Seasoned_Greetings @ Seasoned_Greetings @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

583

Joined

2 yr. ago

I've seen this illusion on paper and it still works. Not that printed paper is functionally different from pixels.

The short answer is that it would give more populous states a Democrat advantage. Republicans are well aware that they will completely lose power on a federal level if gerrymandering was outlawed.

So blame your local republican for being undemocratic

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

If your point is that men are only trustworthy if they're "one of the good ones"

That isn't my point. You don't understand that and it shows. You're twisting the actual point so you can ramble about shutting down genocide

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

^ still pushing the same fallacy, using the same false equivalency, as if I'm saying all men need to be taken out back and shot

You literally can't get a foothold in this argument unless you falsely compare what I'm saying to historical genocide, when you said yourself that my initial argument essentially boils down to "Stanger danger"

So yeah, you're misrepresenting a concept you already understand to push some fake genocide that you need to exist so that you don't have to think about women's safety.

Here I am, sitting in Louisiana where my newly gerrymandered district (4) simultaneously covers a third of the state, surrounds an entire other district, and cuts a relatively blue city clean in half (Lake charles at the bottom).

All so the state can comply with the court order to add another black district while keeping the republican stranglehold.

"Land of the free"

"But not that. Or that. Actually here's a list"

You can't help but draw a false equivalency to make your points, I'm glad it isn't just with me.

Here's the thing, neither lgbt people nor Muslims are defined by their physical superiority to the other. That's why it's a false equivalency.

Furthermore, the argument isn't "all women should be distrustful of all men all the time because of the rapists", it's "women have a reason to, at their discretion and in times of vulnerability, be cautious of men"

It's not comparable.

^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

You might have a point if my original assertion was "no men are trustworthy, ever" but really it was "women have a reason to not immediately trust men they don't know"

You're insisting on a fallacy, one that you won't allow nuance for. You're putting words in my mouth like genocide and fbi. You're elsewhere accusing me of running a far right psyop. You clearly do have an agenda.

We're done here. Enjoy your downvotes

My man, you are taking any and every opportunity to warp what I'm saying into something it isn't.

If you're going to accuse me of a path to genocide because you can't understand that women don't feel safe around men they don't know, this conversation has reached its logical conclusion.

Which is to say that you can only discredit me if I'm literally advocating genocide. You know that I'm not. You're reaching, and this is no longer an honest argument. Not that it was 5 comments ago either, but the absurdity of your logic has peaked.

You're never going to get it. That's not my problem. Later tater

Good luck out there.

Ok, let's take your garbage source by source, since you obviously think that overwhelming me with data is a viable strategy:

1. None of what I said supports the notion that sexual assault against men doesn't exist

"Violence against women survey shows that 3% of men experienced some form of sexual victimization"

So.. Consistent with my source that estimates about 9% of victims are men (or specifically not explicitly women)?

2. Setting aside that this is a study on British men,

"The incidence rates of male sexual victimization range widely, from less than one percent to 73%" the reason given in the source is that many incidences are believed to be under reported.

That still doesn't really change the fact that reported sexual assault in the US is overwhelmingly done by men, as outlined by your next source:

3. This one is actually my favorite of your sources because of all the raw data:

Starting at Page 18

"More than a quarter of US women experienced unwanted sexual contact at some point in their lives"

"Across all states, between 23.4% and 42.0% of women experienced non-contact unwanted sexual experiences at some point in the lives"

Perpetrators of female sexual contact are 97.1% Male with nearly 70% of unwanted sexual contact done by an acquaintence or stranger. You know that point I've been making up and down this thread about women needing to be wary of men they don't know? Here it is. In your source.

Page 32 lines out that 86.5% of unwanted sexual contact to men were also perpetrated by exclusively men, with less than 10% of those cases being female only perpetrators.

So.. Also supporting my source that the vast majority of sexual assault is done by men? Even the vast majority of unwanted sexual contact done against men is perpetrated by other men?

4. (The onus is on you to provide a source not locked behind a pay wall if you want me to read it, not me to crack it. However, I will again point out that the claim I made does not preclude male victims of sexual assault from existing at all)
5. This one is a little different because it's exclusively about sexual violence toward children, and neither here nor there on my original claim, but:

"Although these convictions are far less than those of male offenders...

While figures in the United States suggest that women account for 12 to 17 percent of the sex offender population"

Yeah, again, consistent with the core assertion that men are far more likely to commit sexual assault.

