145
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by Darth_Vader__@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world

Obviously I can understand why mysoginists are hated upon, As their belief is all women are trash or men are superior etc. But why are incels also generally hated upon? They are lacking in a way that makes them unable to gey in a relationship, but that shouldn't necessarily mean they are mysoginists, right?

What am I missing here? I haven't ever had a relationship with a woman, but I don't hate all women either. I just consider myself unlucky. Does that make me an incel?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 months ago

I can’t believe what I’m reading in this thread.

You are judging half of the population on their physical makeup.

This makes me sick.

Fuck trying to be better than those who have come before us. Fuck trying to build a better future.

I hope our paths never cross.

[-] beardown@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

I agree with you. This sort of blatant bigotry has to be a right wing psyop to split the left or something. No way that "liberal" minded people could think it's rational to discriminate against half the population

[-] june@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Lmao

You’re really missing the point here and getting offended over reality for half the population.

Enough men are a danger to women and children that it forces women to be wary of all men. Which is the smart and right thing to do.

If you’re in a room with 100 people and you know 10 of them are extremely violent with extremely short fuses that can be triggered by anything from a casual look to an uninvited ‘hello’’, but you don’t know which 10 it is, how are you going to socially navigate that room? Are you going to pretend like everyone in that room is a friend and make strong eye contact with everyone saying hello? Or are you going to tread lightly?

That’s the reality women face with men every day.

[-] beardown@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

I know plenty of people who make this same argument for why whites can't trust blacks. Those people are called racists. People who make the argument you're making are called sexists.

[-] june@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No you don’t. Because there isn’t a preponderance of evidence than black people are less trustworthy than non-POC.

Just because an argument sounds similar does not make it the same.

[-] beardown@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

there isn’t a preponderance of evidence than black people are more less trustworthy than non-POC.

That is true, but is not a universally held belief. Many strongly feel that black people are inherently dangerous and untrustworthy. Others feel the same about Muslims. Or Chinese. Or Russians. Or Jewish people. Or Gypsies.

People who feel that way about those groups are called bigots. You feel that way about men which means you are also a bigot. Not a difficult analysis.

[-] ReiRose@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Feelings & beliefs =/= statistics

[-] beardown@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

What do FBI crime stats say about Black Americans?

Statistics are easily misconstrued, and often are

[-] june@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

We aren’t talking belief here. What I am saying is based off of empirical evidence.

Why are you being so unapologetically obtuse?

[-] beardown@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

You can use FBI crime statistics to make "empirical" arguments about black Americans. Yet I think we both recognize that would be fallacious

[-] june@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I’m gonna ask you again, why are you being unapologetically obtuse?

If you want to challenge the data I’m citing, do it rather than refusing to engage in good faith.

[-] beardown@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

It isn't obtuse to state with moral clarity that it is always wrong to treat someone differently on the basis of their sex

[-] june@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

When there’s a preponderance of empirical evidence that a certain group of people poses a larger risk to another group of people, it validates the decision to approach them with caution.

You’re arguing that women should just ignore the reality that they are likely to be assaulted (remember, 81%) and that the people most likely to assault them are men. It is reasonable and right for women to exercise caution and clarity when engaging with men for that reason. This isn’t hard, it requires a person to be willfully ignorant to disagree with it. Get your feelings out of this matter and look at the reality we live in.

[-] beardown@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

When there’s a preponderance of empirical evidence that a certain group of people poses a larger risk to another group of people, it validates the decision to approach them with caution.

Literally Nazi rationale for 1930s Germany. Or White Americans justification for segregation. Or Israeli justification for genocide against Palestinians

People are people. Immutable traits have no influence on how anyone should ever be treated

[-] june@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

In every case you cite there was not a preponderance of empirical data. It was fabricated.

Are you arguing that the data I’m citing is fabricated?

[-] beardown@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You're saying that the FBI crime statistics demonstrating that more crimes per capita are committed by black Americans than any other race are fabricated?

If so, then shouldn't we similarly disbelieve all similar demographic data?

If not, then shouldn't we segregate black Americans away from the rest of us?

The point is that you are making the arguments of a white supremacist and a segregationist

[-] june@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

You're saying that the FBI crime statistics demonstrating that more crimes per capita are committed by black Americans than any other race are fabricated?

Yes. I am. But not the way you’re thinking. The data is unreliable for the following, well documented, reasons:

It doesn’t account for socioeconomic disparities, which is a far greater indicator and predictor of crime than race.

It doesn’t acknowledge systemic bias and racism in policing practices, again well documented.

It doesn’t take into account disparities in reporting and data collection.

Ultimately the fbi statistics are in fact questionable for a multitude of reasons, the least of which being that they are direct statistics that don’t take into account underlying causes.

The statistics regarding women and sexual assault are quite straight forward with far fewer underlying questions. The reality is, in fact, that sexual assault is known to be quite under reported and that the numbers we have are known to be understating the issue.

[-] beardown@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

It doesn’t account for socioeconomic disparities, which is a far greater indicator and predictor of crime than race.

It doesn’t acknowledge systemic bias and racism in policing practices, again well documented.

It doesn’t take into account disparities in reporting and data collection.

Ultimately the fbi statistics are in fact questionable for a multitude of reasons, the least of which being that they are direct statistics that don’t take into account underlying causes.

Right and all of these clearly disadvantage black Americans, and specifically black men, for obviously racist reasons.

Why do these not also disfavor men generally for equally bigoted reasons? Are there not fallacious biases regarding the innate criminality of men just as there are fallacious biases regarding the innate criminality of black people?

[-] june@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I’m so done with your bad faith arguments. Jfc.

You’re intentionally obtuse, you ignore the points I’m making, making up fallacious and straw man arguments, ignoring empirical data, and failing to make a single argument with any sort of data to support it. Instead you engage in whataboutism as if it is some gotcha moment that should win me over and start convincing women to stop being cautious around men because if they don’t they’re bigots, when you have made clear time and again that you don’t even understand what bigotry is. Get your shit together and make a valid argument or shut up. Until you do, I’m out.

[-] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

^false equivalency. Sexists hate men (or women) on principle. That's not what this concept is. You'd know that if you paid attention just a little bit

[-] beardown@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

Treating someone negatively or positively on the basis of their sex is sexism.

[-] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Applying a loose definition to a situation to fit your politics is dishonest

[-] beardown@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

Treating someone differently on the basis of sex is sexism. Treating someone differently on the basis of race is racism. This isn't hard

[-] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Hey bro, care to have another pointless argument over on https://lemmy.world/post/12636728 about the exact situation this pointless argument was about?

Because guess what, the parent comment of this whole thread actually played out, went badly, and now it's national news.

[-] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

You're right, this is neither. Wow that is easy

[-] AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

No, half the population is being judged on their statistical likelihood to commit violence. Their physical makeup is only part of that. Most of it is a cultural entitlement, as evidenced by so many on here getting butthurt that people might be afraid of them because of their life experiences.

this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
145 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26980 readers
1090 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS