Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
Imo the bear thing was phrased in a way to cause that visceral reaction. It was intended to be antagonistic. If the same point was phrased the way you phrased it above, I want to believe we would have much more civil discussion about it. But instead, the posts put many male readers on the defensive and those that tried to explain were seen as defending this antagonistic stance.
That is no excuse for DM harassment or harassment on other posts, just my take on the reason the discussion turned so uncivil.
Yeah, it was ragebait alright. Then again, if it were phrased in a reasonable manner, would we be talking this much about it? If the objective was to kick-start a conversation, it did the job 110%
A conversation yes, just not a productive one. It may have done more damage than good, since many people now associate this issue with the ragebait and don't take it seriously.
I don't think it's the phrasing. You would need an entirely different question to not elicit the response we saw. It wasn't that the question that was asked that angered people, it was that women consistently chose the bear. this question would have been a nothing burger otherwise. At the same time, though, the question was pitched because the author already knew what the answer would be. They understood how frequently unknown men pose a threat to women.
What this response from many men the shows is that most dudes are still not ready to talk about just how much more dangerous the world is for women at a baseline measurement - quite explicitly because of predatory dudes.
Look at the comment from ZeroGravitas. Even if you insist on asking the question which I don't see why, just prefacing it with what he wrote would completely transform what it was. The issue may not even be the question but the lack of context/explanation before sharing it.
I read his comment, and I disagree that it was explicitly ragebait. It was making a point attempting to bring women's safety to the forefront of discussion (it succeeded but enflamed too much to be useful).
So what is the bear thing? I’ve seen reference to it a couple of times… I get the gist, but like what’s the source?
Just a post of someone saying they'd rather be stuck in the middle of the woods with a bear rather than with an unknown man, been posted lots of places not just lemmy.
I'm confused. How is that controversial, and how are people taking it personally?
The first one is just an expression of biases that their experiences have resulted in. As for the second one, I'm clueless. Maybe if you feel like the main character in every situation, they'd be offended because the man in reference is then, and as such not unknown?
If I had to guess I'd say because "an unknown man" can be intepreted as "an average man" which obviously is going to hit a lot of people.
The actual statistics of man vs bear is not really the point through, and a large number people did not get that. It's just that the question was phrased (intentionally or unintentionally) in a way that lends itself to this comparison.
Thanks. In other words just not understanding basic words and statistics?
In this case, unknown/random sample != average of samples. Being alone in the woods, and encountering a bear, is arguably more dangerous than the average male human. Most bears that aren't grizzlies will happily leave you alone, which I hope is also the case with the average man. If you are unlucky with which person you encounter, the dangers can be much worse.
Probably Bayesian elements here too, where the end result is "what is riskier", with an implicit assumption of "meeting a bear" = unlikely, "meeting a man" = likely (relatively). In any case, not listening to the emotional takeaway from shitty experiences, is, ironically, a very male stereotype.
How would you feel if the hypothetical was asking if you'd rather encounter a bear or a Muslim?
What about a bear or a person who is black?
Or a bear vs an immigrant?
See the issue?
Also, when we dehumanize or other an entire sex (which is what we're doing here) who do you think suffers the most irl from that dehumanization?
Because it isn't rich white men in gated suburban communities. It's the black and brown men who are already viewed as inherently harmful and are disproportionately violently victimized by police and the state.
If we want more George Floyds then we should keep spreading memes like this. Because this contributes to the mindset that allows us to view men of color as inherently dangerous superpredators
I'm going to take all your questions at face value, and assume it's all good faith.
My emotions are not that fickle. I also don't see an inherent problem with questions, nor this one in particular. It would be stupid of me to assume you mean something more specific than what you've stated. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and ask to clarify constraints.
Same thing here. You realise that what we'd be exploring is the concept of, and awareness of, potential biases and prejudices? And, more importantly, the prevalence of experiences that lead to such biases?
Oh, this one is clear cut. Immigrants are the fucking worst.
(jk)
Nope. I don't. You should re-evaluate the purpose of having conversations and discussing hypotheticals.
Is that what you think we're doing here? If so, then we arrived at what the misunderstanding is. Which is a good thing. Or, it is if you give a shit about understanding the argument, and less about making your own. The latter is of course fine, but, on its own.
Not related or relevant here. Not saying it isn't important, but, as mentioned. If you want to make your own arguments or discuss other things, that's fine. Probably effective to start your own thread for that.
So you think dehumanizing men will not have an adverse effect on men of color. But are unable to state why.
And you realize that only a racist or a bigot would prefer to encounter a bear instead of a black person, or Muslim, or immigrant. You would have to be a bigot to think any of those groups are "worse" than a bear. Which means a person would be similarly bigoted to prefer a bear over a man. It's the same principle - discrimination on the basis of immutable traits. Which is universally recognized as a civil rights issue
You don't seem to understand what's being said. And, I'm not keen on indulging. Have a good one.
What is being said is that right wing organizations are utilizing astroturfed faux "feminism" as a dogwhistle to fearmonger about people of color and immigrants.
This is the sort of rhetoric that would be pushed by the Daughters of the Confederacy, and similar groups. It is a mask for hate speech and marginalization, not an authentic expression of feminist values.
Tiktok, along with all social media, is known to be a haven for astroturfed political movements and propaganda campaigns. Strange then how some "people" are unwilling to recognize this bear meme for what it actually is.
Why are you assuming and generalizing to that extent? Even if some malign interest are encouraging a trend, it's still individuals expressing a view that aims to get some point across. If you think this is coordinated astroturfing, I think you might be just a tad delusional, and also simply not aware of why the bear analogy (not meme) was made.
The troubling part here, would be to disregard the gist of the message: a lot more women than most people are aware of, experience unpleasant interactions with men. That this is expressed, perhaps exaggerated (for making the point clearer), perhaps genuinely and literally (because that's their opinion), as rather taking their chances with a bear... Is kinda fucking rich to disregard as astroturfing, IMHO. And, if you are a normal, decent, empathetic person, and want to be perceived as such, I'd keep that perspective to yourself.