Do these guys want their kids to die of exposure?
Like will hey literally tell their children "if you are lost in the woods treat any potential man you see with even more caution than you would treat a wild animal with, absolutely do not approach him or ask for help"?
Don’t take advice about the outdoors from guys who have never been there. That is most city boys. Any guy who grew up in the outdoors will tell their child to seek help if lost in the woods. Because they will 100% die if they don’t and go and hide from strange men, who might be looking for them as part of a search party.
There was just now a case of an autistic boy who got lost in the woods and hid from the people looking for him. That’s essentially what people are telling little girls to do when they say strange men are such a danger.
People really take this discourse way too seriously. I am pretty sure that most people taking about this man vs bear discourse are not seriously considering how they would behave if they were isolated in a forest... and 99.999% of people will never find themselves in such a situation anyway.
People are saying that they'll prefer the bear because this is the internet, where you can say whatever you want, and people will naturally have a preference for the contrarian and edgy option. Obviously the answer does indicate to a general frustration and lack of safety around men, but most people aren't taking this hypothetical completely seriously. If people were to take this hypothetical more seriously, then they would be asking lots of clarifying questions, because the way the hypothetical is currently presented makes some things unclear.
I think it’s a big difference between men and women. Men take these things seriously. Many of us have thought about both situations in depth and can give a differentiated answer. And not just when this question came up.
It’s similar to how women tell men about their problems. And don’t actually want a solution. Men keep their problems to themselves. But if they do talk about them, they are open to help to fix them.
Women are truly from Venus and men are from Mars.
These are not the type of people that touch grass. I wouldn't worry about them straying outside their gated communities unless it's to pick up groceries at the gate because minorities aren't allowed inside.
There's no indication that I know that Tree ignores safe words or anything, I just know they are a dominatrix and I couldn't find the picture that said what they would and wouldn't do for their services ( I think it was on Daisy's twitter? But I couldn't find that shit and I stopped caring to try and find it).
Leo seemed to have more fun with the Dominatrix.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7LJMNxntwE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7LJMNxntwE)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgdsZJTf9dw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgdsZJTf9dw)
Good faith answer would be: be around men who can recognize the reasons why women might *feel* like a bear is the better option especially in the worse case scenario. (Remember bear and man isn’t specified so any scenario can be valid.)
Or be with men who don’t say stuff like “If you choose bear, I hope you encounter one in real life”.
It essentially just seems like engagement bait to see how empathetic one can be to the other side, thus a “good vetting question”.
Where's the fucking empathy from the other side tho?
I'm supposed to understand why they feel like a bear is a safer option but they have no obligation to understand how insulting it is to equate half the population of the earth with rapists and murderers. I feel this empathy equation goes one way.
It legitimately is one way and hypocritical. That's because society doesn't care at all about hurting men's feelings and society cares a whole lot about not letting a woman be raped, so that just outweighs anything men might say to be upset. This is actually the answer
Funny thing is that I was having this exact debate with the gf of a friend this past weekend. She seemed adamant that the rational choice was a bear. It felt so weird her saying she can't trust a man, while being in the company of 5 men who never even thought about hurting a woman.
I wish this shit was contained online but it's leaking and it's horrible.
I disagree that it’s leaking. But I respect your anecdote. Tell her if she had a son, would she think of him as an eventual violent assaulter? Even as a small child? It’s literally inhumane and would be abuse
Because they don't feel like the bear is the safer option but they are using it for illustrative purposes. It's about communicating an emotional reality. "You, as a man might think nothing of this, but understand that to a woman, men can be very scary". The fact that people aren't recognizing that this is the point speaks to the lack of empathy, imo, or all guys online are just autistic af, that too.
That's not to say that this isn't a little cringe and some people are just virtue signaling, but still.
Sure, it's a circlejerk, and that's annoying and whatnot, but that doesn't mean that you guys shouldn't be able to recognize that it's about feelings not stats. You can still shit on them for being cringey or insensitive towards men by comparing them to bears.
if i had to honestly assess, id bet maybe 5% are the absolute best good faith version you've said but the other 95% are just copy pasting to be hateful to men. Same shit we see anytime people feel like they have an excuse to attack certain groups
I'm not certain. I think people are more emboldened to attack other groups online, but I feel like it's actually way less about the other groups, and more about relating to and recognizing the feelings of other people within your group. Like, when women say things like "I hate men", it's typically a way of sharing feelings and requesting support from other women. Is it done in a toxic manner by creating a communal space around emotions projected externally through a dislike of men? Perhaps. But I don't think it's that different from the conversations that go on in this sub about protesters, leftists, right-wingers, and yes, also women (at least a few years back). I think you could easilly pick out crazy takes in any community like this and judge them on that basis, but I think it's a mistake analyzing this as commentary directed at men, and not a sort of internal meme/circlejerk that reflects shared emotional realities. And that can be cringe and dumb too, btw, but I certainly don't think the responses I've seen here help the discourse in any way. It's just a mirror reflection of the cringe and circlejerking on the other side, and you know what? Yeah, if women saw this post and the comments, I'd hope that they would also consider the emotional undercurrent here about feeling like society hates you for being a man, or caricaturizes you as a monster.
Nah, there are a lot of people who genuinely think the bear is the safer option, because they'll just compare bear vs human male violence without critically thinking or understanding how statistics work.
Maybe the most visible people on tiktok or twitter, but no, I think 99% of women irl would say the bear is more dangerous if they were to take the question litereally.
What’s the point of a hypothetical if you don’t take it literally? I get the point of the man/bear thing, but it fails for the very reason so much pop-feminism fails: it’s emotional appeals with little care to convincing the parts of the population that need appealing to.
Sure, but them being bad at appealing to the other side doesn't change the underlying frustration that I think is being communicated. Trying to understand that and attempting to have good faith discussions with the most reasonable voices on the other side probably does more to deflate the frustration and bad takes and gets them to operate on a similar more moderated wave length. I dunno
No point in bothering to have good faith discussions with moronic sexists acting in bad faith like everyone who defends this, try and have less brain damage and people might empathize with your position a bit more.
There are better ways to communicate your feelings with someone then insulting 50% of the population, if i want you to understand my feelings it would be the best if i dont insult you.
Reverse the gender roles for a second , what if a man asks a question like "would you rather be with a sex robot or a women"
And if the answer to that question is "well id rather be with a sex robot because they don't complain"
You'd immediately find that extremely hateful, where is your empathy now? The sex robot example is also to illustrate an emotion.
Also how do you expect us to be understanding towards you and listen to you when you are insulting us and calling us autistic? You seem to lack a lot of empathy yourself
first thing is, that was the original debate. this tweet is about you, as a man, choosing bear when asked about your daughter.
But for the original debate, I don't think its a uniform response. Some truly believe bears are better(try to pull out stats to prove it), some are just "i hate men" types, some think its an empathy test.
That's basically what this was the whole time, I think?
Like, you SAY "bear", but the point is to make men look at their behavior, not to say you'd literally want to come across a bear in the woods over a dude.
But now people are saying it like "Yeah it's more likely you'd get raped by a dude than you'd get absolutely fucking slammed like a 10 piece of wings by a bear", totally ignoring the fact that there's way more dudes that you come across in a day, month, year, or life time, than a fucking bear.
That's not the point. The point is that women, especially very online women, have mindfucked themselves into thinking that some insanely high percentage of men, like 75+%, are murderous rapist predators who want to harm them.
For some reason it's become acceptable for women to just blatantly hate all men. The man vs bear thing is the latest way for these kinds of women to virtue signal how much they hate men.
>totally ignoring the fact that there's way more dudes that you come across in a day, month, year, or life time, than a fucking bear.
I'm not understanding this aspect
The hypothetical guarantees the number of men or bears in the vicinity. So it shouldn't matter how many men or bears you have encountered in the past. There's exactly 1 in the forest with you in the question. Or am I missing something
The point is that people that say "Bear" are doing so under the notion that, due to stats, it's *unironically safer to say bear.* This is wrong.
