“b-but bears are actually dangerous!” Shut the hell up.
People’s safety is more important than people’s feelings.
Indeed. It strikes me as pointlessly gendered. All people, safety is more important than feelings.
The whole thing was meant to be rage bait.
or it’s purposefully gendered in response to the man vs bear thing
Which is also rage bait
you know what else is pointlessly gendered? the patriarchyfeminist messaging has to be gendered because the patriarchy is a gender issue.
that said, feminism is for everybody. liberating women from oppressive structures by nature does the same for men.
If it’s not gendered and is for everybody, that isn’t that just the original statement? That safety is for everybody? That seems rather circular.
But I think I get what you’re saying. We focus on lifting up women, and everyone benefits.
And all lives matter, right? How else can we commandeer this conversation?
BLM, no sarcasm.
Are you really all lives mattering this post rn? God damn dude. I hope every person in your life belittles every problem you personally have by telling you that tons of people have that problem.
BLM, no sarcasm.
all lives matter amirite /s
BLM, no sarcasm.
That gives me feelings of “All lives matter” which minimized the issues of black people. Can you explain why this is different?
Except one has built in meaning and the other is a simple meme made by one person with an oversimplified idea used likely to stir up people considering all the discussions happening about bears or whatever.
dsfgasfsaf
BLM, no sarcasm.
However, women’s feelings does not equal women’s safety.
but safety is to some degree also derived from feelings, because human psychology for some reason.
There is no winning here, i think.
The perception of safety, maybe. But not actual safety. It’s an important distinction.
pretty much just a restatement of my original comment, but three weeks later, almost.
Downvoted not because it isn’t true, but because they aren’t automatically mutually exclusive and because it is an unnecessary jab at half of the human species. Why are we paying attention to divisive bullshit instead of focusing on things that actually have the potential to help?
Because the solution to women getting assaulted is to make men think about their actions. The post wasn’t anymore divisive than the average black twitter meme. It was a simple tongue in cheek piece about how women have the impossible task of figuring out if a man is going to be their life partner or their rapist & murderer.
to make men think about their actions
Do you not understand that, as a very straight man, I’ve never once even thought about hurting a woman?
It’s absolutely divisive. Stop.
But have you thought about challenging a man who does?
Ah yes, let me open myself up to physical violence because I’m a man and that’s my place in the world.
Shut the fuck up
Are you aware that you get to make that choice and that women don’t?
Are you aware that, as a man, I still have the right to protect myself?
God, go fuck yourself you troglodyte.
In reality, it’s not attacking half the human species. It’s actually attacking people who perpetrate SA, and other people who cheerlead for them. One problem is that many men react just the way you reacted. Instead of saying “let’s solve this problem”, you say “quit being so divisive”. Unfortunately, those are your values.
The thing is, I’ve seen statements like this before. Except when I heard it, it was being used to justify ignoring women’s experiences and feelings in regard to things like sexual harassment and feeling unsafe, since that’s “just a feeling” as well. It wasn’t okay then, and it’s not okay the other way around. The truth is that feelings do matter, on both sides. Everyone should feel safe and welcome in their surroundings. And how much so that is, is reflected in how those people feel.
The outcome of men feeling being respected and women feeling safe are not mutually exclusive. The sad part is that someone who is reading this here is far more likely to be an ally than a foe, yet the people who need to hear the intended message the most will most likely never hear it nor be bothered by it. There’s a stick being wedged here that is only meant to divide, and oh my god is it working.
The original post about bears has completely lost all meaning and any semblance of discussion is lost because the metaphor is inflammatory by design - sometimes that’s a good thing, to highlight through absurdity. But metaphors are fragile - if it’s very likely to be misunderstood or offensive, the message is lost in emotion. Personally I think this metaphor is just highly ineffective at getting the message across, as it has driven people who would stand by the original message to the other side due to the many uncharitable interpretations it presents. And among the crowd of reasonable people are those who confirm those interpretations and muddy the water to make women seem like misandrists, and men like sexual assault deniers. This meme is simply terrible and perhaps we can move on to a better version of it that actually gets the message across well, instead of getting people at each other’s throat.
Honestly I am so goddamn tired of this shit, everytime something like the bear question comes up it blatantly tilted in one side or the others favor and dissent is crushed in both sets of spaces and no one learns anything.
