802
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
802 points (75.0% liked)
memes
10547 readers
2754 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
yeah, so then by this logic, women shouldn't be choosing to be with a bear, assuming that's what we're still talking about. Unless this post is meta ironic and i'm missing that from the beginning, than the entire premise of half the comments on this post are bullshit.
yeah, and the reason why people are picking the bear, is due to emotional safety, they do not feel safe around men, that's the point, it doesn't matter whether they are more/less physically safe around the man over the bear, or vice versa, the entire point is the emotional safety. Which is the one thing that people don't seem to realize when commenting on this (granted the meme in the OP seems to clarify this to a significant enough degree i'll give them a pass. My point here is that you need to communicate clearly, because otherwise you could be saying literally anything.
i agree, but in this case, the irony here is that we aren't supposed to care about the feelings of men generically, which would include this, because somehow the entire generic of "women being physically safe" is now more important, than the entire offending class of people against women.
the point here was that these statements weren't related at all. I was literally just putting two irrelevant things together. It's literally just nonsense to articulate my point about why this statement is not a very good one. It's broad enough that my nonsense statement is following the premise accurately here.
What women are saying, is based on all the information shown to them and what they have gathered on their own. Given a choice between a random man and a random bear. They would chose to be lost in the woods with a bear. They feel physically and emotionally safer with the bear. Is their assessment accurate/correct, who knows?
Does this mean all men are rapists? No, no one has said that.
I disagree, why would physical saftey not be important? A bear could be happy just leaving them alone and eating berries. A man might decide to do something physically unwanted/dangerous to them.
I agree, I wish the people who are raging at me and down-voting me would be nice, and tell me what interpretation they have of the statement. Instead I am getting vague feelings posting with no arguments. Thank you for diving into this with me.
No one in this conversation has said that. The feelings of men are important. The feelings of women are important. The saftey of men is more important that the feelings of women.The safety of women are more important than the feelings of men. Saying one does not contradict the other.
I agree, I thought this was a hypothetical, sorry I was wrong.
Men's feelings can have an effect on the saftey of women. Imagine if the majority of men felt like they were owed sex even if women didn't want it. These feelings will cause most women to be physically unsafe.
they're not physically safer though, that's the problem. There is almost no world in which that would make sense statistically. "feeling safe" and "being safe" and two entirely independent concepts, sure you might be in a sketchy area that you know is unsafe, and as a result feel unsafe, that might be because it is unsafe. But that also doesn't mean that it is, which is why people often get caught up with shit in these types of situations.
How many times have you seen someone go "man i just though something bad was gonna happen, and then it did" and yet they didn't do anything about it?
Emotionally they'd prefer to be around a bear sure, but if the statement here is that "feelings don't matter" then the answer should literally be the opposite, because those feelings simply wouldn't fucking exist. on account of the not mattering part you can't just go "well feeling unsafe, means that you think you're physically unsafe" because in this example, there is literally no way to feel unsafe. It's hypothetically impossible. You cannot "use any information you've gathered" because that information is obviously emotionally relevant. The only real data you could use here is statistics, and those would probably paint an extremely favorable position for my argument. (even ignoring the under-reporting, because those are more than likely repeat offenders, who have almost certainly already been reported at some point)
Like i said the OP did a much better job here, maybe the OP of this thread was a little more clear? Idk at this point, but i've seen a lot of "safety is more important than feelings" statements, which would be what i'm complaining about specifically here. If i'm wrong then oh well.
this is the problem. Physical safety is theoretically important here, but we are talking about a rhetorical device specifically designed to be controversial and "illogical" because the entire reason behind it, was to make a point, that women have different experiences leading to them understanding people differently, and as a result influencing their emotional state to a point where it confounds with what is typically misconstrued to be "physical safety" the point of the original statement was literally never about physical safety. If it was about physical safety there would be a 1 in 2 chance that any random man is a serial rapist. Apologies if i'm being a little brazen here, but i don't fucking believe that.
