587
manbearpig
(quokk.au)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
587 points (100.0% liked)
People Mastodon
425 readers
4 users here now
People tooting stuff. We allow toots from anyone and are platform agnostic (Mastodon, BlueSky, Twitter, Tumblr, FaceBook, Whatever)
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
Four is between two and five, though? Which is exactly what they said?
Are you really trying to present this argument as people saying you shouldn't be cautious around bears? Have you lived around bears? Yeah, be cautious around bears - but that caution takes the form of "make sure you don't surprise the bear". Bears don't want to be involved with you any more than you want to be involved with them. They will avoid you.
A perfect juxtaposition for incels!
You are missing the point of the original experiment, and continue to misdirect the discussion into your predeterminted views.
So again, fuck you for that.
The only thing that matters is that "some MEN ARE A DANGER TO WOMEN".
Disregarding that you only support the attackers. Simple as.
Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY cares about bears. Everyone knows they can and will kill you.
But that's the upside: an understood and agreed danger.
Men can and will kill men and women, in great numbers every year. And people choose to ignore that.
Like, I don't know, derailing conversations to talk about bears.
Nobody has claimed that bears aren't dangerous.
The fact is: despite the fact that everyone knows bears are dangerous, many women when asked say they would rather encounter a bear than a man. That isn't saying they don't think bears are dengerous, it speaks volumes about their regular encounters with men.
Saying "um acksully bears are very dangerous" is ignoring the point to have an argument that no one is actually arguing against.
Honestly confused, do you mean in your initial comment you were asserting that the choices were either "interact with man" or "interact with bear"? Because if so that was never the premise of the initial question, and nobody else here appears to be discussing it like it was.
... The initial question doesn't frame it like that, yes; however I don't see anyone here implying it does, so I'm unclear on how it's at all relevant. The initial question is "would you rather be in the woods alone with a bear or with a man you didn't know" - being alone in the woods with a bear is an extremely common thing (I was alone in the woods with countless bears not moments ago when I stepped outside), and the risks carried by either option are the entire point of the question.
What the... No, your objection was "picking and choos[ing]" (ex:) if you were just in the woods with a bear vs. had to interact with a man
I said yes, that's not the initial question, and presented that simply being alone in the woods with a bear is an extremely common occurence, a reference to the "170 million black bears of prigozhin" comment from earlier.
Now you're mad I'm presenting those two options as always having been treated as their equivalent forms, and yet still maintaining my earlier position after explaining the details of the question. But... why would my answer have changed? My position or the premise it was based on never changed. I never misunderstood anything about the question. You were the one that interpreted the discussion incorrectly.
Yet men killing a shit ton more women than that per year isn’t a good enough reason to warrant caution? Statistically the bear is still safer.
Edit: You also don’t have to falsely inflate the population of men to create a hyperbolic fantasy situation to justify choosing the bear.
Explain how the bear is statistically safer; you would need to factor in not just total incidences, but total interactions, otherwise it's a sharpshooter fallacy.
The average woman likely has tens of thousands of hours with strange men and no incident, and it would be extremely surprising that the bear stats would be better than that.
I wouldn't be surprised that even if you only selected men convicted of violence on women, the bears would still be statistically more dangerous (or it would at least be a somewhat close comparison).
This is getting into the weeds a bit though and not really in the spirit of the original question.
I’ve already committed enough of my time to this stupid as fuck conversation, it’s not worth my time.
Instead, a fun animal fact, sharks are older than both trees and Polaris, the north star.
the average woman has had 'no incident' with men?
you need to listen to some women
or alternatively, you can make your statistical point without hyperbole
Women existing in public: https://www.tiktok.com/@specere/video/7472932570162924831
It doesn't matter if there is a bus full of men and only one is a creep. The woman isn't going to remember the 99 men who left her alone, she's going to remember the 1 that stared at her the whole time.
If this was your experience every day it would not be surprising at all to not want to be around a random man.
Not all men are creeps, but all women have been creeped on.
https://interactive.unwomen.org/multimedia/infographic/violenceagainstwomen/en/index.html
no i can't. i can only imagine two million bears in a large space, like say the washington dc mall. that's the most i can realistically comprehend. two million shirtless bears. would someone get me a mai tai?