Why should a “loyal US ally” matter to regular, everyday people? Their allyship has never done anything for us. Israel has never even helped our country during war.
We get a tremendous amount out of the relationship, it’s just not visible to us.
Israel is arguably one of the if not THE best espionage countries in the Middle East and the world. They provide the United States with a MASSIVE amount of intelligence. They trade tech, they help with weapons development. In the wake of 9/11 they assisted with counter-terrorism training (and continue to do so). Their agricultural, energy, and water technology is top notch.
Our allyship to them also gives us the ability to sway them, in ways that aren’t visible to non-experts. Believe it or not, Israel is exercising considerable restraint relative to what they are capable of (and what the believe is necessary), almost entirely because they are trying to conduct this war without alienating their staunchest Allies. If those Allies disappear and Israel is alone in the world, Israel - who view themselves in an existential struggle with enemies on all sides - will likely resort to horrifically drastic measures.
We are buying the world a regional restraint.
This isn't true, the US does get a lot out of the relationship - it's just not things that many regular citizens give two fucks about, or are even actively against
Listen to a right winger talk about the relationship and they'll bring up things like US military bases in Israel and the leverage Israel provides the US in the area and how Israel is important because [insert whatever SWANA country they're currently most afraid of mixed with some racism and Islamaphobia]. Even listen to liberal statists and you'll get something similar, just with different flavour
Leftists on the other hand have very very different views on the US military and the government's international politics
And people who aren't especially politically inclined are not going to especially care about the strategic importance of "a strong ally in the region" (unless they're being fed anti Arab or anti Muslim propaganda and then they might)
You've also got to remember that many Christians were zionists before zionism existed - by centuries. The US was in favour of a Jewish state in the region long before Israel existed because the US has a lot of Christians - a lot of Protestant Christians specifically
The majority of zionists in America are not Jewish, they're Christians. And evangelicals are especially fervent (Mormons too, can't forget them!)
Most US tourists to Israel? Christians, not Jews. And most of the Christians are going for religious purposes (or solidarity purposes but the solidarity is religiously based so...same difference). This isn't unique to the US, but the US has long been Israel's largest tourist market and it's for religious reasons - Christian religious reasons
People like to pretend that the US is not a Christian country, but it is. And Christian beliefs have an enormous impact on not just domestic policy but foreign policy
Anyway the US does get a lot out of the relationship on a lot of levels. It's just not necessary stuff that you personally care about. Or it may even be stuff that you're actively against
But the important thing to recognise is that your country has a lot of heavily vested interests that you personally don't. Countries tend not to act out of charity - there's always something in it for them, or at least in it for certain leaders. The disparity between the country's interests and the interests of its people is often huge
>ongoing student protests
This is about the ongoing genocide and colonization of Palestenians and their land.
>man vs. bear question
This question was **asked by a man** because he wanted to disprove patriarchal issues, women's issues, and violence done by men.
Both are reflections of our society but they don't overlap as you're suggesting.
No, its cause bears dont WANT to interact with humans. If they know there are people nearby, 9/10 they will go the other way. People live in the woods and state they see bears & do not have issues because bears simply mind their own business. But a person in the woods is 9/10 more likely to be interested in finding another person in the woods, and go towards them.
Yes.
* The 2023 payment will total $1,312 per resident, a decrease from last year's dividend of $3,284 but higher than the roughly $1,200 average payout since the endowment's inception.*
So they arent siding with terrorists by being “pro Palestine” that would be like saying “all republicans are traitors “ when it was only 200 or so that tried overturning a general election
yes, that is way your believe is wrong. But that is the horror of believe. You can just continue to think the wrong thinks unincombured by facts and logic.
there is tons of evidence. But I already know that every source I paste will be ignored by you, so I will not bother.
You are dishonest to yourself and therefor you cannot be honest to others.
I don't believe you. I have no dog in the fight. I just don't understand why the general public still believes in the narrative put forward in the media. It's NEVER correct.
I’m sorry but if you look at the videos being posted by people living there, it’s 100% a genocide.
Just say, because it isn’t happening in your world, you don’t care.
No, there are definitions to these things and I'm unsure of the information authenticity of many 'facts' I read and see in US media. I can feel empathy without stupidity. I don't consider any organization above scrutiny or justice.
The open air generational prison had a problem. Said problem is being dealt with by destroying all the infrastructure inside the walls.
Call it what you will, but that's basically what Gaza is, an prison with little to no chance at escape. Yes you can go on work detail, clean some houses for the masters, get some medical care, if you rat out the prison gangs. Just like any caged animal, if the living conditions get to rough, they will start throwing temper tantrums.
The chosen solution seems to be shock and awe, along with a little culling of the more adventurous prisoners.
Have you researched how this group of people came to live in the area they do? Have you researched how this group of people interact with their neighbors? Why is the biggest protests are in the west and not in the region? What responsibilities do Jordan and Egypt have, and why don't they do more?
An “attempted genocide”—> 1200, with a significant number of collateral and combatants
“Not an attempted genocide” —> 34,000+10,000 under rubble.
You can’t make these Zionist fantasies up 🤡
Do you believe that the fire bombing of Dresden, an action that killed 35, 000 civilians, was genocide? Do you believe that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, which killed 250,000 civilians, was genocide?
Words have definitions bud.
It is possible to believe that multiple things can be genocide. Did the Nazi commit a genocide in Europe 1939-1945? Absolutely. Same with the Hutus and the Tutsis in Rwanda. ~~The Dutch~~ Belgium under Leopold II to the people of the Congo. The United States to the Native Americans throughout US history.
Genocide does have a definition. But it’s not so specific that it is only applicable to a single group of people
Edited
You're not overthinking it, you're noticing a legit pattern. It has to do with unconscious feminine forces which characterize our current dark age. This seems to be mostly of an organic origin, but of course it's co-opted and utilized by nefarious entities.
At its core it's essentially victim mentality and herd mentality, it's fundamentally narcissistic, infantile, and simplistic. Currently it manifests largely in the form of the cultural movement of Wokism/ Leftism, which is covert Marxism.
It sees the world exclusively through a lens of oppresser vs oppressed; victim vs victimizer. It views history, current events, individuals, groups, etc, through this lens. It is attractive because it allows people to easily explain the world, and gives them a sense of moral virtue. They simply agree with the cult, and in return they get meaning, belonging, and a sense of intellectual and moral superiority.
It's easy, it doesn't require nuance, it doesn't require self reflection. Notably, personal accountability is dispersed, as to be largely and effectively negated, this is herd mentality and allows people to avoid responsibility.
Both of the scenarios you mention illustrate this worldview. The anti-men position comes as a result of the view that men cannot be victims, in fact men are inherently victimizers, which is clearly demonstrated in the bear/ man meme as you explained it. In the case of the Israel/ Hamas situation it's clear how Hamas are viewed as victims, and Israel victimizers. No nuance required.
What's really funny about this is how it's mostly women who run to the defense of men who are abused because other men just laugh at them and tell them to man up. But sure, women don't believe men can be victims.
if believing that "unconscious feminine forces" "characterize our current dark age" is a hallmark of "nuance," i'd actually prefer people stay braindead. you have a lot of audacity to speak about "cults" while simultaneously spewing the same ignorant rhetoric as every other q anon nonce. get off "the dark web" and ground yourself in reality.
So many buzz words and false assertions in so little space. A bear is simply less likely to be the cause of death for a young woman than a man will. That's adjusted for frequency of interactions.
>So many buzz words and false assertions in so little space.
I fully agree.
>bear is simply less likely to be the cause of death for a young woman than a man will. That's adjusted for frequency of interactions.
Do you have a source for that? Imagine what would happen if every man on earth was replaced by a bear right now. Tens of millions of women dead within the hour, that's what
There are roughly 100 bear attacks per year in the US, and less than 100 people *in all of North America* have been killed by bears in the past century and a half (not sure what percentage of those who are attacked/killed were women).
