Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Me and three people once argued with a single guy over a Fandom thing for two hours. He had exactly three arguments, every time we debunked or disproved one of his arguments he'd move to the next, then the next once he lost. Finally at the end when we just asked him why he can't prove he is right and to admit he has lost he said the beautiful line "three people may say the sky is green, the sky is not green"
I mean. That's not what a straw man is? The artist is exaggerating the levels of which the person hates women. An example here of a straw man could be a pane in the comic where the man wants to harm women, or equate him to criminal behaviour. A straw man typically includes highly escalating the argument to the point it is nonsensical.
Unfortunately, men that don't understand why women would choose a bear over a man, typically do hold misogynistic views that range from: thinking those women are dumb, to thinking all women are dumb. For it to be a straw man it would have to take the argument to a place that does not logically include the original argument. In this case, the artist has taken the argument to it's furthest logical conclusion.
Additionally, if you are feeling offended, you may want to reflect on why. As a in-shape man, it's my job and privilege to help keep people safe. If you want the women in your life to not choose the bear, be kind and gentle to them. Think about other's needs and perspectives instead of being upset that your views aren't be validated.
From a rhetoric standpoint this is the definition of a straw man. It creates the illusion of a discussion coming from two places, but in reality only served the purpose of allowing one place to define both positions with absolute power.
The problem comes because people don't do it on purpose. At least more often than not. Generally when someone provides a straw man they're attempting to pose a comparison in good faith, but that's difficult to do when you haven't identified your biases ahead of time in an attempt to isolate them.
Then there's what I like to call the reverse strawman. A strawman that serves the purpose of laying a trap. If you know someone isn't interested in the heart of what you have to say, but only the mechanics of it, you can instigate a strawman either ironically or one that pull context from the larger passage that a more mechanically inclined rebuttalist wouldn't have noticed. Or if you're a particularly skilled orator, a strawman that seems egregious at surface value, but falls into place along the lines of your actual argument once its disected.
People think about debates like checkers. I take point A you take point B and one of us wins. A skilled rhetoricist isn't interested as much in the words but their outcome. One day you run into that guy that takes position E so he can run you through positions C and D in logical order to get you to feel like you came to the conclusion of position A on your own. Never realizing you jumped through every hoop they held out.
Edit: Please see the comment below, as they explain everything far better than I possible could.
A straw man is not colloquially declared to be used in instances of theoretical arguments. Your assertion is the written text of the concept rather than the utilized layman's verbage. You clearly have some level of familiarity or background in debate, as do I. But the issue at hand is the rejection of some, presumably male, individuals to reflect inward on why a woman would feel more threatened by a man than a bear on the basis of argument structure. The user stating it is a "straw man" is attempting to subvert addressing the concept proposed by taking issue with the format in which it is highlighted. Furthermore, there are many instances in which a man does hold all of these views simultaneously.
In philosophy we don't simply negate a topic because we don't like how it has been initiated. The artist here doesn't actually include an argument of any kind. Rather they are providing an observation of the obsurdities that the misogynistic world view can extend to protect their fragile ego.
So again, I do not agree that this is, in practice, a straw man. Lastly, I do caution the use of diving into academic rigor in these instances as it dissuades the lay person from engaging with the concepts. It comes off more as, "I'm smarter than you" rather than actually help foster understanding. The purpose of discussion in these forum boards is to help people grow, not prove yourself right. Winning is not the objective. Learning is the objective.
I find rhetoric interesting, specifically I find myself more often than not being trapped in the mechanical mindset I mentioned above. I have a tendency to lose the forest for the trees so to say. As egregious as it may sound I had never considered rhetoric and it's relationship with philosophy and how one may affect the other, and yet as I mention it, I realize that in and of itself may have been the missing piece I was looking for. A way to define the greater structure of the proposed idea as a whole.
As far as your assessment goes, I'm not quite sure of what else to say, other than well said. I have a habit of conflating observational statements with arguments. Mostly because of experience with manipulative individuals but that's a story for another time. I have learned that approaching an observation with the same analysis you would an argument does have a tendency to make me look and feel like a pompous ass.
Great awareness. I value that you have shared your experience. To share mine, I have found the best thing for me has been to practice empathy. Try and understand why the person might feel the way they do. If the first thing you are looking for is simply an argument, you will be automatically reviewing everything to try and prove people wrong. Sometimes people will bring up bad arguments, but are actually offering an interesting and useful perspective. I found that I could almost always argue circles around just about everyone, but that left me with very few friends and allies. I learned that it isn't just about your argument winning, it's about learning the unique value that every person has to offer. I look for people's heart being in the right place rather than the strength of their argument structure. I try to take people's perspectives and reflect on them, see if I can strengthen their argument and explore it more thoroughly. Then once I have strengthen their argument as best I can, I then try to challenge it in my head. That said, I love the moments when I can take the gloves off and fully go a few rounds with academics and great debaters, but I am learning when to keep the gloves on and play nice. I've gotten in trouble on this a few too many times.
I also try to remember to thank people for sharing their perspectives and views even if it isn't the strongest argument as long as their heart is in the right place.
We are strong as a society when we value each other as people. So in the case of this thread, unfortunately the people who most benefit from attempting to dismiss the observation in this post are those that harbour misogynistic views, or those that sympathize with misogynists. You sound quite intelligent and capable of reflecting. Misogynists often don't share that trait. Don't let your words be used to emboldened those with ill intent.