Yes, feelings matter. Beautifully put.
But nobody is purposefully “wedging a stick” between allies and enemies. No secret society is plotting to prevent you from sending any message of safety. The metaphor is not designed, or created for a specific purpose. You have to realise how crazy and for real dangerous this way of agumenting is.
You aim for a good purpose, then use basically the debate version of biological weapons of mass destruction to make your point.
Just for any small argument about a small thing between sexes, like always it’s fun for people to discuss, and some get mad, but
For you to use the narrative of psy ops, learned no doubt subconsciously, to speak like there is a secret cabal that want you to be fearful, we must unite against some kind of expression just because they are coming for you… No
If anyone takes it too far it’s talk like that, and you unironically talk about how reasonable people are hard to come by
Gee
Wonder why that is brother
But nobody is purposefully “wedging a stick” between allies and enemies.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
No it’s not and that’s a terrible way to view the world.
Are you the same idiot who argued with me before because he thought he’d found the Word of God in this random philosophical exercise?
Edit: nope, different moron. I wonder why this silly thing is making the idiot rounds lately? It’s like when a 19 year old has their first philosophy 101 class and thinks they’ve gained supreme knowledge of how the world works.
It’s systems thinking and if you think it’s terrible then because it’s terribly good at getting rid of excuses. “Oh but you see the intent of the prison system is to reduce crime, never mind it doing the opposite, move along, nothing to see because intent is all that matters”.
Yes, it’s a thought exercise, not a tautology. And it’s not a great thought exercise either, because people of low intellect apparently assume it’s a tautology because of how it’s worded.
It’s not a thought exercise but a modelling discipline.
Those are more or less synonymous.
I can tell you’ve been huffing too much philosophy because you insist on weird hair splitting like this lol
When people justify racism with statistics: That’s stupid and you’re a bigot
When people justify sexism with statistics: Only one side’s feelings matter! I’m going to post this divisive meme everywhere!1!
Edit Sexists know how to downvote, but not present a logical argument.
Stay tuned for the next “men suck” cycle: ‘toxic masculinity is bad you should express your feelings instead of bottling them’, more after the break
This rage bait is so old the Simpsons parodied it:
“Today’s topic…”
You spelled it wrong, the sign should say “Safety is more important than feelings”
elaborate?
Everyone’s safety is more important than anyone’s feelings.
You agree with the post, why change it?
To use more inclusive language, of course. That’s what we’re all doing now isn’t it?
and what do we do if somehow safety becomes intertwined into feelings?
What happens then?
You become trauma bonded
mhm see, that makes sense. But i was speaking with regards to the hypothetical presented here specifically.
I… What? The hypothetical that some kind of saw game show makes women actually choose? If the feelings are intertwined with safety, you become trauma bonded. Then die or run. Because safety is more important than feelings
ok so in the hypothetical presented here the entirety of feelings is less important than safety, yes?
If so, than feelings that are influencing your understanding/feeling of safety, are completely invalid and null in this case. Because again, feelings are less important than safety, but the problem here is trauma bonding influences your understanding of safety, with feelings. But those feelings literally do not exist in this example, so that entire field is of null value at this specific moment in the hypothetical.
Safety would quite literally only be dependent on the statistical analysis capability of the individual if feelings are no longer present. Unless of course this statement is written incredibly poorly and does not explain the position it holds properly. In which case, you should probably be more specific.
My point here is that this statement makes little sense, given that feelings often influence the feeling of safety, ironic really. While physical safety is an isolated and quantifiable fact. I.E. a knife can cut you, you should be careful with it. The felt safety is not something that can be quantified and understood, since it’s based on emotions, and we don’t understand how those work particularly well. But what we do understand is how they influence each other. I.E. feelings can often result in feeling unsafe due to many different reasons. But since feelings in this case, do not matter more than safety does it’s possible that we can delete the entire notion of “felt safety” since physical safety is a quantifiable concept.
Of course the feelings could matter, but that would be rather silly wouldnt it? Given that the entire statement here hinges off of the fact that “feelings don’t matter” in comparison to safety, that is.
