You seem incredibly well adjusted for what you've been through and clearly you've learned a lot from your life experience. Thanks for laying all that out. It was very insightful. I think we agree on 99% of this. So at the risk of splitting hairs, I'm going to put a magnifying glass on that last 1%.
I think fear absolutely victimizes people. I've seen xenophobia and homophobia do plenty of damage. Men are far from a disenfranchised minority and I think the issue of women's safety is much more pressing than men being treated unfairly in some situations. But it still shouldn't happen.
You're right that in a way it's the fault of the dangerous men who abuse women. But in a way, hypothetically, it's really the fault of their parents who sexually assaulted them. But in a way it's the fault of their parents genetics that made them mentally unstable, etc, etc all the way back to the first multicellular organism. This thinking, however true, isn't very useful. People need to take responsibility for their own actions.
We agree fear is not an excuse for misandry. I don't think it's unreasonable for women to fear men after having a traumatic experience. However I can still point out the problem here. I think a good example is the trolley problem. If you pull the lever to only kill one person instead of six, I can both: agree with your decision but also point out that you killed someone. You can argue that's insensitive to your difficult dilemma, but I think it's worse to pretend like someone isn't getting hurt. That one person who died still was a life with people who will mourn them.
I think what's irking men about this whole bear thing is not that the result is not what they want or even what they expect. It's that a huge chunk of people seem to not even see it as a problem that most men are being judged for something they have nothing to do with.
This is a great look into the mindset of someone who's been through SA. Thanks for sharing.
The point I think a lot of men are trying to make is that: In the same way that somebody who commits SA may have been abused themselves, women who are prejudiced against men create a new victim. Treating a harmless man as worse than a dangerous animal is an experience that most every man goes through and that sucks.
I can understand and sympathize with your position. But it doesn't absolve you of your behavior. Just like someone who commits SA isn't off the hook because they were beaten as a child and that screwed them up. I feel for someone who was abused growing up, but they don't get to throw up their hands and say it's not their fault they victimize others. Compassion is crucial, but at the end of the day, everyone is responsible for their own actions.
Best take in this thread by a long shot. I'd like to add that there's nothing wrong with a little thought experiment to illicit a point. But the internet has become such an inhospitable place to any kind of discussion requiring nuance and patience.
What I think is astonishing to some people lately about Cyberpunk, is that they got most of their information from the popular channels on the internet. Despite its name, these channels (reddit r/all, Twitter, etc) are a (loud) minority of the actual opinions.
Pretty much every one I talked to IRL about Cyberpunk was aware of the controversy, but had a much more nuanced opinion than I was seeing online. Many of them enjoyed it and weren't really experiencing that many bugs (myself included). But this wasn't an "allowed" opinion online. Anyone who said the game was enjoyable or they didn't personally experience many bugs were attacked for being a CDPR fanboy (myself included) and down voted.
The whole game has an amazing story, that actually hooks the player's emotions. It's fantastic. It's so refreshing after so many games with lazy writing or voice acting. I also played shortly after release, only experiencing 2 major bugs in my playthrough. I know others had it worse, but it was actually refreshing on that front too.
Totally get where you're coming from. But you can enjoy the game and dislike the way they marketed and released it. 90% of life isn't a zero-sum game. Despite what the internet would have you believe.
My analogy makes it clearer to highlight a point. But you're right that Honda wouldn't shut down if these regulations are passed. But It could be that the companies they're partnering with are giving them a cheaper rate on infotainment systems for a cut of the data that's collected. If we made Honda produce two Civics. One that steals your data and one that is just $200 more expensive, then we fully educate people on why the more expensive version is better. And then they STILL chose the cheap data miner. Then taking that option away with regulation is wrong. I might not agree with consumers here. But the reality is that they might just not agree with us about what's important. Enforcing a choice because we "know better" isn't right.
If the majority of people come together to push a regulation because it's something we don't even want to consider when purchasing electronics, then great. I'm just not sure that's the case. And I think we get into trouble jumping to regulation on every issue because often what people say they want, isn't really what they want.
I agree that people can't learn everything about every market. But what people care to learn about and pay attention to counts for something.
Imagine your friends are trying to decide on a place to eat. You suggest a very healthy restaurant where all the food is listed with ingredients and their source farms. But then someone says, "Eh, I wanna save money. Let's do Taco Bell." You explain that that's an objectively worse decision. That food health is really important. That in the long run, eating unhealthy actually costs more in medical bills. But they decided to go to Taco Bell.
Putting your foot down and demanding the healthy option might objectively be the "right" choice. But in reality, they'll just get Taco Bell on their own time and resent you for taking their choice away. People have to be presented with the information and decide for themselves or they'll just resent the institution enforcing the choice.
Well you are voting with your wallet, the only problem is you've been out voted. Honda makes good automotives and part of the "price" now is people giving them their data. People just don't understand/care enough to not want to buy a Honda. If this were really a big deal to people it would open a place in the market for new automotive companies like Rivian, Lucid, or Polestar to gain massive ground by not doing this.
This is an education issue. We need to inform people about the dangers of a lack of data privacy. If they still don't care, then so be it.
Well that's exactly the point from my perspective. It's really shitty here in the stage of technology where people are falling victim to this. So I really understand people's knee jerk reaction to throw on the brakes. But then we'll stay here where women are being harassed and bullied with this kind of technology. The only paths forward, theoretically, are to remove it all together or to make it ubiquitous background noise. Removing it all together, in my opinion, is practically impossible.
So my point is that a picture from an unverified source can never be taken as truth. But we're in a weird place technologically, where unfortunately it is. I think we're finally reaching a point where we can break free of that. If someone sends me a nude with my face on it like, "Is this you?!!". I'll send them one back with their face like, "Is tHiS YoU?!??!".
We'll be in a place where we as a society cannot function taking everything we see on the internet as truth. Not only does this potentially solve the AI nude problem, It can solve the actual nude leaks / revenge porn, other forms of cyberbullying, and mass distribution of misinformation as a whole. The internet hasn't been a reliable source of information since its inception. The problem is, up until now, its been just plausible enough that the gullible fall into believing it.
Totally get your frustration, but people have been imagining, drawing, and photoshopping people naked since forever. To me the problem is if they try and pass it off as real. If someone can draw photorealistic pieces and drew someone naked, we wouldn't have the same reaction, right?