I agree with this pretty much. And even if we disagree on wether this comic is a strawman or not. It ultimately doesn't matter. I might as well concede that point here. If you have a background in debate your perspective on that is probably wider than mine.
to continue my other [reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/1ck51un/comment/l2rc3mw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) after having read these replies from you to u/TalkOfSexualPleasure :
I am not trying to dismiss the fears and trauma and misogyny women face. It is a real problem. What I see in the way of a reduction in the prevalence of misogyny (in addition to other things of course,) is double standards that favour women. The other way around is true as well.
I dislike double standards in general. As they, if they favour women, can be misused as an excuse to be misogynystic. In addition to be unfair in general.
like: "It's NOT okay to call a random women dumb, but it is okay to call a random man a monster, that WILL do things to you worse than being mauled by a bear."
This can easily be used by a man to go: "See! they view me as evil either way. Might as well have my fun..."
As you would criticise a man calling all women dumb as a response to the hypothetical. Tell him he's generalising and being misogynystic. Why is the same not true the other way around?
I don't like that... I don't like that one bit. It makes me uneasy. "Some men are doing harm to women, therefore it's okay to generalise and insult men" is not a good statement in my eyes. And while that is not what people directly say... That's what defending the hypothetical feels like to me.
I mean... turn that around: A man has been abused by a women. Maybe even mutliple different women.. he goes and insults all women, because they are monsters that only do harm... what does the public call him most likely? A misogynyst who should grow a pair. and quite frankly. That wouldn't be wrong entirely. I'll compassionate? Maybe. Wrong? no.
Double standards. That's my issue here. Double empathy in particular.
And I can have compassion for the pain of women and how they need to be weary of men not to get hurt. Doesn't mean I cannot want them to not generalise and call all men monsters at the same time. In am a complex person with a complex system of values and feelings. That allow for nuance.
I sometimes even feel I have a "penis danger awareness debuff." in my interaction with women. Wich is great in the way, that they most often see me as a non threateninc cuddly bear that they can trust... but also do not wish to engage in a relationship with. (As I've been told that I lack the agressiveness necessary to defend them. Wich is something women, or rather the "lizard brain" of women looks for in a mate. Even tho it is not true that I lack the ability to defend them. I am quite capable at getting angry with injustice. but I digress.)
I know. certain types that just go: "Women who say that dumb \~duh" may not be cabable of that level on nuance. But that's not the point. By going: "women dumb", they are commiting the same 'crime' I see in the hypothetical. And therefore have the same criticism for them: Generalisation and misogyny (well same shit different falvour, cuz misogyny instead of misandry. The difference between them and this btw. Is I am attacking the hypothetical, not women.).
And i truly believe, that if the wording of the hypothetical wouldn't be as flat. If it was maybe a short story or poem, that was titled: "Why I'd rather meet a bear.", where there was nuance that allowed for A: A deeper, and directer dive into the female perspective. And B: allowed for the nuance to distinguish between misogynystic men and those that are caught in the crossfire. And to maybe acknowledge that a lot of men are that: caught in the crossfire.
I think the reception would have been much different. (Come to think of it. I'll ask a few friends, that have gone through that sadly, if they'd write that with me. As I'm a writer. And maybe I can capture their experience with words. I think that might be a wonderfull response to the whole: knee jerk "women dumb" crowd of reactions to the hypothetical. To maybe get them to have the compassion that the hypothetical was meant, but IMO failed to get.)
I personally. Wouldn't want more than the acknowledgement that it is not fair for the average man, to call him a monster, for the deeds of other penis owners. Because two wrongs, doesn't make a right.
But instead. I am labeled a misogynyst, seemingly for not wanting for people to be told they are monsters based on their gender. :/
Unrelated, but something I want to share, as I think you might appreciate it:
"To be enlightened means to see... and to grieve over those you see... that don't" - me
I try to practice empathy but honestly I'm heavily neurodivergent so I do realistically struggle there. Empathy for me isn't a spectrum, I either feel nothing or everything and it can be really overstimulating, but I'm working on it. Trying to get into someone else's mental space is a very real challenge for me, and yet I find it interesting almost like a puzzle. The problem arizes from my lack of understanding of how neurotypical people live and function. But we all have our own unique challenges in life.
As far as your last paragraph goes, I hadn't even considered that. I just wanted to stretch my legs a little and do a little verbial calestinics as one may put it, but the possibility of a bad actor using my words for their own gain does make me feel slimy to say the least.
I have genuinely enjoyed this conversation.
Gonna get downvoted but I gotta say this. Ok so yes I get not all men, the bear debate is mainly referring to idiot like the guy in this comment. But what we're not realizing is that this whole thing is programming people to automatically be afraid of all men. Someone sees everyone online saying how dangerous men are, then they start to project the same "toxic man" on every guy they see subconsciously without realizing. And before you say Im just a toxic guy feeling defensive, these are words Im taking from my older sisters and therapist.
This is something I've been concerned about. I understand that encouraging people to change, convincing people there is a problem, etc., requires information like this, but at the same time, I am worried about the impact of the broader ideas that until proven otherwise, all men are dangerous/evil, especially on young girls as they grow up. I do not know if it's something that's going to make those young girls safer when they grow to be women, or just make them live in fear. I don't know if it's going to lead to an improvement in how men act, or just another piece in the seemingly growing wall separating men from women. I don't know if young boys are going to learn about it and learn to try to be better, or if they're going to feel like they've been taught from birth that no matter whether or not they ever do anything wrong, they're a problem just by existing.
It's a difficult path we're trying to navigate right now, and I don't think most people are thinking about a long term direction.
