this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
796 points (74.9% liked)

memes

10311 readers
2259 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Very few people someone gets near enough to be grabbed by want to rape them. Nearly every bear someone gets near enough to be grabbed by wants to kill them. A large number of women feel it is better to be killed by a bear than live with their irrational fear that every man they get near shall rape them. The fear not being rational is irrelevant as the fear is based upon a more than likely chance, approx. 25% is reported, that at some point the fear was justified and not irrational. However those numbers are screwy as folks that get raped are more likely to get raped again.

I'd give percentage chances of each occurring, (the National Park Service estimates the odds of being attacked by a bear are about one in 2.1 million​.), but the media seems to only report percentage of gender raped not chance of rape.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

Bears do not want to kill you. They want to be left alone.

I'm not a bear, but same.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Please show where I stated anything of the desires of the bear. I'm hinging nothing on proximity. You are simply assuming things I did not state. I covered that it wasn't a risk assessment. Only thing bogged down is so bogged with your assumptions.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I responded to what you wrote. Yes there was some inference based on your words. I’m not getting bogged down in prescriptive nonsense.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

No, you did not. You wrote in response to what you pretended I posted. You again are only bogged by your choice to pretend I posted something very different than I posted.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[–] atomicorange -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What percentage of women do you suppose have had a man threaten to rape or kill them? Get violently angry at them? Sexually assault them or a friend? I reckon it’s near 100%.

The fear isn’t that all men will assault them, it’s that any man might. It’s not irrational, it’s based on experience. There are men in this thread arguing that women should be arming themselves to stay safe, right alongside men arguing that fear is irrational.

Fuck the men with hurt feelings. Your fellow men have proved themselves dangerous, time and again. Women will treat you like dangerous predators until men as a group start policing their own and building a world where women don’t have reason to fear.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Not relevant to my statement.

[–] atomicorange 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Ok. If you don’t want to discuss why post?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'd happily discussed what I posted. I have no interest in discussing your imaginary post which you chose to address rather than my post. I also have no interest in discussing anything with someone that wishes to pretend I posted anything other than I did.

[–] atomicorange 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What aspect of your post are you interested in discussing? I found your assertion that the fear was irrational interesting, but if that’s off-limits we can talk about some other part…

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The post was in response to someone asking, "Do you have those stats?"
My post referenced probability multiple times.
That is the last of the clues I'm going to give. Perhaps try reading it again and looking up the words you are unsure of. Then instead of attempting to derail by arguing your imaginary discussion, consider that what was posted is exactly what was meant, no more, no less. You'll eventually figure it out.
Nothing is off limits. I simply refuse to play your game of pretending I said something you wish to be angry about.

[–] atomicorange 1 points 6 months ago

Your condescending tone and weird insistence that we only talk about very specific topics in very specific ways makes me think you’re not interested in a good faith discussion at all.

You seem upset, so I won’t push any more. Hope you feel better soon!

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Bruh, it's not even about rape. A dude negatively impacting a woman's physical or emotional well being compromises their safety.

The odds you mentioned of bear attacks seem a lot lower than the odds of a woman having to deal with shit from men. I say this as a man who worked in the boreal for 10 years and with a pile of construction folks (men and women).

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago

None of which is relevant to my statement.