1690 pts ยท April 18, 2013
The rate being low compared to natural death and other causes doesn't change it's the only significant predator, it's also not so low if you include sexual violence. Japan has a few hundred homicides a year, that number is not zero, although the rate is one of the lowest. Nothing was blamed on all men.
It's presented as "discrimination against Jews" by Zionists and the point is to highlight how ridiculous the examples given are. People don't give examples of "discrimination against Israel" so using Israel just wouldn't work as a statement, it would make the examples seem much more reasonable since they're usually examples of criticism/opposition to Israel, not discrimination of Jews.
Sorry, don't disagree with the lady and it wasn't really a reply to your comment, I just had a more positive interpretation of the comment you were replying to, but they decided to reply and prove me wrong. So yeah, just ignore me.
1. The context is a woman saying she'd rather encounter a random bear than a random man. There is no "all men are [negative thing]" statement. It's not about anyone and there's no reason to get upset and in someone's face about it. 2. She's not writing laws. It's not like we're putting people away over this. She prefaces by "I think." It's perfectly fine to lump someone getting angry about part 1 with dangerous men. There's no incentive or duty to verify with someone who starts by being hostile.
Like 99% of people would likely make exceptions if the reaction isn't aggressive/anger, and be willing to explain/clarify. People are usually very understanding. Not apply it this literally. But if the first reaction is anger, that is a very bad sign as to general behavior/reaction in other situations. The distinction as to if they're actually dangerous or not is irrelevant, most people won't take a chance to try and find out.
That's the thing, it doesn't really say that. You can interpret it that way, but most people are lenient on choice of words and take a generous interpretation. They don't expect people to be excessively verbose, literal or careful with words at all time like it's a contract. In the context, you can easily interpret it as men that are upset, as in being aggressive/offended about a woman being apprehensive about them as a stranger, as if it's a personal judgement about them, as outing themselves.
It's also a respect of personal choice kind of thing, as in personal preference to what one is more comfortable with, since there's not necessarily data gathered as to which is more dangerous and the harms are different, so it's a lot of personal risk assessment.
Point of choosing the bear is entirely to point it's an equivalent type of choice and not personal, but just like the bear, as a stranger, you need to be approached the same way as a wild animal, as you are an unknown and behavior cannot be predicted. It's just a more convoluted way to say something similar to on dates, women may take precautions and it's not personal judgement, there's simply no way to tell if a man is of a dangerous type. Which I think makes it rather poor at making its point.
There's no blanket statement about a large group of people being made. That's the point I'm making. Choosing the bear over a man isn't a blanket statement about men. Referring to men getting upset about a woman choosing the bear refers specifically to men being offended a woman would choose a bear over them, not all men. But people will understand it as such and get insulted because they interpret it broadly/literally, not only because that's how they behave or points out their bad behavior.
4. Not everyone will get the point, especially with choosing the bear not being the most literal and straightforward statement. I normally advocate for more grace because language is difficult, although I get that online it's harder to tell bad faith vs misunderstanding. Also damn, that was longer and more rambling than I initially expected.
3. Case in point, the person you replied to seems to have missed no general statement was made about all men, and that "all the men that got upset" is specifically referring to men getting upset over women choosing the bear over them, and not just upset more broadly about any part/details of the statement.
2. Like a neurotypical will likely immediately get the point "just like a bear, a random man is an unknown and potential threat and has to be approached the same way" and will also likely understand the lady means "all the men that got upset" as in "why would you choose a bear over me!?" and not annoyed over details or because of a misunderstanding or any such kind of way which people would usually catch on and be more gracious about.
1. Think the point is more it doesn't matter if the statement is true or not. The logic "if you get upset over a statement, you are the problem described" is dubious. Someone could make a bigoted statement and getting upset over it doesn't mean one is what's being described and that's why one feels attacked. People can also get upset because they missed the point, or take things literally and get worked up on details/risk/stats.