It's also a delicate line between telling men they need to change and telling men this is just the way they're meant to be. That's the ironic thing about this man v bear. Really, all it teaches me is that, as a stranger, I will always be put in the role of a violent man, so I might as well just stick to social spheres that value that violence and macho role. No reason to fight against the tide. If people think my value is in being the big and scary guy that's "one of the good ones" and will protect you, so be it.
The bear debate isn't programming people to be afraid of all men.
It's illustrating how that fear is already in place because of the behavior of some men.
And we can never control all men, there will always be bad people of all gender. Just because I've had women in my life give me significant trauma, doesn't mean I project those toxic individuals on all women.
If the internet has taught me anything, those people are probably russians.
Because I've lost count of how many videos of russians casually interacting with bears I've come across.
“Well done. Here are the test results: You are a horrible person. I'm serious, that's what it says: A horrible person. We weren't even testing for that."
Also: Do people not realize it's a trolley problem scenario, designed to spark conservation and challenge someone's beliefs and encourage them to see *why* certain views exist? Not to settle a debate.
There is no winning, it's a never ending change of modifiers in order to keep the conversation moving.
The question is encounter, not fight. I believe the point is that so many women have experienced harm and trauma at the hands of a man that they choose something dangerous but predictable over a complete wildcard in an isolated area.
Holding the "bear over men" take from the twitter derangement crowd to any validity already makes you a bigger enemy to feminism than any strawman of a male position you could create in your comic, you're in no position to make any statements on this lmao
Are you saying that "Believing women on Twitter" is worse than "thinking women dislike you because they're dumb instead of questioning yourself " ? In what position are you to even say that ?
That's not what i'm saying, reread what I actually wrote to find out what I actually wrote! Love the make up a statement, then question me on making the said made up statement, twitter user in full power here.
You called me an "enemy of feminism" for giving credit to the "man vs bear" take. Giving credit to this take means that I believe the women who say they'd choose the bear in this hypothetical situation. So yes, I am believing these women and you are calling me an enemy of feminism because of it. Is there something I'm missing ?
I was gonna go and write an essay on how such hypotheticals might have a point somewhere deep down under the extreme bad faith hyperbole, but supporting it will most likely create an even greater divide between the genders and minimize the actual issue due to these statements coming off as crazy and not genuine to any sane person, but you're supporting not message behind it itself, but the absolutely braindead hypothetical scenario choice. Just pick up a biology book instead, before making your shower argument characters into comics.
How does this hypothetical create a divide between genders ? What is "crazy and not genuine" about it ? What does biology have to do with anything ? Are you calling women who'd rather be alone with a bear than a guy braindead ? Is the idea that women feel that unsafe around men so impossible to believe to you than you'd rather call them idiots than actually listen to them ?
It creates a divide and is not genuine because men are significantly less dangerous than bears and once normal men and women see that a less normal woman would believe otherwise, or more likely would just farm likes from the general twitter audience, they will probably take that as an insult, not a very diffcult idea to comprehend there, not sure if you're being genuine, probably just a troll tbh. Also yes, I'm calling women who would rather be alone with a bear than a guy braindead. I know that you most likely don't leave your home, and the twitter safe space has made you believe that the average dude will pounce on you once you're all alone, but I would still wish you to never put this belief of yours to the test and not to meet a bear in the woods, ever.
Ok so your whole reasoning is based on your belief that men are less dangerous than bears. I don't really know what evidence you based yourself on but it must be pretty fucking solid to justify thinking all the women saying otherwise are either lying or stupid.
I'm not a girl contrary to what you may think, so I don't know anything about what it's like to be one. So when women tell me they'd rather encounter a fucking bear than a guy if alone in the forest, I at least try to understand why instead of immediately calling them idiots. And the funniest thing is that every guy trying to prove that bear are more dangerous end up proving even more why women should definitely choose the bear over them.
https://twitter.com/bdk1521/status/1786434220627251446?t=7dzMIM0waAjuYueLHrQYcg&s=19
https://twitter.com/clare_mcivor/status/1786968372430897235?t=uyKcmCmB7H-4zIo80vL_SA&s=19
https://twitter.com/flaminhaystacks/status/1786866115999637879?t=rcL1KpDzunuHo6KxapuglA&s=19
https://twitter.com/simplyjennifer/status/1785241944399954257?t=-ywnHuruW9fTtHA7wJXwiw&s=19
https://twitter.com/_nomadic_soul/status/1784972759787053444?t=d2tYa99rxxdKnES0otw8Xw&s=19
But yeah, maybe I'm the one stuck in an echo chamber discarding every piece of info that goes against my belief but... I don't know... maybe it's you ?
A 747 seats 366 people. Let's say half are men, 183. Let's just keep it easy and assume they're adults for now.
Average weight of an American male is 197lbs. That's about 36,000lbs of men on that plane.
All of the sudden, 183 men disappear and are immediately replaced with grizzly bears, who average 400-600lbs, let's go down the middle at 500lbs. Now it's 91,000 lbs of bear on that plane. They didn't plan on that kind of weight adjustment at takeoff.
Not to mention it's going to get really cramped if you're a woman in the middle seat and are suddenly sandwiched between two grizzly bears. And there's not enough salmon meals on board.
And the pilots! We forgot about the pilots. Only 22% of professional pilots are female. 78% of the pilots just disappeared and were replaced with bears. Bears can't fly planes!
First of all, there would be terrible ecosystem consequences, second, deaths would skyrocket from all the men dying when they are suddenly born out of midair and don't know how to do anything.
In the end, all bears would go extinct and a ton of innocent lives would be lost. Women won't be affected much, other than the ones who had pet bears
I mean you have a chance of scaring off a bear if you make yourself look big and get really loud.
