The post literally says not “all men”. I don’t know why yourself and so many other commenters are inserting a straw man to argue with. If it’s intentional, it’s a bad-faith practise. If it’s unintentional it’s a literacy issue (common problem is USA).
I read the heading “all men are dangerous” as a misrepresentation of the screenshot - which is what I’m pushing back on. I definitely don’t think that all men are dangerous. I would be relieved to think that the comments here take issue with the heading and not the body text/screenshot, but the comments I’ve responded to haven’t made that distinction.
Really? Because there’s literally a line where the OP from the image references their statement of “all men are dangerous” that her husband then defends.
It’s literally part of the screenshot. Even if they then go on to defend it with “I know it’s not all men, but I’m saying it because of sharks or something”.
a misrepresentation of the screenshot - which is what I’m pushing back on
Okay, well let’s do some analysis then. If they say they know it’s not all men, but then immediately follow it up with saying they can’t tell which men it is, what message are we supposed to get? In the context of a comeback to someone disagreeing with “all men are dangerous”
To me, it’s pretty clearly justifying the position of “all men are dangerous,” just with the caveat that they know it’s not actually all men, but that they have to act is if it is because there is no way to tell the difference.
Do you not see that as a rationalization of treating all men like they are dangerous?
Bad analogy. Skin colour was not a factor in the criminality here. Being a man absolutely is when it comes to violence against women.
Prejudice is unacceptable for any immutable characteristic, such as sex, gender, race, or sexuality.
The epidemic of male violence on women is evidence based, therefore not prejudice.
Judging all men based on the actions of others (pre-judging them, if you will) just because of what group they are in, is prejudiced.
The post literally says not “all men”. I don’t know why yourself and so many other commenters are inserting a straw man to argue with. If it’s intentional, it’s a bad-faith practise. If it’s unintentional it’s a literacy issue (common problem is USA).
Really? Because the title of the post is “All men are dangerous”
Even if the post didn’t say that, that’s what others in the comments are defending and/or advocating for.
I read the heading “all men are dangerous” as a misrepresentation of the screenshot - which is what I’m pushing back on. I definitely don’t think that all men are dangerous. I would be relieved to think that the comments here take issue with the heading and not the body text/screenshot, but the comments I’ve responded to haven’t made that distinction.
Really? Because there’s literally a line where the OP from the image references their statement of “all men are dangerous” that her husband then defends.
It’s literally part of the screenshot. Even if they then go on to defend it with “I know it’s not all men, but I’m saying it because of sharks or something”.
Okay, well let’s do some analysis then. If they say they know it’s not all men, but then immediately follow it up with saying they can’t tell which men it is, what message are we supposed to get? In the context of a comeback to someone disagreeing with “all men are dangerous”
To me, it’s pretty clearly justifying the position of “all men are dangerous,” just with the caveat that they know it’s not actually all men, but that they have to act is if it is because there is no way to tell the difference.
Do you not see that as a rationalization of treating all men like they are dangerous?
You don’t want to open that Pandora’s box.
Just get ready to say that causation and correlation are not the same… except when it confirms my priors.
Is skin color a factor in poverty?
Is poverty a factor in criminality?
Because all the CRT and BLM arguments I’ve read have said unequivocally yes to both of those things…