Seasoned_Greetings @ Seasoned_Greetings @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

583

Joined

2 yr. ago

Seriously. Don't let the sunken cost fallacy keep you from enjoying something premium that you bought

As an owner of both, the steam deck actually handles most switch games better.

Although, as I'm sure you know, the only way to legally do this is to already own the games you emulate.

1 in 3 women experience unwanted sexual contact at least once in their lifetime. That's roughly 65 million women in the states.

That's not an insignificant risk. You may choose to ignore it, but you clearly don't have to live with it.

Saying "women should ignore potential danger" on the premise that it's not fair to a man, who is 9 times out of 10 not even effected by the precautions that women tend to take, is basically like saying you shouldn't wear a seat belt so that you don't accidentally offend the other drivers on the road.

You aren't discriminating against those other drivers by being conscious of your own safety.

Whether or not you agree with that doesn't really change the fact that women are taught to go to the bathroom in groups or go to the bar with friends (or really not go anywhere alone that they might not be able to easily call for help) or carry mace or cross the street to avoid a man that's looking at them creepily or any number of avoidant situations.

These are things women do to protect themselves that literally only affect the men who wanted to and would otherwise miss an opportunity to assault them, and things women are taught to do by other women because sexual assault is a thing that happens.

The only context things like this are even brought up as "sexist" at all is when men realize that women have to do it and then get offended on the behalf of all men because it's "not fair". Like in this conversation we're having now.

The patriarchy and culture of toxic masculinity. Added to that many religions teach that men are more important than women.

And because of this, it's not important for women to protect themselves? We should denounce the fact that women protect themselves because society has conditioned men to be violent?

Look, I'm all about addressing the root cause, but just pointing at one injustice in society doesn't make another just disappear.

Again if you live your life by those statistics, you would also be wary of black people

You really need to stop saying "well if you're taking precautions based on statistics you must also be racist"

Because that's a really transparent fallacy that essentially just boils down to you asserting "women shouldn't protect themselves because what about black people?"

These are separate points, and putting the words in my mouth that I must be racist is nothing more than deflection to avoid addressing the actual point.

Again if you live your life by those statistics

Additionally, I know very many people who wear seat belts because of the statistical chance of being in a wreck. According to your fallacy, all of those people must also be racist.

To be clear, the man in question was divorced. Unknown reasons. Not widowed.

Also, I'm not over here saying that no man should ever be trusted in that situation. Just that I won't blame parents who do look at that situation and don't want their girls at that sleepover.

In any case, I'm pretty tired of arguing against the "secretly sexist" accusations. Call it what you want. The concept is out there, and you clearly understand it.

Fellas, is it wrong to fear for the safety of your children?

It's quite ironic of you to take that stance, on this post.

Yeah, it's sexist. That doesn't make taking precaution wrong. If you want clarification on that subject, go read the essay I wrote for the other guy. Or maybe ask a lady friend. Most women tend to understand this concept pretty well, given they have to live with it.

Just as you use your statistic to justify sexism.

I have said several times already that it's sexism. That doesn't make it wrong to be cautious, nor is it justifying the fact.

Sexism in its barest definition exists in benign circumstances all around us. Why do men and women have different bathrooms? Different sports leagues? Different car insurance rates?

Arguing that sexism shouldn't exist for the sake of it in this specific case is selectively pushing equality in the face of women's safety.

100% of women will experience a car crash in their lifetime. (3-4 accidents per lifetime).

Let's extend your logic on this: is it wrong to wear a seat belt given, statistically, that you will experience a car crash at some point? Because in effect, that's what this line of logic is.

Or are you just being obtuse? Because in order for this point to make sense, you'd have to argue against practicing safety in the face of statistical likelihood. Which is literally what this is about

Because to you, the cause isn't your problem

Oh, please do educate me on what causes men to sexually assault women. Yes, the fact that women are being attacked is the problem. The cause should not preclude women from taking measures to ensure their safety.

As long as I have spent clarifying this point, besides the misguided notion that we should push equality in a situation that is fundamentally unequal, I seriously don't understand how people don't get it.

If you live your life like that

The reality is that women do.

using statistics like that you end up supporting people who say you should be wary of blacks because 14% of the population is black yet commit 53% of the murders

No, this is a different thing. People who espouse that line of logic are explicitly using it to justify racism. There are several other factors that play into that specific statistic, including the population density of black people in areas where crime is already high, and the likelihood of being economically disadvantaged just by being in a black family from generational poverty.

That stat specifically is simplified to a bare number and used as a bludgeon by racists.

