This is similar to something I assumed right before I had a long argument with a high school physics teacher. We ended up agreeing that he just didn’t really care.
This is similar to something I assumed right before I had a long argument with a high school physics teacher. We ended up agreeing that he just didn’t really care.
Why would I unload my emotional baggage on the people who caused it in the first place? That just sounds like more baggage.
I mean, it would probably be a good opportunity for a handful of really rich people to further their control and ownership globally…so as long as our billionaire overlords value human life over their own personal power we should be good.
This would explain the other article I saw about a US-Clooney $20 billion arms deal.
This is the sort of smartass thing I would try right before getting bludgeoned to death.
It’s an important lesson for this generation of graduates: robots aren’t ready to take your jobs…but we’re pushing it through anyway.
“very often” is hyperbole, but if you’ve never had/heard of that discussion I would be surprised. But I don’t think “men are misunderstanding the question” is a crazy take.
“who would win in a fight” and “who would you feel more threatened by” are by no means two “random” subjects, they are very closely related in theme and in most situations the answers would be interchangeable. And the conflation of the two closely related topics of conversation was my entire point.
I only take on gross work, as per rhyming conventions gross work is your gross worth.
…
Sure.
The original meme is about women feeling they are less threatened by a bear than a strange man, the bear might leave them alone or not be aggressive where a man would be more likely to. That men can be a threat in different ways.
Separately men very often discuss what animals they could beat in a fight. This results in a misunderstanding/disconnect between “who would you feel less threatened by” and “who would win in a fight”, which I agree is not what the original meme of women “choosing the bear” is about, but it is a very similar dynamic that results in men explaining that you won’t win a fight against a bear. Which, again, is not the point of the original meme indicating a feeling that a bear might be less likely to harm or threaten you, which is why it results in people talking past each other. (Kind of like right now…)
And I believe you missed the words “appearing to imply” and my point completely.
Yeah, but Cheetahs can be way bigger than you expect, up to 160 pounds. I think if it can build up enough speed and has the chance to pounce you’re gonna have the wind knocked out of you before you can do much.
Which is why framing the concept in a context that is parallel to one already very familiar to men (what animal is a bigger threat) has caused such misunderstanding.
is it rhetorically or optically the perfect feminist meme that is beyond criticism? no.
Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the argument is men have been having very serious discussions for probably millenia about what animals they could and could not beat in a fight. And it is implicitly known that the guy who comes in saying he could beat a bear is way up his own ass. Now here comes a meme appearing to imply that men could beat a bear in a fight, and the urge to correct is strong.
I understand and agree with the sentiment, but I also want you to know you can’t beat a bear in a fight, but will gladly discuss what animals you might win against.
What about a Cheetah?
Hey I found this cool post from that guy you’re quoting.
This is just the plot of the Black Mirror episode Hang the DJ.
Hitman Hiring Competition sounds like a great WKYK skit.
deleted by creator
Enjoy it, I wish I could go back and play MGS1 for the first time again. Such a good game.
How I expect this to go:
US: “You really shouldn’t do that”
Israel: “Ok, thanks for the consult” *war crime noises*
As you can see, they never will. You must seize the wig.