That is, at least to me, is both a bit of a strawman and an invalid comparison.
First: The statement “black people are” implies it applies to all of them, or at least the average person, whereas the sentiment that I usually see isn’t that all men are dangerous but rather that some are and it’s difficult, if not impossible, to know which are beforehand.
Second: Men have not been marginalized, discriminated, and systematically oppressed for centuries. People of color have been, at the very least in the west and the countries they’ve colonized.
There’s an additional point to be made here that I feel is relevant: Ethnicity does not inherently infer a large difference in physical characteristics the same way biological sex does. I don’t imagine the strength of an average person varies as much depending on ethnicity as it does depending on biological sex. The average man is much physically stronger than the average woman, in a physical confrontation she’d be at a distinct disadvantage.
Sorry to ping you again, but I want to run a few other things at you, as I find people with the ability to doublethink without blinking absolutely fascinating.
Let’s say, okay, ‘men’ is vague enough that a single individual man should not feel insulted when someone says they’re so bad they would rather get mauled by a bear, because… Reasons idk.
Is ‘women’ vague enough so that it’s just as fine to say, idk, some stereotypical bullshit like ‘women are weak, dumb, and therefore belong in the kitchen’? Should an individual woman not be annoyed after hearing this? Is it not sexist?
Let me know when you want to have a conversation instead of arguing in bad faith. Aside from that I suggest you learn how to be less angry about things on the internet, it’ll make you happier.
FWIW I disliked the answer too, it’s feels pretty insulting, but then it struck me. I go camping deep in the back country. When I go, sometimes I carry a gun.
The gun isn’t for bears or mountain lions, but for the off chance I’d run into a person with bad intentions 10 miles out on a remote trail, 30 miles from the nearest po-dunk town. They’d probably just be another hiker, but maybe not. The point is I’d rather run into a wild animal in the woods than a person I don’t know with unknown intentions.
That is, at least to me, is both a bit of a strawman and an invalid comparison.
First: The statement “black people are” implies it applies to all of them, or at least the average person, whereas the sentiment that I usually see isn’t that all men are dangerous but rather that some are and it’s difficult, if not impossible, to know which are beforehand.
Second: Men have not been marginalized, discriminated, and systematically oppressed for centuries. People of color have been, at the very least in the west and the countries they’ve colonized.
There’s an additional point to be made here that I feel is relevant: Ethnicity does not inherently infer a large difference in physical characteristics the same way biological sex does. I don’t imagine the strength of an average person varies as much depending on ethnicity as it does depending on biological sex. The average man is much physically stronger than the average woman, in a physical confrontation she’d be at a distinct disadvantage.
“black people” applies to all black people, but “men” doesn’t apply to all men?
That’s honestly an interesting way of thinking.
I’m not sure if you’re trolling or not but “black people are dangerous thugs” is very clearly a racist generalizing statement.
Sorry to ping you again, but I want to run a few other things at you, as I find people with the ability to doublethink without blinking absolutely fascinating.
Let’s say, okay, ‘men’ is vague enough that a single individual man should not feel insulted when someone says they’re so bad they would rather get mauled by a bear, because… Reasons idk.
Is ‘women’ vague enough so that it’s just as fine to say, idk, some stereotypical bullshit like ‘women are weak, dumb, and therefore belong in the kitchen’? Should an individual woman not be annoyed after hearing this? Is it not sexist?
What if it was stereotypes targeting idk, LGBT people, Christians, Muslims, liberals, right wingers, etc?
How do you determine whether a group is sufficiently generic that they are not allowed to be annoyed at stereotypes targeting them?
Let me know when you want to have a conversation instead of arguing in bad faith. Aside from that I suggest you learn how to be less angry about things on the internet, it’ll make you happier.
I’m not angry, I am curious. This whole man or bear thing has been an absolute blast for me.
It’s a shame you refuse to answer though. That makes me sad. Why are you uncomfortable with this question?
Bullshit, you’re JAQ’ing off.
FWIW I disliked the answer too, it’s feels pretty insulting, but then it struck me. I go camping deep in the back country. When I go, sometimes I carry a gun.
The gun isn’t for bears or mountain lions, but for the off chance I’d run into a person with bad intentions 10 miles out on a remote trail, 30 miles from the nearest po-dunk town. They’d probably just be another hiker, but maybe not. The point is I’d rather run into a wild animal in the woods than a person I don’t know with unknown intentions.
Idk about whatever arbitrary lines the other commenter has.
I was just relaying a way I thought about it that helped me try to relate and understand.
Asking questions is being angry now?
Man you guys really don’t like having your opinions challenged lmao.
Dude made an absolute arbitrary selection between two groups of people about who’s generic enough to not be angry at being targeted by stereotypes.
I’m just curious about where that arbitrary line sits.
I never claimed the opposite.