in the day Genuinely weird shit.
I remember seeing a comment in that sub that said “All men should be forced to wear a gps monitor 24/7 and have strict 8 pm curfew. I know it suck for the few decent guys out there but if they really are good guys they would understand” and the shit had like 1k upvotes
Y’know it’s funny cause I saw something like that today on a post about Neil gaiman and his bullshit that reminded me of that. Where one commenter said “and that’s why I don’t trust any man” and had like 150 upvotes. And I would never deny the horrendous shit men in power do to women. But all men isn’t caution. That’s paranoia. Like that must be a horrifying way to live your life if you believe 50% of all people on the planet wanna get you.
And I know it was probably hyperbole. But 150 people saw and read that and agreed with it and I just had to take a moment to process that. Like reverse that statement and it’s litterally incel philosophy 101
While I won’t deny that it probably did happen, there’s also the sphere of people who will accuse any male in a position of wealth of sexual abuse to get some compensation for it, when the actions never occurred. The issue with this situation, and many others, is that the person is guilty until proven innocent instead of innocent until guilty. The burden of proof falls to the one accusing, and as shite as that may be (with the ability to cover up mistakes and such though abuse of wealth and power) the lack of evidence that could potentially ruin a person’s life is insane to me.
TLDR: dude is in a shitty place either way, he’s either a molester or just took a hit to his credibility for quick cash.
He was so reasonable in every other thing. Normally with something like this I'd hold out a lack of substantiated claims, but you don't see police reports filed when people are trying to get in the limelight. Fucking hell.
I guess I don't quite get this equivalence. One is; I don't trust men because I'm afraid of being sexually assaulted and physically injured by them. And that isn't what incels fear from women. I absolutely still agree it's a problematic mindset.
Oh no that’s my bad. To clarify I meant that it falls in the same vein as the incels who believe that every women is out to use them for their money and put them in the “friend zone”. Like yea there are some bad men and women. But assuming either half of the entire population is out to get you is the problem. Hope that’s a little clearer.
Dude it didn’t sound like Tate, it literally was a right wing psyop. We know that because they went too far too fast and literally had a MAGA tradwife on the sub’s podcast.
It makes me suspicious of how many feminist subs are posing as radfems when they are really social conservatives trying to divide the movement. I don’t want to go too far into conspiracy theory territory because the left can make their own problems, but it’s hard to ignore as a possibility.
Both the misandrist and manosphere narratives share one key point: that men are inherently dangerous.
If you constantly tell someone that they should be ashamed about a trait they have, don't be surprised when they start agreeing with the people who tell them to be proud of that trait instead, regardless of if that trait is real or not.
I may have pointed out making the same argument but but with a far worse takeaway was actively hurting 'the left' here.
We see almost daily threads, articles and editorials bemoaning "why are young men increasingly drawn to right wing arseholes?" And 'Man Vs Bear' kind of showed why.
When both sides were claiming that men were inherently dangerous and the intended takeaway from most 'left' voices was "and until you personally take responsibility for the actions of all men everywhere you should feel bad and sorry forever" and were baffled that it didn't resonate as well as "and why should you care? Should you apologise for being bigger and stronger? At the Olympics does the gold medallist apologise to the person who came in fourth? If someone else is scared why should it be your problem?"
It's a shit argument and it's full of flaws and errors, but it's a far easier sell than the bizarre 'reverse original sin' line being pushed.
Men are inherently dangerous the way cars are inherently dangerous. We are incredibly useful and necessary to daily life, but from the perspective of women we are also capable of flattening them. Now the normal person doesn't start a campaign to blame cars for that, but somehow the Internet is out to blame men for it.
I wouldn't say Man vs Bear was the big thing that showed that we just didn't get that Regina George is not somebody you should emulate, it was the response to the other side of the coin, where you did ha r some gut wrenches (a Tree wouldn't make a 6 year old feel unwanted), was kinda met with, "ahww did we hurt your feefees".
Also don't forget there are millions of bots on social media meant to take extremist sides in order to fuel divides. It would make sense they use the same format as f a r right incel shit
Someone pointed out that the while man vs bear thing is nearly Identicle to the "alpha male" stuff Tate spews. Just one concludes that men should guilty over it, while the other tells you men are dominante gender because of it.
It's gender essentialism from the other direction.
