795
A bit late
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
"b-but bears are actually dangerous!" Shut the hell up.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
795 points (74.9% liked)
memes
10206 readers
2635 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You are, right now. This post was, as well as every other post. I'm not just going to sit here and bite my tongue. The entire thing was designed as an attack to get a rise out of people, and here it is. Thanks to whoever made this post.
What kind of person would I be if I weren't willing to defend myself?
Okay then defend yourself. Do you agree with the statement? Women's safety is more important than men's feelings. And for the love of God why?
Make your arguments or be a coward.
I can't believe I even have to explain this.
There is no way to argue against a statement like "Women's safety is more important than men's feelings" because it's such a loaded and ambiguous statement. It's just as loaded and misused as the statement "it's wrong to murder children" when used by proponents of banning abortion and limiting women's reproductive rights. You can't argue that it's okay to "murder children" because it's not okay to do that, but they're intentionally misusing the statement to their own benefit for the emotional impact.
There's probably some name for this logical fallacy, but I don't know what it is. But the important thing is that you've fallen victim to it. "Men's feelings" and "women's safety" don't negate each other, and they don't have to compete; not unless you challenge somebody to argue against the statement "Women's safety is more important than men's feelings" exactly as you've done here. You're manufacturing conflict from out of nowhere, and it's an annoying distraction from real-world issues.
Why don't you target your statement a little better? Why don't you hold the actions of rapists and abusers against rapists and abusers, instead of innocent men who've done nothing but try to live their lives and respect the people around them?
Get off your fucking high-horse and rejoin reality with me where we have mutual respect for each other, whether you're a man or a woman.
Yes there is. Show how the statement causes harm. If it is too ambiguous, make it concrete by interpreting it.
For the most part you are right (most feelings are not problematic), but there are situations where Men's feelings do affect women's safety.
For example. If a Man feels like he deserves sex even if a woman is not interested in having that sex. Another example is if the average man feels like they rightfully control or are better than women. Then that makes that society less safe for women.
But yeah, if a man feel sad because his favorite driver loss the race, that doesn't harm women. To me, these kinds of feelings were never the issue.
I am confused about you got here. Is this post calling you a rapist? I have yet to judge you on anything. I am just trying to understand why this post is getting you so upset. If it turns out this post is upsetting to you because you are a rapist that thinks that women shouldn't have safety, then your reactions would make sense to me. As of now, I am still confused.