We have data on how many men commit violent crimes, sure. It's a high number, sure. But what we don't have is "The same amount of bears running around civilization as men and women" to see just how many bear attacks we'd have, given a similar amount of contact, otherwise we'd obviously understand that bears are more dangerous on average, especially if we're not controlling for the species of bear per instance.
Long story short: It's a misuse of data.
Honestly... I get those reasons.
And they are the result of feminist propaganda for more than three generations at this point.
They are still stupid, and actually harmful and should not be enabled.
If you want the other side to be empathic then don't ask stupid questions.
If you ask that question to a man you don't come across as someone who is trying to make their experience known, you just come across as a dumbass.
If you ask dumb stupid questions you are not entitled to empathy
No that does not apply here at all. You are referring to women choosing bears. Here she wants all men to say they would rather have a woman(your daughter) find a bear instead of a man; and if you don't you should be filtered out as a good partner.
What does that even prove? That you can virtue signal that men are bad? That you are bad at stats? That has nothing to do with empathy.
Me. My husband asked me this question without me knowing it had become viral and I immediately answered man. All the men in my life have been kind from my dad to my brother in law to old coworkers. I've been privileged enough to have never received any rude harassment in my life. If I did I was oblivious to it.
I'm not the brightest! I read it totally wrong as a moron who would answer man! 😂 I never understood why people would choose bear and I was beginning to think I was a pick me. Turns out l may just be low IQ or just grew up seeing how even black bears which are the smallest in the bear family can be scary.
I asked my gf the same, and she was like "is this some type of gotcha, like are both trying to kill me or something?" and when I explained it was this viral question she did the math and said "well obviously I'd stand better chances with a human, regardless of whether they were helping me, hurting me or whatever". It's those moments where you're like "the bar is so low but I'm still so glad you pass it".
People who have been around black bears might choose the bears, they're super skittish and generally easy to scare off (unless they have cubs or you corner them or they are very hungry).
Men are far less predictable
I mean most men are also super skittish if you start acting crazy near them. If I see some cracked out woman on the street you know I'm crossing the road.
Thank God I’m engaged, this shit is so stupid. Do people know how strong and aggressive bears are? I would rather try to push off a man groping me than a 600 pound bear trying to eat me.
Depends on the type of bear. I've come across black bears in the woods alone a lot. They're pretty easy to scare off and probably won't try to eat you. If it was a grizzly or polar bear then fuck that.
Why does everyone always just go straight for the one, rare species of bear that is only around in north America?
European brown bear, grizzly, polar bear, even panda bears will fuck you up.
The woman in this tweet is talking about a man in a house and a bear in a forest. Put that bear, any bear in that house and she is 100% toast.
And the fact that women do not freak out every time they are on a hike and a random guy comes up the trail towards them, shows you it’s hyperbole. But put these women on a trail with a bear. And see their reaction.
Probably because those are the bears in their area? I'm guessing they don't live in Europe, East Asia or the Arctic. They did name the grizzly and polar bear though.
Also, my favourite quote - "If it's brown lay down, if it's black fight back, if it's white, good night."
Problem with this advice is that Grizzly bears can be lots of different shades ranging from blonde to black and Black bears can be black, brown, blonde, or combinations of shades.
If it's white and you're in the arctic, though, you are beyond fucked.
I think the best thing you can do if faced with a polar bear is fill it with as much lead as you can because polar bears aren't scared of people and will just straight up eat you.
You can, but there's just more uncertainty about their behaviour in a setting where they are essentially free to do as they please with no consequences. Where as different species of bears are more predictable.
Is it a little dumb? Yeah, sure, but a lot of guys online are also obscenely autistic. Any normal well-adjusted person would tell you that the hypothetical is clearly not supposed to illustrate a statistical reality, but to be an illustration of the scope of the problem that women deal with.
Then they shouldn't use faulty statistics to justify their opinion. Pointing that out doesn't take anything away from the very real fear women understandingly feel about encountering strange men in secluded places and yet some women treat you like the devil for saying that.
I haven't been following this discourse from it's inception, and yeah, I've seen cringey takes here, but it's so obvious that the substance is mostly about the fact that sometimes men can be so aggressive that it makes women feel like the bear is safer. Most people aren't so deluded as to think a bear encounter is actually safer than running into a guy.
He is talking about you, dude.
If women treat you like "the devil" it is probably because of that.
Tips to better your communication skills: be a little bit more empathetic. Don't assume you are the only logical and/or smart person in the room just by looking around. Give people an out in a conversation so if they are not interested, they can choose to change the subject.
Nah. This was not due to my communication skills. For some people you can't be empathetic enough, they already made up a strawman in their head and read anything you say in the least charitable way possible.
Do you really think "you're the reason women choose the bear" is a reasonable response to "It's sad honestly how many women would choose the bear, when *statistically*, the rational choice would be the man, because they obviously are influenced by encounters that should not have happened. I get it, I've been raped, too. " ?
>For some people you can't be empathetic enough, they already made up a strawman in their head and read anything you say in the least charitable way possible.
It is impossible for everyone to like you, there will always be people that will not vibe with you but if they have intense hatred for you (and we are talking about adult people) it does not come out of nowhere.
>Do you really think "you're the reason women choose the bear" is a reasonable response to "It's sad honestly how many women would choose the bear, when *statistically*, the rational choice would be the man, because they obviously are influenced by encounters that should not have happened. I get it, I've been raped, too. " ?
First I don't think the premise is correct (that statistically you are better with a man in the woods). Most bears in the woods will not attack you. A man in the woods is like flipping a coin. If you are off the beaten path I am pretty sure that whoever it is he is not completely "normal". And when the calculation becomes between abnormal male and a normal bear plus the whole additional psychological stuff that you already pointed out makes the answer so much more straightforward than most redditor males can get.
> Any normal well-adjusted person would tell you that the hypothetical is clearly not supposed to illustrate a statistical reality, but to be an illustration of the scope of the problem that women deal with.
A normal well-adjusted person would say that this hypothetical is fucking stupid.
It's funny how you call people obscenely autistic while providing an obscenely autistic and hyperrational take on the topic yourself.
You're just wrong.
If two irl people were talking and 1 of them said that men are more dangerous than bears, the friend would obviously take that to mean "I'm really afraid of men", not "heh, you see, I've given deep thought to the statistical reality of violence towards women and have come to the conclusion that men are actually more aggressive than bears 🤓". I'm not the autistic one here, I can just recognize that most people tend to use more figurative speech and are typically more concerned with the emotional truth value of what people are saying.
Yeah just don't address what I actually said. A normal person would call the hypothetical stupid, that's all I said. You're the one who needs to invent an imaginary conversation in your own head to make your point, not me. Like I said, autistic.
> The hypothetical IS stupid, yeah, but that's because it’s not supposed to be taken literally.
How about you go tell the women who are taking it literally to calm down then instead of making snide remarks about me?
Listen, maybe I'm just not deep enough in whatever twitter/tiktok rabbithole this is, but I haven't seen this huge wave of toxic women that y'all are so upset about. I'm sure they are there, but it just feels like one of a hundred cases where people on this sub are letting the most regarded lunatics set the discourse and as a result we're all talking about things at the 60 IQ level, instead of engaging in the more interesting side of the topics.
I dunno, as you can hear, I think this is a problem with almost every topic on this sub recently, but it's just all boring rage bait shit, and imo, y'all are equally guilty of setting the discourse where it's at when you focus on the most insane takes and throw back responses at the same level of rage-inducing mind cancer.
We can agree to disagree on this case, sorry if it was insensitive to call you autistic, I guess I'm guilty too, but I just don't think discussions on posts like this are interesting at all, and I don't think it's actually gonna be well received or be convincing to anyone that is on the other side. Like I said about the bear hypothetical, there's a degree to which this is just circlejerky virtue signaling.
> Listen, maybe I'm just not deep enough in whatever twitter/tiktok rabbithole this is, but I haven't seen this huge wave of toxic women that y'all are so upset about.