Googling says around 12,000 pedos out of 330 million people

I understand how you misinterpreted the point, given the actual subject of the post, but those statistics are about sexual assault in general. 1 in 3 women experience unwanted sexual contact in their lifetime. I'd say that's high enough number to warrant being aware of a situation where you, as a woman, might be vulnerable to that.

To relate to the point you're trying to make about comparing this to justifying racism with black crime stats, would you choose to walk through a neighborhood where the crime rate was high? Regardless of the demographic makeup of the neighborhood, is it morally wrong to arrive at the conclusion that you are not safe in certain areas because the statistical likelihood of being assaulted is higher?

Does the sentence "If I don't walk through this neighborhood then I must be prejudiced against the people here who don't commit crimes" make sense to you?

If the answer to all of those is no, then you can at least recognize the line of logic women have to be conscious of when they are faced with potentially being in a precarious situation around a man who they don't know.

99% of sexual assault cases are perpetrated by men, and 91% of the victims are women

I really don't wish to rehash this. For the sake of simplicity, yes. It fits the technical definition of sexism. However, arguing that women shouldn't be wary of men they don't know because it might hurt someone's feelings is completely ridiculous, especially when the thing at stake is a woman or girl's safety.

I understand, believe me because I had to reassure several people multiple times, that women can also be monsters. That doesn't change the fact that perpetrators of sexual assault cases are overwhelmingly men.

This cannot be overstated. Even sexual assault against men is perpetrated 86% of the time by other men. See Page 32

I hesitate to even engage you on this because there's a fine line between logically arriving at the point that it is in fact sexist, and blindly extending the claim to the connotation that discrimination in that sense shouldn't exist at all. If you are going to argue the latter, I'm not going any further than this.

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.

Weirdly specific. I had an argument about this exact thing on a post a few weeks ago. There was someone who had a friend who lost was divorced by his wife (phrasing issue) and couldn't understand why other parents were wary of him hosting a sleepover for his daughter. He had done so many times as a married man but suddenly couldn't.

So the argument was about how women in general, especially parents of little girls, can't blindly trust every man they meet. There were some salty males insisting that line of logic is sexist.

Anyway, banning all sleepovers isn't the solution. Properly chaperoned sleepovers with two parents present should be fine.

[Edit: Yes, I realize that it's technically sexist. The fact that it is is beside the point that it's necessary for women to be wary of men. If you don't understand why, ask literally any woman in your life to explain it for you]

[Edit #2: I'm not engaging anyone else on the subject from this point. I have successfully fallen into the same trap of holding dudes' hands who don't understand that strange men do, in fact, pose a risk to women, and now my morning has been wasted.

I already elaborated this point more than enough. If you still feel the need to express how this offends you after you read down this thread, I would urge you to look elsewhere into women's perspectives on the subject before you just handwave it like these guys are trying to do.]

Politicians often reflect the wishes of the people who vote them in. I don't think it's a coincidence that "only the threat of hell keeps people from doing bad things" Christians tend to vote republican.

I've been on a rogue-like kick for awhile now. I have to say, Alina of the Arena is a pretty good one. Plays great on deck.

The Dollop podcast did a thorough job covering this one. Definitely worth a listen

Technically what you're describing is discipline. It takes a lot of will power to just make yourself do something. You can take pride in that. Call yourself disciplined, principled, stoic.

In fact, you might broaden your perspective on this particular subject by looking into stoicism. It's like a "manly" mindset but without the gender or toxicity attached.

"Americans don't care when they're bombing brown people!"

This happens

"There must be something exceptional about these brown people, or else my broad assumptions about all Americans being racist warmongers might not be right!"

Again, philosophy is only tangentially related to proof. You can't examine a theory like the ship of theseus with any of those methods and come out with a conclusive answer. If you could, it wouldn't be a philosophical topic.

You don't understand that, and I'm not going to attempt the impossible to prove it to you. That's why this conversation is meaningless and I don't really wish to continue it.

Have a good night

Evidenced-based discussion is only tangentially related to philosophy. There's no point in sharing my thoughts if the crux of your counterpoint essentially boils down to "prove it or go home"

In the meantime, if I can present three separate, historical philosophical ideas to you and you can shoot them all down with one phrase demanding proof and a supposition that everyone else is just mistaken, you may want to reexamine your idea of an open mind.

You have engaged a philosophical topic with evidence-based expectations. I recognize the futility of continuing this conversation, and so I won't. Making a point and being countered with "maybe you're just wrong" is literally a waste of my time.

I did more than enough to clarify the original person's point. I don't owe you a scientific explanation for that which you refuse to consider.

Later.