I know, I know. But I came up with that first line and couldn’t think of anything better. I hoped the second line would make it obvious who I meant.
Fair enough.
That Man-Bear thread is like a honeypot for opinionated bigots, whether troll or not. They can’t seem to let it go.
I was tempted to post something in the “what are you thinking” thread, but they’re getting comeuppance in situ, so no need.
With @Pleonast on that one. I mean, a lot of posters, some who absolutely should know better are trying to be, at best technically correct on the internet in the worst way.
I refrained for much the same reasons, and it’s why I didn’t post in that thread ( I wanted to do a cross link to the recent thread about bears and firearms, and discuss preparedness in all senses) but that thread is a trainwreck.
Better to just stay away.
That thread is a mess and is now on hold until the Moderators can review the flags.
yep - this is why it’s so useful on facebook, reddit, here, where ever - HERE is the problem between women and men, folks, it’s right here.
I mean, just the “nobody will ask what I was wearing after a bear attack” tells you a lot.
What’s funny about the currently locked thread is that it was bad when I was reading it yesterday and this morning, but by the time I was posting here it was in nuclear meltdown mode.
And
Had never been on my radar before, but oh boy, are they now.
I’m torn on this. On the one hand, statistics really aren’t the point of the original meme, and “technically correct” is a terrible take on how people respond to the original question.
On the other hand, much of the follow-up to the original question is technically incorrect, from claims about “statistically women are safer around bears” to “statistically you’re hundreds of times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be harassed hundreds of times.” And when people make factual claims in support of a broader point, I think it’s worthwhile to make sure those factual points are correct.
If I agree with the broader point, I want to trim away incorrect claims made in support of the point, because those incorrect claims will be used by detractors to dismiss the broader point. And if I disagree with the broader point, I want to confront incorrect claims made in support of it, because I want to undermine the broader point’s support.
M i s l a v is being a massive dumbass in that thread. Undermining his dumbassery by showing how he’s just wrong is (I think?) the best way to move folks away from the position he’s staking out. But I’m also not crazy about just flat wrong claims in support of the wider point: the wider point stands just fine without such claims.
No argument with what you said, but just to highlight that the broader point isn’t whether women are truly safer with a man or a bear. The point is understanding why women say bear, and what men and society as a whole should do about this. Any focus on relative safety, coming from either side, just serves to distract from the underlying problem.
The thread is already re-opened. The subject matter should go back there. Meta talk about the thread and such are fine here though.
Not sure why the dude isn’t banned from the thread.
Threads like that are super helpful for learning things about posters. There’s something about saying “women have to put up with a lot of terrible shit from men and that’s objectively bad” that really brings out the crazy.
I think, and staying within what this thread is about, that this is probably the biggest point of our discussion of that thread. Largely, that it’s about that particular poster making an ass of themselves, and in doing so, largely proving many of the pithy points of the thread. And that several posters, perhaps in an effort to be fair, are treating some of the arguments with more reason than justified by the underpinnings of those making the arguments.
I’m not throwing shade at you LHoD, just that it reminds me of the argument on how there is a non-zero advantage to non-cis females compared to cis-females at the upper ranges of play in sports. Sure, there’s a technical argument or three to be held, but 95+% of the time the argument is being used as an excuse for other feelings about the subject.
Which is why I’m still not going back to the thread, no matter how you phrase the initial question, it shows some bias, and it’s already got septic once - I think it was better left closed, re-done in GD where there would have been a lot more required structure, or in the Pit, where it was headed.
Where it is right now is going to leave nothing but seeping hostility if it isn’t closed again or die on its own.
Aside to @What_Exit , I think this was a sufficiently meta discussion as to the thread, but if not, please feel free to hide or ask @Miller to take action.
Agreeing with that.
I caught myself in the process replying to the probable troll yet again, after it was reopened; but thought better of it. – I think it would have to be re-framed to fit in GD, and belonged where it is when started; but once having headed to pit territory I think it should either be closed or moved there. Or else ban the specific poster causing the problem; though another one may show up.
Maybe reframing it for GD would work. There is a legitimate subject for discussion there, but allowing people to make entirely unsupported claims about the dishonesty of others (even though the others are mostly unspecified and not claimed to be specific Dope posters) isn’t going to lead to legitimate discussion.
Yes! What makes it a potentially interesting question are the experiences and feelings that form the responses. There is no “right answer.” If a multitude of women would rather take their chances with a bear, it’s highly likely their quick responses are not based on detailed research. That’s not the point.
Why it’s almost like some men only engage with women superficially, making little to no attempt to properly evaluate their positions, and are dismissive and/or defensive of any suggestion that this is the case
/s
FWIW, as a man, I might just choose a bear too. Sure, a man can be your best fried, or he can be your worst enemy. And a cunning one at that. And even if a friend, he may yet be a hindrance.
But a bear… is just a bear. No more, no less. If it’s a big enough forest, you probably won’t even know it’s there. Absolute worst case scenario, one of you’s got fresh meat for dinner and jerky for afters.
It’s just not nearly as edgy of a question to me as some seem to presume it is.
I just think a bear is less likely to shoot me.
Depends on the species.
And the country. In America they’re likely to be be exercising their spoonery 2nd amendment rights.