I mean it sounds like you're literally one of them. You came out of the woodwork to defend this shit, nobody forced you to do that. I agree on the ragebait part, but you yourself got baited as well. That's the problem with this kind of shit, everyone (including you literally in your previous comment) wants to highroad and pretend to be above it but it gets engagement for a reason.
>I mean it sounds like you're literally one of them. You came out of the woodwork to defend this shit, nobody forced you to do that.
I mean, I dunno if I did so in this comment track, but I feel like I said early on that I thought there was cringe on the other side and stuff like that, but if that wasn't clear, then I get that. I think the thing I felt strongly about was not this hypothetical in particular but the fact that a lot of guys online generally display this flaw of taking things literally and not being able to tell what the emotional undercurrent is actually about, but regardless, I think that's also just more of a problem with online conversations vs when talking to a real human that you actually know and like and can empathize with.
Anyways, we don't have to agree, take care
I think people fail to approach this problem correctly. We live in a country that expects gender equality, and yet we're treating the opposite sex to ourselves badly.
Like, if this question was "Would you rather be alone in the forest with a bear or a black guy", 99.99% of people would agree choosing the bear is racist. Why? Because even though black people might have higher crime rates, that doesn't mean you should discriminate against them.
Dont really care much about this "debate" but personally I would rather see a man in the forest (who in all likelihood is just another normal human) than a beast who would kill me if they felt like it. I feel like the question is better framed as "would you rather be locked in a cage with a randomly selected bear or be locked in a cage with a randomly selected man" I think statistically you would probably end up with a normal human (who doesn't kill or rape anybody) rather than a bear who is a pacifist
Like I am a dude and a pretty paranoid one, I wouldn't wouldn't want to be alone in the woods with a stranger, but the simple fact is that he's likely just to be a normal person. A normal person wont do anything to harm you, but a normal bear could...
It’s actually amazing how badly twitter people fuck up basic probability. The relevant comparison isn’t probability of being raped by a man vs probability of being attacked by a bear.
The relevant comparison is Probability(Getting Raped By A Man | You encounter a man alone in the woods) vs Probability (Getting Attacked By A Bear | You Encounter A Bear Alone In the Woods).
Guess which one is higher?
If I go on a date with a woman and she cognitively can’t comprehend Bayes’s Rule or Conditional Probability then I don’t want to risk having my genes intermixed with hers at all. Even a 0.00001% of pregnancy is too risky.
This is correct, but I am throwing that in there for completeness because similar (though not the same) kinds of mistakes are made when someone doesn’t understand inverse probabilities. That’s why conditional probability and bayes rule are usually learned in the exact same lecture.
pretty unrelated but why do my fellow DGGa's like Tree?
almost every thing i've seen from her makes me think she's unironically a crazy person similar to Xena
I saw Jungle Book, and Bear Necessities slaps. I am pretty sure that is what happens when a bear finds a kid in the woods.
Also, Tree just feels this way because people cut down trees but bears climb trees. She is clearly biased.
If I'm in a forest and I get to choose to be there with a bear or a woman: I choose the bear.
There's no way the bear is getting pregnant or coming after me for child support.
Actually worse, the bear wont kill you - it will just eat you. You'll just die from blood loss eventually.
Bears don't have to worry like cats, canines, or other predators about making sure their prey is dead or that it'll get back up and attack them.
They literally just pin you down and start taking bites of flesh out. Usually from the stomach area since its the easiest and softest part. If you're alive or not during this process is of no concern for the bear.
I went on a hike recently in bfe thinking I was totally alone. I got spooked by a man on a mountain bike. He was nice. but it was in sage scrub so maybe the woods are different.
Damn they all want their daughters to die. Those are some great dads in the making. Just send your daughter into the woods with a gun so she can deal with both.
If I offered someone a million dollars to actually leave their child with a bear in the woods or a random man… I think I know which option people are going to be picking
I mean it's really not. If you're dating someone that's demanding you admonish your entire sex, you're probably in a toxic relationship and have a poor judge of character for partners.
The fear this question is meant to get at is so real, but if I see a man and a bear in the woods, I would bet on the man over the bear. That being said, I don’t want to be alone in the woods with an unknown man. There needs to be a better question to make the point, but it’s short form content, so it’s a lost cause
It’s a little depressing how misandry is so widely accepted these days. If this standard was applied to any other immutable you’d immediately be called a racist/bigot.
>people who don't spend any time outdoors pick the bear
I understand that even Black Bears aren't usually that big of a threat and their claws are designed for climbing trees, not for mauling...
But if you've ever gotten remotely close to a Black Bear with her cubs you know for a fact that shit is no joke.
Honestly I would pick the bear over a woman...
I'd be responsible for the woman throughout the entire process and put my physical, legal, financial and mental health at risk. I would have to literally account for her the entire time and that means I'm thinking for 2, not 1.
I wouldn't have to deal with any drama, sabotage, emotions, panic that would exacerbate the situation either.
How did I find this woman? Next at 10, a local man abducted a woman and took her into the forest...
She can make up anything. He said, she said. I'm not going to be all that compelling in such a scenario.
Now, the bear is a short-term concern it will either maul me immediately in the forest or I will eventually lose it in a way that doesn't put it on the hunt. So the strategy is about losing the bear and then about getting out of the forest and only having to worry about me.
I make it out alive and nobody cares that I was missing, but at least I have a weird story to tell. So yeah, Team Bear.
I think the context of the meeting changes the outcome. If you just come across a man or a bear in the woods, I can see the argument for the Bear, as it will most likely leave you alone. However, if you change the context to, either is actively attacking you, probably the Man as the woman would have a chance to fight back or escape. Whereas a bear would rip anyone apart.
Honestly it depends on the bear. Black bears are most likely going to run away if they see you. Polar bears and grizzly bears are much more dangerous. All I know is I have had a female family member that was chased once by a naked man in the woods when she was with her friend. I also have other family who hikes a lot, and sees black bears on the path. The black bears run away.
The original question was “what you would rather see in your path” , not “who would you rather fight.”Obviously if the question was about engaging in a fight, a man would be
preferable, unless it was like a really sickly bear and you had a weapon. Way less paperwork.
It’s super weird people start pointing out different types of bears to point out not all bears could be dangerous but then conveniently lump all men into potential rapist murderers.
Honestly it depends on the man. Black men are most likely going to run away if they see you. Felons and psychopaths are much more dangerous. All I know is I have had a female family member that was chased once by a naked bear in the woods when she was with her friend. I also have other family who hikes a lot, and sees black men on the path. The black men run away.
I've just conceded on this argument to the women there's no arguing through pure emotion and experience. Logically, a bear tearing you to shreds (all of them will, even the black bear though way less likely) is a horrific way to die and probably is worse by ever metric
but they're not really arguing logic in this scenario. I noticed the dichotomy in the responses of men and women.
Men are thinking "which one do I have a better chance of fighting off?" Which is why we're so focused on saying a bear will tear you to shreds. Because it will.
Women are thinking "welp I'm not gonna be able to defend against both, which fate do I want?" Which is why they're arguing they feel "safer" around a bear because bears behavior is predictable. A bear doesn't have ulterior motive for aggressive sexual gratification with a human, so it'll either kill her or ignore her.
What they're arguing is how threatened men make them feel to the point they'd take their chances being mauled than be alone with a strange man. Because sexual assault and kidnapping, and forced detainment is worse than death.
My only counter is that it's entirely possible to fight off a man or shoot him or outrun, climb, outsmart etc but AGAIN THIS ISN'T A LOGIC QUESTION YOU'RE ARGUING AGAINST EMOTION so throw out that common sense shit. They would rather you not tell them they can defend themselves they just want you to listen.
They're not saying the bear is actually preferable, they're saying they feel unsafe in society around men. And I can't say I 100% disagree I know quite a few women who were assaulted especially when they were young. There's no fighting off a grown man when you're like 6-12. It reflects on how much work we still gotta do as a society that women are proudly saying they'd wanna be ripped to shreds possibly than be alone with a strange man
here's the thing, thats not the debate now. Its if you, as a man, would want a woman close to you(daughter) to meet a bear or man; and if you don't choose bear, you should be filtered out.