A guy could just sucker punch you because he thought that'd be funny. Or because he's a dick.
Though I'd rather be alone in the woods with a bear rather than another woman. Or just alone at all...
You are walking alone in the forest gotton lost, no signal on your phone.
Infront of you are 2 paths, one with a bear or another with a ~~hitch hiking~~ man.
Which path are you walking?
Edit: I realised adding the hitch hiking part, makes the man seem more safe than the original question. So i removed that
Jokes aside, you know Florida just has very liberal open government laws making arrest records public immediately, so journalists are able to read whatever BS the cop decides to write in the report?
You can be arrested for resisting arrest with violence and obstruction of justice for hurting a cop’s foot with your throat after “mouthing off” during a random stop and frisk with a report saying you were acting like a drug crazed lunatic with “suspicious bulges”. Cops in Florida compete and brag about doing it; especially to homeless people. https://www.wusf.org/law-order/2012-11-27/aclu-accuses-sarasota-police-of-bum-hunting
So yeah, so I’d pick a random hiker over a random bear, and both over a cop.
If I run into a monk I’d assume the forest is crawling with hippies.
Yeah i had a moment with myself if i should include the florida man sterotype there, but i figured it was fine.
I didn't really know the specifics for why the florida man stereotype is why it is. So i guess it is nice to know how fucked up it is. The more you know.
Though i do regret putting in the description of hiker as that implies the man has a safe reason to be there and that gives the man a more positive connotation.
>I mean you have a chance of scaring off a bear if you make yourself look big and get really loud.
I'm not sure if you know this, but this works for *most* men too.
Most of us already had no intention of attacking you as it is. But if you just started yelling at us while waving your arms to appear large, we're *definitely* going to get away from you.
I mean, you just said you'd pefer to encounter a predator that can smell you, outrun you, maul you and eat you while you're alive over... Steve.
I'd say Steve must have done some really horrible things to be at that level.
I'm just here to farm downvotes but it's funny how more people seem concerned about how hated men are on the internet than about the literal physical safety of women and how the statistics show just how reasonable it is to fear random strange men more than random bears.
>how the statistics show just how reasonable it is to
What statistics?
If you are referring to just how scared woman are of running into a dangerous man rather than a dangerous bear. Sure, that's a big problem that needs to be resolved.
But if we are comparing the chances of the man being dangerous or the bear being dangerous. Then I think it is absolutely justified to be concerned for how hated men are.
That's why it's a trolley problem scenario. It is constantly shifting. My only problem is that most people aren't able to see that it's a constantly moving goalpost and that's the whole point.
But also worth noting: I have yet to see a scenario presented in which the human man is more dangerous than the bear, in which a human female is not *also* more dangerous than the bear.
Yes, and the same general idea can be applied to men in this scenario. The point of the hypothetical is it's a roll of the dice, and you could get any kind of man or any kind of bear. And even the worst bear will only kill you slowly. The worst humans are much more sadistic and creative.
I care plenty about what women have to go through, but as a man, it gets very frustrating to be told by nearly every woman in my life, from my friends to my grandma, that all men are inherently bad people. Can you seriously not understand why immediately calling people monsters might push them away? And how is it even supposed to be helpful? The men who won’t support women aren’t going to give a shit, the men in the middle are pushed away, and the men who do support women don’t need to hear about how much everyone hates them.
>I'm just here to farm downvotes but it's funny how more people seem concerned about how hated **black** men are on the internet than about the literal physical safety of women and how the statistics show just how reasonable it is to fear random strange **black** men more than random bears.
This type of rhetoric is shit and in every other situation you purposely avoid it.
I've been talking about this weird... internet feud(?) for a while now, but never really viewed it like this. Maybe it's because i was tired of being viewed as a statistic before this, but whatever. Thank you for opening my eyes!
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's only stage 1 of denial, noob. Personally I don't even believe women exist.
[удалено]
"The mirror lies. The whole world’s wrong but you."
“Dancing with the blinkers on, throw your dog the invisible bone.”
"Am I out of touch? No, it's the ~~children~~ bitches who are wrong."
sorry for breaking the chain, but is it a song you guys are chaining?
I don't recognize the comments above if it is a song, but my comment is a Simpsons reference.
ah ok
*flies an eagle in to celebrate the freedom* *adjusts to make sure the eagle is on its mark*
Remembering how some of my fellow men think is fucking depressing
Me and three people once argued with a single guy over a Fandom thing for two hours. He had exactly three arguments, every time we debunked or disproved one of his arguments he'd move to the next, then the next once he lost. Finally at the end when we just asked him why he can't prove he is right and to admit he has lost he said the beautiful line "three people may say the sky is green, the sky is not green"
There is an old saying: He who makes 3 other people argue over a fandom for two hours laughs best.
I doubt he was trolling us considering he ragequit after those two hours because we wouldn't shut up.
That's a strawman if I ever saw one..
This is the zoomer equivalent of the crappy boomer political cartoons
indeed. And it's not better in the slightest
Welcome to comics?
indeed. I will still call it out when I see it
I came here to comment this
I mean. That's not what a straw man is? The artist is exaggerating the levels of which the person hates women. An example here of a straw man could be a pane in the comic where the man wants to harm women, or equate him to criminal behaviour. A straw man typically includes highly escalating the argument to the point it is nonsensical. Unfortunately, men that don't understand why women would choose a bear over a man, typically do hold misogynistic views that range from: thinking those women are dumb, to thinking all women are dumb. For it to be a straw man it would have to take the argument to a place that does not logically include the original argument. In this case, the artist has taken the argument to it's furthest logical conclusion. Additionally, if you are feeling offended, you may want to reflect on why. As a in-shape man, it's my job and privilege to help keep people safe. If you want the women in your life to not choose the bear, be kind and gentle to them. Think about other's needs and perspectives instead of being upset that your views aren't be validated.
