IQ tests intentionally omit any questions related to empathy, emotional intelligence and creativity, so it can favour people from the top of the pile and act as accurate perdictor of success in ruthless capitalist society. It implicitly promotes lack of those traits in individuals and explicitly promotes the definition of intelligence that’s unrelated to them. While you don’t get lower scores if you’re highly creative or empathetic person, so it’s not directly a detrimental for society and can be a useful metric for some cases like specific jobs, it’s image as sole measure of intelect is manufactured to promote “specific kind of people”, to which group many republican businessmen would belong.

I’m not disagreeing with what you said, just thought I’d expand on that.

While there were many detrimental factors Dems failed to properly address or apparently expected to be treated as positives, the obvious main one was attempting to outflank the GOP from the right. Every attempt to talk negatively about immigration or social issues was bound to result in more people taking Trump seriously instead of thinking Dems will do something. Everything about the illegal immigration rethoric was false, from the numbers to the effects, and Dems knew it - they decided they wanted to pretend this issue exists, so they can also play the right wing populist game. Pro-genocidal rethoric was also something right wing electorate knew Trump would do better, and some people disgusted with that rethoric decided not to vote. Dems wanted to become more right wing, to get that sweet ability to talk complete bullshit about everything and cover their inefficiencies with the mirages of bigotry. They believed their more “reasonable” right wing populist will win instead of wild maniacy like Trump - exactly as they did back in 2016, except this time Kamala had the chance to shape a different image for herself and she refused to do so. They gambled going to get away with moving further right and still getting elected, since Trump should have been very unpopular by all metrics they were capable of imagining. Instead, they gained no votes from the right and lost a fuck ton from the center and the left. Their arrogant and callous campaign sentenced many americans to likely death. They absolutely could have fought with all they had and ceded concessions to their voters instead of donors and “allies” like Israel. They could have went left instead of right, as many of us hoped after the Walz VP pick. Instead they lost, as the worse and less dedicated right wing party of US. They’re to blame for what’s going to happen next, not some abstract impossible to be pointed with finger voters. Yeah, Harris being a black woman in this deeply conservative society was a detriment to her chances. That was outside of her control, unlike everything else she did or didn’t do.

I’ll be honest, unless most of the Democratic Party gets purged, it’s probably meaningless to vote for them (assuming you even can) in 2028. There couldn’t have been easier victory to be had, and they fucked it up. They should have called Trump a pedophile, but were afraid that their own pedophiles like Clinton would get hit with a shrapnell. They could have promised to tax the ultra rich, like Elon Musk down to the fucking ground, but they wanted their money themselves. They didn’t want to promise anything big, knowing fully well that no one would believe them with their terrible track record of implementing any meaningful and radical chances, while Trump claimed everything was the fault of immigrants and foreign adversaries and promised radical actions against them. Believing that they wont pull the same bullshit in 2028 is naive, they will refuse to learn anything from this catastrophe, move further right and campaign on “returning to the norm”. Fuck them. Let the greedy fucks burn, just as you will because of them. USA needs a third (and fourth, and fifth…) party, and it needs it now instead of in 4 years. Dems should be completely discarded, and I hope the pain you will feel in next 4 years, pain that they could have prevented but chose not to instead, will convince you as well.

Yeah, I’m done, sorry for the rant. Posts casting blame on voters instead of Dems majorly piss me off right now.

Only thing I can promise you with somewhat high degree of certainty is that you won’t stay that way for long. 2-3 years tops.

They could have memed it to hell and back with stuff like “I did not have a sexual relationship with that furniture mr. Clinton” or “only inanimate thing im horny for is democracy” but they had to go full serious damage control mode. Like, if they told us there are no aliens invading and put soldiers in the streets we would look out for ufos. What did they think they were going to gain by that kind of response? Completely detached from the ether, they are.

I think pretending there are A LOT of people like you that want this specific thing that is kind of weird is an attempt to appeal to authority of slightly more invested in politics “masses”. If someone tells a conservative and disconnected corn farmer that ALL conservatives care about that trans thing and that it’s a danger to your style of life, and that they mutilate children, then they might not check if any of that is true. Just assume that someone did, since apparently all their conservative friends are in on it. And you might just make a fool out of yourself if you ask any questions, since you know you don’t really belong with “silent conservative majority” because unlike them you’re not invested in politics and didn’t do your research… So you better keep your mouth shut and go along with the flow. Same thing with facism. Also preys on embarassed ignorance of the “silent majority” …imo

But that would only work under assumption that in any group of people at least one of them has to be a ghost, or at the very least the chance that there is a ghost in a group of people is greater than 0, right? Is it something about the chance of someone being a ghost being truly unknown, and thus all possible values of probability being taken as equally rational, and with infinite number of possible values for probability of someone being a ghost for infinite number of them observing that no one in a group of people you’re in is a ghost… No, that wouldn’t work either, because it would require an assumption that this specific group of people might have a ghost among them. Assuming anyone can be a ghost with unknown probability still only works when the group you’re observing is entire population, does it not? Limiting it to specific group of people relies on it being representative of entire population, and random groups are not. Especially if you were to be a ghost, that would already make a group you’re in rather unique. Or not, depending on what’s the unknown value of probability of someone being a ghost.