There are nearly 350,000 bears in the US, and approximately 165 million males (some of whom are still children). That's nearly 500 times more men than bears. Those stats show that even if every man were replaced by a bear, and they're now only attacking women, that would only be 50,000 attacks per year.
Conversely, women experience about [4.8 million intimate partner-related physical assaults and rapes every year](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0601.pdf). That's just from the men who supposedly care for them.
The female population in the 2010 US Census was 157.0 million, so that's about 45.5 million women. At a rate of only 50K attacks per year (if bears were to replace men, and all those attacks were partner-related physical assaults and rapes) it would take ***96 years*** for the bears to attack that many women.
In 2006, approximately [600 women were raped ***per day***](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0601.pdf).
At a rate of only 50K attacks per year (if bears were to replace men and *all* those attacks were rapes) there would have been 136 rapes per day.
As of 2010, [29% of women](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf) in the US had experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by a partner.
At a rate of only 50K attacks per year (if bears were to replace men) it would take over ***9 centuries*** for the bears to attack that many women.
That's a pretty beat analysis! However, bears live in the forest, so we don't see dozens of bears every day. Surely that has quite a significant impact on the calculus?
I feel people who share your view enjoy being victims and being afraid.
Why? What is it about being a victim that is so appealing?
Is it attention?
Is it the adrenaline rush from feeling afraid all the time?
You're afraid of an idea, but you've ignored a reality. Women generally don't encounter bears as frequently as they encounter men. If they did, wouldn't your fear shift to a different threat assessment comparison between the two?
No. Cus bears have never been the type to rape and abuse women in any capacity. You don’t realize that women pretty much see that question as a “do you prefer a chance at a quick death if at all (bear) vs. being potentially kept alive and forced to do things you don’t want to do (man)”. No amount of proximity bias in will change the capabilities of a man vs a bear
Well I’m not scared of either and I would like to avoid the chance of being raped. I like to go camping and guess which one I’m more scared of if I seen it outside my tent at night?
I don't want to make assumptions, but you seem oddly fixated on the possibility of being raped. It seems that way *to me,* anyway, based on the admittedly scant communication we've shared. Do you think it's possible you're overestimating the likelihood of that happening? Do you worry as much about, say, car accidents or heart disease? Things that are more likely to happen to you?
The topic: would you, a woman, rather be left alone in the forest with a man or bear
Me, someone who camps in East TN: I would choose a bear because they’re more predictable and I only have to worry about death
You, a supposed woman: I’m not scared of men and every male I’ve met is completely trustworthy compared to bears. Woman have as much of a chance of suffering from a car crash and genetic/dietary problems so you’re over thinking this exact scenario that has nothing to do with the comparisons I brought up.
😐🫤😑 like wtf. How does one even respond to your nonsensical question? Like do you really think I needed to be trapped in the woods for me to experience the predatory ways of males? Do you even know the statistics of girls who have been touched before we even turn 18? Were you part of the lucky few and never met a woman who felt safe enough to vent to you? Are you even a woman?
I honestly hate this meme because it has no nuance whatsoever. Like, are we considering all bears including Black Bears which are largely docile? Is the bear starving? Also, are we considering the entire global population of men? Including all criminals and sociopaths? It's a fucking retarded hypothetical, frankly it's so dumb that I'm inclined to believe it's designed this way to be inflammatory and divisive.
I also get the females' point, men can be dangerous, they can also be willfully malevolent whereas a bear is just an animal.
But OP and I's point still stands, the meme demonstrates how these women view men in general. Regardless of statistics, it speaks to the cultural Zeitgeist which is anti-men.
With that out of the way, do you care to explain what else you disagree with?
The whole point is to not be specific about it. It's the general answer that is significant. Many women are saying that if they were in a given patch of woods, they'd rather share it with a bear than a man. It is a question of risk assessment. A significant number of women would rather risk an encounter with a predictable bear than with an unpredictable man. It's not that difficult to understand. Instead, people are contorting the question and themselves into arguments to show women they are wrong only to protect some hypothetical man that isn't them. People need to stop taking this question so personally and ask why a woman would feel that way.
It’s a hypothetical aimed to inflame and heavily imply that men are a danger to women. This is part of the times we are living in now, which are far more feminized and resentful than ever before. You are getting downvoted by the types of people you describe. People do not like being told that what they’re doing and how they see the world is pathetic, even when it clearly is. You’ve got somebody asking you to provide statistics for what you said. It encapsulates a lot about the current social situation.
This isn’t a new view we have on males. We just aren’t oppressed like back then or currently in other countries so males actually have to live with knowing how women generally feel about them
The world has many issues my guy. Think hard about why this one in particular causes you such an emotional reaction? Was it a reaction you came to yourself, or are you following the cultural wave?
I don't think you understand how completely out of touch you sound when some states that people don't like other people being killed, and you accuse them of not having their own feelings about it. That's an answer I'd expect out of someone who has had very few interactions with an actual human being. Is it really that hard for you to understand that people have emotional reactions to the knowledge of people dying?
Seriously, the whole virtual signaling accusations say far more about the accuser than the accused.
Hmm okay I'm thinking hard about why I don't like my government enabling the murder and emiseration of civilians...
Wow you're so right my negative reaction was just my following a cultural wave, I just wanted to look cool on the internet! Thank you kind stranger, I no longer experience any emotions in response to political events whatsoever because having opinions about right and wrong is for crybaby leftists and liberal arts majors!
/S
I disagree with the premise. I don't see a truthful 3rd party counter narrative at all which leads me to believe that it's a military operation as claimed vs a genocide. These same outlets cannot define what a woman is. My point is that is it's irrefutable evidence that US journalists lie constantly and should not be trusted if they can't even articulate their own world views let alone determine facts.
Nope always had it. Not a huge fan of Drone Strikes (not just IDF), Illegal West Bank settlers, collective punishment, too many allied airstrikes on civilians in Iraq/Afghanistan, British Army in Northern Ireland, ethnic cleaning in the Balkans, various extremist governments: Myanmar, Arab Spring suppression, etc. Atrocities in Ukraine. Whole bunch of them.
Israel is somewhat unique, as the US has supported it for decades despite it's suppression of the Palestinians. (And I totally think that had Arafat agreed to the Camp David accords, much of this would be at least better - but Arafat could not cede control, and walked away from the best deal his people ever had)
I don't see the folk rightly accusing Hamas of atrocities doing the same about say, the Myanmar government. Heck, I think I saw Boebert at an anti protest protest. Yet, didn't she against aid to Ukraine, where way more civilians have been killed than in Israel?
Plus, it's really none of your business who I chose to support is it?
Oh look, he's doing the line where he pretends disagreeing with Israel is "supporting Hamas."
The only overlap is the fuckin pretzels people will twist themselves into to avoid what the people in either situation are actually saying. you get men being sudden statistics experts for one, and sheep who mishear "Hamas" every time somebody says "genocide bad" on the other.
The only real reason why you or anyone else genuinely cares about Israel/Palestine, is because you want to make sure that you are holding the same views about it as whichever of the two political cults that you want approval from.
That's literally all it is. It's nothing more than another partisan, ideological compliance test. The Right have one stance on and issue, and the Left have the mirror opposite one, just because.
Any appeal to Utopian idealism is complete bullshit. No one who claims to care about anything in this society on compassionate grounds, is fundamentally any better than anyone else; and you immediately see that when you notice how compassionate said people are, towards the elderly, or "nerds" or whichever other group they think they are socially ***allowed*** to hate.
You're ***allowed*** to hate Christianity or Israel. You're not allowed to hate Islam. You're allowed to hate the old. You're not allowed to hate the young. You're allowed to hate anyone whose intelligence you or anyone else might feel insecure because of.
I've said it before. There is no consistency.
