After repeated incidents of men abusing women:
"Men are trash, kill all men, I'll abort my son, bears a safer than men, saying not all men is ignoring the issue."
After repeated incidents of any other demographic doing the same thing:
"Let's be rational, guys."
I agree with not attacking an entire group for the actions of 1 but where the fuck are you guys when it's men being lynched over one POS. Let's keep this energy going forward. Thanks.😊
It's just very interesting.
When a man abuses a woman, do these same people say "let's not make this an excuse to hate men"? Nope. It's actually the opposite. It's used more as more justification as to why women aren't safe around men and how men are evil, the whole shabang.
When anybody else does the same thing, now they want to protect the group from being wrongfully judged? Lmao! Miss me with that. It's so fake. How about we stop judging groups in general, including men.
brother idk what media ur consuming but u gotta get off that shit lol
these are two fundamentally different scopes. this is a single incident that people will use to unfairly generalise to an entire population. assault against women is a recurring theme that is still incredibly prevalent today. not the same.
very few people want to "kill all men" - these people tend to be disproportionately vocal. it is true, however, that saying "not all men" is a deflection of the fundamental problem - since again, they're tackling different scopes. it's clearly true that "not all men" are sexual abusers. nobody believes that "all men" are predators. the problem is when people say "not all men" as a way of deflecting their "responsibility" to making the world a safer place for everyone.
brother idk what media ur consuming but u gotta get off that shit lol
Mainstream media, the news, any social media platform. What do you mean what am I consuming? It's the entire internet unless you hang around in those Redpill spaces where the narrative is flipped.
the problem is when people say "not all men" as a way of deflecting their "responsibility" to making the world a safer place for everyone.
And do you agree this is the same when people say "not all trans people"? It's dismissive, correct?
And do you agree this is the same when people say "not all trans people"? It's dismissive, correct?
No it's not the same, you have to learn about systemic oppression man. Even before yesterday a shit ton of people, including government officials, claim all trans people are predators and that leads to direct violence and policies taking away rights based on no evidence of a widespread problem. There could be millions and millions of people saying all men are bad, even though it's way more warranted and evidence-based, yet we won't see anti-male policies or men going missing with police not even looking for them like what happens to trans people.
There could be millions and millions of people saying all men are bad, even though it's way more warranted and evidence-based, yet we won't see anti-male policies or men going missing with police not even looking for them like what happens to trans people.
Men receive harsher prison sentences than women for the same crime. Domestic abuse protocol follows a system that tells police to arrest the man, even if the woman is the aggressor. Men are not allowed to attend doctor meetings during pregnancy in some countries because it is suspected the woman might be being abused, even if she says she is not. Men are advised not to defend themselves in the instance of an assault by a woman because he will become the suspected attacker.
There are many policies and standards in place which assume men are dangerous. What are you talking about? That's not even relevant to the point though.
This is a question of how people think. If you can look at the exact same situation but come to a different opinion based on nothing but the traits of the people involved, then I've got something to tell you...
no - because again, they're two different problems since they operate at two different scopes.
"not all men" - deflection of a fundamental, highly prevalent, frequently recurring and damaging problem in society. nobody (as a colloquialism) says nor believes that "all men are predators" - not in any reputable MSM (i'm talking the BBC and reuters) - only engagement farmers/ragebaiters on twitter.
"not all trans people" - reminder that a SINGLE incident does not generalise to an entire population of people. people WILL think and believe that "all trans people are predators" because of this incident.
the words are the same, but the meanings (derived from context) are very, very different.
It isn't different...This is what I can't get behind and exactly the point of my post.
I'm making the argument to treat all groups equally in this type of scenario. Either you don't judge the demographic or you do. Pick one.
I genuinely can't get behind anything else if you're going to try and make the point that one is fine and the other is not. I don't see why one group deserves an elevated position in this conversation due to how they identify or what they're born as.
we "judge" the demographic in the "not all men" case (to use your words) because its reflective of a deeper, historically recurring problem.
we don't "judge" the demographic in this instance because its a singular incident that WILL be used to unfairly attack a wider population.
IF argument here were: "hey, this incident is likely reflective of a deeper-seated issue where the LGBT community has higher exposure to SA and abuse", then sure, "not all trans people" would be a deflection. this is not the case here - people will use this incident to unfairly generalise and label trans people as predators.
"hey, this incident is likely reflective of a deeper-seated issue where women have higher exposure to SA and abuse". "not all men!!!" - ergo, deflection.
different contexts, different meanings.