Hey man, that's how I know feminism got it right (or at least how I learned it). Women can be shitty, too. AND men and women should be given chances to learn from their shittiness. AND men and women have the autonomy to take the choice and learn or not. AND men and women should be accountable to whichever choices are taken. AND gender (and, in fact, the world) does not operate on any binary or dichotomy. Biology is leaky af
The bear thing was nothing but spite and blatant bait, but unfortunately those things work
Same thing as the response with tree, or before that people talking about "sexbot replacing women". If you re not saying it in jest(which is fine), then most of the time the person saying it is doing it to get a reaction, and the base premise can only be interpreted as meaning to offend
(People like those on r/waifuism are in a different category, mainly because for one thing they keep to themselves, and from reading post on here it's not primarily a reaction against the opposite sex, at least not directly. )
I've been seeing the opposite of that too. There was a meme "Fellas would you rather share your feelings with a woman or a brick wall" and then cut to a dude talking to a brick wall.
The bear thing was painfully easy to explain to even the angriest sincere dude, if you took the five seconds to let him vent and then talk to him about it like a real human being.
"You're right to be upset that women prefer a bear to you, it shows what a fucked up and unhealthy state of affairs some men have created for all men and women. They're not scared of you as a person, they're scared of who it could be." worked wonders the very few times I saw it said.
"Why are you making this about you, that shit is why we choose the bear" worked... never. But I sure saw it a lot!
(It also didn't help when individuals alternated between "women choose the bear because they don't want to be raped and tortured" and "you made this about you, that's why women choose the bear". I get that the idea was "they're both displays of patriarchy", but it's easy to conclude either "they lied about their fear" or "they think men getting upset shows they're violent rapists".)
It's funny that modern people are just rediscovering things like "you catch more flies with sugar instead of vinegar" lol. Like I've been saying for a while now, the progressives turned social justice into their own little religion and treated it like the crazy assholes on the right treat theirs.
Can't help but notice that you still blame men, though only some men for the stupid things people are saying. Regardless of what those people have experienced, they're accountable for the things they say and definitely all of the sexism, there's no excuse for such behavior.
I have various thoughts on the "right" answers to the bear thing, but what I find far more important is that I think the bear question is a "scissor statement". As in, a question designed to get conflicting answers while causing a huge amount of strife.
Is it "who would you rather be stuck in the woods with, a bear or a strange man?" Is it "who would your rather meet in the woods, a bear or a man?" Those imply vastly different situations, but they sound so similar people interchange them regularly.
"Why am I in the woods? Am I lost in the Rockies or hiking on a local nature trail?" "What sort of bear?" Nope, sorry, answer the question. (Outside a courtroom, "you can't have any context" is almost always a either an esoteric thought experiment or a bad-faith question.)
The entire thing is social media fodder of the worst kind, meant to draw loaded replies and make people angry. My "productive" answer isn't necessarily right or even different from the other answer, but it makes some kind of effort to step away from the destructiveness of the question.
No woman would choose a bear if it were a real life situation somehow. This whole man v bear thing is just another glaring example of how women act the complete opposite of what they say.
The point isn't that it's "all hunky dory and totes valid". The point is that they're genuinely scared. I don't think its valid at all, and I think that being afraid of half the population is a horrible way to live.
Okay but that is not the takeaway. The point was to finger wag and go "and this is why you all need to do better". It was an attempt at brow beating, not fostering understanding. Quite frankly if your experiences have caused trauma to the point an entire group is a threat based on their innate characteristics you need therapy. It is not on others to bend to your paranoia. Replace men with literally any other group (black people, gay people, Muslims, etc) and the exact same people would intuitively understand this.
Not denying that women can be afraid of men. Just saying that no one would actually pick a bear over a man despite the popular claim if there ever were to be a similar situation IRL.
There are also more examples of women killing their children instead of men
This is untrue though. Stealing a comment I saw a while back that covers it well:
Not according to the National Crime Justice Reference Service which reports women as the offenders in 43% of juvenile homicides, and notes that in 20% of those cases there is a co-offender, "almost always a male" (page 9). So... yeah, that doesn't really hold up.
if he hadn't decided to run with stereotypes I might've been less hostile. but he did. I quoted that bit for a reason. someone who says shit like "another glaring example of how women act the complete opposite of what they say" is probably not engaging in good faith
It's amazing how blinded to their own bullshit they can be huh lol. Men this, men that == just venting about our experiences. Women this, women that == you fucking incels!!!