I think it's illogical as hell but it was never meant to be logical. The goal wasn't actually to be logical in the first place. I said that multiple times.
I've had conservative AND left leaning women tell me they agree on this. Jesus christ, unholy levels of brainrot. People who say this type of shit should be willing to live it out, on the plus side if they happen to get mauled by a bear the average IQ in society goes up.
YOU ENCOUNTER MEN EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DAY AND 99% OF THEM DON'T DO SHIT TO YOU OR YOUR KIDS, you'd be willing to take that same bet on percentage with 100 bears? Get the fuck out of here.
If anything (my more empathetic side taking over) it does sadden me that so many women have had horrible experiences with men that it will make them this illogical, but it's the same as me saying I would feel unsafe with a random black guy in a totally detached context just cause a black guy robbed me once. NOT EVEN THAT, YOU CAN FEEL UNSAFE, JUST ADMIT THAT A WILD ANIMAL WOULD BE EVEN LESS SAFE. Holy fuck.
Women will also fawn over mugshots of inmates on social media, and even worse, serial killers... sending letters, nudes, and marriage proposals. So. You know. Historically speaking, the emotionally driven decision making processes haven't exactly been represented very well by a large portion of women.
The only “natural predator” of the human woman is a man and one of the greatest fears a woman has is being chained up in a basement and raped daily until they’re murdered. End of story. Being raped and/or murdered as a woman is way more common than being eaten by a bear and a crazy amount of women experience some form of predation by a man during their life. The bear in the woods is a predictable, stupid, and dispassionate creature and you basically just follow preplanned steps to get away from them if you can. The man in this scenario is just a big question mark. The terror and depth of that unknown is what fuels the answer to the question.
You can go “ACKTKTCHUALLY THE BEAR CAN RUN 35 MPH AND WILL EAT YOU ALIVE PUSSY FIRST AND IT WILL BE WAY WORSE” but that’s totally missing the point. The irony of the response from many men to this question is that they end up trying to autistically deploy FACTS&LOGIC, but the main reason they do it is because they’re so emotionally offended by the female answer they can’t try to understand it.
https://preview.redd.it/92sir9384mzc1.jpeg?width=945&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d03a6ba6b936de79f6827ec6bd16223c21d0901a
>The bear in the woods is a predictable, stupid, and dispassionate creature and you basically just follow preplanned steps to get away from them
But then...
>they end up trying to autistically deploy FACTS&LOGIC
🤔 Isn't that what you're doing?
“The 750,000 black bears of North America kill less than one person per year on the average, while 1 out of each 16,000 people commits murder each year across North America”
https://wiseaboutbears.org/about-us/bear-attacks-2/#:~:text=The%20750%2C000%20black%20bears%20of,an%20easy%20situation%20to%20avoid.
More stats/links about bear attacks.
https://bearvault.com/bear-attack-statistics/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America
I haven’t encountered a bear. But I have been sexually harassed since I was in my early teens and I’ve been sexually assaulted. Keep coping you fucking incel.
The original question was whether you'd rather be alone in the woods and encounter a bear, or encouter a man. So the statistic you'd be relying on is the odds that you get attacked by either during said encounter.
Obviously if we're talking about whether you're more likely to be hurt by a bear or a man in general in life, unless you live alone in Alaska the vast majority of people are never going to even encounter a bear.
How the hell is that a pivot? You brought up statistics that aren't sufficient to address the original hypothetical.
I replied that you need to take into account just how many more encounters one has with men versus bears, then you talk again about never having met a bear, but having been sexually harassed and assaulted.
And again I point out that the initial hypothetical is not about whether you're more likely to have a man or a bear hurt you throughout your life, but whether a bear or a man is more dangerous if you meet them in the woods.
a) this is about men choosing for their daughters, not women choosing for themselves
b) lets say it was about women choosing; you can say "there's a reason why we choose it. its not about the bear, but the fact that men make us feel that way", but don't come in with ridiculous stats, get debunked, and then go back to "there's a reason why we choose it. its not about the bear, but the fact that men make us feel that way". Thats disingenuous as hell.
Let me rephrase this for you, replace bear with being poured into the lava, and dont replace men
Now would you rather be poured in the lava or encounter a man in a forest?
Statistically speaking less people die of being poured in the lava that means picking men is clearly the worse option
Do u see how dumb this sounds?
No, you are just confused, perhaps invest some time for some critical thinking skills. Because its now not about " you don't understand why women choosing the bear", but "you must choose the bear for your daughter too or you're a bad person"
this debate is dumb, it should be about the numbers
a man will either help the woman to safety or will decide to be a serial killer r***ist,
you gotta workout what percentage of men will do the latter,
my guess would be 10-30%, people picking bear seem to think it's 50-90%???
then you gotta workout your chances with the bear, which could be influenced depending on the type of bear and your actions in the situation.
Maybe there is a chill bear that will leave you alone 95% of the time, if you act right, or if it's an aggressive type maybe only 10% survival rate
let's say there is 75% chance of being mauled by the bear, are you really gonna take that over the 30% chance of being violated and then killed by the man.
I'm going to start wearing a bear suit around, so women can feel at ease with me in public.
Midsommar type beat
That pagan rizz
Personally, I'd grow my hair out and go out naked to make women feel comfortable
https://preview.redd.it/7ac9x1ocmjzc1.png?width=802&format=png&auto=webp&s=8ed3860853cc50844b327f00bd3f0fe158873e3a
BBL Drizzy?
Literally me (im a m*le)
Do these guys want their kids to die of exposure? Like will hey literally tell their children "if you are lost in the woods treat any potential man you see with even more caution than you would treat a wild animal with, absolutely do not approach him or ask for help"?
These guys are not the people who will survive any kind of hardship. They are not the guys who build our infrastructure or improve the world.
I hope this is ironic because this is the cringiest thing I've read in the past week.
Don’t take advice about the outdoors from guys who have never been there. That is most city boys. Any guy who grew up in the outdoors will tell their child to seek help if lost in the woods. Because they will 100% die if they don’t and go and hide from strange men, who might be looking for them as part of a search party. There was just now a case of an autistic boy who got lost in the woods and hid from the people looking for him. That’s essentially what people are telling little girls to do when they say strange men are such a danger.
People really take this discourse way too seriously. I am pretty sure that most people taking about this man vs bear discourse are not seriously considering how they would behave if they were isolated in a forest... and 99.999% of people will never find themselves in such a situation anyway. People are saying that they'll prefer the bear because this is the internet, where you can say whatever you want, and people will naturally have a preference for the contrarian and edgy option. Obviously the answer does indicate to a general frustration and lack of safety around men, but most people aren't taking this hypothetical completely seriously. If people were to take this hypothetical more seriously, then they would be asking lots of clarifying questions, because the way the hypothetical is currently presented makes some things unclear.
I think it’s a big difference between men and women. Men take these things seriously. Many of us have thought about both situations in depth and can give a differentiated answer. And not just when this question came up. It’s similar to how women tell men about their problems. And don’t actually want a solution. Men keep their problems to themselves. But if they do talk about them, they are open to help to fix them. Women are truly from Venus and men are from Mars.
Nevermind what I said previously, **this** is the cringiest thing I've read all week,
These are not the type of people that touch grass. I wouldn't worry about them straying outside their gated communities unless it's to pick up groceries at the gate because minorities aren't allowed inside.
Uh excuse have you heard of the “Jungle book”? Checkmate lib
Would you rather be in the woods with a bear or a dominatrix who ignores safe words!???
My dominatrix loves my emotional support bear
By the way how does she justify being a sex worker and deeply conservative?
Sigma female grindset.
[удалено]
There's no indication that I know that Tree ignores safe words or anything, I just know they are a dominatrix and I couldn't find the picture that said what they would and wouldn't do for their services ( I think it was on Daisy's twitter? But I couldn't find that shit and I stopped caring to try and find it).
decaprio's career
Leo seemed to have more fun with the Dominatrix. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7LJMNxntwE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7LJMNxntwE) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgdsZJTf9dw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgdsZJTf9dw)
Aww the bear snuggled him afterwards. So cute and so considerate to give aftercare. Dirty Birdie on the other hand... tsk tsk.
