"b-but bears are actually dangerous!" Shut the hell up.
this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
799 points (74.9% liked)
memes
10413 readers
3001 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You spelled it wrong, the sign should say "Safety is more important than feelings"
This is specifically about the bear meme though. Way too many men feel personally attacked by women not feeling safe around men they don't know. Instead of thinking about why that is the men cry and attack the women.
and what do we do if somehow safety becomes intertwined into feelings?
What happens then?
You become trauma bonded
mhm see, that makes sense. But i was speaking with regards to the hypothetical presented here specifically.
I.. What? The hypothetical that some kind of saw game show makes women actually choose? If the feelings are intertwined with safety, you become trauma bonded. Then die or run. Because safety is more important than feelings
ok so in the hypothetical presented here the entirety of feelings is less important than safety, yes?
If so, than feelings that are influencing your understanding/feeling of safety, are completely invalid and null in this case. Because again, feelings are less important than safety, but the problem here is trauma bonding influences your understanding of safety, with feelings. But those feelings literally do not exist in this example, so that entire field is of null value at this specific moment in the hypothetical.
Safety would quite literally only be dependent on the statistical analysis capability of the individual if feelings are no longer present. Unless of course this statement is written incredibly poorly and does not explain the position it holds properly. In which case, you should probably be more specific.
My point here is that this statement makes little sense, given that feelings often influence the feeling of safety, ironic really. While physical safety is an isolated and quantifiable fact. I.E. a knife can cut you, you should be careful with it. The felt safety is not something that can be quantified and understood, since it's based on emotions, and we don't understand how those work particularly well. But what we do understand is how they influence each other. I.E. feelings can often result in feeling unsafe due to many different reasons. But since feelings in this case, do not matter more than safety does it's possible that we can delete the entire notion of "felt safety" since physical safety is a quantifiable concept.
Of course the feelings could matter, but that would be rather silly wouldnt it? Given that the entire statement here hinges off of the fact that "feelings don't matter" in comparison to safety, that is.
It feels like you are making a logic knot only for yourself so you then can solve it? I am sure there is something you can gain from understanding that, what is meant here. But I don't follow your semantic reasoning, I mean.. What is put up is that, when your feelings say one thing, but your brain knows another way, and it's related to safety, you shouldn't follow your feelings. It's ofc extremely generalised advice but from an old man, trust me it's truer than you think. Listen to your brain if it tells you something is dangerous, even if your heart says woohoo. Just in general, that's super solid advice
it's not really a logic knot, i just think the linguistic structure of that statement is really funny. It's taking a concept that is primarily felt and experienced, and then saying "yeah actually don't feel any of that."
Which like, makes sense on the surface level, but that's not what people mean when they say that, unless we're meta shitposting on the original post here, and i missed that. Which is very possible.
elaborate?
Everyone's safety is more important than anyone's feelings.
yeah this is something I can get behind
This is it
You agree with the post, why change it?
To use more inclusive language, of course. That's what we're all doing now isn't it?
Then the post wouldn't have meaning because that's a universally agreed upon moral sentiment on its face. The post is targeting people who would rather take offense to recent discourse rather than slowing down and considering how this moral sentiment applies to the situation. Without specifying 'women' and 'men' the post would not have contextual meaning.
You're free to make your own 'inclusive' meme that states the obvious, but the people this meme is targeted toward would see it as obvious and not consider how it pertains to their behavior.
It has the exact same meaning with the inclusive wording, without being adversarial for absolutely no reason. It would work just as well when said to a man getting butthurt over women choosing the bear.
The wording in the OP is hateful, even if it is saying something morally correct. This is not a "Black Lives Matter" vs "All Lives Matter" situation.
That is exactly the situation. No part of this post is hateful; it's adversarial because women expressed a justified fear and men just "disagreed" because they don't like to think about it. The point is to be controversial yet morally correct as a statement. It would absolutely not work just as well if it was inclusive, people would just agree with it and no one would care.
Do you disagree with the statement? It doesn't sound like you do. What's the issue? Who is harmed by this post?
for the record, you are getting downvoted because lemmy is full of men who have not been exposed to feminist theory in any meaningful way. they probably think they are here in good faith but unfortunately are falling quite short.
you are absolutely in the right and i thank you for your leveled contribution to the discussion.
Thank you!
You're being willfully ignorant to peoples points
The "points" you're referring to dont at all contradict the OP but merely deflect from the issue presented
All Safety Matters
Imagine if the police brutality movement was called “Black Lives Matter More Than White People’s Need To Oppress”. It’s working a needless insult into the message.
I’d also be okay with other phrases highlighting how safety is a bigger topic for women than men realize, but not one that makes assumptions about “all men”. Even if I was a guy who largely hated the actions of my own gender, you think you’ll get 50% of the world on board by doing that?
Black lives do matter more than white supremacy, which precipitates in a perceived “need” to oppress. That is in fact a very poignant statement of what critical race theory is.
You are on the wrong side of history trying to tone police how women express that they are unsafe.
Even if a statement is truthful, it can be demeaning and misleading.
“Ripping a puppy’s guts out is a very bad thing - so take it under advisement that you should not do that.”
That’s a ridiculous statement that says something truthful and slyly forms the expectation of blame for an issue on a person. Many men have been violent to women - and many whites have oppressed black people. But twisting the wording to generalizing the group makes people feel like it’s directed personally, and forms a psychological barrier to any response.
You’re even doing it in this comment about “wrong side of history” - I’ve done nothing to discourage women being vocal about their safety problems; just the pushing of blame to a group that’s too broad, especially since men need to be in that conversation about stopping sexual violence and encouraging safer spaces if we want actual change.
By participating in this conversation and telling women how best to express their experiences the moment they speak up, like it or not, you are doing precisely that.
Does the sign say "all men"? If it did, would it matter? This is the most engagement I've ever seen on Lemmy regarding the issue of women's safety, sorry you don't approve of it.
Why? The sign seems fine to me.
Because thereal's version is welcoming and non discriminatory, and the meme is antagonistic by design
Yes, it is antagonistic. But is it bad to be antagonistic to people who think that men's feelings are more important that women's safety?
Yeah, ok, with this response and your other one, I'm blocking you now
hell of a thing to say about yourself lol
Come to join the fun I see! Do you also think that women's safety is less important than men's feelings?
Come on coward, what's your position?
My position is you can approach the topic of safety for women without antagonistically tarring all men with the rape brush.
Especially if you want good men on board for this argument
No one has called all men rapists. The meme doesn't imply it. The women answering the man/bear thought experiment are not implying that.
Where is this coming from?