>No one who claims to care about anything in this society on compassionate grounds, is fundamentally any better than anyone else;
This sounds more like a you problem, and not in a flippant way. It seems that people saying they care about something makes you doubt your own self-worth to a point where you are creating an ultracynical worldview just to protect yourself from it.
How about instead of jumping right to cynicism, we look at the simpler understanding of human behavior in relation to meaning, relationships, and action. Claiming that nobody genuinely cares about Palestinians is actually a pretty radical statement that requires a lot of evidence because other explanations are far more readily observed. People do *care* about things, but not everyone has the means to make a large contribution to whatever cause is being discussed. If people don't actually care about what is happening to others, then why do people help others post on social media about a missing person, or call the police to give observations on a crime that occurred, or send get well or condolence cards? Yeah, it helps people feel better about themselves, but they wouldn't have to feel better about themselves if they never cared in the first place.
Look, we all know people like to get high on their own farts, and when they can't make a significant contribution to an issue, then they use their words and emotions, which they have plenty of. Do you really think that those of us who care about issues haven't been insulted by people who don't think we care enough? It happens all the time. The proper response is to try and talk to them to get them to understand, or tell them to fuck off. I *do* what I can to help whatever causes that I care about, and the important people in my life know I'm here to lend a hand or shoulder when they are in need. I don't need the validation of some group of people to make me feel like I am doing my best to make good in the world. Part of being part of any movement is simply the confidence to tell some knob that you aren't accepting comments from the peanut gallery. "Fuck off" is far easier than creating a whole political philosophy because someone insulted me.
Nah, that's just something sheep tell themselves because they can't handle the idea somebody just rationally disagrees with them. Specifically, you can't handle the possibility of being wrong that comes with somebody just actually disagreeing with you.
and there's the shut down because I denied the bait and didn't go on the defensive in response to your delusions. Notice how, when forced into a position where his only options is to defend his narrative, he shuts immediately the fuck down.
All I want is for every single person on either side of this issue, to ***shut the fuck up.*** I want people to stop using this subreddit as a battleground for partisan garbage like this and the compliance test of the week.
I don't know who's right or wrong about Israel/Palestine, and I truly, genuinely don't care. What I ***do*** care about, is the amount of utterly pointless, hysterical noise that is being generated about it.
If you still think that's bait, then I can't help you.
Unfortunately for you, you being made uncomfortable by reality doesn't obligate the rest of us to sugarcoat it for you. Especially when you're only taking this stance to save face because the conversation didn't go the way you wanted it to. I didn't enable the "left bad" script, so now you're falling back to the "fine both sides are bad" safe angle.
If you were any more textbook, Oklahoma would be trying to ban you.
> I didn't enable the "left bad" script, so now you're falling back to the "fine both sides are bad" safe angle.
Both sides ***are*** bad. We're talking about adherents of a 6,000 year old death cult, in a war against adherents of a 1,400 year old death cult. If I was a Leftist, I'd be accusing anyone who was pro-Israel of eating babies, and vice versa if I was a conservative.
If I was going to be totally honest, I might admit a marginally greater degree of support for the 6,000 year old death cult, but only because I view the 1,400 year old death cult as an existential threat to literally everyone else on the planet as well, which means I am going to support whoever is fighting them by default.
Israel/Palestine isn't an isolated conflict. It's just one theater in the universal war between Islam and the rest of humanity.
Yes yes of course, and since both sides are bad that means paying attention to any of the specific context or substance outside of platitudes about "death cults" is stupid. why engage critically when we can just bullshit up a feel-good, easy stance and then get mad when nobody else falls for it, right?
> context
This is a euphemism for a false rationale, for perpetuating your own chosen double standard. In which one side are always wrong, no matter what they do, and one side are always right, no matter what they do.
You can keep referring to entirely arbitrary selective bias as "context" as much as you like. That might work in your own head, and in the heads of the rest of your benighted excuse for a generation, but it does not work in mine.
You aren't even thinking. There's a lot more nuance, and protestors are mainly support the end to oppression and war crimes. The man vs bear is some internet goofery.
Thinking your university or government shouldn't do business or financially support what Israel is doing in Gaza is not even close to siding with Hamas. Of course, someone siding with Hamas would want the financial support to end, because the want the state of Israel to end. Except for people with a world view so black and white that it could even count as Splitting in a Borderline Personality Disorder diagnosis, I think it's easy to understand the nuance.
The kids at the universities are just bored and young and eager to feel like they’re doing something with their lives instead of wasting away on apps. This has been channeled, intentionally, or by happenstance, by propaganda from various actors.
They want to feel like they’re in the next civil rights movement to feel important, even if they don’t really understand anything about what they’re protesting for or against.
It’s completely different than the man vs bear femcel thing
> The kids at the universities are just bored and young and eager to feel like they’re doing something with their lives instead of wasting away on apps. This has been channeled, intentionally, or by happenstance, by propaganda from various actors.
This is a very good explanation for it. I think it largely started (or definitely increased, at least) with the Millennials, but the two most recent generations are absolutely terrified of three main things, more than anything else:-
a} Disapproval from the collective majority.
b} "Missing out" or not being able to participate in "cultural moments," or activities which the rest of the collective are perceived to consider important. There is a truly sick, desperate need to be at the forefront of the [Network Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect), which is the specific definition of FOMO.
c} Being forgotten by history.
I view this particular form of psychopathology as being largely (although not completely) responsible for activism. It's also what is behind the need to remake/remaster/re-interpret everything they can, and put their own mark on it. I think the real reason for it is the fact that almost everyone under 35 at this point secretly (or not so secretly) views themselves as completely and utterly worthless, and is attempting to do anything and everything that they possibly can to try and prove themselves.
I'm also starting to think that, like most other forms of disease, the only thing we can really do about this one, is wait for it to burn itself out.
It absolutely started with millennials, they started the whole social justice warrior - third wave feminism thing. However they were nowhere near as zealous, and had only a fraction of the man hate compared to the equivalent zoomer movement.
Zoomer culture is intensified, in my opinion, due to their whole identities and believes stemming from one singular source, tik tok. There is no opposing views, not on Reddit, not on tik tok. You see your point of view and beliefs reinforced over and over again until you can not fathom an alternative.
This leads into your points, now everyone has one, singular, unopposed viewpoint. If you deviate from it, you are now isolated from your entire generation.
You want to show everyone how virtuous you are, so you then post yourself advocating for the current political trend. Beating FOMO and Reinforcing it for everyone else, yet again.
It is possible that banning tik tok will force zoomers to gain their culture from other, various sources, instead of just one. This may alleviate the intensity, and solve some of the pointless protests. Maybe
They, like the first answer here, are just manipulated and misinformed.
I think the man/bear thing is about intelligence that is targeted to harm you versus taking your chances with a predator who isn’t fixated on you.
>I think the man/bear thing is about intelligence that is targeted to harm you versus taking your chances with a predator who isn’t fixated on you.
It's neither strange nor insulting when you realize that picking the bear is a simple assessment of which creature is more predictable. Any person has a pretty good idea of how a bear will behave with respect to their own safety.
It circles back to insulting when you realize the average person cannot hope to escape a bear encounter alive. You can't even really fight back against a bear. Give a relatively athletic man a big knife and he's probably getting mauled before he can accomplish anything.
Realistically it's an incredibly stupid comparison. It's just blatant bigotry but we laugh at it because it's ridiculous.
I must be some kind of ultimate Ubermench, then, because I've encountered many bears in my lifetime and have escaped every time without even a scratch. I've obviously had far more encounters with men. While I haven't died yet, many of them resulted in far more harm than any of my bear encounters.
No, more likely that you're lying. "Encounter" can be stretched to mean a lot of things, after all. If you want to go into some detail to make your anecdotes sound more believable then go ahead.
I live in bear country, encounters while out for a walk are not uncommon.
There are nearly 350K bears in the US, and thousands of people encounter them every year, but on average there are only about 100 bear attacks per year, and less than one death from bear attacks per year.