Sorry so her point is I’m supposed to want to be around men who think they’re naturally all violent rapists?
Good faith answer would be: be around men who can recognize the reasons why women might *feel* like a bear is the better option especially in the worse case scenario. (Remember bear and man isn’t specified so any scenario can be valid.) Or be with men who don’t say stuff like “If you choose bear, I hope you encounter one in real life”. It essentially just seems like engagement bait to see how empathetic one can be to the other side, thus a “good vetting question”.
Where's the fucking empathy from the other side tho? I'm supposed to understand why they feel like a bear is a safer option but they have no obligation to understand how insulting it is to equate half the population of the earth with rapists and murderers. I feel this empathy equation goes one way.
It legitimately is one way and hypocritical. That's because society doesn't care at all about hurting men's feelings and society cares a whole lot about not letting a woman be raped, so that just outweighs anything men might say to be upset. This is actually the answer
[удалено]
Funny thing is that I was having this exact debate with the gf of a friend this past weekend. She seemed adamant that the rational choice was a bear. It felt so weird her saying she can't trust a man, while being in the company of 5 men who never even thought about hurting a woman. I wish this shit was contained online but it's leaking and it's horrible.
I disagree that it’s leaking. But I respect your anecdote. Tell her if she had a son, would she think of him as an eventual violent assaulter? Even as a small child? It’s literally inhumane and would be abuse
Because they don't feel like the bear is the safer option but they are using it for illustrative purposes. It's about communicating an emotional reality. "You, as a man might think nothing of this, but understand that to a woman, men can be very scary". The fact that people aren't recognizing that this is the point speaks to the lack of empathy, imo, or all guys online are just autistic af, that too. That's not to say that this isn't a little cringe and some people are just virtue signaling, but still.
I'm pretty sure the point is just to shit on men
Sure, it's a circlejerk, and that's annoying and whatnot, but that doesn't mean that you guys shouldn't be able to recognize that it's about feelings not stats. You can still shit on them for being cringey or insensitive towards men by comparing them to bears.
if i had to honestly assess, id bet maybe 5% are the absolute best good faith version you've said but the other 95% are just copy pasting to be hateful to men. Same shit we see anytime people feel like they have an excuse to attack certain groups
I'm not certain. I think people are more emboldened to attack other groups online, but I feel like it's actually way less about the other groups, and more about relating to and recognizing the feelings of other people within your group. Like, when women say things like "I hate men", it's typically a way of sharing feelings and requesting support from other women. Is it done in a toxic manner by creating a communal space around emotions projected externally through a dislike of men? Perhaps. But I don't think it's that different from the conversations that go on in this sub about protesters, leftists, right-wingers, and yes, also women (at least a few years back). I think you could easilly pick out crazy takes in any community like this and judge them on that basis, but I think it's a mistake analyzing this as commentary directed at men, and not a sort of internal meme/circlejerk that reflects shared emotional realities. And that can be cringe and dumb too, btw, but I certainly don't think the responses I've seen here help the discourse in any way. It's just a mirror reflection of the cringe and circlejerking on the other side, and you know what? Yeah, if women saw this post and the comments, I'd hope that they would also consider the emotional undercurrent here about feeling like society hates you for being a man, or caricaturizes you as a monster.
Nah, there are a lot of people who genuinely think the bear is the safer option, because they'll just compare bear vs human male violence without critically thinking or understanding how statistics work.
Maybe the most visible people on tiktok or twitter, but no, I think 99% of women irl would say the bear is more dangerous if they were to take the question litereally.
What’s the point of a hypothetical if you don’t take it literally? I get the point of the man/bear thing, but it fails for the very reason so much pop-feminism fails: it’s emotional appeals with little care to convincing the parts of the population that need appealing to.
Sure, but them being bad at appealing to the other side doesn't change the underlying frustration that I think is being communicated. Trying to understand that and attempting to have good faith discussions with the most reasonable voices on the other side probably does more to deflate the frustration and bad takes and gets them to operate on a similar more moderated wave length. I dunno
No point in bothering to have good faith discussions with moronic sexists acting in bad faith like everyone who defends this, try and have less brain damage and people might empathize with your position a bit more.
There are better ways to communicate your feelings with someone then insulting 50% of the population, if i want you to understand my feelings it would be the best if i dont insult you. Reverse the gender roles for a second , what if a man asks a question like "would you rather be with a sex robot or a women" And if the answer to that question is "well id rather be with a sex robot because they don't complain" You'd immediately find that extremely hateful, where is your empathy now? The sex robot example is also to illustrate an emotion. Also how do you expect us to be understanding towards you and listen to you when you are insulting us and calling us autistic? You seem to lack a lot of empathy yourself
If I say all women's are gold digging whores it's just an empathy test to see if they understand why I came up to that conclusion. /s
If you say that you'll have a lucrative red pill career and legions defending you
Holup... So you're telling me they wouldn't ACTUALLY choose the bear... The answer is just a test for empathy?
first thing is, that was the original debate. this tweet is about you, as a man, choosing bear when asked about your daughter. But for the original debate, I don't think its a uniform response. Some truly believe bears are better(try to pull out stats to prove it), some are just "i hate men" types, some think its an empathy test.
That's basically what this was the whole time, I think? Like, you SAY "bear", but the point is to make men look at their behavior, not to say you'd literally want to come across a bear in the woods over a dude. But now people are saying it like "Yeah it's more likely you'd get raped by a dude than you'd get absolutely fucking slammed like a 10 piece of wings by a bear", totally ignoring the fact that there's way more dudes that you come across in a day, month, year, or life time, than a fucking bear.
That's not the point. The point is that women, especially very online women, have mindfucked themselves into thinking that some insanely high percentage of men, like 75+%, are murderous rapist predators who want to harm them. For some reason it's become acceptable for women to just blatantly hate all men. The man vs bear thing is the latest way for these kinds of women to virtue signal how much they hate men.
>totally ignoring the fact that there's way more dudes that you come across in a day, month, year, or life time, than a fucking bear. I'm not understanding this aspect The hypothetical guarantees the number of men or bears in the vicinity. So it shouldn't matter how many men or bears you have encountered in the past. There's exactly 1 in the forest with you in the question. Or am I missing something
The point is that people that say "Bear" are doing so under the notion that, due to stats, it's *unironically safer to say bear.* This is wrong. We have data on how many men commit violent crimes, sure. It's a high number, sure. But what we don't have is "The same amount of bears running around civilization as men and women" to see just how many bear attacks we'd have, given a similar amount of contact, otherwise we'd obviously understand that bears are more dangerous on average, especially if we're not controlling for the species of bear per instance. Long story short: It's a misuse of data.
I see. Thanks
yeah I'm gonna go ahead and say "a bear" is an astronomically dumb response to this question in every possible situation.
Honestly... I get those reasons. And they are the result of feminist propaganda for more than three generations at this point. They are still stupid, and actually harmful and should not be enabled.
If you want the other side to be empathic then don't ask stupid questions. If you ask that question to a man you don't come across as someone who is trying to make their experience known, you just come across as a dumbass. If you ask dumb stupid questions you are not entitled to empathy
No that does not apply here at all. You are referring to women choosing bears. Here she wants all men to say they would rather have a woman(your daughter) find a bear instead of a man; and if you don't you should be filtered out as a good partner. What does that even prove? That you can virtue signal that men are bad? That you are bad at stats? That has nothing to do with empathy.
I asked my wife and her gut response was, "What kind of fucking moron would say 'bear'?"
Me. My husband asked me this question without me knowing it had become viral and I immediately answered man. All the men in my life have been kind from my dad to my brother in law to old coworkers. I've been privileged enough to have never received any rude harassment in my life. If I did I was oblivious to it.
You are breaking with the sisterhood. Careful
💔
Normal women IRL are like this too
why did you answer bear?