I mean, what???

I don’t understand, please explain

He looks like he commented to someone doing this sport professionally that it look easy and now, with a bit of disdain and irritation, he had to show them what he meant by that

While I seriously don’t think there is a chance in hell it was a false flag (why would they pick a known conservative instead of someone pretending to be leftist?) it technically could have been applied by SS without Trumps knowledge, which would have been very funny

I also have felt unburdened by what has been, as if a spell was cast on me. I had no doubt though that replacing Joe Biden with literally anyone, including his son or dog, would increase democrats chance of winning. I think in my case it was more of letting go of pent up anger towards the rotting carcass of the current president and all those who campaigned for his reelection. Including the lovely folk of lemmy, for whom I still might hold some animosity. To those that rode hard for Biden, a sincere fuck you.

I don’t understand, why bring up Biden? He’s not opposing Trump, instead Harris will most likely do, and she’s basicially so much younger she could be his daughter! Propping up such an ancient candidate, republicans should be ashamed! Biden at least dropped out due to his age, this Trump guy should get a clue.

I’m pretty sure that’s not the case, I’ve seen the donation and registration myself and all details matched. So unless those details were altered by someone managing either of those two registries, it doesn’t seem like those were made by 2 different people.

Edit: that being said the donation is inconsequential at best, it could have been something like “donate and get a funny hat” or anything like this.

Imagine if his motivation was to prove he had great aim and that they did him wrong. Maybe he just wanted to become the most well known sniper-assassin in the modern world. Maybe that’s the reason he didn’t use scope, he wanted his memory to be that of the rifle maverick. I wonder what went through his head after he realised he missed. I mean, other than a bullet.

Listen, while I don’t know exactly what his circumstances were, I agree he probably didn’t like the convicted felon, alleged by victims child rapist and ex president Donald Trump. I share that hunch with you.

I’ve heard that they have guns so they can protect their democracy.

<broadly gestures at everything>

???

Well, I didn’t say it was less important but that it was less discussed, and that it’s regrettable. You’re the one pulling the “women are more important” from your ass.

“And yet it is perfectly acceptable for women to call men trash based on their experiences” I literally have no idea where you took that from. I wrote that it’s insane to call all men trash and that it’s not a general consensus.

Everyone is dangerous. Anyone can have a weapon or other means to cause harm. You having a penis being a cause of concern is only viable as long as you have intent to maliciously use it. If you think people are afraid of you specifically, and specifically because you, ArcaneSlime, have a penis, then I think you need to rethink the way you approach people. No one is treating you as a monster and treating you as one because you’re a man is not fine. And if someone is attacking you on that basis then I’m not extending my argument to them, that’s simply moronic, but also not the way broader society works, as far as I’m aware.

I agree with you on most points, except for that part where you put yourself in the place of “generic strange man” in a forest. It’s not a fear of someone specific, but rather of a stranger with unknown intentions in a place in which the woman is not protected by any authorities. I feel like that last part is being intentionally omitted in the “male side” of the discourse, since other people being around change the dynamic dramatically. I’m pretty sure most women would prefer to meet a man on a busy street than a bear, since bear wouldn’t care about social subtleties like not mauling people to death while people watch. I also find idea of woman not being able to find their way out of the forest on their own, an so random stranger met in woods being a boon to them kind of silly. I know you were making a hypothetical situation there, and sure, if woman was lost in the woods for past 6 months, was hungry, injured and desperate, then I believe she would be more receptive to meeting a person in a woods, but that’s adding more and more conditions to the situation, changing it from “chance meeting” to “struggle to survive”.

I also think that we should recognize that women are afraid of meeting a man in a forest because that man could be a rapist/murderer in a middle of nowhere, that hypothetical collapses at the moment we assign specific person to the unknown face. I think people struggle with this question because they put themselves in the boots of the “random stranger” and feel bad for being feared, despite them being kind and loving. It’s not about meeting “you” specifically. You’re not the hated “man in a woods”. At most you’re a stranger in a bar that women feel a bit awkward and unsure about at the start. Most women will feel completely fine meeting their dad or brother in a forest.

Most people literally will trust you if you’re helpful, open and outgoing, women included. No one owes you their trust even if you did your best, regardless of gender, though. And even once they somewhat trust you, I still don’t think it’s a great idea to give/accept open drinks and otherwise expose yourself to potential danger, unless that trust is really solid. I don’t think it takes much to accommodate that kind of wariness nor that it’s somehow insulting or degrading to men. Being aware that women are - or feel like they are, whichever you prefer - exposed to more danger than men, just in general acting in a ways that wouldn’t be taken as suspicious and not taking it as an insult if they don’t entirely trust you is enough to fit in and not feel like you’re being ostracized as a man.