It feels like you are making a logic knot only for yourself so you then can solve it? I am sure there is something you can gain from understanding that, what is meant here. But I don’t follow your semantic reasoning, I mean… What is put up is that, when your feelings say one thing, but your brain knows another way, and it’s related to safety, you shouldn’t follow your feelings. It’s ofc extremely generalised advice but from an old man, trust me it’s truer than you think. Listen to your brain if it tells you something is dangerous, even if your heart says woohoo. Just in general, that’s super solid advice
Why? The sign seems fine to me.
Because thereal’s version is welcoming and non discriminatory, and the meme is antagonistic by design
love how this post is turning this fascinating thought experiment (which a lot of people don’t seem to understand very well)
and turning it into correlation, not even causation of correlation, this is literally just taking two random things and smashing them together lmao.
there are so many variables to how this can be interpreted that make this a very difficult to comprehend statement.
So there mere presence of a man implies a lack of safety? It may be your feelings but it is also major misandry.
Lived experience shapes our reality. It’s an absurdist analogy that paints the picture of women feeling unsafe around men they don’t know due to their lived experience. It’s not misandry, it’s caution, anxiety, fear, and uncertainty. The outrage at such meme is pretty much indicative of the issue at hand. Men tend not to feel unsafe around women they don’t know whereas the flipped scenario is the opposite. That says something about society, not women.
I don’t think it’s lived experience for many. Much of it is fear impressed by others. And I’ve certainly felt fear at being alone with the wrong woman, or a child. One false accusation and my life is over. I actively avoid being alone with women and children. But that doesn’t mean I’m picking bears over people.
Good lord, dude. When I was talking about fear, I meant fear for one’s life or well-being. I also said “man they don’t know,” not “wrong.” The people you should be directing your anger towards are those who have created an environment within society where women don’t feel safe, which is other men who think they’re entitled to women’s bodies, who get angry when rejected instead of moving on, who commit acts of violence against women, and any other disgusting act you can think of. Your emotions are misdirected.
Who says I can only be angry at one group? I am angry with the men in that group, but also the people that would place me in that group merely because I also possess a penis.
but it is also major misandry.
STILL DON’T GET IT HUH?
Let’s reduce it down to the simplest way it can be put: how many bears rape women?
Get it now?
Misogynists can’t accept it I guess.
How many men maul women to death?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bear-b-c-squamish-attack-1.7201905
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/07/us/grizzly-bear-attack-yellowstone-idaho-killed/index.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57763443#
Implying all men are rapists is misandry, period.
How many women get raped by bears?
The part you aren’t getting is obvious, it’s not misandry. The gymnastics you’re going through to deny basic logic is impressive though. Thanks for the links, they were pointless. Trust me, if you want to compare lists, mine are longer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_violence_against_women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Incidents_of_violence_against_girls
https://www.nativehope.org/missing-and-murdered-indigenous-women-mmiw
https://people.com/crime/gallery-elizabeth-smart-jaycee-dugard-kidnapping-survivors/
https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-serial-killers-of-women/ranker-crime
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf
And in the overwhelming majority of these cases, the perpetrators are men, AND NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE WAS A BEAR.
Edit: and cute strawman, no one’s implying ALL MEN, just the creeps. Which you might identify with but doesn’t cover the entire gender. Women making the logical choice - pick from a population that def has rapist creeps or a population that isn’t known for kidnapping and raping women, gee whiz batman…
Come on, this isn’t calculus.
Not sure what else this meme is doing other than actively creating a bigger divide between the genders…
Maybe a divide for you, my SO says she’d pick the bear if it wasn’t me. And I don’t blame her.
Instead of arguing the merits of this debate, maybe its worth analyzing your own merits. Men (individually but amongst their peers) should be ashamed that women typically seem to want to pick a bear over themselves, instead of falling further into the rut that pushes everyone - not just women - away from their social circles and friend.
Someone tells you they’d rather be getting mauled by a bear? Take the hint. The divide exists within your head, make friends, be kind, and you’ll find happiness
Edited for individuals to contextualize on their peers instead of generically
Edit edit, I mean go ahead, be reactionary
Excuse me?!
The fuck should I be ashamed for?
Why am I responsible for the actions of other men?
Go have your fucking guilt trip if you want to but don’t include me.
Men should be ashamed that women typically seem to want to pick a bear over themselves
Shame is an individual thing. Men, plural, is a whole bunch of people. Why should I be ashamed for the actions of people that aren’t me?