Lmao, so it would only be dismissive if the assumption was to reduce trans people from being the victim of a crime. But to make the opposite assumption is unfair. But for men it's a non-issue to default them as bad people because...History? Want to know about the history of some other demographics?
Responses like this aren't convincing. I'm not going to justify viewing one demographic as evil when the same is apparently not allowed for other demographics. Doesn't matter how you try to twist it. It's all the same outcome wrapped in different justifications. Racists do it, sexists do it, apologists do it.
again, i believe your fundamental misunderstanding lies in the fact that nobody demonises men as an entire group other than social media engagement farmers and ragebaiters. nobody actually believes that all men are predators, and consequently, nobody will unfairly attack "all men" for being abusers.
when people say "not all men", it is not as a defence for "men" - since there's no "attack" in the first place. it's used as a deflection when people try to tackle the deeper-rooted problems in society stemming from historical male-favoured inequalities.
"not all men" isn't a defence against a generalisation, since there is no generalisation in the first place (outside of engagement farmers and ragebaiters) - hence why i questioned your sources of media consumption.
again, people WILL look at this incident and think that therefore "all trans people are predators". this is a tangible, visible threat, which means that "not all trans people" is a valid defence.
different contexts, different meanings.
misandrists frequently express the need to eradicate all men, "i would choose the bear", men are all trash", "we dont need men in the world" and the response they get is "you go girl!", "#independent"
but if you think the same about trans, people will say you are a problem, even so far as to send death threats.
you keep mentioning "deeper-rooted problems in society regarding males" when in fact there is nothing to talk about in there anymore. more men are in jail, more laws are passed for the protection of women and children against men. so why is there still a need to this "movement" when men are already portrayed in society as the default demographic to commit crimes and violence?
"all trans are predators" is already widely known. you know why? because they keep pushing the agenda that gender studies should be taught in pre-schools. because of the crimes of the few in the trans community, they are already seen as predators because they keep pushing their agenda to make transitioning a thing that a child should decide upon.
As long as you're consistent.
If it's okay to generalise men as a group because some men are bad. I don't want to read any crying about how other demographics gets generalised over a few people. Anything else is hypocrisy.
If me writing about the comparison to men in this circumstance is me being self-centred, go ahead and make the same statement right now towards every other person crying about how this SA allegation affects the trans community. Make the tweet, post, whatever. Or else I can't take you seriously.
Bro wants to be a victim so badly when situations aren't close to comparable. For generations men have proven statistically to be the most violent group of people and yet there are countless examples of us getting away with doing anything, even straight up unaliving someone (especially when the victim is a woman, Indigenous, Black, and/or trans), meanwhile trans people are currently not allowed to use public washrooms because freaks like you are scared of a whole group of people without reason.
For generations men have proven statistically to be the most violent group of people
Oh do you really want to go down this rabbit whole? I can give you multiple demographics who this statement applies to. Yet it would be considered offensive to generalise any of them.
Replies like this are proving my point. You massively downplay one group to protect them from judgement but another group, in this case men, are fair game because....men bad.
Your thought process is no different from the same people who want to generalise trans people and class them as evil. Same thinking, different application. It's incredibly hypocritical. At which point I just roll my eyes. Both of you are idiots. Don't generalise anybody over a couple of assholes, full stop.
I agree with that.
I'm drawing a comparison to how this is never the standard when men are lynched on the internet over one asshole. It doesn't help that it's a 75% chance the same people who preach "let's not attack trans people" probably are the same people who hate being told "not all men are bad" whenever women get assaulted. All I see is the exact same scenario but very different responses.
In both cases it should be: hate the person, not their demographic.
The people who insist on lynching all men over an individual on twitter are a loud ass tiny group of people that nobody actually takes seriously. Most of them are impression farming or ragebaiting people into replying "not all men" because outside of twitter, in the context of actual society, "not all men" is a sentiment used to shut down pushes to improve systems to prosecute abusers, to protect survivors, or to sweep under the rug deeper societal issues that need to be addressed due to histories of male-favoured inequality.
So they bait you into saying something that in the real world is obviously unacceptable to say because nobody is actually taking the opposite extreme seriously, so they can rip you apart on the internet for it. Literally do not engage with these people.
i agree 100% but its the internet dawg. if you were to go ask a person on the street about this, most would be able to look past the whole trans thing and just say flor is a piece of shit pervert. there will always be mfs on the internet who got nothing better to do than argue. like you said hate the person not their demographic. if they make this about trans ppl dont even give them the time of day.
Discord