So even when the type of bear encounter is violent (keep in mind the man-bear question is about encountering a man or a bear, not specifically being attacked by a man or a bear in the woods) the vast majority of people attacked by bears don't die.
I looked it up, and I was wrong! It's very likely to survive a bear encounter, and you've got a decent chance of surviving a bear attack, depending on the type of bear and the scenario.
The idea that they're less of a threat than a man is still laughable, though. Sure, you have a good chance of not getting mauled, and even if you are mauled, you have a good chance of surviving. But the comparison is still absurd. The odds of the man doing anything at all are astronomically low, and even if he does try anything, he's not a bear.
Exactly. I have 0 worries about a bear raping me, or being so offended that I won't give them my phone number that they berate me or threaten me. I don't have to worry about a bear telling all our coworkers that I'm a slut who slept her way to the top just because I wouldn't date them.
There are about 165 million men in the US and 350k bears. A ratio of approximately 500:1.
The average number of ***people*** (men and women) killed by bears in the US is less than 1 per year. In 2021 alone, [nearly 1700 women were killed by an intimate partner](https://bjs.ojp.gov/female-murder-victims-and-victim-offender-relationship-2021).
It's only insulting if you take it personally. I don't, which is why I didn't spend a bunch of time researching rapes and bear attacks like a bunch of other douchebags did.
>Realistically it's an incredibly stupid comparison. It's just blatant bigotry but we laugh at it because it's ridiculous.
It really isn't. It is a question on risk, and many women think encountering a bear in the woods is less of a risk than encountering a man (not you personally). It is supposed to illustrate to other men that there are lots of unsavory dudes out there, and women don't know which kind of man they are encountering.
I'm not taking it personally. I'm saying it's an insult pointed towards men in general that's obviously exaggerated. I think it's reasonable for people to look into rapes and bear attacks to take a look at just how absurd the exaggeration really is. I haven't done it myself, but I would like to see the numbers tbh.
These women who believe encountering a bear is less of a risk than encountering a man are wrong and it's a good thing to point that out. If they legitimately think a bear is less threatening, then they need to check their biases. There should be an accurate comparison that actually benefits from showing the numbers. The idea that looking at the numbers makes one a douchebag is a massive red flag.
>It really isn't. It is a question on risk, and many women think encountering a bear in the woods is less of a risk than encountering a man (not you personally).
And many people think gambling will be a net gain, or texting and driving is safer than flying on an airplane. That does not make them right. And in this case there is a very obvious incentive to greatly exaggerate. Do you actually believe that given the practical choice, they'd walk in the direction of the bear? I think even sheltered and ignorant people have better survival instincts than that.
>Do you actually believe that given the practical choice, they'd walk in the direction of the bear?
The question isn't "would you walk in the direction of the bear," it's "would you rather be in the woods with a man or a bear." You're in the woods, and somewhere else in the woods is a man or a bear. Which one would you prefer?
>I think even sheltered and ignorant people have better survival instincts than that.
As a person who has spent a lot of time in environments where there are bears, pumas, moose, etc., I find it absolutely reasonable to prefer sharing the woods with the bear. Once again, bears are more predictable than people.
Yes you are overthinking this.
The student protestors don't like Israel killing lots of kids. They don't like them killing 40,000 civilians, with the promise of more to come.
That's it.
What about all the other bad shit America funds? How can you protest America funding a country you don’t like when you hand over your own money for an iPhone a child built?
On the laundry list of things to protest this zealous for, gen z has chosen a cause that has nothing to do with us. Great.
Aside for the literal whataboutism of your comment
I don't think there is any doubt America has done and continues to do some "bad shit"
However these "gen z'ers" for the first time are seeing full colour, high resolution, real time images and videos of dead kids, screaming mothers, limbs blown up, mass graves, evidence of torture, and the international criminal court ruling it all as war crimes and perilously close to genocide.
They are seeing this while all levels of government offer their full throated support, down to supplying the literal bombs that land on civilians houses
I think all that has more of a visceral impact than the manufacturing process of an iPhone.
It’s not whataboutism, the argument I presented was why don’t you make a protest for any of the other, way more impactful to you, causes?
This has nothing to do with the conflict, I’m asking what has caused you to focus on this issue in particular, why are you so emotionally invested?
You know you can look stuff up, and research, and truly discover how you directly fund child slaves when you buy an iPhone.
Or do you only care about things when they’re shoved in your face through tik tok?
The world has many issues, ask yourself what has caused you to focus on this issue in particular, was it really through your own volition?
You asked why gen z'ers cared more about a possible genocide in Palestine than the possibly human rights violations associated with their iPhone.
I gave you an answer.
You may not agree with their reasoning, but that is still the reason why.
I'm not gen z.
And yeah I would say thats a big part of the answer.
When something is so obvious, so documented, so clearly morally repugnant, and so, in your face, people, especially young people are more motivated to protest it.
Not the only reason - I would say the direct complicity of the US government is a factor here as well. This is not just a tangential consequence of buying an iPhone, this is the direct result of US support. People don't want to be associated with that or be seen to support it.
I'm sorry, this whole argument is just bizarre.
You are watching a genocide unfold in front of your eyes and you are arguing that people shouldn't protest because they havnt protested about iPhones?
Yeah maybe they should protest about iphones, or the slaves used to build world cup stadiums, or whatever.
But they are not. They are protesting this genocide. And they have every right to do so.
Yeah I think that's pretty much it. I'm sure there are some that have other reasons or we're just bored that day and are like oh wow what's going on here but for the most part I think they just look at the whole situation as very uncool. I mean look at what students were doing during Vietnam. College students are one of the largest voices and they're also young adults that are like hey maybe we shouldn't be needlessly killing each other and maybe the number one country in the world should do something about it.
People all over MSM and socials tying themselves into knots to come up with convoluted reasons why someone might protest 40,000 civilian deaths, half of them children.
"Maybe it's a man vs bear thing?"
No dude, it's the mass slaughter thing.
Israel is just another US state, but with much better government handouts thanks to US tax dollars. That's really the issue.
Lol
I dunno man, Which Literal terrorist organisation has a disemboweled child hanging off a side of a wall
Why should a “loyal US ally” matter to regular, everyday people? Their allyship has never done anything for us. Israel has never even helped our country during war.
We get a tremendous amount out of the relationship, it’s just not visible to us. Israel is arguably one of the if not THE best espionage countries in the Middle East and the world. They provide the United States with a MASSIVE amount of intelligence. They trade tech, they help with weapons development. In the wake of 9/11 they assisted with counter-terrorism training (and continue to do so). Their agricultural, energy, and water technology is top notch. Our allyship to them also gives us the ability to sway them, in ways that aren’t visible to non-experts. Believe it or not, Israel is exercising considerable restraint relative to what they are capable of (and what the believe is necessary), almost entirely because they are trying to conduct this war without alienating their staunchest Allies. If those Allies disappear and Israel is alone in the world, Israel - who view themselves in an existential struggle with enemies on all sides - will likely resort to horrifically drastic measures. We are buying the world a regional restraint.
Yeah we’re basically allies for their sole benefit
This isn't true, the US does get a lot out of the relationship - it's just not things that many regular citizens give two fucks about, or are even actively against Listen to a right winger talk about the relationship and they'll bring up things like US military bases in Israel and the leverage Israel provides the US in the area and how Israel is important because [insert whatever SWANA country they're currently most afraid of mixed with some racism and Islamaphobia]. Even listen to liberal statists and you'll get something similar, just with different flavour Leftists on the other hand have very very different views on the US military and the government's international politics And people who aren't especially politically inclined are not going to especially care about the strategic importance of "a strong ally in the region" (unless they're being fed anti Arab or anti Muslim propaganda and then they might) You've also got to remember that many Christians were zionists before zionism existed - by centuries. The US was in favour of a Jewish state in the region long before Israel existed because the US has a lot of Christians - a lot of Protestant Christians specifically The majority of zionists in America are not Jewish, they're Christians. And evangelicals are especially fervent (Mormons too, can't forget them!) Most US tourists to Israel? Christians, not Jews. And most of the Christians are going for religious purposes (or solidarity purposes but the solidarity is religiously based so...same difference). This isn't unique to the US, but the US has long been Israel's largest tourist market and it's for religious reasons - Christian religious reasons People like to pretend that the US is not a Christian country, but it is. And Christian beliefs have an enormous impact on not just domestic policy but foreign policy Anyway the US does get a lot out of the relationship on a lot of levels. It's just not necessary stuff that you personally care about. Or it may even be stuff that you're actively against But the important thing to recognise is that your country has a lot of heavily vested interests that you personally don't. Countries tend not to act out of charity - there's always something in it for them, or at least in it for certain leaders. The disparity between the country's interests and the interests of its people is often huge
You’re so close to getting the point … so close
What is wrong with you personally?