Yeah Google has become really bad in consistency. Searching for anything just seems much more time consuming and regularly fail to turn up the best sources/info. Not sure how much of that is Google getting worse, or the amount of trash content growing exponentially making it harder to pick the best.
Americans seem to show up anyway despite the police and gun nuts, and it doesn't matter if the closest city in a rural state only has 5k gathering, as long as it happens across the country. Problem is too many Americans not willing to accept the disruption part, just polite chanting in a corner. Really hamstrings effectiveness.
Also hi again, I guess.
Is that ratio inverted? If France has over 3x the population density but largest protest in history was 1/4th of a No Kings protest, would kind of show the US has no problem making big protests. Population is concentrated in large cities for both countries anyway, and not everyone needs to gather in DC. #8 often comes up but I feel it's rather irrelevant. Many Americans not being accepting of protests needing to be disruptive, and even destructive to capital, seems by far the largest issue.
Don't worry about it, I don't really mind. Comments just seem to catch a few downvotes by default these days.
"..., a driver in Ohio lost control of his truck..." right there in 2nd picture.
Still the US doing it, and the US will be treated, as a state, accordingly to how it behaves as a state.
It is, however, unethical investments. Could definitely be said that investment in companies that do evil is wrong.
Canadian banks invested in US companies like Palantir. Pension funds usually buy shares from companies around the globe to diversify. As shareholders of said US companies, they profit from ICE buying from those companies. They do not fund ICE, and it changes nothing about the ability of ICE being defunded. If the US government doesn't fund ICE, ICE has no money to buy services from said companies.
It's a set of expectations and rules about conduct and social hierarchy implemented back when only men were allowed power that persist to this day. While women play a role, even more so in modern days, those rules still bind society to a large degree. It's a tool of oppression and a form of gender war, that's the whole point of undermining it, we don't want gender war or rules dictating how men/women should behave.
It's an arbitrary social order with associated beliefs and rules. The expectations are that men rule and men must be aggressive and ruthless, but nothing about it is actually inherently being a man. So yes, by those arbitrary rules, for women to be seen as legitimate leader, they must "behave like a man." But there is no such thing as men only being a certain way and women only being another way. No one is saying women don't also enforce it or do bad things, or that men are bad.
Didn't say women don't willingly contribute, but men dominate at the top. Expectations of a patriarchal society among others is that men can not be soft, they must be aggressive and ruthless. Likewise, women to be taken seriously in such a society should behave as a "man" to have authority, rather than what's expected of a woman. It's a set of rules and expectations that bind men and women alike that legitimize and maintain power structures. It legitimize the anti-social behavior of the rich.
Patriarchy is not "men = bad", it's the social hierarchy and expectations surrounding it. Oligarchy is very old men centered. Old patriarchs leading society above family patriarchs above young men above women/children. It removes power from women/young people and pacifies men into maintaining that social hierarchy as they are allowed some power. It's a power structure enforcement tool. Abolishing it is fighting the class war.
The Zionists doing the dirty work or supporting the genocide Israel, as a colonial state, is perpetrating. Not Jews.
A large protest that makes the news is flashy and nice for awareness, but they're hard to organize and don't cause much long term problems if they're once in a blue moon. Vast majority of Americans live in urban areas, doing local protests won't be too different travel wise than for the French.
And vast majority of Americans live in urban areas, not in the empty space 5h away from the city. What has the size of the US got to do with ability to protest other than an excuse to promote helplessness? There's no need to have a million people all gathered at the same time in the same city from the surrounding ones to protest. Smaller, dispersed local protests are easier to keep going and can cause more issues than a singular large mass.
It's simply the truth. People on imgur upvote things like nuking Israel now, despite many Palestinians having Israeli citizenship and living, under discriminating laws, within the borders of Israel among other Israelis. It's dumb shit said out of reactive anger and without thinking. /gallery/DByv0uV/comment/2495933439
The rate being low compared to natural death and other causes doesn't change it's the only significant predator, it's also not so low if you include sexual violence. Japan has a few hundred homicides a year, that number is not zero, although the rate is one of the lowest. Nothing was blamed on all men.