the hypothetical here is literally about being lost in a forest with two less than optimal options, one is a bear, and the other is a man, arguably the animal of your own fucking species is probably going to be more ok with this. This is also ignoring the conflation that the bear is just "fucking somewhere eating berries" and not, with it's cubs. Freaking out because you just fucking teleported into the woods (because otherwise the original hypothetical doesnt make any fucking sense) or at best, not even aware of your presence, which, seems unlikely. While also making the conflation that "a man might do something" yeah, literally anybody could do literally anything at any time. How many people do you see walking down the street with a bag/backpack and don't think twice about the fact that it could have a bomb in it? How many times do you drive down the road/highway assuming that someone behind you, infront of you, or passing you isn't going to fuck your day up completely? The answer is a lot Yeah sure a man might do something, the keyword here is might. The bear might also fucking do something. The man might also not even realize you exist to begin with.
It's important to remember that in the field of statistics, unless explicitly stated otherwise, the functional utility of the term "might" is equivalent across all situations, because there is literally no way to quantify "might" There is no statistical likelihood that something happens, or doesn't it merely has the possibility of happening. Quantifying that is an incredibly easy way to fuck up all kinds of numbers.
yeah, i don't even bother upvoting/downvoting anything because i just come here to talk with people lol. Although judging by this point this thread is probably long enough that nobody is even reading it anymore lol, which is only beneficial to the both of us.
yeah, i mostly just came here to argue that this statement is bad because it's vague and wrong, and neither of those make for a particularly solid argument. Sometimes it's useful to use arguments and statements like that as a mechanism to conceptualize things, which is why i even started this thread to begin with, i thought it would be interesting to conceptualize such a vague statement through such a strict rule set. It's a good way of learning about things, because it forces you and other people to think about it.
yes, the idea there was to make a point about how easy it is to say something nonsensical with no foundation and have people go "yeah that makes sense, i like this statement" people will try to make sense of shit that doesn't make sense, because we've been led to believe that words strung together have meaning. This is why chatgpt is so fucking good.
absolutely (not to mention make them statistically, less physically safe), which is why the statement being parroted by this post irks me, because it's obviously not considering the whole picture. And don't get me wrong, i do like the original statement from the get go, because the idea behind it is that "women feel so emotionally unsafe around men, that they would rather be with a bear, in the woods, because they have no prior experience with bears" the point is that it's supposed to be absurd, because it is, and the only reason why it is absurd is to make a point, about the underlying problem. The current problem is that people seem to have lost the concept of the original statement, and are simply now doing the usual "internet screaming match" over it, much like i did earlier in this comment lol.
The point is not that you would rather be with a bear the point is that you would rather not be with a man given the option of a bear and people seem to be focusing on the fact that they would rather be with a bear instead. The underlying problem here, as we can all agree, is that bears are not fun to be around, they shouldn't be more fun than being around a man, that's bad that's not something that should even be possible, yet it is.
I appreciate your reply.
I think this kind of misses the point. Women have given us their feelings on the man/bear topic. Which are implicitly valid as all feelings are (from men or women). Telling them that they have done an incorrect assessment of the situation is invalidating their feelings. This of course adds weight against the man category especially how a large group of people got personally offended by a data point. The interesting piece of information here is that women feel less safe with a man than a bear. Not that their feelings are rooted in reality, because they don't have to be.
The signal the women are getting is that yeah, their feeling don't matter. If their feelings don't matter, what else doesn't matter? Are they going to get "um, actually-ed" when they try to set personal boundaries. Can you see that if a lot of men don't respect women's feeling and personal boundaries that it can turn into a physical saftey issue?
To answer your paragraph about what is likely to happen or if the assessment is correct. I don't care. It's a roll of the dice. The bear will kill the woman sometime and the man will kill the woman sometimes and other times nothing will happen. I am not a bear scientist nor a sociologist, I don't have the numbers in front of me. The question of what actually would happen is uninteresting to me as it is a hypothetical. We don't need to accurately prepare for the man/woman/bare/woods situation, it's not likely to happen.