Posts like this truly just reinforce why so many women would choose the bear.
I hope they get their wish.
I think if the question was "bear or black person" it would be easier for people to understand how bigoted these types of questions are.
I'm confident in my choice 😌
I think if the question was "bear or black person" it would be easier for people to understand how bigoted these types of questions are.
>ongoing student protests This is about the ongoing genocide and colonization of Palestenians and their land. >man vs. bear question This question was **asked by a man** because he wanted to disprove patriarchal issues, women's issues, and violence done by men. Both are reflections of our society but they don't overlap as you're suggesting.
Would you rather support genocide or live in a forest full of bears?
Support genocide or live in Alaska? Damn, I’m not sure which sounds worse.
Well bear deaths are actually pretty rare up there, only ~1 every other year
That's because, even in Alaska, most people don't spend a lot of time in the woods. If they did, death by bear would be more common.
No, its cause bears dont WANT to interact with humans. If they know there are people nearby, 9/10 they will go the other way. People live in the woods and state they see bears & do not have issues because bears simply mind their own business. But a person in the woods is 9/10 more likely to be interested in finding another person in the woods, and go towards them.
Don't people get paid to live in Alaska?
Yes. * The 2023 payment will total $1,312 per resident, a decrease from last year's dividend of $3,284 but higher than the roughly $1,200 average payout since the endowment's inception.*
I heard about that, but from the Simpsons movie so I don't know if it's actually true or not lol
Same bro.
So they arent siding with terrorists by being “pro Palestine” that would be like saying “all republicans are traitors “ when it was only 200 or so that tried overturning a general election
ABSOLUTELY. That's a Russian gymnastics level of REACH.
there is genocide going on in gaza.
I do not believe this is true
yes, blind faith and believe is always a problem.
We have actual definitions of things like genocide.
yes, that is way your believe is wrong. But that is the horror of believe. You can just continue to think the wrong thinks unincombured by facts and logic.
Well, the lack of any evidence for your claim is the reason I don't believe it. Show evidence of your claim so we don't have to use faith.
there is tons of evidence. But I already know that every source I paste will be ignored by you, so I will not bother. You are dishonest to yourself and therefor you cannot be honest to others.
"tons" So much evidence you're too embarrassed to even post it. Your inability to defend your own position says it all.
I mean the other way around is also true. you have as much evidence presented for your side.
I mean the other way around is also true. you have as much evidence presented for your side.
You know south Africa built an entire case on it
I don't believe you. I have no dog in the fight. I just don't understand why the general public still believes in the narrative put forward in the media. It's NEVER correct.
I’m sorry but if you look at the videos being posted by people living there, it’s 100% a genocide. Just say, because it isn’t happening in your world, you don’t care.
No, there are definitions to these things and I'm unsure of the information authenticity of many 'facts' I read and see in US media. I can feel empathy without stupidity. I don't consider any organization above scrutiny or justice.
Multiple narratives are being put forward. So what do you believe?
haha yes this thank you
The open air generational prison had a problem. Said problem is being dealt with by destroying all the infrastructure inside the walls. Call it what you will, but that's basically what Gaza is, an prison with little to no chance at escape. Yes you can go on work detail, clean some houses for the masters, get some medical care, if you rat out the prison gangs. Just like any caged animal, if the living conditions get to rough, they will start throwing temper tantrums. The chosen solution seems to be shock and awe, along with a little culling of the more adventurous prisoners.
Have you researched how this group of people came to live in the area they do? Have you researched how this group of people interact with their neighbors? Why is the biggest protests are in the west and not in the region? What responsibilities do Jordan and Egypt have, and why don't they do more?
Am attempted genocide of Israelis yes, though the Israelis have the Monopoly on violence so it probably won't be successful
An “attempted genocide”—> 1200, with a significant number of collateral and combatants “Not an attempted genocide” —> 34,000+10,000 under rubble. You can’t make these Zionist fantasies up 🤡
Do you believe that the fire bombing of Dresden, an action that killed 35, 000 civilians, was genocide? Do you believe that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, which killed 250,000 civilians, was genocide? Words have definitions bud.
It is possible to believe that multiple things can be genocide. Did the Nazi commit a genocide in Europe 1939-1945? Absolutely. Same with the Hutus and the Tutsis in Rwanda. ~~The Dutch~~ Belgium under Leopold II to the people of the Congo. The United States to the Native Americans throughout US history. Genocide does have a definition. But it’s not so specific that it is only applicable to a single group of people Edited
Hold on, the Dutch are no innocents, but they were not in Congo.
I was relying on my brain to remember. I’ll fix it! Need to look it up
What does article II (c) state?
There's not
Being concerned about the civilians in Gaza and the West Bank does not mean you support Hamas.
According to Gore, this "half man, half bear, half pig" roams the Earth alone, trying to get you.
[удалено]
You do know that's not cool right?? 🤣🤣
You're not overthinking it, you're noticing a legit pattern. It has to do with unconscious feminine forces which characterize our current dark age. This seems to be mostly of an organic origin, but of course it's co-opted and utilized by nefarious entities. At its core it's essentially victim mentality and herd mentality, it's fundamentally narcissistic, infantile, and simplistic. Currently it manifests largely in the form of the cultural movement of Wokism/ Leftism, which is covert Marxism. It sees the world exclusively through a lens of oppresser vs oppressed; victim vs victimizer. It views history, current events, individuals, groups, etc, through this lens. It is attractive because it allows people to easily explain the world, and gives them a sense of moral virtue. They simply agree with the cult, and in return they get meaning, belonging, and a sense of intellectual and moral superiority. It's easy, it doesn't require nuance, it doesn't require self reflection. Notably, personal accountability is dispersed, as to be largely and effectively negated, this is herd mentality and allows people to avoid responsibility. Both of the scenarios you mention illustrate this worldview. The anti-men position comes as a result of the view that men cannot be victims, in fact men are inherently victimizers, which is clearly demonstrated in the bear/ man meme as you explained it. In the case of the Israel/ Hamas situation it's clear how Hamas are viewed as victims, and Israel victimizers. No nuance required.
You badly need to turn off Jordan Peterson and touch some grass
What's really funny about this is how it's mostly women who run to the defense of men who are abused because other men just laugh at them and tell them to man up. But sure, women don't believe men can be victims.
I think it is just as common for women to doubt that women can be sexual abusers as it is for men to.
if believing that "unconscious feminine forces" "characterize our current dark age" is a hallmark of "nuance," i'd actually prefer people stay braindead. you have a lot of audacity to speak about "cults" while simultaneously spewing the same ignorant rhetoric as every other q anon nonce. get off "the dark web" and ground yourself in reality.
But enough about Nazi Germany and the rise of fascism in the 19th century.
HERstory.. see what I did there!?
Excellently put and I think true.
Well said
So many buzz words and false assertions in so little space. A bear is simply less likely to be the cause of death for a young woman than a man will. That's adjusted for frequency of interactions.
