I’m not sure where you’re going with that? I would argue that yes, it is. As it’s sexual material of a child, with that child’s face on it, explicitly made for the purpose of defaming her. So I would say it sexually abused a child.

But you could also be taking the stance of “AI trains on adult porn, and is mearly recreating child porn. No child was actually harmed during the process.” Which as I’ve said above, I disagree with, especially in this particular circumstance.

Apologies if it’s just my reading comprehension being shit

The original 20 minute video in the article makes it clear he’s talking about job roles, and mentions writers a few times (admittedly not close enough to draw an 100% certain link). I don’t think it’s enough to discredit this just based on the assumption that he’s talking about actors or that there isn’t enough context. Obviously it’s vague enough that we can’t draw any solid conclusions, so I agree with you there.

The main reason I think this is bullshit is that the guy’s testimony isn’t credible for two main reasons:

• The guy was recently passed up for promotion, and blames it on being white and male
• The interviewer is posing as a romantically interested date and asking plenty of leading questions, the guy is at least partially telling her what she wants to hear

These two points, regardless of how true his story is, give him an ulterior motive for embellishing the story and exaggerating facts, which ultimately means we can’t trust this.

I’d like to see a full investigation, as with any accusation of discrimination. But we all know that when nothing turns up, it wouldn’t shut the right wingers up

To add to your point. It also, in this case, subverted my expectations of what the joke was going to be. As the standard one just implies the therapist is taking notes because you’ve done something weird. The expectation is subverted, as the therapist is just stealing the joke instead. Subverted expectations are often a key part of humour.

Okay, thanks 👍

Yeah, we once adopted an Australian Kelpie that was misidentified as a Doberman, and I was a dumb fuck and didn’t know better.

Australian Kelpies are nutcases at the best of times, and are capable of jumping garden fences. Our rescue had some extra issues on top of that.

He really need a huge farm to run around on. He was a darling, but had too much energy for us to handle

CUDA accelerated JSON parser is sorely needed

What scenario? Have you even read the thread you’re in?

Should I try being patronising too? Would it help?

No worries, thank you for getting me this far!

Ah, gotcha, sorry my mistake. Thank you for all your help btw.

So it’s specific for when men are less disenfranchised than women? Regardless of the perpetrator of said injustice?

So looking at that other guys examples. The only one that doesn’t immediately make sense is:

Or if some women asking for some sort of benefits over men is patriarchy

And to me the only example that comes to mind is women expecting men to pay for dates? Which I think is part of patriarchy as it’s inherited from a time where women couldn’t work or had severely limited career prospects?

And other things like

Or if some women shaming men for not being masculine enough is patriarchy.

are a response to a historic lack of agency among women, requiring them to force their husbands to find success for them.

I’m not getting this one though, could you explain how this is patriarchy?

Wonder if some women abusing men is patriarchy.

Thank you for responding.

What I’m getting is that patriarchy is a system that is structured in a way that it benefits (or disenfranchises less) those that are:

• White
• Wealthy
• Born in a “Western” country?
• Able bodied
• Straight and cis gendered

And that you can keep identifying different traits and expanding the list where relevant?

Totally, you’re right.

The whole discussion is entirely feelings based, as despite the percentage men actually committing being really low (as far as our stats can tell) it doesn’t really matter that much.

Same with the bear, actual bear attacks are so statistically unlikely to occur that it’s irrelevant to the discussion, even if we had the required stats to make it a 1 to 1.

Assuming only 1% of men do something (illegal or otherwise) that makes a woman feel afraid, that 1% can do that to multiple women. If they do it to 100 different women, that’s enough that 100% of women have experienced it.

Negative experiences stick in our mind a lot more readily than good ones, and it creates the perception that a chosen random man could be more dangerous than a bear.

And I’m not saying they’re wrong, my take away is still that enough men are shit, and we as a society need to do better.

Equally, using shock value and absurd hypotheticals is going to cause emotional reactions in men, and sure, that gets the message out. But we can’t act surprised and start demonising men when they act shocked and disagree with the absurd hypothetical. It’s valid to feel hurt by the statement, and telling people their feelings don’t matter distracts from the issue

This post, and most of the other bear ones, are in normie forums full of people not familiar with feminist discourse. The reason for that? It’s funny, cathartic, shocking, and a little inflammatory. And that’s fine, it’s meant to be. It gives it reach and allows people to learn and others to teach. The problem is that when men do find this to be shocking and inflammatory, they need to channel that emotion somewhere, and antagonistic/angry internet discourse is not the correct way respond to that.

There was a popular post the other day of “If you don’t understand why women pick the bear, you are the bear”, that directly antagonises the exact people who need to hear about why women choose the bear, and those people don’t need to be antagonised, they need a little empathy and non-confrontational discussion to get there.

When I talked to them calmly, and acknowledged the way they feel, validated their emotions, then explained the topic to them, every single one I talked to accepted the core point and came out better for it. Take that angry energy, educate, and direct that energy in the right direction.

It’s not that men’s feelings should trump women’s safety. It’s that you need to think about why people are disagreeing so you can effectively talk to them

You’re correct, but you’re every bit as angry as they are, and your comment is so devoid of any respect or empathy for men as fellow human beings that you’re only making things worse for everyone.

You are the ammo that anti-sjw grifters put in their guns.

Like it or not, men are 50% of the population, and no one is getting anywhere by needlessly antagonising them

I get that, and you’re right. But a lot of people are taking the meme too far, and taking something that was originally good, and making it it anti-men. Men’s feelings actually matter, and we as society need to start actually thinking about them, rather than just telling them to man up all the time.

I’ve talked to a whole bunch of anti-bear men, and all of them accept the point when told in an empathetic way that acknowledges their right to feel the way they do. You can take that feeling and channel it as a force for good, rather them antagonising them and pushing them further away

(Not saying you in particular are doing this)

Edit: Please respond instead of downvoting. I’m failing to see the problem with identifying that there’s a enough antagonistic commenters that maybe it’s pushing people in the wrong direction. And we now require an over-correction of empathy to undo that damage.

Awesome thanks for responding 👍

Seems like it was just a misunderstanding of terms

So when is a societal ill not the patriarchy? There doesn’t seem to be any delineation between what is and isn’t, so it almost seems like some sort of mysterious Satan figure

Women aren’t universally victims. They are not some sort of angelic holy being incapable of wrong. They’re human beings.

Isn’t that the whole point of feminism? To treat women like people? Not livestock to be protected?

Dude the entire point of the “#AllMen” and “#YesAllMen” was that women need men’s help to police shitty behaviour from other men.

Half the point of the bear meme is that men hide their power level from women until it’s too late.

Why is it suddenly different when someone suggests women do their part?

It’s even worse, a lot of the posts here are outright refusing to explain anything, or branding them as the problem for not understanding immediately.

It’s so insanely bad it almost feels like an incel psyop at times

The literal title of this post forces anyone who doesn’t already understand the issue, to then view themselves as said man