…and just to be clear here: I’m not even arguing that we shouldn’t battle this one out between the genders. But collective punishment is against the Geneva convention and I really don’t like to stay quiet when people commit war crimes.
So my initial response was “jesus fuck that’s some unnecessary hyperbole, I get your point but that’s ridiculous”
And then I realized that’s the same response I have with women who pick the bear so
I dunno
Maybe you all suck?
Maybe we all care about things you don’t care about?
Or maybe hyperbole is not the best way to make a point?
It depends. Largely on whether it’s obvious that it’s hyperbole.
Though as far as the gender war is actually a war I still think that the Geneva convention should definitely apply. By, you know, analogy.
I guess I could see what you were going for there, but it was a bit of a stretch imo
,
Every single time someone makes a post about feminism, it gets flooded with comments that show why we need feminism.
,
can we just drop this stupid joke that many missed the point of? its getting real annoying real fast. people suck, get over yourselves.
How many female teachers have been caught fucking their barely pubescent students this year alone so far?
It isn’t a men-women problem. People just suck.
I don’t disagree that both men and women do heinous things, but women
don’talmost never physically attack or kill a man when he shuns her advances, but men absolutely attack women every day for shunning a man’s advances, and sometimes women get straight up murdered for it.#NotAllMen, but enough men that many women choose the bear.
men absolutely attack women every day for shunning a man’s advances
This is a completely weightless statement, considering that it’s true if as few as 365 men a year do this, out of ~4,000,000,000. In other words, 0.000009125%.
Pretty low bar for shitting on half the world, no?
I’m not shitting on half the population, I’m highlighting the reality of men reacting violently at women to being rejected or ignored. It’s every day. It’s constant. Walk a mile in a young woman’s shoes and you’ll get to experience it firsthand.
It’s every day.
Already established to be a pretty much meaningless statement. It’s also a fact that mothers abuse children every day, on average, too.
Do you think it’s fair to say mothers “constantly” abuse children, based on the above technically-correct fact?
I’ll bet you don’t. But you’re happy to do it about a demo you’re biased against.
It’s constant.
That’s bullshit. You’re just bad at statistics, and/or letting things like social media warp your perception of reality.
A tiny minority of men react violently to rejection.
Walk a mile in a young woman’s shoes and you’ll get to experience it firsthand.
I was raped by a woman, but you won’t find me making dumbass statements implying all women are rapists because of it, because I’m capable of logical, rational thought.
How’s this for “reality” when it comes to gendered violence: research out of Harvard showed that, among male/female relationships where one of the two ‘members’ is domestically violent and the other isn’t, the violent one is the woman over 70% of the time.
This isn’t the 1950s, Scooter. Women aren’t viewed as fragile incapable little things anymore because they never really were.
dsfgasfsaf
Do we need to start throwing out the stats for how many rapist are men compared to women?
Spoiler alert, most rapist are men and it’s not even close.
Highly unreported numbers when it comes to female rapists, so your numbers might be skewed
Highly unreported numbers for male rapists too, especially since most male victims were raped by men.
but those are likely to be repeat offenders, so i’m not actually sure that how that would effect it.
The raw number of rapes will go up, but rapists will probably rise quite a bit less.
Statistics is hard >:(
Do we need to start throwing out the stats for how many rapist are men compared to women?
Sure, just as long as you define rape in such a way that female-on-male rape actually counts as rape, which it doesn’t in the vast majority of “rape statistics” that get put out. Quote http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers :
And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011). In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.
Yeah, those are very helpful, minority victims don’t deserve help as we all know.
dsfgasfsaf
I’m a woman (a trans one if that matters to you) and have experienced sexual assault and domestic violence from both men and women.
I know the point that people are trying to make with the whole bear thing.
But I think the friction comes from women talk about this as a theoretical to make a point, where men are thinking more literally.
And I do belive that no one in there right mind, if actually given this option in real life, would pick a bear (unless maybe it was definitely one of the more harmless species).
Each and every one of us, even those of us that have survived SA, have had countless uneventful interactions with men you don’t know. Even when it’s just one on one. And its mostly normal biases that makes us remember the shitty ones more. And something a lot of people forget is that the vast majority of SA victims already know their assailant, so the idea of a rando assaulting you is even less likely. So yes I would much rather be in the woods with a man, than a wild fucking animal. And if you’re a reasonable person, then you would too.