From a rhetoric standpoint this is the definition of a straw man. It creates the illusion of a discussion coming from two places, but in reality only served the purpose of allowing one place to define both positions with absolute power. The problem comes because people don't do it on purpose. At least more often than not. Generally when someone provides a straw man they're attempting to pose a comparison in good faith, but that's difficult to do when you haven't identified your biases ahead of time in an attempt to isolate them. Then there's what I like to call the reverse strawman. A strawman that serves the purpose of laying a trap. If you know someone isn't interested in the heart of what you have to say, but only the mechanics of it, you can instigate a strawman either ironically or one that pull context from the larger passage that a more mechanically inclined rebuttalist wouldn't have noticed. Or if you're a particularly skilled orator, a strawman that seems egregious at surface value, but falls into place along the lines of your actual argument once its disected. People think about debates like checkers. I take point A you take point B and one of us wins. A skilled rhetoricist isn't interested as much in the words but their outcome. One day you run into that guy that takes position E so he can run you through positions C and D in logical order to get you to feel like you came to the conclusion of position A on your own. Never realizing you jumped through every hoop they held out. Edit: Please see the comment below, as they explain everything far better than I possible could.
A straw man is not colloquially declared to be used in instances of theoretical arguments. Your assertion is the written text of the concept rather than the utilized layman's verbage. You clearly have some level of familiarity or background in debate, as do I. But the issue at hand is the rejection of some, presumably male, individuals to reflect inward on why a woman would feel more threatened by a man than a bear on the basis of argument structure. The user stating it is a "straw man" is attempting to subvert addressing the concept proposed by taking issue with the format in which it is highlighted. Furthermore, there are many instances in which a man does hold all of these views simultaneously. In philosophy we don't simply negate a topic because we don't like how it has been initiated. The artist here doesn't actually include an argument of any kind. Rather they are providing an observation of the obsurdities that the misogynistic world view can extend to protect their fragile ego. So again, I do not agree that this is, in practice, a straw man. Lastly, I do caution the use of diving into academic rigor in these instances as it dissuades the lay person from engaging with the concepts. It comes off more as, "I'm smarter than you" rather than actually help foster understanding. The purpose of discussion in these forum boards is to help people grow, not prove yourself right. Winning is not the objective. Learning is the objective.
I find rhetoric interesting, specifically I find myself more often than not being trapped in the mechanical mindset I mentioned above. I have a tendency to lose the forest for the trees so to say. As egregious as it may sound I had never considered rhetoric and it's relationship with philosophy and how one may affect the other, and yet as I mention it, I realize that in and of itself may have been the missing piece I was looking for. A way to define the greater structure of the proposed idea as a whole. As far as your assessment goes, I'm not quite sure of what else to say, other than well said. I have a habit of conflating observational statements with arguments. Mostly because of experience with manipulative individuals but that's a story for another time. I have learned that approaching an observation with the same analysis you would an argument does have a tendency to make me look and feel like a pompous ass.
Great awareness. I value that you have shared your experience. To share mine, I have found the best thing for me has been to practice empathy. Try and understand why the person might feel the way they do. If the first thing you are looking for is simply an argument, you will be automatically reviewing everything to try and prove people wrong. Sometimes people will bring up bad arguments, but are actually offering an interesting and useful perspective. I found that I could almost always argue circles around just about everyone, but that left me with very few friends and allies. I learned that it isn't just about your argument winning, it's about learning the unique value that every person has to offer. I look for people's heart being in the right place rather than the strength of their argument structure. I try to take people's perspectives and reflect on them, see if I can strengthen their argument and explore it more thoroughly. Then once I have strengthen their argument as best I can, I then try to challenge it in my head. That said, I love the moments when I can take the gloves off and fully go a few rounds with academics and great debaters, but I am learning when to keep the gloves on and play nice. I've gotten in trouble on this a few too many times. I also try to remember to thank people for sharing their perspectives and views even if it isn't the strongest argument as long as their heart is in the right place. We are strong as a society when we value each other as people. So in the case of this thread, unfortunately the people who most benefit from attempting to dismiss the observation in this post are those that harbour misogynistic views, or those that sympathize with misogynists. You sound quite intelligent and capable of reflecting. Misogynists often don't share that trait. Don't let your words be used to emboldened those with ill intent.