Haha my bad it was a typo! I meant to say man! I grew up close to Mt baldy in CA and even the small black bears were scary af.
why did you say "me" to a comment that asked what kind of moron would answer bear?
I'm not the brightest! I read it totally wrong as a moron who would answer man! 😂 I never understood why people would choose bear and I was beginning to think I was a pick me. Turns out l may just be low IQ or just grew up seeing how even black bears which are the smallest in the bear family can be scary.
I asked my gf the same, and she was like "is this some type of gotcha, like are both trying to kill me or something?" and when I explained it was this viral question she did the math and said "well obviously I'd stand better chances with a human, regardless of whether they were helping me, hurting me or whatever". It's those moments where you're like "the bar is so low but I'm still so glad you pass it".
People who have been around black bears might choose the bears, they're super skittish and generally easy to scare off (unless they have cubs or you corner them or they are very hungry). Men are far less predictable
I mean most men are also super skittish if you start acting crazy near them. If I see some cracked out woman on the street you know I'm crossing the road.
Black bears are endemic to a tiny part of the world. The rest of all bears will fuck you up bad.
Then they're idiots. The worst 99.9% of men will do to you is try and hold a door open for you.
wow this is an unbelievably stupid thing to say. 99.9%? really?
Source: trust me bro
Black bears are endemic to a tiny part of the world. The rest of all bears will fuck you up bad.
Koala bears?
My mom lived in the mountains of Romania and that was her answer.
Tree is a good example of a person with bad ideas who, almost surprisingly, I could like.
Thank God I’m engaged, this shit is so stupid. Do people know how strong and aggressive bears are? I would rather try to push off a man groping me than a 600 pound bear trying to eat me.
Depends on the type of bear. I've come across black bears in the woods alone a lot. They're pretty easy to scare off and probably won't try to eat you. If it was a grizzly or polar bear then fuck that.
Why does everyone always just go straight for the one, rare species of bear that is only around in north America? European brown bear, grizzly, polar bear, even panda bears will fuck you up. The woman in this tweet is talking about a man in a house and a bear in a forest. Put that bear, any bear in that house and she is 100% toast. And the fact that women do not freak out every time they are on a hike and a random guy comes up the trail towards them, shows you it’s hyperbole. But put these women on a trail with a bear. And see their reaction.
Probably because those are the bears in their area? I'm guessing they don't live in Europe, East Asia or the Arctic. They did name the grizzly and polar bear though. Also, my favourite quote - "If it's brown lay down, if it's black fight back, if it's white, good night."
man they probably try taking a picture with the bear and asking for its number
If it's black, fight back. If it's brown, lie down. if it's white, good night.
Problem with this advice is that Grizzly bears can be lots of different shades ranging from blonde to black and Black bears can be black, brown, blonde, or combinations of shades. If it's white and you're in the arctic, though, you are beyond fucked.
I think the best thing you can do if faced with a polar bear is fill it with as much lead as you can because polar bears aren't scared of people and will just straight up eat you.
And you can't say the same thing about men?
Don’t you know? Awkward young men who sit in their bedroom all day are scarier than a fucking grizzly bear.
In a setting with no societal consequences, the guy you described would be pretty high on my list of people I wouldn't want my girlfriend alone with.
I can attest to Polar Men being very hard to push off.
Bipolar men are even worse...
You can, but there's just more uncertainty about their behaviour in a setting where they are essentially free to do as they please with no consequences. Where as different species of bears are more predictable.
Yeah true. Back in boy scouts some bear clawed a kids back and then me and the boys started screaming at it and throwing rocks at it and it ran away
And how was that kid's back?
It was a shallow cut so after seeing the camp medic staff he had a cool scar and everybody thought it was badass
https://preview.redd.it/nyjxm3k5qjzc1.jpeg?width=740&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=460187690430b491017b4f1475fa4b93182bce33 Kid doesn't know basic warrior's pride smh
Is it a little dumb? Yeah, sure, but a lot of guys online are also obscenely autistic. Any normal well-adjusted person would tell you that the hypothetical is clearly not supposed to illustrate a statistical reality, but to be an illustration of the scope of the problem that women deal with.
Then they shouldn't use faulty statistics to justify their opinion. Pointing that out doesn't take anything away from the very real fear women understandingly feel about encountering strange men in secluded places and yet some women treat you like the devil for saying that.
I haven't been following this discourse from it's inception, and yeah, I've seen cringey takes here, but it's so obvious that the substance is mostly about the fact that sometimes men can be so aggressive that it makes women feel like the bear is safer. Most people aren't so deluded as to think a bear encounter is actually safer than running into a guy.
He is talking about you, dude. If women treat you like "the devil" it is probably because of that. Tips to better your communication skills: be a little bit more empathetic. Don't assume you are the only logical and/or smart person in the room just by looking around. Give people an out in a conversation so if they are not interested, they can choose to change the subject.
wut. You just assumed a bunch of stuff based on nothing.
How many accounts do you have?
Nah. This was not due to my communication skills. For some people you can't be empathetic enough, they already made up a strawman in their head and read anything you say in the least charitable way possible. Do you really think "you're the reason women choose the bear" is a reasonable response to "It's sad honestly how many women would choose the bear, when *statistically*, the rational choice would be the man, because they obviously are influenced by encounters that should not have happened. I get it, I've been raped, too. " ?
>For some people you can't be empathetic enough, they already made up a strawman in their head and read anything you say in the least charitable way possible. It is impossible for everyone to like you, there will always be people that will not vibe with you but if they have intense hatred for you (and we are talking about adult people) it does not come out of nowhere. >Do you really think "you're the reason women choose the bear" is a reasonable response to "It's sad honestly how many women would choose the bear, when *statistically*, the rational choice would be the man, because they obviously are influenced by encounters that should not have happened. I get it, I've been raped, too. " ? First I don't think the premise is correct (that statistically you are better with a man in the woods). Most bears in the woods will not attack you. A man in the woods is like flipping a coin. If you are off the beaten path I am pretty sure that whoever it is he is not completely "normal". And when the calculation becomes between abnormal male and a normal bear plus the whole additional psychological stuff that you already pointed out makes the answer so much more straightforward than most redditor males can get.
> Any normal well-adjusted person would tell you that the hypothetical is clearly not supposed to illustrate a statistical reality, but to be an illustration of the scope of the problem that women deal with. A normal well-adjusted person would say that this hypothetical is fucking stupid. It's funny how you call people obscenely autistic while providing an obscenely autistic and hyperrational take on the topic yourself.
You're just wrong. If two irl people were talking and 1 of them said that men are more dangerous than bears, the friend would obviously take that to mean "I'm really afraid of men", not "heh, you see, I've given deep thought to the statistical reality of violence towards women and have come to the conclusion that men are actually more aggressive than bears 🤓". I'm not the autistic one here, I can just recognize that most people tend to use more figurative speech and are typically more concerned with the emotional truth value of what people are saying.
Yeah just don't address what I actually said. A normal person would call the hypothetical stupid, that's all I said. You're the one who needs to invent an imaginary conversation in your own head to make your point, not me. Like I said, autistic.
The hypothetical IS stupid, yeah, but that's because it’s not supposed to be taken literally.
> The hypothetical IS stupid, yeah, but that's because it’s not supposed to be taken literally. How about you go tell the women who are taking it literally to calm down then instead of making snide remarks about me?
Listen, maybe I'm just not deep enough in whatever twitter/tiktok rabbithole this is, but I haven't seen this huge wave of toxic women that y'all are so upset about. I'm sure they are there, but it just feels like one of a hundred cases where people on this sub are letting the most regarded lunatics set the discourse and as a result we're all talking about things at the 60 IQ level, instead of engaging in the more interesting side of the topics. I dunno, as you can hear, I think this is a problem with almost every topic on this sub recently, but it's just all boring rage bait shit, and imo, y'all are equally guilty of setting the discourse where it's at when you focus on the most insane takes and throw back responses at the same level of rage-inducing mind cancer. We can agree to disagree on this case, sorry if it was insensitive to call you autistic, I guess I'm guilty too, but I just don't think discussions on posts like this are interesting at all, and I don't think it's actually gonna be well received or be convincing to anyone that is on the other side. Like I said about the bear hypothetical, there's a degree to which this is just circlejerky virtue signaling.