So in conclusion, maybe you didn't actually read most of these? Because they all (obviously excluding the one I didn't see behind the pay wall) outright state exactly what I said, which is that the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by men.

Who's pedaling garbage? These are your sources...

Now where's the part where you acknowledge the fact that the source I linked is thoroughly notated and referenced? And that I didn't in fact just make those numbers up?

Or am I the only one required to do any reading?

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

You're not being diligent or "fair" to men to avoid spreading a social stigma, you are blind to the fact that it's nearly 100x more likely to be a man committing sexual assault than a woman.

Accusing this person of being paranoid of a very real problem is ironically pretty ignorant and paranoid on your own part as a man (I assume).

That is, if i don't know the guy well enough

Thank you. This is the crux of it. I've rehashed this argument countless times with countless men over the years who take personal offense that men on the whole are not super trustworthy. If you aren't a rapist, we aren't talking about you. But, unless we know each other well, there's no way we can be sure. It's as simple as that.

Cudos on being unrelentingly protective of your daughter, while respecting that she may also be able to make those calls herself one day. You sound like a great dad.

At this point you are nitpicking what I said to fit your own idea, despite understanding the point perfectly.

Being a tiger is an immutable trait. Are you going to tell me that I shouldn't discriminate when I decide whether to approach it? Or are you going to say "Duh, it's a wild animal known to maul people"? Because if you said that you'd be running head first into the point and missing it like you have already done twice now

Just because being a man is an immutable trait does not mean that men aren't the ones committing violent crimes. 99% of sexual assault cases in the US are perpetrated by men, and 91% of the victims are women. Just because you don't like that fact does not change the reality that women have to be statistically overwhelmingly more wary of men than other women. That also doesn't mean that women don't ever have to be wary of other women. Nobody said that.

It could very well have been a woman with a knife in my mother-in-law's situation. Here's the thing though, it's very nearly 100x more likely to have been a male. It's not bigotry to recognize that pattern. Telling a woman to ignore that pattern so she won't hurt a man's feelings is completely nuts, especially if you are a man, which I strongly suspect you are.

This entire conversation is exhausting. You're so bent on being right about women being bigots for not trusting men as readily as they might trust other women, that you actually agree with me about "stranger danger", you're just playing completely blind to the statistics to suit your politics.

My man, I don't know how to say it any other way. If you're still stuck on this concept being bigotry, I can't see another way for me to hold your hand through this.

You may never get it. I've spelled it out for you so thoroughly that you have to actively not want to understand at this point. Your politics are proving to be more important to you than women's actual safety, and so I'm done here. Good luck explaining your point to a woman you know without getting laughed at.

Actually, no. I'm going to take 5 minutes and address this one through example.

Women aren't afraid of men because they have a penis, which is the thing that makes them a man. They are afraid of men because men are biologically armed.

Let me spell it out for you, although I'm certain this endeavor ultimately isn't going to get any response from you except the quintessential "nuh uh":

1. You are being approached by a nondescript person with a rifle pointed at you. That doesn't concern you at all? You don't know he's going to pull the trigger, and he probably won't anyway because that would land him in prison.

But by your logic if you take any measure to avoid him you are a bigot against people with guns

2. Now you're looking to cross the street. You look both ways and notice cars are coming. You deduce that they would most likely see and avoid you if you just walk out in the middle of the road, but there's still the chance you might get hit.

But by your logic you are being a bigot against people who drive if you decide not to cross the road

3. Now you are a woman walking to your car from the gym. There is a man parked next to you waiting by his car for seemingly no reason. You noticed him staring at you when you were on the treadmill. You tell yourself he probably won't do anything because there's cameras, but trying to get to your car door makes you nervous.

By your logic you would be a bigot if you decided not to go back to your car

This situation actually happened to my mother-in-law. That man tried to grab her and came on to her.

If you say "Well Seasoned_Greetings, it's OBVIOUSLY not the same situation in the first two examples because those situations are ACTUALLY DANGEROUS", then you are running head first into the point and still missing it.

Men are armed. They cannot disarm. Women aren't afraid in the same way of men in wheel chairs, or men they can clearly get away from, or even outnumber.

If you really, truly can't understand why women take precautions, there's nothing more I can say to you. It's not bigotry to be aware that you can be overpowered and fear for your own safety. Full stop.

Accusing this mindset of bigotry only really highlights to people who get it that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go to bed.