It's presented as "discrimination against Jews" by Zionists and the point is to highlight how ridiculous the examples given are. People don't give examples of "discrimination against Israel" so using Israel just wouldn't work as a statement, it would make the examples seem much more reasonable since they're usually examples of criticism/opposition to Israel, not discrimination of Jews.
Sorry, don't disagree with the lady and it wasn't really a reply to your comment, I just had a more positive interpretation of the comment you were replying to, but they decided to reply and prove me wrong. So yeah, just ignore me.
1. The context is a woman saying she'd rather encounter a random bear than a random man. There is no "all men are [negative thing]" statement. It's not about anyone and there's no reason to get upset and in someone's face about it. 2. She's not writing laws. It's not like we're putting people away over this. She prefaces by "I think." It's perfectly fine to lump someone getting angry about part 1 with dangerous men. There's no incentive or duty to verify with someone who starts by being hostile.
Like 99% of people would likely make exceptions if the reaction isn't aggressive/anger, and be willing to explain/clarify. People are usually very understanding. Not apply it this literally. But if the first reaction is anger, that is a very bad sign as to general behavior/reaction in other situations. The distinction as to if they're actually dangerous or not is irrelevant, most people won't take a chance to try and find out.
That's the thing, it doesn't really say that. You can interpret it that way, but most people are lenient on choice of words and take a generous interpretation. They don't expect people to be excessively verbose, literal or careful with words at all time like it's a contract. In the context, you can easily interpret it as men that are upset, as in being aggressive/offended about a woman being apprehensive about them as a stranger, as if it's a personal judgement about them, as outing themselves.
It's also a respect of personal choice kind of thing, as in personal preference to what one is more comfortable with, since there's not necessarily data gathered as to which is more dangerous and the harms are different, so it's a lot of personal risk assessment.
Point of choosing the bear is entirely to point it's an equivalent type of choice and not personal, but just like the bear, as a stranger, you need to be approached the same way as a wild animal, as you are an unknown and behavior cannot be predicted. It's just a more convoluted way to say something similar to on dates, women may take precautions and it's not personal judgement, there's simply no way to tell if a man is of a dangerous type. Which I think makes it rather poor at making its point.
There's no blanket statement about a large group of people being made. That's the point I'm making. Choosing the bear over a man isn't a blanket statement about men. Referring to men getting upset about a woman choosing the bear refers specifically to men being offended a woman would choose a bear over them, not all men. But people will understand it as such and get insulted because they interpret it broadly/literally, not only because that's how they behave or points out their bad behavior.
4. Not everyone will get the point, especially with choosing the bear not being the most literal and straightforward statement. I normally advocate for more grace because language is difficult, although I get that online it's harder to tell bad faith vs misunderstanding. Also damn, that was longer and more rambling than I initially expected.
3. Case in point, the person you replied to seems to have missed no general statement was made about all men, and that "all the men that got upset" is specifically referring to men getting upset over women choosing the bear over them, and not just upset more broadly about any part/details of the statement.
2. Like a neurotypical will likely immediately get the point "just like a bear, a random man is an unknown and potential threat and has to be approached the same way" and will also likely understand the lady means "all the men that got upset" as in "why would you choose a bear over me!?" and not annoyed over details or because of a misunderstanding or any such kind of way which people would usually catch on and be more gracious about.
1. Think the point is more it doesn't matter if the statement is true or not. The logic "if you get upset over a statement, you are the problem described" is dubious. Someone could make a bigoted statement and getting upset over it doesn't mean one is what's being described and that's why one feels attacked. People can also get upset because they missed the point, or take things literally and get worked up on details/risk/stats.