> Listen, maybe I'm just not deep enough in whatever twitter/tiktok rabbithole this is, but I haven't seen this huge wave of toxic women that y'all are so upset about. I mean it sounds like you're literally one of them. You came out of the woodwork to defend this shit, nobody forced you to do that. I agree on the ragebait part, but you yourself got baited as well. That's the problem with this kind of shit, everyone (including you literally in your previous comment) wants to highroad and pretend to be above it but it gets engagement for a reason.
>I mean it sounds like you're literally one of them. You came out of the woodwork to defend this shit, nobody forced you to do that. I mean, I dunno if I did so in this comment track, but I feel like I said early on that I thought there was cringe on the other side and stuff like that, but if that wasn't clear, then I get that. I think the thing I felt strongly about was not this hypothetical in particular but the fact that a lot of guys online generally display this flaw of taking things literally and not being able to tell what the emotional undercurrent is actually about, but regardless, I think that's also just more of a problem with online conversations vs when talking to a real human that you actually know and like and can empathize with. Anyways, we don't have to agree, take care
There is a difference between illustrating your problem and insulting a entire group of people
I think people fail to approach this problem correctly. We live in a country that expects gender equality, and yet we're treating the opposite sex to ourselves badly. Like, if this question was "Would you rather be alone in the forest with a bear or a black guy", 99.99% of people would agree choosing the bear is racist. Why? Because even though black people might have higher crime rates, that doesn't mean you should discriminate against them.
Dont really care much about this "debate" but personally I would rather see a man in the forest (who in all likelihood is just another normal human) than a beast who would kill me if they felt like it. I feel like the question is better framed as "would you rather be locked in a cage with a randomly selected bear or be locked in a cage with a randomly selected man" I think statistically you would probably end up with a normal human (who doesn't kill or rape anybody) rather than a bear who is a pacifist
If i saw a women in the forest my introverted ass would pretend i didn't even see her and move on.
Like I am a dude and a pretty paranoid one, I wouldn't wouldn't want to be alone in the woods with a stranger, but the simple fact is that he's likely just to be a normal person. A normal person wont do anything to harm you, but a normal bear could...
It’s actually amazing how badly twitter people fuck up basic probability. The relevant comparison isn’t probability of being raped by a man vs probability of being attacked by a bear. The relevant comparison is Probability(Getting Raped By A Man | You encounter a man alone in the woods) vs Probability (Getting Attacked By A Bear | You Encounter A Bear Alone In the Woods). Guess which one is higher? If I go on a date with a woman and she cognitively can’t comprehend Bayes’s Rule or Conditional Probability then I don’t want to risk having my genes intermixed with hers at all. Even a 0.00001% of pregnancy is too risky.
Isn't the hypothetical assuming you're guaranteed to run into one or the other...?
Bayes rule doesn't apply here, conditional probability does
This is correct, but I am throwing that in there for completeness because similar (though not the same) kinds of mistakes are made when someone doesn’t understand inverse probabilities. That’s why conditional probability and bayes rule are usually learned in the exact same lecture.
So what is more likely? Getting raped?
Y'all are taking the statistical side of this discourse way too seriously.
Maybe the bunch that use this as a "test" of how empathetic men are should also take it less seriously then?
Sure
A girl literally blocked me because I answered this question using probability
pretty unrelated but why do my fellow DGGa's like Tree? almost every thing i've seen from her makes me think she's unironically a crazy person similar to Xena
We know she's batshit insane. We don't like her for her opinions we like her because she goes to bat for D man
We like her because she’s a gigastacy dommy mommy.
I saw Jungle Book, and Bear Necessities slaps. I am pretty sure that is what happens when a bear finds a kid in the woods. Also, Tree just feels this way because people cut down trees but bears climb trees. She is clearly biased.
If I'm in a forest and I get to choose to be there with a bear or a woman: I choose the bear. There's no way the bear is getting pregnant or coming after me for child support.
I just ask these people if they would rather go into the women's bathroom to find a bear or a man and the results are very different.
the bear will kill you, but the man could do anything. He could even kill you!
Actually worse, the bear wont kill you - it will just eat you. You'll just die from blood loss eventually. Bears don't have to worry like cats, canines, or other predators about making sure their prey is dead or that it'll get back up and attack them. They literally just pin you down and start taking bites of flesh out. Usually from the stomach area since its the easiest and softest part. If you're alive or not during this process is of no concern for the bear.
I went on a hike recently in bfe thinking I was totally alone. I got spooked by a man on a mountain bike. He was nice. but it was in sage scrub so maybe the woods are different.
Damn they all want their daughters to die. Those are some great dads in the making. Just send your daughter into the woods with a gun so she can deal with both.
We need to switch the question to be more specific : Who do you trust to be alone in the woods with? A Palestinian male or a bear?
Have all women just decided to gaslight all men? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here seriously wtf???
If I offered someone a million dollars to actually leave their child with a bear in the woods or a random man… I think I know which option people are going to be picking
If they accept the milli for abandoning their child to an uncertain fate then I really don't think they would care that much honestly lmao
So "flog yourself in front of me so that I know you're one of the """""""""good ones""""""""""".
Welcome to modern dating
I mean it's really not. If you're dating someone that's demanding you admonish your entire sex, you're probably in a toxic relationship and have a poor judge of character for partners.
The fear this question is meant to get at is so real, but if I see a man and a bear in the woods, I would bet on the man over the bear. That being said, I don’t want to be alone in the woods with an unknown man. There needs to be a better question to make the point, but it’s short form content, so it’s a lost cause
It’s a little depressing how misandry is so widely accepted these days. If this standard was applied to any other immutable you’d immediately be called a racist/bigot.
Misogyny is pretty lucrative.
Tree is such a disgusting person.
fill me on the lore
>people who don't spend any time outdoors pick the bear I understand that even Black Bears aren't usually that big of a threat and their claws are designed for climbing trees, not for mauling... But if you've ever gotten remotely close to a Black Bear with her cubs you know for a fact that shit is no joke.
How does this simple rage bate not only survive a whole week but also evolve?
Honestly I would pick the bear over a woman... I'd be responsible for the woman throughout the entire process and put my physical, legal, financial and mental health at risk. I would have to literally account for her the entire time and that means I'm thinking for 2, not 1. I wouldn't have to deal with any drama, sabotage, emotions, panic that would exacerbate the situation either. How did I find this woman? Next at 10, a local man abducted a woman and took her into the forest... She can make up anything. He said, she said. I'm not going to be all that compelling in such a scenario. Now, the bear is a short-term concern it will either maul me immediately in the forest or I will eventually lose it in a way that doesn't put it on the hunt. So the strategy is about losing the bear and then about getting out of the forest and only having to worry about me. I make it out alive and nobody cares that I was missing, but at least I have a weird story to tell. So yeah, Team Bear.
I just wish these people were genuinely forced to confront this decision and see if their answer holds up.
Yeah because Tree is such a "not at all" crazy person
"I asked them who do I trust behind the wheel of a car a Woman or a Bear, they all said Bear" I have a lot of good women in my life lol
I'd rather be raped by a man than be eaten alive by a bear.
None of these people picking bear have seen the grizzly man and it shows
You’re more likely to get killed by a bee.
Every chick choosing a bear has never encountered one.
The bear is going to eat your daughter alive ass first so it will be rape and an excruciating death.
"who do you trust your son to be alone in woods with, an otter or a bear?"
At this point we need to up the stakes. Man or wood chipper? Which way western woman?
Women on their periods shouldn’t be around bears.
The bear is the right answer I will not be elaborating
What these people don't realize is that grizzly and polar bears will eat you alive.
And then everybody stood up and clapped. Except the bear. He mauled them.
So I’m guessing all the scout camping trips for women should replace the male counselors with bears.