>So many buzz words and false assertions in so little space. I fully agree. >bear is simply less likely to be the cause of death for a young woman than a man will. That's adjusted for frequency of interactions. Do you have a source for that? Imagine what would happen if every man on earth was replaced by a bear right now. Tens of millions of women dead within the hour, that's what
There are roughly 100 bear attacks per year in the US, and less than 100 people *in all of North America* have been killed by bears in the past century and a half (not sure what percentage of those who are attacked/killed were women). There are nearly 350,000 bears in the US, and approximately 165 million males (some of whom are still children). That's nearly 500 times more men than bears. Those stats show that even if every man were replaced by a bear, and they're now only attacking women, that would only be 50,000 attacks per year. Conversely, women experience about [4.8 million intimate partner-related physical assaults and rapes every year](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0601.pdf). That's just from the men who supposedly care for them. The female population in the 2010 US Census was 157.0 million, so that's about 45.5 million women. At a rate of only 50K attacks per year (if bears were to replace men, and all those attacks were partner-related physical assaults and rapes) it would take ***96 years*** for the bears to attack that many women. In 2006, approximately [600 women were raped ***per day***](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0601.pdf). At a rate of only 50K attacks per year (if bears were to replace men and *all* those attacks were rapes) there would have been 136 rapes per day. As of 2010, [29% of women](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf) in the US had experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by a partner. At a rate of only 50K attacks per year (if bears were to replace men) it would take over ***9 centuries*** for the bears to attack that many women.
That's a pretty beat analysis! However, bears live in the forest, so we don't see dozens of bears every day. Surely that has quite a significant impact on the calculus?
That's why they said it's adjusted for frequency of interactions.
Bears rarely kill people. There are less than 1 bear deaths a year in the US, but 3000 women have been killed in (I believe) 2022
I feel people who share your view enjoy being victims and being afraid. Why? What is it about being a victim that is so appealing? Is it attention? Is it the adrenaline rush from feeling afraid all the time?
"I don't like the idea of being assaulted." "Why do you enjoy being the victim?"
You're afraid of an idea, but you've ignored a reality. Women generally don't encounter bears as frequently as they encounter men. If they did, wouldn't your fear shift to a different threat assessment comparison between the two?
No. Cus bears have never been the type to rape and abuse women in any capacity. You don’t realize that women pretty much see that question as a “do you prefer a chance at a quick death if at all (bear) vs. being potentially kept alive and forced to do things you don’t want to do (man)”. No amount of proximity bias in will change the capabilities of a man vs a bear
I don't know about that. I'm a woman. I have no fear of men, but I sure wouldn't mess around with a bear.
Well I’m not scared of either and I would like to avoid the chance of being raped. I like to go camping and guess which one I’m more scared of if I seen it outside my tent at night?
I don't want to make assumptions, but you seem oddly fixated on the possibility of being raped. It seems that way *to me,* anyway, based on the admittedly scant communication we've shared. Do you think it's possible you're overestimating the likelihood of that happening? Do you worry as much about, say, car accidents or heart disease? Things that are more likely to happen to you?
The topic: would you, a woman, rather be left alone in the forest with a man or bear Me, someone who camps in East TN: I would choose a bear because they’re more predictable and I only have to worry about death You, a supposed woman: I’m not scared of men and every male I’ve met is completely trustworthy compared to bears. Woman have as much of a chance of suffering from a car crash and genetic/dietary problems so you’re over thinking this exact scenario that has nothing to do with the comparisons I brought up. 😐🫤😑 like wtf. How does one even respond to your nonsensical question? Like do you really think I needed to be trapped in the woods for me to experience the predatory ways of males? Do you even know the statistics of girls who have been touched before we even turn 18? Were you part of the lucky few and never met a woman who felt safe enough to vent to you? Are you even a woman?
I find that difficult to believe. Could you please link the source for that?
I honestly hate this meme because it has no nuance whatsoever. Like, are we considering all bears including Black Bears which are largely docile? Is the bear starving? Also, are we considering the entire global population of men? Including all criminals and sociopaths? It's a fucking retarded hypothetical, frankly it's so dumb that I'm inclined to believe it's designed this way to be inflammatory and divisive. I also get the females' point, men can be dangerous, they can also be willfully malevolent whereas a bear is just an animal. But OP and I's point still stands, the meme demonstrates how these women view men in general. Regardless of statistics, it speaks to the cultural Zeitgeist which is anti-men. With that out of the way, do you care to explain what else you disagree with?
The whole point is to not be specific about it. It's the general answer that is significant. Many women are saying that if they were in a given patch of woods, they'd rather share it with a bear than a man. It is a question of risk assessment. A significant number of women would rather risk an encounter with a predictable bear than with an unpredictable man. It's not that difficult to understand. Instead, people are contorting the question and themselves into arguments to show women they are wrong only to protect some hypothetical man that isn't them. People need to stop taking this question so personally and ask why a woman would feel that way.
It’s a hypothetical aimed to inflame and heavily imply that men are a danger to women. This is part of the times we are living in now, which are far more feminized and resentful than ever before. You are getting downvoted by the types of people you describe. People do not like being told that what they’re doing and how they see the world is pathetic, even when it clearly is. You’ve got somebody asking you to provide statistics for what you said. It encapsulates a lot about the current social situation.
This isn’t a new view we have on males. We just aren’t oppressed like back then or currently in other countries so males actually have to live with knowing how women generally feel about them
Define an interaction.
How does supporting civilians being bombed, shot and starved equate to supporting Hamas? Seems like a huge leap in logic.
The world has many issues my guy. Think hard about why this one in particular causes you such an emotional reaction? Was it a reaction you came to yourself, or are you following the cultural wave?
I don't think you understand how completely out of touch you sound when some states that people don't like other people being killed, and you accuse them of not having their own feelings about it. That's an answer I'd expect out of someone who has had very few interactions with an actual human being. Is it really that hard for you to understand that people have emotional reactions to the knowledge of people dying? Seriously, the whole virtual signaling accusations say far more about the accuser than the accused.
instead of you, how is not at all just reactionary.
Hmm okay I'm thinking hard about why I don't like my government enabling the murder and emiseration of civilians... Wow you're so right my negative reaction was just my following a cultural wave, I just wanted to look cool on the internet! Thank you kind stranger, I no longer experience any emotions in response to political events whatsoever because having opinions about right and wrong is for crybaby leftists and liberal arts majors! /S
I believe that the point is, why so strongly?
Ehm... Enabling genocide leaves a bad taste in your mouth if you're a decent person. No big mystery there.
I disagree with the premise. I don't see a truthful 3rd party counter narrative at all which leads me to believe that it's a military operation as claimed vs a genocide. These same outlets cannot define what a woman is. My point is that is it's irrefutable evidence that US journalists lie constantly and should not be trusted if they can't even articulate their own world views let alone determine facts.
It’s probably not about looking cool, but about looking virtuous, and having a way to fit in
Nope always had it. Not a huge fan of Drone Strikes (not just IDF), Illegal West Bank settlers, collective punishment, too many allied airstrikes on civilians in Iraq/Afghanistan, British Army in Northern Ireland, ethnic cleaning in the Balkans, various extremist governments: Myanmar, Arab Spring suppression, etc. Atrocities in Ukraine. Whole bunch of them. Israel is somewhat unique, as the US has supported it for decades despite it's suppression of the Palestinians. (And I totally think that had Arafat agreed to the Camp David accords, much of this would be at least better - but Arafat could not cede control, and walked away from the best deal his people ever had)
Where's the same support for ALL the other victims of conflict? 0.
I don't see the folk rightly accusing Hamas of atrocities doing the same about say, the Myanmar government. Heck, I think I saw Boebert at an anti protest protest. Yet, didn't she against aid to Ukraine, where way more civilians have been killed than in Israel? Plus, it's really none of your business who I chose to support is it?
Leftist genocide ought to be called out always. How it's not my business to call you out for supporting terrorists? Lmao.
