Disclaimer: These are not my feelings. Actually I feel the exact opposite, I have simply inserted one word to hopefully illustrate why generalizing groups of people is actually not cool, even if it is a group that is supposed to be devoid of feelings.
No it’s not bad to assume that, because some black men are extremely dangerous. There’s a medical term for what’s going on, prophylactic.
See but then that illustrates my point perfectly, at what point does it become “too specific” for a generalization? I’d argue you just found the line, while all of these statements are accurate:
No it’s not bad to assume that, because some people are extremely dangerous. There’s a medical term for what’s going on, prophylactic.
No it’s not bad to assume that, because some men are extremely dangerous. There’s a medical term for what’s going on, prophylactic.
No it’s not bad to assume that, because some black men are extremely dangerous. There’s a medical term for what’s going on, prophylactic.
The more specific you get the more fucked up it is.
Just as, I’ve been cheated on by three different women and raped by two other different women, so
A) should that make me distrustful of all women? Would it be acceptable for me to hate women now because of those things?
B) which would you say is less of a prejudice sentence, given my personal lived experience:
No it’s not bad to assume that, because some women are extremely dangerous. There’s a medical term for what’s going on, prophylactic.
No it’s not bad to assume that, because some people are extremely dangerous. There’s a medical term for what’s going on, prophylactic.
So, even having been literally raped twice by two different women, were I to actually hate women for it would I be celebrated as a strong independent man or would I be castigated as an incel? Should I start treating every woman as a cheater and a rapist, or should I continue to recognize that individuals are different than each other despite shared genetic characteristics?
Furthermore while we have now gone from the racist trope of the ne**o rape beast (real racist trope that was used for decades, look it up) to now all men are rape beasts, and that technically is progress, is that enough progress? Is that really good? I’m gonna be honest, I think you deserve to be seen as an individual, whether you think you deserve it or not.
You have a right to your own personal assessment of risk. You are entitled to your truth, in that you have experienced women being predators.
The statement that some men are dangerous, is from the women’s assessment of risk, and the truth that they have experienced men being predators.
It’s not about should. If you were suspicious of women, that would be valid. You don’t seem to be accusing any and every women of having ill intentions. The statement that some men are dangerous is also not an accusation against any and every man.
All these comments saying “not all men” are just unhappy that they don’t have control over other people’s perspective. Like it’s not occuring to them that other people can be wrong, and they can just be good intentionally despite that.
People can talk to strangers in public, we’re adults. If she tells him off then he should go away, but attempting to strike up a conversation doesn’t make someone a predator. Entitlement has nothing to do with it.
Your attempt to conflate the two concepts is what I think this other commenter is trying to draw attention to (albeit ineloquently).
You can’t know how a person will respond to an attempt to start a conversation before you attempt to start one, so by your logic no one should ever talk to anyone ever.
If a person doesn’t want to talk, they can say so directly (or more likely come up with some other excuse to evade it). But striking up a conversation in and of itself violates nothing.
The attitude that you are always in the right trying to have a conversation is entitled. Sometimes, you will be right, and sometimes you will be wrong. It’s up to you to be respectful when you are wrong.
It’s up to you to be respectful when you are wrong.
I never said otherwise. Show me where I said “If someone makes it clear that they don’t want to talk to you, you should force them into a conversation with you to assert your dominance.” You can’t, because I didn’t say that.
What I said was that there’s nothing wrong with trying to strike up a conversation, so whatever additional layers you’re trying to add onto that are merely strawmen.
Who said anything about a conversation? This was an opener lame pickup line. Like I already implied in my original post, to assume they cannot take, “no” for an answer (and end of the convo) … is to assume the worst in people.
Interesting how you’re so willing to defend assuming the worst in others. Really says a lot about you…
No it’s not bad to assume that, because some men are extremely dangerous. There’s a medical term for what’s going on, prophylactic.
Disclaimer: These are not my feelings. Actually I feel the exact opposite, I have simply inserted one word to hopefully illustrate why generalizing groups of people is actually not cool, even if it is a group that is supposed to be devoid of feelings.
The more specific you get, the less it’s a generalization and just prejudice.
If you want to be a clown about it, how about I make a change
See but then that illustrates my point perfectly, at what point does it become “too specific” for a generalization? I’d argue you just found the line, while all of these statements are accurate:
The more specific you get the more fucked up it is.
Just as, I’ve been cheated on by three different women and raped by two other different women, so
A) should that make me distrustful of all women? Would it be acceptable for me to hate women now because of those things?
B) which would you say is less of a prejudice sentence, given my personal lived experience:
So, even having been literally raped twice by two different women, were I to actually hate women for it would I be celebrated as a strong independent man or would I be castigated as an incel? Should I start treating every woman as a cheater and a rapist, or should I continue to recognize that individuals are different than each other despite shared genetic characteristics?
Furthermore while we have now gone from the racist trope of the ne**o rape beast (real racist trope that was used for decades, look it up) to now all men are rape beasts, and that technically is progress, is that enough progress? Is that really good? I’m gonna be honest, I think you deserve to be seen as an individual, whether you think you deserve it or not.
You have a right to your own personal assessment of risk. You are entitled to your truth, in that you have experienced women being predators.
The statement that some men are dangerous, is from the women’s assessment of risk, and the truth that they have experienced men being predators.
It’s not about should. If you were suspicious of women, that would be valid. You don’t seem to be accusing any and every women of having ill intentions. The statement that some men are dangerous is also not an accusation against any and every man.
All these comments saying “not all men” are just unhappy that they don’t have control over other people’s perspective. Like it’s not occuring to them that other people can be wrong, and they can just be good intentionally despite that.
Oh word cool, so it’s ok to be prejudice and assume the worst out of a group as long as the group you hate has done anything wrong to you, got it.
Go ahead and keep contributing to the world’s problems by being a generalizing fool.
This is the same logic as the fucking morons that go, “It doesn’t matter who I vote for, they’re all corrupt” … and then vote for Trump.
Implying men are entitled to have conversations with women if they aren’t predators makes you seem like a predator.
People can talk to strangers in public, we’re adults. If she tells him off then he should go away, but attempting to strike up a conversation doesn’t make someone a predator. Entitlement has nothing to do with it.
Your attempt to conflate the two concepts is what I think this other commenter is trying to draw attention to (albeit ineloquently).
The attitude of “my intentions and want to start a conversation supersedes another’s right to avoid one” is the one of entitlement.
You can’t know how a person will respond to an attempt to start a conversation before you attempt to start one, so by your logic no one should ever talk to anyone ever.
If a person doesn’t want to talk, they can say so directly (or more likely come up with some other excuse to evade it). But striking up a conversation in and of itself violates nothing.
The attitude that you are always in the right trying to have a conversation is entitled. Sometimes, you will be right, and sometimes you will be wrong. It’s up to you to be respectful when you are wrong.
I never said otherwise. Show me where I said “If someone makes it clear that they don’t want to talk to you, you should force them into a conversation with you to assert your dominance.” You can’t, because I didn’t say that.
What I said was that there’s nothing wrong with trying to strike up a conversation, so whatever additional layers you’re trying to add onto that are merely strawmen.
Sometimes, there is something wrong trying to have a conversation. Just because you don’t know, doesn’t make it right.
Not to say you should feel bad about it or anything. You didn’t know.
Who said anything about a conversation? This was an opener lame pickup line. Like I already implied in my original post, to assume they cannot take, “no” for an answer (and end of the convo) … is to assume the worst in people.
Interesting how you’re so willing to defend assuming the worst in others. Really says a lot about you…