If you said that all women are trash, then regardless of what you would feel safer with, you’d still be called (deservingly) an incel. Calling all men trash is also an insane take, but I think you’re shadowboxing here. All/most/significant number of men being trash is absolutely not a general consensus on the matter. All women needing to be wary of all men because of actions of some men is, however. I don’t know what do you think “being treated as a rapist” looks like, but I’m pretty sure you’re not complaining about going to jail for being a man, but rather women not being overly friendly with you by default.

I am sorry for the experiences you had with abusive women, and I agree the issue of sexual violence against men is often swept under the rug because of comparison with sexual violence against women simply because of the prevalence of later being much larger. Wish it wasn’t.

The question was never about whenever men are scarier than bears, but rather whenever women are more afraid to be at mercy of man or a bear. Admitting that women have valid reasons to be afraid of men doesn’t equate to vilifying all men, however (some) men actively denying that they do and acting like their fears are baseless is quite valid reason to assume that those men are either clueless or the root of the problem.

I fail to see the misandry you describe as something common. No one is asking you to take responsibility for the actions of rapists, nor is anyone sane pretending that all men are violent. I do however see constant complaining about potential of this misandry becoming a reality and I think that’s a reactionary view, which leads to push back against women. Sure, there obviously are some women that do act like all men are violent rapists, because for every extreme opinion you’re going to find an extreme example somewhere on twitter. Dealing with women on daily basis I have yet to find one that actually acts that way. And sure, it could be that I live in a sheltered bubble and my anecdotal experience isn’t worth shit, but I do personally think that this view that “all men are bad” comes from the men misunderstanding of the issue of “all women are in danger because of some men”. I argue that the stats I mentioned in previous comment substantiate my opinion about the danger being there.

No one is asking you to bear responsibility for anything you didn’t do, but you can’t seriously blame women for being wary of strangers. Surely you can see how women would also prefer not to need to be afraid? Women aren’t much danger to you, so they don’t need to earn your trust as much, but the opposite simply isn’t true. And if you feel someone is dangerous (as in, has potential to cause you harm), it’s absolutely fine for you to require them to earn your trust, regardless of their gender.

As to what can be done by the majority, is to be informed and aware that the problem exists, and when silly question like “men or bear in forest” pops up, not to push back against women who are afraid of men and treat it like misandry.

Topic of men mental health is separate from this issue (imo), and sure, it’s valid and should be discussed broadly. I don’t believe that blaming women and their well founded fears for those issues is correct approach though. I don’t see anything inherently bad with needing to earn trust of someone, and I think that expectation that you shouldn’t need to do that is the problem. You might know you wont do anything crazy, but how should they? And it’s not like you need to sacrifice your firstborn to gain trust, just act like normal human being and don’t take it for granted.

Topic of anger issues is completely unrelated to women, unless we’re talking about them being potential victims there, but that’s not the point you’re touching on. In my opinion those issues stem partially from the fact that society glorified dominating men for a longest time, and this image also included taking whatever you want by force. Many people, mostly men but also some women, still see those as golden standards of masculinity. Being aggressive and overbearing is still presented as manly, especially on the right side of the political spectrum. Trying to deal with anger issues is thus seen as infantile and embarrassing. That’s obviously much more convoluted than just that, but if anything, it’s more of a source of a problem rather than the effect of women not trusting men.

IMO you’re missing the point. It’s less about whenever women are “right” to be afraid of men in general, and more about what their feelings on the matter actually are. If a lot of women would prefer to meet a bear rather than a stranger in a forest, then that’s because of their deep distrust of men. It’s not about whenever men are actually trustworthy and women are overreacting (though a lot of the responses are indicative that they’re not), but rather about what led to this distrust, and also about how unaware of the issue men are in general. Quick googling shows stats like 1 in 5/6 women was or will be a victim of rape, 1 in 3 of them as a child, 81% in general had been sexually harassed or assaulted. It’s not that many women just “hear stories of assault and rape and whatever”, many women are victims, and almost all know a victim personally.

Now, did you know that? Do you know a person who’s rape/SA/SH victim? Are you aware that’s actually a broad problem and not just some abstract culture of fear? Because I think this whole thing with a bear vs man in a forest shows mostly the difference between men and women when it comes to understanding this topic. I see it not as a “are men bad” question, but rather “is sexual violence common”, because you sure might be a righteous fella and most of your friends might be as well, but no women that know you can be sure you’re not the guy who’s keeping those stats up. It doesn’t take a majority of men to cause this fear, but it will take a majority of them to fix it, and understanding that there is a problem is at the very least the first step.