Yeah Google has become really bad in consistency. Searching for anything just seems much more time consuming and regularly fail to turn up the best sources/info. Not sure how much of that is Google getting worse, or the amount of trash content growing exponentially making it harder to pick the best.
Americans seem to show up anyway despite the police and gun nuts, and it doesn't matter if the closest city in a rural state only has 5k gathering, as long as it happens across the country. Problem is too many Americans not willing to accept the disruption part, just polite chanting in a corner. Really hamstrings effectiveness.
Also hi again, I guess.
Is that ratio inverted? If France has over 3x the population density but largest protest in history was 1/4th of a No Kings protest, would kind of show the US has no problem making big protests. Population is concentrated in large cities for both countries anyway, and not everyone needs to gather in DC. #8 often comes up but I feel it's rather irrelevant. Many Americans not being accepting of protests needing to be disruptive, and even destructive to capital, seems by far the largest issue.
Don't worry about it, I don't really mind. Comments just seem to catch a few downvotes by default these days.
"..., a driver in Ohio lost control of his truck..." right there in 2nd picture.
Still the US doing it, and the US will be treated, as a state, accordingly to how it behaves as a state.
It is, however, unethical investments. Could definitely be said that investment in companies that do evil is wrong.
Canadian banks invested in US companies like Palantir. Pension funds usually buy shares from companies around the globe to diversify. As shareholders of said US companies, they profit from ICE buying from those companies. They do not fund ICE, and it changes nothing about the ability of ICE being defunded. If the US government doesn't fund ICE, ICE has no money to buy services from said companies.
It's a set of expectations and rules about conduct and social hierarchy implemented back when only men were allowed power that persist to this day. While women play a role, even more so in modern days, those rules still bind society to a large degree. It's a tool of oppression and a form of gender war, that's the whole point of undermining it, we don't want gender war or rules dictating how men/women should behave.
It's an arbitrary social order with associated beliefs and rules. The expectations are that men rule and men must be aggressive and ruthless, but nothing about it is actually inherently being a man. So yes, by those arbitrary rules, for women to be seen as legitimate leader, they must "behave like a man." But there is no such thing as men only being a certain way and women only being another way. No one is saying women don't also enforce it or do bad things, or that men are bad.
Didn't say women don't willingly contribute, but men dominate at the top. Expectations of a patriarchal society among others is that men can not be soft, they must be aggressive and ruthless. Likewise, women to be taken seriously in such a society should behave as a "man" to have authority, rather than what's expected of a woman. It's a set of rules and expectations that bind men and women alike that legitimize and maintain power structures. It legitimize the anti-social behavior of the rich.
Patriarchy is not "men = bad", it's the social hierarchy and expectations surrounding it. Oligarchy is very old men centered. Old patriarchs leading society above family patriarchs above young men above women/children. It removes power from women/young people and pacifies men into maintaining that social hierarchy as they are allowed some power. It's a power structure enforcement tool. Abolishing it is fighting the class war.
The Zionists doing the dirty work or supporting the genocide Israel, as a colonial state, is perpetrating. Not Jews.
A large protest that makes the news is flashy and nice for awareness, but they're hard to organize and don't cause much long term problems if they're once in a blue moon. Vast majority of Americans live in urban areas, doing local protests won't be too different travel wise than for the French.
And vast majority of Americans live in urban areas, not in the empty space 5h away from the city. What has the size of the US got to do with ability to protest other than an excuse to promote helplessness? There's no need to have a million people all gathered at the same time in the same city from the surrounding ones to protest. Smaller, dispersed local protests are easier to keep going and can cause more issues than a singular large mass.
It's simply the truth. People on imgur upvote things like nuking Israel now, despite many Palestinians having Israeli citizenship and living, under discriminating laws, within the borders of Israel among other Israelis. It's dumb shit said out of reactive anger and without thinking. /gallery/DByv0uV/comment/2495933439