Including, for example, “I think a woman should get all lethally violent with a random dude in a Walmart just because she suspects he might be following her or she thinks he looks creepy”.
But some people in this thread sure are trying to interpret her post as though that’s definitely what she’s saying.
Fair enough. I give. Good night.
As I’m reading this, right now, a show called Shopping With A Killer is on about a creepy guy who abducted an 8-year-old from a WalMart. He raped and killed her. Just saying.
I’m not certain, but is this a classical example of “mansplaining”? A male telling women that their experiences are wrong?
Don’t worry. One problem with having a disability is that it’s often difficult to imagine what life is like without that disability.
So for people who are HCI (hyperbole challenged individuals), it may seem frightening that there is a call on the internet for women to attack random strangers who just happen to be shopping.
Fortunately, for the 99.9% of adults who are non-HCI, adulthood triggers an immune system response in such that such posts and responses are harmless and don’t trigger violence. This allows something which adults who are HCI unfortunately cannot experience; humor. Sadly, this become a negative feedback, as HCI are unable to appreciate facebook posts, and become frightened quite easily.
As a parent and teacher, I can attest that children are born HCI, and only develop the immunity later in life.
There is no such disability. It is not okay to make up a mental illness to attack someone. It’s not even okay to bring up a legitimate mental illness as a way to attack someone. Even if he has one, it doesn’t make him wrong, and definitely doesn’t make him a legitimate subject of ridicule.
Your argument, as much as there is one, is faulty. The post is not so clearly hyperbolic. The actions being recommended – yelling at the person, calling the police, arming yourself with the makeshift weapons around you, and carrying a gun – are all actions that someone could actually take. And they are presented in a way as to seem reasonable. It is not presented at all in the way hyperbole is usually presented
No, the actual favorable interpretation is to assume that certain understood ideas are not being explicitly stated: the weapons are to be used in self defense if the creep escalates. The mention of carrying a gun suggests this, as people who carry often say they do so to be able to use the gun in self defense. Furthermore, there is a clear pattern of escalating reactions, reactions that would presumably be unnecessary if the creep backed off.
That said, DrDeth’s reaction isn’t invalid, either. Creep has a wide range of meanings, and it is not actually that uncommon for someone to think that you are following them when they are not. The post can be legitimately interpreted as a guy who is socially awkward who happens to be going the same way in the grocery store.
Sure, that may not be the intended meaning. But it’s not like people only ever interpret things the way they were meant. I’m not actually worried about the DrDeths who miss the escalation and self-defense aspects, because he at least realizes that said interpretation would be an unreasonable way to act.
I’m worried about the equivalent of the redpiller who saw all the talk about how much the redpillers hated women and wanted to hurt them, and then actually went out and hurt women. They didn’t get that they weren’t supposed to do that.
Memes with violence like this are not good. Empowering women? Good. Advocating realistic violence? Not so much. Doing so in a way that clearly can be interpreted in multiple ways? Definitely bad.
No amount of yelling that you have the one and only correct interpretation and that everyone else is being horrible will change the actual facts. Maybe DrDeth isn’t neurotypical. But neither are many posters on this board, and it doesn’t mean they can’t make them wrong. And even if they are wrong, it doesn’t mean they are malicious.
I for one do not condone the hostility directed towards DrDeth in this thread. I do think he misunderstood why people “like” this meme, but I also think he brings up some valid points. And if the thread wasn’t poisoned from the second post, I think there could have been a valuable discussion.
Instead, it’s just people saying “I have the one and only valid interpretation, and you only disagree because you are stupid, or for malicious reasons!” It’s an argument I’ve unfortunately been guilty of, and will need to watch out for.
They probably expected the same response this normally gets. It’s not remotely uncommon for someone to bring a meme they’ve seen, and bring it up for discussion. Other posters will then discuss what the OP says it means, maybe even discussing how they may have misinterpreted the meme. Usually someone else finds the meme, and any discrepancies are ironed out, and the discussion continues.
This sort of hostile response, starting from even the first reply, is quite unusual. I did not anticipate it either. And if I were the OP, I would feel just as attacked. I just would have apologized for offending people, given it one last shot, and then abandoned the thread if it still remained so hostile.
Heck, I’m leaving now. I responded to what I thought was out of line, addressed why I think this thread failed, defended the OP without agreeing, tried to make peace, and now have made it clear that this is not normal nor expected.
