“b-but bears are actually dangerous!” Shut the hell up.

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is specifically about the bear meme though. Way too many men feel personally attacked by women not feeling safe around men they don’t know. Instead of thinking about why that is the men cry and attack the women.

          • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I… What? The hypothetical that some kind of saw game show makes women actually choose? If the feelings are intertwined with safety, you become trauma bonded. Then die or run. Because safety is more important than feelings

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              ok so in the hypothetical presented here the entirety of feelings is less important than safety, yes?

              If so, than feelings that are influencing your understanding/feeling of safety, are completely invalid and null in this case. Because again, feelings are less important than safety, but the problem here is trauma bonding influences your understanding of safety, with feelings. But those feelings literally do not exist in this example, so that entire field is of null value at this specific moment in the hypothetical.

              Safety would quite literally only be dependent on the statistical analysis capability of the individual if feelings are no longer present. Unless of course this statement is written incredibly poorly and does not explain the position it holds properly. In which case, you should probably be more specific.

              My point here is that this statement makes little sense, given that feelings often influence the feeling of safety, ironic really. While physical safety is an isolated and quantifiable fact. I.E. a knife can cut you, you should be careful with it. The felt safety is not something that can be quantified and understood, since it’s based on emotions, and we don’t understand how those work particularly well. But what we do understand is how they influence each other. I.E. feelings can often result in feeling unsafe due to many different reasons. But since feelings in this case, do not matter more than safety does it’s possible that we can delete the entire notion of “felt safety” since physical safety is a quantifiable concept.

              Of course the feelings could matter, but that would be rather silly wouldnt it? Given that the entire statement here hinges off of the fact that “feelings don’t matter” in comparison to safety, that is.

              • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                It feels like you are making a logic knot only for yourself so you then can solve it? I am sure there is something you can gain from understanding that, what is meant here. But I don’t follow your semantic reasoning, I mean… What is put up is that, when your feelings say one thing, but your brain knows another way, and it’s related to safety, you shouldn’t follow your feelings. It’s ofc extremely generalised advice but from an old man, trust me it’s truer than you think. Listen to your brain if it tells you something is dangerous, even if your heart says woohoo. Just in general, that’s super solid advice

                • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  it’s not really a logic knot, i just think the linguistic structure of that statement is really funny. It’s taking a concept that is primarily felt and experienced, and then saying “yeah actually don’t feel any of that.”

                  Which like, makes sense on the surface level, but that’s not what people mean when they say that, unless we’re meta shitposting on the original post here, and i missed that. Which is very possible.

          • letsgo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            32
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            To use more inclusive language, of course. That’s what we’re all doing now isn’t it?

            • Custodian1623@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              29
              ·
              8 months ago

              Then the post wouldn’t have meaning because that’s a universally agreed upon moral sentiment on its face. The post is targeting people who would rather take offense to recent discourse rather than slowing down and considering how this moral sentiment applies to the situation. Without specifying ‘women’ and ‘men’ the post would not have contextual meaning.

              You’re free to make your own ‘inclusive’ meme that states the obvious, but the people this meme is targeted toward would see it as obvious and not consider how it pertains to their behavior.

              • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                8 months ago

                It has the exact same meaning with the inclusive wording, without being adversarial for absolutely no reason. It would work just as well when said to a man getting butthurt over women choosing the bear.

                The wording in the OP is hateful, even if it is saying something morally correct. This is not a “Black Lives Matter” vs “All Lives Matter” situation.

                • Custodian1623@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  That is exactly the situation. No part of this post is hateful; it’s adversarial because women expressed a justified fear and men just “disagreed” because they don’t like to think about it. The point is to be controversial yet morally correct as a statement. It would absolutely not work just as well if it was inclusive, people would just agree with it and no one would care.

                  Do you disagree with the statement? It doesn’t sound like you do. What’s the issue? Who is harmed by this post?

                  • spujb@lemmy.cafe
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    for the record, you are getting downvoted because lemmy is full of men who have not been exposed to feminist theory in any meaningful way. they probably think they are here in good faith but unfortunately are falling quite short.

                    you are absolutely in the right and i thank you for your leveled contribution to the discussion.

            • Custodian1623@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              8 months ago

              The “points” you’re referring to dont at all contradict the OP but merely deflect from the issue presented

          • Katana314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Imagine if the police brutality movement was called “Black Lives Matter More Than White People’s Need To Oppress”. It’s working a needless insult into the message.

            I’d also be okay with other phrases highlighting how safety is a bigger topic for women than men realize, but not one that makes assumptions about “all men”. Even if I was a guy who largely hated the actions of my own gender, you think you’ll get 50% of the world on board by doing that?

            • spujb@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              Black lives do matter more than white supremacy, which precipitates in a perceived “need” to oppress. That is in fact a very poignant statement of what critical race theory is.

              You are on the wrong side of history trying to tone police how women express that they are unsafe.

              • Katana314@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Even if a statement is truthful, it can be demeaning and misleading.

                “Ripping a puppy’s guts out is a very bad thing - so take it under advisement that you should not do that.”

                That’s a ridiculous statement that says something truthful and slyly forms the expectation of blame for an issue on a person. Many men have been violent to women - and many whites have oppressed black people. But twisting the wording to generalizing the group makes people feel like it’s directed personally, and forms a psychological barrier to any response.

                You’re even doing it in this comment about “wrong side of history” - I’ve done nothing to discourage women being vocal about their safety problems; just the pushing of blame to a group that’s too broad, especially since men need to be in that conversation about stopping sexual violence and encouraging safer spaces if we want actual change.

                • spujb@lemmy.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I’ve done nothing to discourage women being vocal about their safety problems

                  By participating in this conversation and telling women how best to express their experiences the moment they speak up, like it or not, you are doing precisely that.

            • Custodian1623@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Does the sign say “all men”? If it did, would it matter? This is the most engagement I’ve ever seen on Lemmy regarding the issue of women’s safety, sorry you don’t approve of it.

      • Kedly@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Because thereal’s version is welcoming and non discriminatory, and the meme is antagonistic by design

        • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          25
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes, it is antagonistic. But is it bad to be antagonistic to people who think that men’s feelings are more important that women’s safety?