I mean I can have an inner dialogue, but normally it goes straight onto the idea level of thinking and I don't waste resources trying to shape it into words. I can do that, though.
This post is far from being the first relating to the experience of sexual abuse, and I'm an active listener who is aware of the issues and experiences of women around it and sympathises with people who genuinely share their negative experiences, both women and men, without trying to incline with my own ideas.
This post is not that. It's a ragebait utilizing an attack that is designed to be easily discarded, posted in a community that is targeted at a general audience. They try to make point that men are and should be seen as more dangerous than bears.
In those circumstances, calling someone to listen and ignoring them telling you they see an attack in the way this is shaped is hypocritical at best.
As a wider point, I also say that we should listen not only to women (but to them too), but also to men, if we want to untangle the string of events that leads some men to abuse, similarly to how we need to hear out women when talking about abusive women developing those behaviors against their male partners, friends and others.
If your priority is prevention rather than pure shows of hostility, you better be a listener for both, regardless of the direction of abuse.
No, it's because they really did cause more crimes out of being in the desperate conditions, not due to their nature. And when those conditions got to improve, rates of criminal behaviors dropped too. Same would happen to a white population if they would end up in a ghetto. Similarly, the conditions that form criminal response in some men need to be addressed, if not out of respect, then at least because it actually works. When this was done to black people, the problem of black brutality disappeared as well. And I'm not referencing that out of racism - I literally imply racism doesn't hold any reasonable ground, that people are not born dangerous and that there are factors that influence their behaviors, and put it as an example of people being misguided in the judgment of others for a long time before coming to obvious conclusions that fixed the issue. We just had to listen to black people saying what to do all along.
Same with any oppressed groups. You understand their thinking, you address their needs and remove hostility, discrimination - and they just don't behave dangerously anymore. Muslims integrate amazingly in civilized and accepting societies (and they are amazing people!), revolutions don't happen when the worker's needs are met, etc. etc.
But when you ignore the issues, when you double down on hostility and discrimination, you get terrorism, you get black gangs, you get bloody revolutions, and yes, you have men that dream of restoring patriarchy.
My point is, you somehow make a difference between equal "venting" on black people and on men, even though we still talk about the absolute same act - publicly comparing people with some trait (race or gender) with bears in terms of how dangerous (i.e. bad) they are. And in both cases, this has consequences.
It's one thing to quickly answer an interview and the other to make a wave of shitposting about it, while turning it against men. And telling "it's not about you" is like telling "I don't care what you think of it, I'mma keep doing it anyway", which is not a basis for civil society. Nope, not gonna happen.
Most people are actually passively opting for Windows.
Computers just come with it, or if somebody install it for them, Windows is the default expectation.
MacOS comes with very expensive Apple computers, and most people just choose Windows. The idea of Linux either never crosses their mind, they may not be aware of its existence, or think it's some geeky server thing.
Most people opting for Windows, thereby, don't make a rational decision between Windows, Linux, MacOS, FreeBSD or whatever. For them, Windows is just how computer works.
Undoubtedly, the original hypothetical is a ragebait - but it truly succeeds at forming people's opinions, which is something that can't be ignored when groups of people are attacked.
I'd much rather not have those hypotheticals at all, indeed, and have neutral and positive talks.