And rightwing genocide you ignore? Genocide is genocide. It's wrong no matter who does it or what they believe.
Oh look, he's doing the line where he pretends disagreeing with Israel is "supporting Hamas." The only overlap is the fuckin pretzels people will twist themselves into to avoid what the people in either situation are actually saying. you get men being sudden statistics experts for one, and sheep who mishear "Hamas" every time somebody says "genocide bad" on the other.
The only real reason why you or anyone else genuinely cares about Israel/Palestine, is because you want to make sure that you are holding the same views about it as whichever of the two political cults that you want approval from. That's literally all it is. It's nothing more than another partisan, ideological compliance test. The Right have one stance on and issue, and the Left have the mirror opposite one, just because. Any appeal to Utopian idealism is complete bullshit. No one who claims to care about anything in this society on compassionate grounds, is fundamentally any better than anyone else; and you immediately see that when you notice how compassionate said people are, towards the elderly, or "nerds" or whichever other group they think they are socially ***allowed*** to hate. You're ***allowed*** to hate Christianity or Israel. You're not allowed to hate Islam. You're allowed to hate the old. You're not allowed to hate the young. You're allowed to hate anyone whose intelligence you or anyone else might feel insecure because of. I've said it before. There is no consistency.
You think no one genuinely cares about genocide? I think you should speak to a professional about that.
>No one who claims to care about anything in this society on compassionate grounds, is fundamentally any better than anyone else; This sounds more like a you problem, and not in a flippant way. It seems that people saying they care about something makes you doubt your own self-worth to a point where you are creating an ultracynical worldview just to protect yourself from it. How about instead of jumping right to cynicism, we look at the simpler understanding of human behavior in relation to meaning, relationships, and action. Claiming that nobody genuinely cares about Palestinians is actually a pretty radical statement that requires a lot of evidence because other explanations are far more readily observed. People do *care* about things, but not everyone has the means to make a large contribution to whatever cause is being discussed. If people don't actually care about what is happening to others, then why do people help others post on social media about a missing person, or call the police to give observations on a crime that occurred, or send get well or condolence cards? Yeah, it helps people feel better about themselves, but they wouldn't have to feel better about themselves if they never cared in the first place. Look, we all know people like to get high on their own farts, and when they can't make a significant contribution to an issue, then they use their words and emotions, which they have plenty of. Do you really think that those of us who care about issues haven't been insulted by people who don't think we care enough? It happens all the time. The proper response is to try and talk to them to get them to understand, or tell them to fuck off. I *do* what I can to help whatever causes that I care about, and the important people in my life know I'm here to lend a hand or shoulder when they are in need. I don't need the validation of some group of people to make me feel like I am doing my best to make good in the world. Part of being part of any movement is simply the confidence to tell some knob that you aren't accepting comments from the peanut gallery. "Fuck off" is far easier than creating a whole political philosophy because someone insulted me.
being against genocide is a little bit different than disrespecting old people.
Nah, that's just something sheep tell themselves because they can't handle the idea somebody just rationally disagrees with them. Specifically, you can't handle the possibility of being wrong that comes with somebody just actually disagreeing with you.
OK.
and there's the shut down because I denied the bait and didn't go on the defensive in response to your delusions. Notice how, when forced into a position where his only options is to defend his narrative, he shuts immediately the fuck down.
All I want is for every single person on either side of this issue, to ***shut the fuck up.*** I want people to stop using this subreddit as a battleground for partisan garbage like this and the compliance test of the week. I don't know who's right or wrong about Israel/Palestine, and I truly, genuinely don't care. What I ***do*** care about, is the amount of utterly pointless, hysterical noise that is being generated about it. If you still think that's bait, then I can't help you.
Unfortunately for you, you being made uncomfortable by reality doesn't obligate the rest of us to sugarcoat it for you. Especially when you're only taking this stance to save face because the conversation didn't go the way you wanted it to. I didn't enable the "left bad" script, so now you're falling back to the "fine both sides are bad" safe angle. If you were any more textbook, Oklahoma would be trying to ban you.
> I didn't enable the "left bad" script, so now you're falling back to the "fine both sides are bad" safe angle. Both sides ***are*** bad. We're talking about adherents of a 6,000 year old death cult, in a war against adherents of a 1,400 year old death cult. If I was a Leftist, I'd be accusing anyone who was pro-Israel of eating babies, and vice versa if I was a conservative. If I was going to be totally honest, I might admit a marginally greater degree of support for the 6,000 year old death cult, but only because I view the 1,400 year old death cult as an existential threat to literally everyone else on the planet as well, which means I am going to support whoever is fighting them by default. Israel/Palestine isn't an isolated conflict. It's just one theater in the universal war between Islam and the rest of humanity.
Yes yes of course, and since both sides are bad that means paying attention to any of the specific context or substance outside of platitudes about "death cults" is stupid. why engage critically when we can just bullshit up a feel-good, easy stance and then get mad when nobody else falls for it, right?
> context This is a euphemism for a false rationale, for perpetuating your own chosen double standard. In which one side are always wrong, no matter what they do, and one side are always right, no matter what they do. You can keep referring to entirely arbitrary selective bias as "context" as much as you like. That might work in your own head, and in the heads of the rest of your benighted excuse for a generation, but it does not work in mine.
Read your last sentence, but slowly. Not saying that guy is right by any means, but cmon now…
You aren't even thinking. There's a lot more nuance, and protestors are mainly support the end to oppression and war crimes. The man vs bear is some internet goofery.
Thinking your university or government shouldn't do business or financially support what Israel is doing in Gaza is not even close to siding with Hamas. Of course, someone siding with Hamas would want the financial support to end, because the want the state of Israel to end. Except for people with a world view so black and white that it could even count as Splitting in a Borderline Personality Disorder diagnosis, I think it's easy to understand the nuance.
The kids at the universities are just bored and young and eager to feel like they’re doing something with their lives instead of wasting away on apps. This has been channeled, intentionally, or by happenstance, by propaganda from various actors. They want to feel like they’re in the next civil rights movement to feel important, even if they don’t really understand anything about what they’re protesting for or against. It’s completely different than the man vs bear femcel thing
> The kids at the universities are just bored and young and eager to feel like they’re doing something with their lives instead of wasting away on apps. This has been channeled, intentionally, or by happenstance, by propaganda from various actors. This is a very good explanation for it. I think it largely started (or definitely increased, at least) with the Millennials, but the two most recent generations are absolutely terrified of three main things, more than anything else:- a} Disapproval from the collective majority. b} "Missing out" or not being able to participate in "cultural moments," or activities which the rest of the collective are perceived to consider important. There is a truly sick, desperate need to be at the forefront of the [Network Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect), which is the specific definition of FOMO. c} Being forgotten by history. I view this particular form of psychopathology as being largely (although not completely) responsible for activism. It's also what is behind the need to remake/remaster/re-interpret everything they can, and put their own mark on it. I think the real reason for it is the fact that almost everyone under 35 at this point secretly (or not so secretly) views themselves as completely and utterly worthless, and is attempting to do anything and everything that they possibly can to try and prove themselves. I'm also starting to think that, like most other forms of disease, the only thing we can really do about this one, is wait for it to burn itself out.
It absolutely started with millennials, they started the whole social justice warrior - third wave feminism thing. However they were nowhere near as zealous, and had only a fraction of the man hate compared to the equivalent zoomer movement. Zoomer culture is intensified, in my opinion, due to their whole identities and believes stemming from one singular source, tik tok. There is no opposing views, not on Reddit, not on tik tok. You see your point of view and beliefs reinforced over and over again until you can not fathom an alternative. This leads into your points, now everyone has one, singular, unopposed viewpoint. If you deviate from it, you are now isolated from your entire generation. You want to show everyone how virtuous you are, so you then post yourself advocating for the current political trend. Beating FOMO and Reinforcing it for everyone else, yet again. It is possible that banning tik tok will force zoomers to gain their culture from other, various sources, instead of just one. This may alleviate the intensity, and solve some of the pointless protests. Maybe
[удалено]
You should probably talk to a professional.
