Neato 79 points 2 years ago

The number of people either too dense or too willfully misogynistic to understand what this is about is depressing.

If you're arguing bear statistics or saying "not all men" or decrying misandry, then you've totally missed the point. If you are doing it intentionally, you're the type of men women would choose the bear over.

The fact that anyone would choose a dangerous animal over a random man is an indictment against the culture surrounding male privilege and should spark introspection and change. Arguments against this is just ignoring women and solidifies the decision that the bear is better.

save

path: 0 9909554, hotness: undefined, score: 79, children: 59

slowwooderrunsdeep 12 points 2 years ago

It’s also amazing how people can have this argument in one thread and then go to another thread and leave a comment that just says “ACAB”.

You don’t trust cops? Why not? Because of a few bad apples?

Sounds like you get it…

save

path: 0 9909554 9912297, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 9

Letstakealook 12 points 2 years ago

That argument doesn't hold water. One is an immutable characteristic, and the other is a career choice. A career that filters for certain personalities.

save

path: 0 9909554 9912297 9912881, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 6

slowwooderrunsdeep -14 points 2 years ago

Well first off, being a man is not an immutable characteristic, because transgender people exist.

Second, the difference between the two groups you bring up isn’t relevant in this comparison, because pointing out the differences between them doesn’t negate the similarities. Both are groups with an inordinate amount of power (physical or legal) over any outgroup and are supported by cultural norms that allow them to exercise that power largely without repercussions. Both groups are also protected from consequences by others within the group, regardless if the others agree with their questionable decisions. And most importantly, both groups are human, meaning the individuals vary widely within the group along the moral spectrum. Even if most within the group are good, bad actors will always exist and there’s no way to know which one you’re dealing with at face value.

Even if it’s not a perfect comparison, it’s apt enough to support my point.

save

path: 0 9909554 9912297 9912881 9913330, hotness: undefined, score: -14, children: 5

Drusas 9 points 2 years ago

The idea is that ACAB because one bad apple spoils the bunch. So yeah. You're missing the point of the idiom you are using.

save

path: 0 9909554 9912297 9917115, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0

Mango 2 points 2 years ago

save

path: 0 9909554 9912297 9919002, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0