I did a quick (probably bad) google and I got this: "1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed, 2.8% attempted).". from https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem.
oh absolutely, my problem is less with the example, and what people think about it, because it's impossible for me to understand another persons position on account of not being that person. But the way that it's being portrayed. Like you said, it's about the meta conversation, not the literal statement. Which is why i initially found it really weird that people kept re-iterating that initial statement, expecting people to somehow understand the underlying meaning behind it, even though that was never elaborated on.
Also it's not that their feelings aren't rooted in reality, it's more so a hyper reality, where the potential for something to happen goes from potentially, to almost certainly. Which is understandable given their experiences, but again, misleading which is important to keep in mind when talking literally about the subject. (which is not what we're doing here to begin with so meh)
where is this signal coming from? My thread specifically, this post more broadly, the topic at hand, or in a societal fashion? If we're talking on a individual level, just one person, you or me, feelings mean literally nothing, they are magic. We do not understand them. You put two people in a room together and suddenly those feelings allow an incredibly in depth level of communication and interaction between two people. They seem to be specifically for the use case of people interacting, you put a group of people in a room, and cliques will form, people will break off, and sub group with each other. In this case feelings seem to drive a functional cohesion between groups of people, while enabling conflict resolution. My question here is that these things are complicated, i need more specifics to properly understand what you mean here.
yeah this is what i'm kind of stuck on here, why are people using the hypothetical then? Wouldn't it be vastly more productive to talk about the underlying problem? Yet some people seem/seemed deadset on solidifying the conceptualization of the hypothetical, even though people clearly didn't understand what the purpose of it was.
i understand that it's high, the interesting stat to me here is how many unique men a single woman will interact with throughout her life, because pairing those two stats together gives you a very detailed understanding of both how these things work together, and how we can conceptualize the stats for this specific hypothetical, as well as more broadly, since yknow, we interact with people, it's kind of a requirement for living. I imagine that specific stat is probably going to be much much lower than one would think. Given how many people you pass by on any given day.
A very large amount of people who think the result of the man/bear thought experiment means that all men are bad/rapists. I have been arguing with quite a few.
So, I am confused. I thought we disagreed on more. But I think we agree on most things. Am I missing something?
ok so it's more on a thread/societal level then, yeah that was pretty much what it thought as well. Just wanted to be sure before trying to pull shenanigans or anything.
We probably agree, my problem is that i think people are shooting themselves in the foot by not correctly representing the situation here and as a result, not doing a net positive (or as much as they could be), or potentially even a net negative.
Basically TL;DR "litmus test" for this, is that if someone comes in and says "are you calling all men rapists?" you've probably done a funny somewhere, and it should probably changed. Obviously theres always going to be the one dude, but that's an exception so i'm not counting that. It's just important to be careful about who you consider the exception to be, because in ww2, it was a little spicier than the topic at hand today.
I mean, it also could be intentional. Some people really do hate women. So the first thing they did after the man/bear thought experiment was to say "Oh look women all think all men are rapists/bad. There is some kind of gender war going on here". A lot of people I have talked to have chilled out after I ask "Who said that all men are rapists? No one is saying that." They realize they might not have understood the original issue or have been mislead.
That's what I like about this meme. The statement is fundamentally true. It is a sub-set of "Feelings are less important than safety". Anyone who upset about it is either someone who is uninformed or mislead. Orrr someone who wants their to be drama, someone who wants women to be afraid or be victims and/or wants men to be hopeless and upset. If you are just uninformed a quick question can resolve the issue. If it is intentional, a discussion should ensue that make their ideas look a foolish or wacky.
yeah, ideally you shouldn't be saying something that causes this in the first place, but that's an impossible problem to solve, so the second best solution is to just be clear and concise about what you're talking about. Which people on the internet hate doing because funny short quip get updoot instead.
Unfortunately, i saw a lot of real silly for lack of a better term here, responses to people either not understanding it, or not being able to comprehend what was going on. Wouldn't be the internet otherwise i suppose.
so technically, the statement you quoted here is a sub set of the original statement provided in the meme, which is a super set of of this. Though i suppose that depends on how you define it, because if you're going by how wide of a net it throws, it would go the other way.