As a trans woman who has also been sexually assaulted, it has more to do for me with what danger is more real to me. I’ve experienced zero bear attacks. Nobody I know has experienced a bear attack. Why would I fear one? Of course, consciously yeah, I know a bear is dangerous, but I have no real world experience to back that assumption up.
Men though? Yeah, I’ve been sexually assaulted by men. I’ve been physically assaulted by men. I’ve had family and friends who’ve been physically and sexually assaulted by men. That danger is real to me. I know that if a man I don’t know is nearby me he could do those things to me, and I have the real world experience to prove that assumption correct (the assumption that they could, not the assumption that they would.)
Therefore, of course I’m more scared of the man than the bear. And of course I’d choose the bear over the man. I don’t care if it’s the wrong choice, I’ll take my chances to not have to relive that trauma, even if it means risking my life. Not like I’ll have time to regret that decision if the bear decides to kill me. Probably. And most women I know when asked expressed the same sentiment in different words. We’re more scared of men than bears, but that doesn’t mean we literally think men are more dangerous than bears.
Is it the logical choice to pick the bear? Probably not, but humans are not logical creatures. I’d rather make the wrong choice than the scary choice.I’d rather make the wrong choice than the scary choice.
Unrelated to the topic, but this mindset is exactly why far-right movements are getting so strong right now.
I’ve never been shot or held at gunpoint, but I have have the shit kicked out of me. But still if given the option to face a person with a gun and a person with the bare hands. I don’t think I’m going to pick the the guy with a gun.
There’s a serious difference in the level of trauma between these examples, and the level of exposure to the dangers of the counter. Sexual trauma is a hell of a lot more scarring on your psyche than simply being beaten. In addition, at least in the US we’re exposed to gun violence every day as opposed to basically never for bear attacks. Even in other countries with better gun control, you’re dramatically more likely to hear about somebody being shot than you are to hear about somebody being mauled by a bear. Not only that, but it’s really easy to process “get shot, you’re dead.” It’s not as easy to make yourself believe you’re definitely gonna be killed by an animal that has whole guides written on how to survive them.
Those two things combined make your example far from comparable. In addition, I’m not saying in any way that the fear is justified nor that no attempt should be made to fix it, what I’m trying to point out us that people don’t realize how intense a fear it really is when they get offended at people making this choice.Obviously, therapy is important to learning how to handle that fear and think more logically, but if every woman who needs it sought therapy for this, there just aren’t enough therapists in the entire world to handle the load. Not even close. So a bigger part of the solution is, y’know, making sure women aren’t getting traumatized in the first place. But everybody here wants to skip that part for some reason.
Sexual trauma is a hell of a lot more scarring on your psyche than simply being beaten.
Very hard disagree.
You’re free to disagree, but for me and many others, I’ve been through both, and I’m definitely waaaay more scared of being sexually assaulted again than being beaten half to death again. They have very different effects on your psyche. Physical violence I react far more with anger than fear, even if I was terrified in the moment. When it looks like it’s happening again, my brain says “Fight back.” When I’m afraid of sexual trauma being relived, my brain says “Escape, now. Can’t escape? Submit. Maybe that way they won’t kill you too at least.”
How about you Google the man who’s face was eaten by bear and then decide
I have some extra emotional capacity today so(see edit*) I’ll post some wrong think: but can we stop antagonizing populations that feel disenfranchised by society and therefor giving the truly evil fucks out there an easy population to brainwash and feed extra scummy ideologies to?Young nerdy men who feel excluded from society that dont have any strong female figures in their life are barraged by a constant stream of messaging that could easily be interpreted as “(white) men are evil and the source of all problems with society”
By constantly antagonizing them for not being able to navigate the political nuance of those messages, we give an incredibly easy pathway to the more toxic ideologies that the Tates of the world will pull them into to profit off of them, because they are the only figures who will give them praise and a sense of belonging.
Edit: Its a new day now, and I no longer have the energy. If you want to vent, understanding that venting in this manner will bring about little to no positive change, you do you, I will no longer be responding
spoiler
,
yeah this pretty much.
Polarized speech does nothing for anybody. If woman are talking about this bear thing to make a point, i feel like we would be better off actually making sure that people understood that it was about making a point, rather than a literal fucking interpretation of the problem
but no, funny internet points are more important, capitalism ruins everything it fucking touches.