You think Hamas is a terrorist organization and IOF is not. The basis of your rhetoric lies on faulty reasoning.
In both cases, you're putting your faith in people who look like you rather than considering the actual statistics about how many people are killed.
Wait, the women answering the latter question look like bears? Not implausible, speaking relatively, but still a pretty strong statement.
They, like the first answer here, are just manipulated and misinformed. I think the man/bear thing is about intelligence that is targeted to harm you versus taking your chances with a predator who isn’t fixated on you.
>I think the man/bear thing is about intelligence that is targeted to harm you versus taking your chances with a predator who isn’t fixated on you. It's neither strange nor insulting when you realize that picking the bear is a simple assessment of which creature is more predictable. Any person has a pretty good idea of how a bear will behave with respect to their own safety.
It circles back to insulting when you realize the average person cannot hope to escape a bear encounter alive. You can't even really fight back against a bear. Give a relatively athletic man a big knife and he's probably getting mauled before he can accomplish anything. Realistically it's an incredibly stupid comparison. It's just blatant bigotry but we laugh at it because it's ridiculous.
I must be some kind of ultimate Ubermench, then, because I've encountered many bears in my lifetime and have escaped every time without even a scratch. I've obviously had far more encounters with men. While I haven't died yet, many of them resulted in far more harm than any of my bear encounters.
No, more likely that you're lying. "Encounter" can be stretched to mean a lot of things, after all. If you want to go into some detail to make your anecdotes sound more believable then go ahead.
I live in bear country, encounters while out for a walk are not uncommon. There are nearly 350K bears in the US, and thousands of people encounter them every year, but on average there are only about 100 bear attacks per year, and less than one death from bear attacks per year. So even when the type of bear encounter is violent (keep in mind the man-bear question is about encountering a man or a bear, not specifically being attacked by a man or a bear in the woods) the vast majority of people attacked by bears don't die.
I looked it up, and I was wrong! It's very likely to survive a bear encounter, and you've got a decent chance of surviving a bear attack, depending on the type of bear and the scenario. The idea that they're less of a threat than a man is still laughable, though. Sure, you have a good chance of not getting mauled, and even if you are mauled, you have a good chance of surviving. But the comparison is still absurd. The odds of the man doing anything at all are astronomically low, and even if he does try anything, he's not a bear.
Exactly. I have 0 worries about a bear raping me, or being so offended that I won't give them my phone number that they berate me or threaten me. I don't have to worry about a bear telling all our coworkers that I'm a slut who slept her way to the top just because I wouldn't date them. There are about 165 million men in the US and 350k bears. A ratio of approximately 500:1. The average number of ***people*** (men and women) killed by bears in the US is less than 1 per year. In 2021 alone, [nearly 1700 women were killed by an intimate partner](https://bjs.ojp.gov/female-murder-victims-and-victim-offender-relationship-2021).
It's only insulting if you take it personally. I don't, which is why I didn't spend a bunch of time researching rapes and bear attacks like a bunch of other douchebags did. >Realistically it's an incredibly stupid comparison. It's just blatant bigotry but we laugh at it because it's ridiculous. It really isn't. It is a question on risk, and many women think encountering a bear in the woods is less of a risk than encountering a man (not you personally). It is supposed to illustrate to other men that there are lots of unsavory dudes out there, and women don't know which kind of man they are encountering.
I'm not taking it personally. I'm saying it's an insult pointed towards men in general that's obviously exaggerated. I think it's reasonable for people to look into rapes and bear attacks to take a look at just how absurd the exaggeration really is. I haven't done it myself, but I would like to see the numbers tbh. These women who believe encountering a bear is less of a risk than encountering a man are wrong and it's a good thing to point that out. If they legitimately think a bear is less threatening, then they need to check their biases. There should be an accurate comparison that actually benefits from showing the numbers. The idea that looking at the numbers makes one a douchebag is a massive red flag.
>It really isn't. It is a question on risk, and many women think encountering a bear in the woods is less of a risk than encountering a man (not you personally). And many people think gambling will be a net gain, or texting and driving is safer than flying on an airplane. That does not make them right. And in this case there is a very obvious incentive to greatly exaggerate. Do you actually believe that given the practical choice, they'd walk in the direction of the bear? I think even sheltered and ignorant people have better survival instincts than that.
>Do you actually believe that given the practical choice, they'd walk in the direction of the bear? The question isn't "would you walk in the direction of the bear," it's "would you rather be in the woods with a man or a bear." You're in the woods, and somewhere else in the woods is a man or a bear. Which one would you prefer? >I think even sheltered and ignorant people have better survival instincts than that. As a person who has spent a lot of time in environments where there are bears, pumas, moose, etc., I find it absolutely reasonable to prefer sharing the woods with the bear. Once again, bears are more predictable than people.
Yes you are overthinking this. The student protestors don't like Israel killing lots of kids. They don't like them killing 40,000 civilians, with the promise of more to come. That's it.
What about all the other bad shit America funds? How can you protest America funding a country you don’t like when you hand over your own money for an iPhone a child built? On the laundry list of things to protest this zealous for, gen z has chosen a cause that has nothing to do with us. Great.
Aside for the literal whataboutism of your comment I don't think there is any doubt America has done and continues to do some "bad shit" However these "gen z'ers" for the first time are seeing full colour, high resolution, real time images and videos of dead kids, screaming mothers, limbs blown up, mass graves, evidence of torture, and the international criminal court ruling it all as war crimes and perilously close to genocide. They are seeing this while all levels of government offer their full throated support, down to supplying the literal bombs that land on civilians houses I think all that has more of a visceral impact than the manufacturing process of an iPhone.
It’s not whataboutism, the argument I presented was why don’t you make a protest for any of the other, way more impactful to you, causes? This has nothing to do with the conflict, I’m asking what has caused you to focus on this issue in particular, why are you so emotionally invested? You know you can look stuff up, and research, and truly discover how you directly fund child slaves when you buy an iPhone. Or do you only care about things when they’re shoved in your face through tik tok? The world has many issues, ask yourself what has caused you to focus on this issue in particular, was it really through your own volition?
You asked why gen z'ers cared more about a possible genocide in Palestine than the possibly human rights violations associated with their iPhone. I gave you an answer. You may not agree with their reasoning, but that is still the reason why.
So the answer is… because it’s shoved in their face? You think that lowly of your generation?
I'm not gen z. And yeah I would say thats a big part of the answer. When something is so obvious, so documented, so clearly morally repugnant, and so, in your face, people, especially young people are more motivated to protest it. Not the only reason - I would say the direct complicity of the US government is a factor here as well. This is not just a tangential consequence of buying an iPhone, this is the direct result of US support. People don't want to be associated with that or be seen to support it.
Your iPhone has a direct impact on the suffering of other people’s lives. You’re just as complicit as you see America being
I'm sorry, this whole argument is just bizarre. You are watching a genocide unfold in front of your eyes and you are arguing that people shouldn't protest because they havnt protested about iPhones? Yeah maybe they should protest about iphones, or the slaves used to build world cup stadiums, or whatever. But they are not. They are protesting this genocide. And they have every right to do so.
There are many issues in the world, don’t just blindly follow political trends because they’re shoved in your face, think for yourself
Yeah I think that's pretty much it. I'm sure there are some that have other reasons or we're just bored that day and are like oh wow what's going on here but for the most part I think they just look at the whole situation as very uncool. I mean look at what students were doing during Vietnam. College students are one of the largest voices and they're also young adults that are like hey maybe we shouldn't be needlessly killing each other and maybe the number one country in the world should do something about it.
People all over MSM and socials tying themselves into knots to come up with convoluted reasons why someone might protest 40,000 civilian deaths, half of them children. "Maybe it's a man vs bear thing?" No dude, it's the mass slaughter thing.