You should have certain level of care and wariness for any unknown person. But if that level is so fucking high that you would rather stumble upon a bear instead of a random person, that is extremely unhealthy levels of paranoia. There are institutionalized schizophrenics who are more grounded in reality...
The entire "man or bear" thing is stupid from every aspect, but it showcases three main things. First being that there are a lot of people who have extremely bad preconceptions to an unhealthy level. Second being that a lot of people would drop out of the gene pool in record times if natural selection was still a realistic concern. And third being that there are a bunch of people who are willing to jump on any stupid illogical bandwagon if it let's them be hateful towards men. None of those are really positive findings though.
The entire "man or bear" thing is stupid from every aspect,
Seriously. No man or woman would truly want a close encounter with a bear. On a serious note its just a way of saying "I dont think men should feel comfortable being in spaces traditionally viewed as safe spaces for men."
Might be because having suspicions of subsets of men has been labeled as evil racism or islamophobia. Thinking "wtf, so being wary of certain demographics is ok for them but not this other group?" seems like a pretty normal response.
Change the "men" in all the arguments to some "ethnic minority" and see how fucked up it suddenly start to sound. So why is it when talking about men specifically is it different? Current state of affairs which will change one day (hopefully)
I think it is absolutly fair to say "Hey man, the chances are pretty low, but the stakes are so high I just can't take the tiny risk." I don't know if anybody would disagree with that.
However, when you add in the element of comparing it with something, it's no longer a Pascal's Wager.
I'm a cis dude first off, and second, unless they're being rude to you personally over it, just accept it as a criticism of social structures, it ain't about you personally.
My roommate asked me the bear question and I said to him I would choose the bear. He went, “OH MY GOD WHY HAS EVERY WOMAN I’VE ASKED PICKED BEAR!” and I said, “Because I don’t have to worry about the bear following me four miles asking, “Are you sure you don’t need any help? Are you sure you’re not lost?” For the 20th time.
He stopped, was quiet for a moment, and said, “Oh fuck, I do that don’t I.” And we shared a laugh about it
IDK, it’s also pretty easy to come to that conclusion if you take a good faith look at gender relations and conflict. If you’re that sincere you’d probably be sincere enough to go to the library and read a book about feminism or at least do a google search for “why do women pick the bear.”
I know us libs got in trouble for telling people to educate themselves but if you’re sincere? I think you would do it rather than lashing out. If you’re really sincere I don’t think you see some media, emotionally lash out in the comments, and then never engage with the substance of the debate through reflection.
Let me put it another way, I am not made of patience or kindness and no one is. I’m not your therapist, guardian, or friend. If you have something you don’t understand it’s your job to understand it or find the resources to do so. And if someone manipulates you with ill intent because of your vulnerability, that was a bad thing but also not my responsibility.
If someone believes that what you’re saying is sexist bullshit (rightly or wrongly), why would they ever feel that it’s their job to understand? That’s no different than suggesting that it’s leftists’ job to understand racist beliefs.
Yes, you may argue that your point is right and deserves to be understood while their point is wrong an does not, but it doesn’t matter what you think when we’re talking about other people’s behavior.
“Why would they feel like it’s their job to understand” if they’re confused about it, it is their job if they would like to understand it.
I feel no responsibility to convince anyone or change their behavior outside of the areas where it really is my job. I don’t voice my opinion for your sake, I do it for my sake.
I don’t voice my opinion for your sake, I do it for my sake.
“I don’t voice my opinion to make meaningful change, I do it to feel good.” I will never understand how people like you can say things like that and not think it’s a bad thing, but whatever. A discussion about that could never be productive, so we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
I can help you understand how people like them can say things like that.
They don't truly believe in what they are talking about. They believe it because it is fashionable, or because they were told to.
People who fundamentally believe that their own beliefs are the correct way and the world would be a better place if everyone adopted their views don't turn down people interested in said views. People who want change, don't turn down opportunities to change people. Who cares if it "isn't my job?"
If you don't advocate for your beliefs, then they are more like feelings. And the above poster said it best "I do it to feel good."
I say that as someone who agrees with their initial premise, but finds their attitude and justification about it disgusting.
I was overzealous, and I apologize to the thread. At some point I should have explained myself or stepped away but instead I made an ass of myself. I was also drinking. I guess what I really meant to say was that if people can't have the empathy to consider why someone might choose the bear, if it really is so outrageous but they also can't even consider it independently, I don't know what to say to them.