But many do just that, then you focus on the ones that don’t, every cycle. Over and over. You choose what to focus on. Not we as a society, literally you. You choose to engage with that negative part of it and continue to. Nobody is forcing you
it’s been getting better as of recent, initially when i first dug into it things were quite a bit worse than they are now, people seemingly have had some time to think about it, and figured out that “yeah this is kind of stupid”
You choose what to focus on. Not we as a society, literally you. You choose to engage with that negative part of it and continue to. Nobody is forcing you
i have a fascinating idea for you to consider. I being an individual person of my own accord, can simply choose what i want to think about. The problem that i have is with the people who aren’t engaging with it productively, it’d be weird for me to insult people who were, or pretty fucking pretentious for me to compliment people who do, although i’ve probably done that at least once. Given that the singular me, doesn’t constitute the whole of society, and the fact that i don’t proclaim to be god or something, i think that’s pretty reasonable.
Like here’s another fun fact, you can just ignore me. I won’t be offended.
It’d be rather weird to identify a problem in a system, and spend 50% of your time contemplating and observing the working portions of it that you already understand, no?
Instead of absorbing some kind of stance where now I am the one contradicting myself, you could just skip the defense where I get to be pretentious, and go straight into the realisation that it’s only trying to be helpful. I’m not sugarcoating it because it just makes it even harder to understand the root of your complaint, which is that you, yourself, focus on something you don’t want to. Not that others do it. Because they choose also what they focus on and have already chosen that. I focus on something I want to when I write to you, I like helping real people that deserve it, to get out of shit that I have been in. So essentially, it’s just a long dialog with society that they should x or y, that you are focusing on but you wish it was yourself you were talking to. It’s not going to make any difference who reads it and it’s easier to run over the choice to make sure stuff in general in your life don’t also get more and more compulsive
Instead of absorbing some kind of stance where now I am the one contradicting myself,
i’m not sure how that would make you contradictory with yourself. I’m just saying that this is a micro specific, not a macro specific, like you were stating. I’m aware that i’m looking at through an incredibly tight view, that’s kind of the point actually.
I’m not here to talk about the broad environment here, because if i was, i’d have written a three hundred page study on it, and published it by now. I’m here specifically to discuss the aspects that seem to capture my attention. Which leads to me micro focusing on specific details.
which is that you, yourself, focus on something you don’t want to.
no? I’m focusing on it because i think it’s interesting.
I focus on something I want to when I write to you,
yeah, and you did, which is why i mentioned that you could just ignore me, because you were pretty clearly just attacking the way that i was thinking about it specifically, which you are allowed to do. But doesn’t help me, because i understand that. Notice how i never said that feminism bad? Or that women lying bad? Or anything like that, i was specifically talking about the interactions that i’ve been observing as of recent, and had been curious about, and like any good curious individual, i prodded for information, because it’s healthy to do that.
You could’ve asked me why i was being so specific, and focusing so aggressively on things, and i would’ve said what i just said now. But instead you hit with something relatively inflammatory. Acting like you somehow have knowledge of my understanding of the world, and i don’t and wanted to “inform me” about it, through a rather obtuse statement frankly. Why wouldn’t i respond in kind?
I like helping real people that deserve it, to get out of shit that I have been in.
that’s great, i haven’t been in that shit or experienced it before, so i’m not one to talk about it, which is why i’m focusing on the parts that i know i understand in a very explicit manner.
So essentially, it’s just a long dialog with society that they should x or y, that you are focusing on but you wish it was yourself you were talking to.
perhaps? Idk how you expect people to make their points more clearly understood by others. Yeah i’m essentially talking with myself here, that’s kind of the point, i’m trying to clearly identify how i think about these things so others aren’t outside of the loop, unless you think that other account is my alt account or something? In which case, that’s pretty funny.
It’s not going to make any difference who reads it and it’s easier to run over the choice to make sure stuff in general in your life don’t also get more and more compulsive
i’m not even sure how i should read this, it doesn’t really make any sense.
Escalating defense mechanisms… Yo man I’m backing slowly away okay, you good luck with your scientific studies and whatnot peace out
It’s nice to change the subjects of racist phrases to get a free dunk on a lot of people that are cool to hate now.