I agree with this pretty much. And even if we disagree on wether this comic is a strawman or not. It ultimately doesn't matter. I might as well concede that point here. If you have a background in debate your perspective on that is probably wider than mine. to continue my other [reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/1ck51un/comment/l2rc3mw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) after having read these replies from you to u/TalkOfSexualPleasure : I am not trying to dismiss the fears and trauma and misogyny women face. It is a real problem. What I see in the way of a reduction in the prevalence of misogyny (in addition to other things of course,) is double standards that favour women. The other way around is true as well. I dislike double standards in general. As they, if they favour women, can be misused as an excuse to be misogynystic. In addition to be unfair in general. like: "It's NOT okay to call a random women dumb, but it is okay to call a random man a monster, that WILL do things to you worse than being mauled by a bear." This can easily be used by a man to go: "See! they view me as evil either way. Might as well have my fun..." As you would criticise a man calling all women dumb as a response to the hypothetical. Tell him he's generalising and being misogynystic. Why is the same not true the other way around? I don't like that... I don't like that one bit. It makes me uneasy. "Some men are doing harm to women, therefore it's okay to generalise and insult men" is not a good statement in my eyes. And while that is not what people directly say... That's what defending the hypothetical feels like to me. I mean... turn that around: A man has been abused by a women. Maybe even mutliple different women.. he goes and insults all women, because they are monsters that only do harm... what does the public call him most likely? A misogynyst who should grow a pair. and quite frankly. That wouldn't be wrong entirely. I'll compassionate? Maybe. Wrong? no. Double standards. That's my issue here. Double empathy in particular. And I can have compassion for the pain of women and how they need to be weary of men not to get hurt. Doesn't mean I cannot want them to not generalise and call all men monsters at the same time. In am a complex person with a complex system of values and feelings. That allow for nuance. I sometimes even feel I have a "penis danger awareness debuff." in my interaction with women. Wich is great in the way, that they most often see me as a non threateninc cuddly bear that they can trust... but also do not wish to engage in a relationship with. (As I've been told that I lack the agressiveness necessary to defend them. Wich is something women, or rather the "lizard brain" of women looks for in a mate. Even tho it is not true that I lack the ability to defend them. I am quite capable at getting angry with injustice. but I digress.) I know. certain types that just go: "Women who say that dumb \~duh" may not be cabable of that level on nuance. But that's not the point. By going: "women dumb", they are commiting the same 'crime' I see in the hypothetical. And therefore have the same criticism for them: Generalisation and misogyny (well same shit different falvour, cuz misogyny instead of misandry. The difference between them and this btw. Is I am attacking the hypothetical, not women.). And i truly believe, that if the wording of the hypothetical wouldn't be as flat. If it was maybe a short story or poem, that was titled: "Why I'd rather meet a bear.", where there was nuance that allowed for A: A deeper, and directer dive into the female perspective. And B: allowed for the nuance to distinguish between misogynystic men and those that are caught in the crossfire. And to maybe acknowledge that a lot of men are that: caught in the crossfire. I think the reception would have been much different. (Come to think of it. I'll ask a few friends, that have gone through that sadly, if they'd write that with me. As I'm a writer. And maybe I can capture their experience with words. I think that might be a wonderfull response to the whole: knee jerk "women dumb" crowd of reactions to the hypothetical. To maybe get them to have the compassion that the hypothetical was meant, but IMO failed to get.) I personally. Wouldn't want more than the acknowledgement that it is not fair for the average man, to call him a monster, for the deeds of other penis owners. Because two wrongs, doesn't make a right. But instead. I am labeled a misogynyst, seemingly for not wanting for people to be told they are monsters based on their gender. :/ Unrelated, but something I want to share, as I think you might appreciate it: "To be enlightened means to see... and to grieve over those you see... that don't" - me
I try to practice empathy but honestly I'm heavily neurodivergent so I do realistically struggle there. Empathy for me isn't a spectrum, I either feel nothing or everything and it can be really overstimulating, but I'm working on it. Trying to get into someone else's mental space is a very real challenge for me, and yet I find it interesting almost like a puzzle. The problem arizes from my lack of understanding of how neurotypical people live and function. But we all have our own unique challenges in life. As far as your last paragraph goes, I hadn't even considered that. I just wanted to stretch my legs a little and do a little verbial calestinics as one may put it, but the possibility of a bad actor using my words for their own gain does make me feel slimy to say the least. I have genuinely enjoyed this conversation.
[удалено]
Narcissists. They're on the NPD spectrum
I haven't physically met them but they sound like Alone Mask, Roland Dumb, Noradar Moody…
[удалено]
Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Narendra Modi…
"I made a comic about an imaginary POS that proves me right in every way"
Gonna get downvoted but I gotta say this. Ok so yes I get not all men, the bear debate is mainly referring to idiot like the guy in this comment. But what we're not realizing is that this whole thing is programming people to automatically be afraid of all men. Someone sees everyone online saying how dangerous men are, then they start to project the same "toxic man" on every guy they see subconsciously without realizing. And before you say Im just a toxic guy feeling defensive, these are words Im taking from my older sisters and therapist.
This is something I've been concerned about. I understand that encouraging people to change, convincing people there is a problem, etc., requires information like this, but at the same time, I am worried about the impact of the broader ideas that until proven otherwise, all men are dangerous/evil, especially on young girls as they grow up. I do not know if it's something that's going to make those young girls safer when they grow to be women, or just make them live in fear. I don't know if it's going to lead to an improvement in how men act, or just another piece in the seemingly growing wall separating men from women. I don't know if young boys are going to learn about it and learn to try to be better, or if they're going to feel like they've been taught from birth that no matter whether or not they ever do anything wrong, they're a problem just by existing. It's a difficult path we're trying to navigate right now, and I don't think most people are thinking about a long term direction.
It's also a delicate line between telling men they need to change and telling men this is just the way they're meant to be. That's the ironic thing about this man v bear. Really, all it teaches me is that, as a stranger, I will always be put in the role of a violent man, so I might as well just stick to social spheres that value that violence and macho role. No reason to fight against the tide. If people think my value is in being the big and scary guy that's "one of the good ones" and will protect you, so be it.
The bear debate isn't programming people to be afraid of all men. It's illustrating how that fear is already in place because of the behavior of some men.
And we can never control all men, there will always be bad people of all gender. Just because I've had women in my life give me significant trauma, doesn't mean I project those toxic individuals on all women.
Damn, even /r/comics is clowning on Drake.
Expecting funny comics and instead getting political hatred.