Personally i also really like the way the meme is structured, because it leaves very little room for misinterpretation, i just don't really know that it provides the proper context to someone that hasn't seen it because, well, at least one of the threads is deleted, and the other is like a week old or something. But assuming you have the context its great. What i don't like is people bastardizing it and saying "feelings are less important than safety" for a few reasons, but notably because this sentence makes no sense semantically. Given that feelings are often what produce a sense/feeling of safety for most people. It just doesn't seem to track. Unless you're talking explicitly about physical safety, in which case it would make sense, but then we'd be ignoring the entire point of the bear v man statement all together. And it's lost all meaning suddenly.
Plus it's also incredibly vague, i cant remember if i went into details in this thread or another one, but it could mean literally fucking anything, unless you have the "inside knowledge" it's an obtuse statement to the point of it being hard to understand. Which is another problem i have with these sorts of statements, they only really make sense to an "in group" most of the time, which is great for the ingroup, but sucks if you aren't in the in group, because then you get the hexbear instance problem.
I agree with most of what you're saying.
You keep coming back to the vauge thing and I don't understand how it's vague.
If I didn't know any current events, I would still agree with the statement. I might be curious as to why the statement needed to be made but that is something I could figure out later.
it's important to remember that the consumer isn't you. Notably, i'm rather predisposed to autistic mannerisms when it comes to thinking about things, so if you hit me with something that is missing obvious context that i should have in order to understand it, i'll make a mockery of it by misinterpreting the ever living shit out of it because i think it's funny.
Another big thing in this case specifically, is that not everyone is a female, or has had those experiences, nor have they talked with people about them. Like i said previously (womens safety is more important than mens feelings) is pretty easy to glean information from (safety is more important than feelings) means almost nothing in comparison, even though you removed two words. You removed two words, and replaced those specific subjects, with what could be literally any other subject like i mentioned previously, feelings are rather intertwined with safety most of the time.
Which can lead to really funny misinterpretations of this statement specifically where you think it's talking about the fact that you need to separate your feelings from your sense of safety, because often times they can be irrelevant, which is true. But also not what we're talking about here. But given the recent bear thread that happened, is that what we're talking about? I'd probably say no. But hey look at that, i might be wrong and misunderstanding it entirely, when in reality i could've nailed it right on the metaphorical head here without even realizing it.
As far as i'm concerned, we could be talking about the very broad interpretation i lined out, as well as the more specific one laid out in the pretext, and to be completely honest, i'm not fucking sure which one it is. Both of those make perfect sense to me given the contents of it, and contexts surrounding the other.
Thank you for explaining that.
Hilarious, I do like a good trolling.
Like what context specifically?
Can you give me some specific examples? It would help me understand.
Which is fine. English is a very imperfect language (most languages are, but that is the best we have). Most of the people are wrong most of the time, including me.
What is your threshold for vagueness here? You would need to have a programming language to remove vagueness down to 0% and encoding this meme perfectly would be 20 pages of code if not more.
the context that lead to the statement being made in the first place. You can think about it a little bit like crypto. Unless you have what was used to construct it, you cannot deconstruct it, or at the very least, you have no guarantee of being able to deconstruct it effectively. (yes technically pub key is a little different here but for all intents and purposes it works the exact same so)
i provided one in the above statement which was a very literal interpretation of that statement, which quite literally interprets the fact that your feelings sometimes provide negative influence to your perceived safety. To use a specific example here, you may have a fear of heights, which leads to you feeling "unsafe" at heights, even though it's a psychological adaptation that you have causing it. Although in that case it's pretty well understood to be a psychological adaptation of something, so that's not a common thing.
yeah, and this is why i try to be pretty specific about things when i talk about them, or at least specific enough to provide base information, because if i were fully specific, i would be there for hours.