I don’t think there is any salvaging of this thread, only picking through the trainwreck.
So many innocent creepy looking guys being attacked with canned goods. If only Queer Eye for the Straight Guy were still a thing, this atrocity wouldn’t be happening.
I was unaware of this rule. Does it apply to fictional physical ailments as well?
For example: if I, as a fauxsycian in good standing, were to Internet-diagnose a pretend patient with “pontifical digital hyperflexion,” would I risk losing my imaginary medical license?
I work in a store. One of the cardinal, absolutely never to be broken rules is that if there is an disturbance the male aisle workers go to the scene immediately, and the female aisle workers call 911. We get the upper hand in such cases, and do not let it escalate.
If I see a child by themselves, I immediately walk over to them and say “Who are you here with?”
There was an incidence at the local grocery store where a little child was running around crying and everybody was ignoring him. I went up to him and asked “What’s wrong?” He was missing his grandma. I took him to the courtesy desk and they paged her, and she came running and thanked me, and chewed out the kid.
It’s say that nobody will help a child in distress for fear of being labelled a pedophile.
Unless one can grok “creepiness” from a position of societal vulnerability, I would say the words in the OP’s Facebook meme can only ever be ambiguous. The meme says nothing clearly – it’s a Rorschach test revealing something of the reader’s own experiences of the world.
Both DrDeth and those arguing against him are adding a lot of unexpressed meaning to the Facebook meme. People are reading the same leafless autumn branch of an account and then mentally filling different foliage that makes sense in their worldview.
On the money.
EDIT: Stands up on chair and claps for Big T’s post #145. That’s the way it’s supposed to be done.
You should look up other threads he started; this one, for example.
Be that as it may … this thread can stand on its own, can’t it? Dr Deth’s first impression of that Facebook post wouldn’t stand out as odd among reasonable men that I know. Maybe mileage varies here, I don’t know.
I want to return to this, because I think it gives us another avenue of discussion.
Saintly, when I first read your story about being treated unfairly because you are a man in your 60’s with toddler kids, I sort of scratched my head; why wouldn’t they just assume that you are grandpa?
But this part gives us some insight, and I think helps explain (perhaps) your reaction. You have an exotic look - lots of tattoos and long hair. Earlier, I had written that a person would not likely be accused of looking creepy, since creepy was based on actions. But with your description, and in thinking about it some more, I can imagine that people would unfairly stigmatize you as a “creepy” (or weird/strange) guy based merely on your appearance.
Which leads to the big question: Do they have any right to approach you, even at all? I don’t have a good answer. Clearly, the implied violence of the original meme being discussed is completely off the grid (and, from my interpretation of the meme, not applicable to you - I doubt any rational person would agree that you should violent harass somebody in the park who was minding their own business).
But is a polite (albeit suspicious) inquiry ever ok? Even just idle small talk, “Kids! I wish I had that kind of energy. How long do yours last before you can score a nap?”
It’s kind of like the shopkeeper who sees an impoverished person in their store. It would probably be over the top to kick them out (“We don’t want your kind here!”), but if a person went to the person and asked, “Hey, can I help you find what you need?” is that harassment? I ask the question while positing that the shopkeeper does want to ensure that the person is a real customer and not a thief.
I don’t have an answer. I think (like most complicated things) we are dealing in shades of gray here. But I think I sort of understand where Saintly might be coming from, since he feels put upon when he travels to the park. On the other hand, a person who might perceive themselves to give off a creepy vibe might possibly be overly sensitive - sometimes idle chit chat among parents at the park is just being friendly. And of course you are going to ask about the kids - what else is there to talk about when ‘active playing little kids’ is the obvious thing you have in common?
For the love of god, just STOP IT, all right? You’re NOT the Emperor of the Mentally Ill.
Something to strive toward. Is there even such a position, though? (I’m not really up on the whole monarchy thing)
It’s a monarchy that is effected by watery tarts distributing swords.
His posting history suggests otherwise.
If the shopkeeper can smell an impoverished person in their store, politely asking them to leave until they can bathe wouldn’t be out of line.
There are other possibilities with this interaction, like the playground monitor just doesn’t like the way he looks and wants to send that message, and/or is establishing her control over the territory (“I run this park”) which is well within the range of neighborhood authoritarians.
Sheer poetry.