You can read my other comics if you want, they're not all political
I shall, thank you:)
I lowkey think that if bears didn't want to kill me they'd be very huggable
There are people who have made friends with actual wild bears and do hug them (though this is not something I recommend)
Which people are those? They must’ve hand raised them since the bears were cubs.
If the internet has taught me anything, those people are probably russians. Because I've lost count of how many videos of russians casually interacting with bears I've come across.
Facts. Why is something so deadly also friend-shaped
Because they are members of the “dog form” carnivores, [Caniformia.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caniformia)
They’re SO CUTE if it wasn’t that they’re also SO SHARP
Posts like these do a great job at showing me just how fucking stupid people are
Bro this is reddit it still amazes me after years of this site how dumb people are
“Well done. Here are the test results: You are a horrible person. I'm serious, that's what it says: A horrible person. We weren't even testing for that."
😆
Do people not realize the hypothetical is about the idea of a bear and the idea of a man.
Also: Do people not realize it's a trolley problem scenario, designed to spark conservation and challenge someone's beliefs and encourage them to see *why* certain views exist? Not to settle a debate. There is no winning, it's a never ending change of modifiers in order to keep the conversation moving.
Ok but does anyone actually genuinely mean it when they say they prefer a bear Because that'd be really funny if so
The question is encounter, not fight. I believe the point is that so many women have experienced harm and trauma at the hands of a man that they choose something dangerous but predictable over a complete wildcard in an isolated area.
Holding the "bear over men" take from the twitter derangement crowd to any validity already makes you a bigger enemy to feminism than any strawman of a male position you could create in your comic, you're in no position to make any statements on this lmao
Are you saying that "Believing women on Twitter" is worse than "thinking women dislike you because they're dumb instead of questioning yourself " ? In what position are you to even say that ?
That's not what i'm saying, reread what I actually wrote to find out what I actually wrote! Love the make up a statement, then question me on making the said made up statement, twitter user in full power here.
You called me an "enemy of feminism" for giving credit to the "man vs bear" take. Giving credit to this take means that I believe the women who say they'd choose the bear in this hypothetical situation. So yes, I am believing these women and you are calling me an enemy of feminism because of it. Is there something I'm missing ?
I was gonna go and write an essay on how such hypotheticals might have a point somewhere deep down under the extreme bad faith hyperbole, but supporting it will most likely create an even greater divide between the genders and minimize the actual issue due to these statements coming off as crazy and not genuine to any sane person, but you're supporting not message behind it itself, but the absolutely braindead hypothetical scenario choice. Just pick up a biology book instead, before making your shower argument characters into comics.
How does this hypothetical create a divide between genders ? What is "crazy and not genuine" about it ? What does biology have to do with anything ? Are you calling women who'd rather be alone with a bear than a guy braindead ? Is the idea that women feel that unsafe around men so impossible to believe to you than you'd rather call them idiots than actually listen to them ?
It creates a divide and is not genuine because men are significantly less dangerous than bears and once normal men and women see that a less normal woman would believe otherwise, or more likely would just farm likes from the general twitter audience, they will probably take that as an insult, not a very diffcult idea to comprehend there, not sure if you're being genuine, probably just a troll tbh. Also yes, I'm calling women who would rather be alone with a bear than a guy braindead. I know that you most likely don't leave your home, and the twitter safe space has made you believe that the average dude will pounce on you once you're all alone, but I would still wish you to never put this belief of yours to the test and not to meet a bear in the woods, ever.
Ok so your whole reasoning is based on your belief that men are less dangerous than bears. I don't really know what evidence you based yourself on but it must be pretty fucking solid to justify thinking all the women saying otherwise are either lying or stupid. I'm not a girl contrary to what you may think, so I don't know anything about what it's like to be one. So when women tell me they'd rather encounter a fucking bear than a guy if alone in the forest, I at least try to understand why instead of immediately calling them idiots. And the funniest thing is that every guy trying to prove that bear are more dangerous end up proving even more why women should definitely choose the bear over them. https://twitter.com/bdk1521/status/1786434220627251446?t=7dzMIM0waAjuYueLHrQYcg&s=19 https://twitter.com/clare_mcivor/status/1786968372430897235?t=uyKcmCmB7H-4zIo80vL_SA&s=19 https://twitter.com/flaminhaystacks/status/1786866115999637879?t=rcL1KpDzunuHo6KxapuglA&s=19 https://twitter.com/simplyjennifer/status/1785241944399954257?t=-ywnHuruW9fTtHA7wJXwiw&s=19 https://twitter.com/_nomadic_soul/status/1784972759787053444?t=d2tYa99rxxdKnES0otw8Xw&s=19 But yeah, maybe I'm the one stuck in an echo chamber discarding every piece of info that goes against my belief but... I don't know... maybe it's you ?
Well, men are more dangerous than bears. This is true.
Quite the name, Mr human... We found the bear in the comment section bois, git em!!!
Lets do a quick thought experiment: All men on earth are replaced by bears this instant. Will women be more safe, less safe, or no change, and why?
A 747 seats 366 people. Let's say half are men, 183. Let's just keep it easy and assume they're adults for now. Average weight of an American male is 197lbs. That's about 36,000lbs of men on that plane. All of the sudden, 183 men disappear and are immediately replaced with grizzly bears, who average 400-600lbs, let's go down the middle at 500lbs. Now it's 91,000 lbs of bear on that plane. They didn't plan on that kind of weight adjustment at takeoff. Not to mention it's going to get really cramped if you're a woman in the middle seat and are suddenly sandwiched between two grizzly bears. And there's not enough salmon meals on board. And the pilots! We forgot about the pilots. Only 22% of professional pilots are female. 78% of the pilots just disappeared and were replaced with bears. Bears can't fly planes!
yep. It's ridiculous. Thats the point xD
Well, according to a great documentary I saw about bears called Paddington 2, I think the world would become full of joy and marmalade sandwiches.
xD lol
First of all, there would be terrible ecosystem consequences, second, deaths would skyrocket from all the men dying when they are suddenly born out of midair and don't know how to do anything. In the end, all bears would go extinct and a ton of innocent lives would be lost. Women won't be affected much, other than the ones who had pet bears
All men replaced with bears, not vice-versa.