My baseline test for whether something is too vague, is if you couldn't inform someone of something with that statement. If you say a statement and someone goes "yeah no i don't get that" it's probably too vague. In this specific example, the way the meme in the image is worded is basically perfect. I don't think you could really do a better job there, it's missing the bear context, but frankly, i don't think that's needed given how specific that statement is. You don't always need context in statements, sometimes it's situational like in this case, and other times you just can't be bothered. But then you also need to be ready to explain it, because people aren't going to understand it.
but bringing it down to something like "safety is more important than feelings" is so inherently vague that unless it's directly referenced to this meme, it has basically no meaning. Considering that we're in this thread, probably not a huge issue. But my concern would be people using it outside of this thread, because of it's short and concise nature. Which could very easily lead to a very messy/confusing thread.
But I don't think that context is necessary to agree/disagree with the statement. What context could men's feelings be more important that women's safety?
Sorry, I was expecting something worded like "I feel less safe up high because I am afraid of heights so how can feelings be less important than safety", so I didn't catch your example.
Yeah, I think that someone could interpret it like that. But I feel like you could pretty easily explain that feeling safe and being actually safe are not the same things. Someone who is confused can easily be caught up and someone who is being malicious would have a hard time not looking silly. I feel like this level of confusion would have a pretty low occurrence count. So I feel like this specific confusion would be a reasonable risk.
My issue with this is that depends on the people joining the conversation. Also depends on how malicious they are. Like if someone didn't know what "safety" meant. You can solve this by copy-pasting the dictionary definition of "safety", but then then the next person who joins might not understand the concept of feelings, or not understand some of the words in the definition of "safety". This is a never ending task.
I think a better way is to target a specific audience. You will lose people outside of that target, but that is unavoidable and will happen with any strategy. Hopefully some of them ask questions or for clarifications, so your message can spread to those groups. I think it is important to be as inclusive as you can be. But most people on here (including me) are doing this in their spare time. So it's not like we have much flexibility to improve things.
That all being said, I think this meme was well targeted and effective. Did we solve the problem, no, that was never possible to begin with. But we did provide nice discussion about it. We let the extremists show off how silly they were. We let confused people ask questions and get answers. We gave the general public a good showing so they can decide what is right and wrong.
In my mind this is as vague as the original post when it comes to the truth of the statement. The only difference is adding genders which doesn't affect the meaning of the statement.
there's two primary statements here, i'm talking about the less specific one, the more specific one is generally fine. But to humor you regardless, i think if you don't have context to something, you simply don't have the full understanding of it, or capability to think about it in the same way as the person presenting it, which often causes issues. To humor you in a literal manner, men having the feeling that raping women is a thing that shouldn't happen, is probably more important than womens physical safety.
yeah, but given that in this case, it's basically the difference of two words, i think it's probably fair to assume the more contextual version is better. I would get it if this were like, paragraphs worth of detail, but considering we're at the level of like, 5 words. It's probably hard to convey a message with that so it's generally better to aim for the side of detail rather.
to nit pick a little bit here, technically pasting the definition of safety probably wouldn't help, considering that it's describing physical safety, and we're generally talking about felt safety here.
yeah targeting an audience here will help a lot with that, problem here is that i'm not sure what audience we're supposed to be targeting? because last i checked it was all of men, or at the very least, the ones that rape women. That seems like a pretty broad audience to me, so i feel like if that's the intended target it should probably be more self contained in that respect. Then again this might also be lemmy specific? But even then i'm not really sure how significant that would be. With really short statements intended to make a point you often tend to run into the issue of reach, how do you most effectively reach people, while still functionally explaining the situation at hand. It's why public speaking is a literal career.
yeah the meme in this post is pretty good. The previous threads? Eh, i would describe those as more of a shitshow, than anything else. This really seemed like the tumblrcon of lemmy to me more than anything. Or maybe the most recent CPAC of lemmy? That was a weird conference...
yeah and in a sense i suppose that's kind of my problem with it, i didn't like the original statement because it didn't do a very good job articulating the point it was supposed to articulate, and i liked this one, because it did a pretty solid job of it, and then people immediately proceeded to remove two words from it in order to make it much worse, for some reason.
Wouldn't be the internet otherwise i suppose.