The whole discussion is entirely feelings based, as despite the percentage men actually committing being really low (as far as our stats can tell) it doesn't really matter that much.
Same with the bear, actual bear attacks are so statistically unlikely to occur that it's irrelevant to the discussion, even if we had the required stats to make it a 1 to 1.
Assuming only 1% of men do something (illegal or otherwise) that makes a woman feel afraid, that 1% can do that to multiple women. If they do it to 100 different women, that's enough that 100% of women have experienced it.
Negative experiences stick in our mind a lot more readily than good ones, and it creates the perception that a chosen random man could be more dangerous than a bear.
And I'm not saying they're wrong, my take away is still that enough men are shit, and we as a society need to do better.
Equally, using shock value and absurd hypotheticals is going to cause emotional reactions in men, and sure, that gets the message out. But we can't act surprised and start demonising men when they act shocked and disagree with the absurd hypothetical. It's valid to feel hurt by the statement, and telling people their feelings don't matter distracts from the issue
This post, and most of the other bear ones, are in normie forums full of people not familiar with feminist discourse. The reason for that? It's funny, cathartic, shocking, and a little inflammatory. And that's fine, it's meant to be. It gives it reach and allows people to learn and others to teach. The problem is that when men do find this to be shocking and inflammatory, they need to channel that emotion somewhere, and antagonistic/angry internet discourse is not the correct way respond to that.
There was a popular post the other day of "If you don't understand why women pick the bear, you are the bear", that directly antagonises the exact people who need to hear about why women choose the bear, and those people don't need to be antagonised, they need a little empathy and non-confrontational discussion to get there.
When I talked to them calmly, and acknowledged the way they feel, validated their emotions, then explained the topic to them, every single one I talked to accepted the core point and came out better for it. Take that angry energy, educate, and direct that energy in the right direction.
It's not that men's feelings should trump women's safety. It's that you need to think about why people are disagreeing so you can effectively talk to them
You're correct, but you're every bit as angry as they are, and your comment is so devoid of any respect or empathy for men as fellow human beings that you're only making things worse for everyone.
You are the ammo that anti-sjw grifters put in their guns.
Like it or not, men are 50% of the population, and no one is getting anywhere by needlessly antagonising them
I get that, and you're right. But a lot of people are taking the meme too far, and taking something that was originally good, and making it it anti-men.
Men's feelings actually matter, and we as society need to start actually thinking about them, rather than just telling them to man up all the time.
I've talked to a whole bunch of anti-bear men, and all of them accept the point when told in an empathetic way that acknowledges their right to feel the way they do. You can take that feeling and channel it as a force for good, rather them antagonising them and pushing them further away
(Not saying you in particular are doing this)
Edit: Please respond instead of downvoting. I'm failing to see the problem with identifying that there's a enough antagonistic commenters that maybe it's pushing people in the wrong direction. And we now require an over-correction of empathy to undo that damage.
So when is a societal ill not the patriarchy? There doesn't seem to be any delineation between what is and isn't, so it almost seems like some sort of mysterious Satan figure
It's experimental tech, I wouldn't want to be the Guinea pig either.
However, if I was quadriplegic and could only use the somewhat limited external tech, and a significant portion of my life was interacting with a computer. Fuck yeah the risk is worth a performance boost. Especially considering this is going to be a lot safer and more powerful when it hits the mass market
Totally agree, they'll never go for that.
I meant licensed as in that the media is being legally distributed. But they wouldn't go for it as it would mean that customers might have an amount of ownership.
The distinction is that the private tracker is legal to run, as you'd be paying the licence holder for the ability to torrent using their private tracker.
I like the Audible idea of "you have X amount of GB a month that you can download, and you can pay more for more GB". It gives the customer a reason to keep paying, and therefore allow the business to exist.
Licence is probably the wrong word as I'm not anywhere near an expert on this
I'd pay 40€ a month for an officially licensed private torrent tracker. If they gave discounts based on the amount seeded I doubt they would even need the stupidly expensive infrastructure.
I don't even have the arr stack because it's cheaper, just because it's more convenient and no one can take it away from me