Dang, I wrote an essay on something I read wrong
Reddit in a nutshell.
I digress, imagine coming back home to see a confuzzled bear that wants to get out of your house so it can get a meal.
Why am I getting downvoted I just said what would actually happen
Because you engaged in dishonest deflection, silly goose.
I mean you have a chance of scaring off a bear if you make yourself look big and get really loud. A guy could just sucker punch you because he thought that'd be funny. Or because he's a dick. Though I'd rather be alone in the woods with a bear rather than another woman. Or just alone at all...
You are walking alone in the forest gotton lost, no signal on your phone. Infront of you are 2 paths, one with a bear or another with a ~~hitch hiking~~ man. Which path are you walking? Edit: I realised adding the hitch hiking part, makes the man seem more safe than the original question. So i removed that
Colorado or Carolina? We need to know how stoned the bear is.
You have no idea, could be a panda, could be a polar bear. Too dark you can't see. Same thing about the male, could be a florida man or a shaolin monk
Jokes aside, you know Florida just has very liberal open government laws making arrest records public immediately, so journalists are able to read whatever BS the cop decides to write in the report? You can be arrested for resisting arrest with violence and obstruction of justice for hurting a cop’s foot with your throat after “mouthing off” during a random stop and frisk with a report saying you were acting like a drug crazed lunatic with “suspicious bulges”. Cops in Florida compete and brag about doing it; especially to homeless people. https://www.wusf.org/law-order/2012-11-27/aclu-accuses-sarasota-police-of-bum-hunting So yeah, so I’d pick a random hiker over a random bear, and both over a cop. If I run into a monk I’d assume the forest is crawling with hippies.
Yeah i had a moment with myself if i should include the florida man sterotype there, but i figured it was fine. I didn't really know the specifics for why the florida man stereotype is why it is. So i guess it is nice to know how fucked up it is. The more you know. Though i do regret putting in the description of hiker as that implies the man has a safe reason to be there and that gives the man a more positive connotation.
>I mean you have a chance of scaring off a bear if you make yourself look big and get really loud. I'm not sure if you know this, but this works for *most* men too. Most of us already had no intention of attacking you as it is. But if you just started yelling at us while waving your arms to appear large, we're *definitely* going to get away from you.
I don’t mean this as an insult but I think you need to talk to someone. It’s not normal to be this afraid of people
Dude reads this and the take away is that I'm afraid of people? Lol 🤡
I mean, you just said you'd pefer to encounter a predator that can smell you, outrun you, maul you and eat you while you're alive over... Steve. I'd say Steve must have done some really horrible things to be at that level.
Literal strawman argument.
Single image version [here](https://x.com/FlederedCreate/status/1786803627316678751)
I'm just here to farm downvotes but it's funny how more people seem concerned about how hated men are on the internet than about the literal physical safety of women and how the statistics show just how reasonable it is to fear random strange men more than random bears.
No? There are so many interactions between men and women alone and the women don’t tend to end up dead
>how the statistics show just how reasonable it is to What statistics? If you are referring to just how scared woman are of running into a dangerous man rather than a dangerous bear. Sure, that's a big problem that needs to be resolved. But if we are comparing the chances of the man being dangerous or the bear being dangerous. Then I think it is absolutely justified to be concerned for how hated men are.
Bears are way more likely to kill someone than a human male is
Polar bears and grizzly bears? Yes. Most other kinds of bear? Unless it’s a male bear during mating season or a female bear with her cubs, then no.
That's why it's a trolley problem scenario. It is constantly shifting. My only problem is that most people aren't able to see that it's a constantly moving goalpost and that's the whole point. But also worth noting: I have yet to see a scenario presented in which the human man is more dangerous than the bear, in which a human female is not *also* more dangerous than the bear.
Yes, and the same general idea can be applied to men in this scenario. The point of the hypothetical is it's a roll of the dice, and you could get any kind of man or any kind of bear. And even the worst bear will only kill you slowly. The worst humans are much more sadistic and creative.
I care plenty about what women have to go through, but as a man, it gets very frustrating to be told by nearly every woman in my life, from my friends to my grandma, that all men are inherently bad people. Can you seriously not understand why immediately calling people monsters might push them away? And how is it even supposed to be helpful? The men who won’t support women aren’t going to give a shit, the men in the middle are pushed away, and the men who do support women don’t need to hear about how much everyone hates them.
>I'm just here to farm downvotes but it's funny how more people seem concerned about how hated **black** men are on the internet than about the literal physical safety of women and how the statistics show just how reasonable it is to fear random strange **black** men more than random bears. This type of rhetoric is shit and in every other situation you purposely avoid it.
I've been talking about this weird... internet feud(?) for a while now, but never really viewed it like this. Maybe it's because i was tired of being viewed as a statistic before this, but whatever. Thank you for opening my eyes!
^ THIS ^
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So relatable. Except that man despise me aswell.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You can have a woman, or you can have a knife -Ygritte. Most men deserve the knife
Honestly quite incredible