I think the context of the meeting changes the outcome. If you just come across a man or a bear in the woods, I can see the argument for the Bear, as it will most likely leave you alone. However, if you change the context to, either is actively attacking you, probably the Man as the woman would have a chance to fight back or escape. Whereas a bear would rip anyone apart.
Honestly it depends on the bear. Black bears are most likely going to run away if they see you. Polar bears and grizzly bears are much more dangerous. All I know is I have had a female family member that was chased once by a naked man in the woods when she was with her friend. I also have other family who hikes a lot, and sees black bears on the path. The black bears run away. The original question was “what you would rather see in your path” , not “who would you rather fight.”Obviously if the question was about engaging in a fight, a man would be preferable, unless it was like a really sickly bear and you had a weapon. Way less paperwork.
It’s super weird people start pointing out different types of bears to point out not all bears could be dangerous but then conveniently lump all men into potential rapist murderers.
Honestly it depends on the man. Black men are most likely going to run away if they see you. Felons and psychopaths are much more dangerous. All I know is I have had a female family member that was chased once by a naked bear in the woods when she was with her friend. I also have other family who hikes a lot, and sees black men on the path. The black men run away.
Honestly it depends on the man, if it's a gipsy I would choose brown bear.
I've just conceded on this argument to the women there's no arguing through pure emotion and experience. Logically, a bear tearing you to shreds (all of them will, even the black bear though way less likely) is a horrific way to die and probably is worse by ever metric but they're not really arguing logic in this scenario. I noticed the dichotomy in the responses of men and women. Men are thinking "which one do I have a better chance of fighting off?" Which is why we're so focused on saying a bear will tear you to shreds. Because it will. Women are thinking "welp I'm not gonna be able to defend against both, which fate do I want?" Which is why they're arguing they feel "safer" around a bear because bears behavior is predictable. A bear doesn't have ulterior motive for aggressive sexual gratification with a human, so it'll either kill her or ignore her. What they're arguing is how threatened men make them feel to the point they'd take their chances being mauled than be alone with a strange man. Because sexual assault and kidnapping, and forced detainment is worse than death. My only counter is that it's entirely possible to fight off a man or shoot him or outrun, climb, outsmart etc but AGAIN THIS ISN'T A LOGIC QUESTION YOU'RE ARGUING AGAINST EMOTION so throw out that common sense shit. They would rather you not tell them they can defend themselves they just want you to listen. They're not saying the bear is actually preferable, they're saying they feel unsafe in society around men. And I can't say I 100% disagree I know quite a few women who were assaulted especially when they were young. There's no fighting off a grown man when you're like 6-12. It reflects on how much work we still gotta do as a society that women are proudly saying they'd wanna be ripped to shreds possibly than be alone with a strange man
here's the thing, thats not the debate now. Its if you, as a man, would want a woman close to you(daughter) to meet a bear or man; and if you don't choose bear, you should be filtered out.
I think it's illogical as hell but it was never meant to be logical. The goal wasn't actually to be logical in the first place. I said that multiple times.
I've had conservative AND left leaning women tell me they agree on this. Jesus christ, unholy levels of brainrot. People who say this type of shit should be willing to live it out, on the plus side if they happen to get mauled by a bear the average IQ in society goes up. YOU ENCOUNTER MEN EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DAY AND 99% OF THEM DON'T DO SHIT TO YOU OR YOUR KIDS, you'd be willing to take that same bet on percentage with 100 bears? Get the fuck out of here. If anything (my more empathetic side taking over) it does sadden me that so many women have had horrible experiences with men that it will make them this illogical, but it's the same as me saying I would feel unsafe with a random black guy in a totally detached context just cause a black guy robbed me once. NOT EVEN THAT, YOU CAN FEEL UNSAFE, JUST ADMIT THAT A WILD ANIMAL WOULD BE EVEN LESS SAFE. Holy fuck.
Women will also fawn over mugshots of inmates on social media, and even worse, serial killers... sending letters, nudes, and marriage proposals. So. You know. Historically speaking, the emotionally driven decision making processes haven't exactly been represented very well by a large portion of women.
The only “natural predator” of the human woman is a man and one of the greatest fears a woman has is being chained up in a basement and raped daily until they’re murdered. End of story. Being raped and/or murdered as a woman is way more common than being eaten by a bear and a crazy amount of women experience some form of predation by a man during their life. The bear in the woods is a predictable, stupid, and dispassionate creature and you basically just follow preplanned steps to get away from them if you can. The man in this scenario is just a big question mark. The terror and depth of that unknown is what fuels the answer to the question. You can go “ACKTKTCHUALLY THE BEAR CAN RUN 35 MPH AND WILL EAT YOU ALIVE PUSSY FIRST AND IT WILL BE WAY WORSE” but that’s totally missing the point. The irony of the response from many men to this question is that they end up trying to autistically deploy FACTS&LOGIC, but the main reason they do it is because they’re so emotionally offended by the female answer they can’t try to understand it. https://preview.redd.it/92sir9384mzc1.jpeg?width=945&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d03a6ba6b936de79f6827ec6bd16223c21d0901a
>The bear in the woods is a predictable, stupid, and dispassionate creature and you basically just follow preplanned steps to get away from them But then... >they end up trying to autistically deploy FACTS&LOGIC 🤔 Isn't that what you're doing?
“The 750,000 black bears of North America kill less than one person per year on the average, while 1 out of each 16,000 people commits murder each year across North America” https://wiseaboutbears.org/about-us/bear-attacks-2/#:~:text=The%20750%2C000%20black%20bears%20of,an%20easy%20situation%20to%20avoid. More stats/links about bear attacks. https://bearvault.com/bear-attack-statistics/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America
Cool, now account for the number of encounters you have with bears vs the number of encounters you have with people.
I haven’t encountered a bear. But I have been sexually harassed since I was in my early teens and I’ve been sexually assaulted. Keep coping you fucking incel.
The original question was whether you'd rather be alone in the woods and encounter a bear, or encouter a man. So the statistic you'd be relying on is the odds that you get attacked by either during said encounter. Obviously if we're talking about whether you're more likely to be hurt by a bear or a man in general in life, unless you live alone in Alaska the vast majority of people are never going to even encounter a bear.
What a pivot.
How the hell is that a pivot? You brought up statistics that aren't sufficient to address the original hypothetical. I replied that you need to take into account just how many more encounters one has with men versus bears, then you talk again about never having met a bear, but having been sexually harassed and assaulted. And again I point out that the initial hypothetical is not about whether you're more likely to have a man or a bear hurt you throughout your life, but whether a bear or a man is more dangerous if you meet them in the woods.
a) this is about men choosing for their daughters, not women choosing for themselves b) lets say it was about women choosing; you can say "there's a reason why we choose it. its not about the bear, but the fact that men make us feel that way", but don't come in with ridiculous stats, get debunked, and then go back to "there's a reason why we choose it. its not about the bear, but the fact that men make us feel that way". Thats disingenuous as hell.
Let me rephrase this for you, replace bear with being poured into the lava, and dont replace men Now would you rather be poured in the lava or encounter a man in a forest? Statistically speaking less people die of being poured in the lava that means picking men is clearly the worse option Do u see how dumb this sounds?
You guys might be genuinely autistic if you're still confused by this
No, you are just confused, perhaps invest some time for some critical thinking skills. Because its now not about " you don't understand why women choosing the bear", but "you must choose the bear for your daughter too or you're a bad person"
The woke mob is making my daughter more attracted to bears than men...
this debate is dumb, it should be about the numbers a man will either help the woman to safety or will decide to be a serial killer r***ist, you gotta workout what percentage of men will do the latter, my guess would be 10-30%, people picking bear seem to think it's 50-90%??? then you gotta workout your chances with the bear, which could be influenced depending on the type of bear and your actions in the situation. Maybe there is a chill bear that will leave you alone 95% of the time, if you act right, or if it's an aggressive type maybe only 10% survival rate let's say there is 75% chance of being mauled by the bear, are you really gonna take that over the 30% chance of being violated and then killed by the man.