820
We appreciate her
(files.catbox.moe)
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 18 May 2026
820 points (100.0% liked)
CoupleMemes
863 readers
345 users here now
Community dedicated to memes that often hit a little too close to home. Respect the instance rules and remember that sharing these memes with your SO might 50/50 put you in the doghouse.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No it's not bad to assume that, because some men are extremely dangerous. There's a medical term for what's going on, prophylactic.
Go ahead and keep contributing to the world's problems by being a generalizing fool.
This is the same logic as the fucking morons that go, "It doesn't matter who I vote for, they're all corrupt" ... and then vote for Trump.
Implying men are entitled to have conversations with women if they aren't predators makes you seem like a predator.
People can talk to strangers in public, we're adults. If she tells him off then he should go away, but attempting to strike up a conversation doesn't make someone a predator. Entitlement has nothing to do with it.
Your attempt to conflate the two concepts is what I think this other commenter is trying to draw attention to (albeit ineloquently).
The attitude of "my intentions and want to start a conversation supersedes another's right to avoid one" is the one of entitlement.
You can't know how a person will respond to an attempt to start a conversation before you attempt to start one, so by your logic no one should ever talk to anyone ever.
If a person doesn't want to talk, they can say so directly (or more likely come up with some other excuse to evade it). But striking up a conversation in and of itself violates nothing.
The attitude that you are always in the right trying to have a conversation is entitled. Sometimes, you will be right, and sometimes you will be wrong. It's up to you to be respectful when you are wrong.
I never said otherwise. Show me where I said "If someone makes it clear that they don't want to talk to you, you should force them into a conversation with you to assert your dominance." You can't, because I didn't say that.
What I said was that there's nothing wrong with trying to strike up a conversation, so whatever additional layers you're trying to add onto that are merely strawmen.
Sometimes, there is something wrong trying to have a conversation. Just because you don't know, doesn't make it right.
Not to say you should feel bad about it or anything. You didn't know.
What you're saying sounds a lot like gaslighting. "You might be wrong without knowing it, but don't feel bad about it! Just know that you were wrong, although I won't tell you why."
Being "wrong" implies moral agency. You're not exercising moral agency if you're doing something wrong without knowing it. I mean if the "wrongness" depends on knowledge that you don't have access to, not if you just choose to not know better to carve out an exceptionalist place for yourself.
To illustrate, if a person hands you a pill and says "Give it to this person, because it's medicine and they need it to live," and you give it to the person but it was actually poison and they die, you didn't commit the murder. The person who switched out the medicine with poison and then lied to you about it did.
Likewise, if you're talking to a stranger in public and they're being polite but deep inside they're silently resenting you and wishing you would go away, you're not doing anything wrong because there's no way for you to read that person's mind. If they want you to stop talking to them, they need to communicate that to you in some way or else it's not an issue of morality on your part.
And it's ridiculous that you're trying to moralize that situation.
I did say why. The person feels uncomfortable or threatened. If you make someone feel that way, requiring a specific performance from them is pretty entitled.
Who does? The person in this hypothetical situation that you're making up? Sure, you can make up a hypothetical situation about a person feeling uncomfortable. Just as easily as I can make up a hypothetical situation about someone feeling comfortable? See how much good that's worth? What's ridiculous is how you're trying to cast moral judgements on me for this hypothetical situation that's the product of your own imagination.
It's not "entitled" to require someone to communicate how they feel about something in order for you to understand how they feel about it. In fact, it's entitled to expect someone to know how you feel without having to communicate that to them. Mind reading is not possible, and if you seriously want to rely on that for women's safety and to make moral judgements about people based on their inability to read minds, then you seriously need therapy.
If someone tells you that you're making them uncomfortable, then you need to leave them alone. If they don't tell you that, however, then you can't just assume that they do feel that way. How fucking psychologically damaged does a person have to be to go around with the default assumption that everyone they talk to is being made uncomfortable by them? It would be impossible to function as a well-adjusted member of society on that premise.
And the fact that you don't see that is wild.
What, are you entitled to that response? No? Then you are not entitled. If you are still demanding it, you are "entitled"
It's not "demanding" anything. It's predicated on the simple fact that nobody is a mindreader. How many times do I have to restate that?
You're the one making demands that people should be reading minds, so if anyone has an entitled outlook here it's you.
If you think this means you need to be a mind reader, you need a lesson for graceful failure.
Huh? I thought you blocked me. Why are you still responding? In fact, don't talk to me. There, I made my boundary clear. So if you really mean what you say about not being entitled to talk to people, then you'll respect that boundary by leaving me alone.
By the way, what you were insisting, would require mind reading, and cherry-picking small snippets devoid of context to say they don't require mind-reading doesn't change that.
Lol
Who said anything about a conversation? This was an opener lame pickup line. Like I already implied in my original post, to assume they cannot take, "no" for an answer (and end of the convo) ... is to assume the worst in people.
Interesting how you're so willing to defend assuming the worst in others. Really says a lot about you...