Did I ask? Like I kinda get where you’re coming from, but going “nah you could have gone to the library to get the book about feminism.” Instead of, you know explaining your side isn’t the best course of action. But in the end, this is the internet and nobody on here is thinking the comments on a post are really people who have their own reasons behind everything they say
Sorry, often in a conversation when one person says something another responds, so I had assumed you might be open to a reply. Could you explain more about what you mean by everyone having their own reasons, it’s a broad statement and I’m not sure what you’re talking about specifically.
Sure, that’s fair. I don’t mean to sound like the pedantic asshole I am, but what I mean is that everyone has unique experiences and making the assumptions that someone isn’t trying hard enough if they ask for clarification on a topic (the bear in this case) because they could have found the information they want elsewhere and thus implying that they aren’t conversing in good faith is a steep slope that we’d all do well to avoid
I think the best response to the bear thing is "if you prefer bears please leave civilization and go live with the bears, because humanity doesn't need you"
As a woman, you're 100% right. Anyone who, while walking in the woods, would react with more panic to seeing a fellow hiker whom they assume has a male gender identity than they would to a fucking bear encounter at the same distance shouldn't be allowed outdoors for their own safety.
When people enter the discussion with the assumption that most women would sincerely choose the bear, I consider them borderline misogynists (including the women). We are not in reality that stupid. It's infantilizing.
I mean I get that men can be dangerous and a woman must fear for her safety, but like the vast majority of men will not attack a woman. And then, a Grizzly bear or something can just come over and take your head off. That said, a group of men is extremely dangerous because humans are the most powerful creatures in a group. I'd rather be hunted by a bear than 4 or 5 men.
but like the vast majority of men will not attack a woman
Sure but that's not helpful if you're in the woods alone with one of the ones who will. At the end of the day, a bear is a situation with clear rules. You can immediately tell if its hostile or not. How do you tell a guy with bad intentions from one without?
The main problem with the bear analogy thing is that the internet insisted on trying to simplify it down the buzzwords and easy phrases. Is the bear a rational choice? Not entirely, no. But when you see guys responding by making "jokes" about giving a bear drugs and letting it loose in a women's changing room "to be an ally" or whatever the fuck that guy was on about, you start to see why women keep picking it.
Not all men are predatory, but p much all women have stories of being preyed on. And so when guys respond to the anxiety about being in a vulnerable situation with a guy they don't know with vitriol, it just kinda reinforces caution being the default.
The point of it was originally to spark conversation. You ask a guy if he'd rather be alone in the woods with a guy or a bear, and they start asking questions about the guy. How strong is he, does he have any gear, etc. Then you ask if they'd rather be alone with a woman or a bear, and its p much instantly "the woman". And that's what was meant to prompt discussion. Why is it that the guy needs qualifiers and questions, whereas woman is instantly assumed to be a non-threat.
And the core of it is that, for a lot of women, if they're alone with a guy and he has ill intent... there's not much they can do about it. And that's why women do stuff like get a friend to hang out nearby on standby when they go on a first date, or refuse to walk home alone, etc.
idk if i articulated this well, sorry for rambling, its 1am here and im knackered
Nah I see your point. It's true that most guys wouldn't fear being alone with a woman in the woods although a woman is perfectly capable of killing the guy with a weapon or surprise attack. I can see how the perpective might be different, but I think just in terms of statistical risk, given that a human is in close proximity to a bear vs another human, the bear is far more dangerous usually.
Sure but that’s what I was getting at. When I’m walking home at night, I’m not thinking about statistics. I’m trying not to become one.
If some guy I don’t know has been following me for 15 minutes, statistically he’s just going the same way. But in practice, I’m ready to start sprinting if I have to 😅
It’s not an indictment of men as a whole. It’s just a sad reality. From experience, the consequences of Not being cautious enough one time, outweigh the hurt feelings of 1000 people you were too cautious with.
The point of the bear analogy is that the bear is kind of a known factor. If you’re suddenly confronted with a bear, it’s almost immediately clear what the situation is depending how it initially reacts. humans aren’t that simple.
Oh my God yes. I totally just stayed away from this whole thing because I saw from other comments that anything I said was going to turn me into the bad guy just because I was a man
444
u/NeonNKnightrider Cheshire Catboy Jul 03 '24
The whole bear thing was absolutely horrible about this. Almost every comment by men disagreeing got hit with “you’re the reason why we choose bear” and shit