@Wryly
All right wingers are troubled people to you. So if this is what you believe, then I'm proud to be troubled. It's called not being a tap dancing clown.
All right wingers are troubled people to you. So if this is what you believe, then I'm proud to be troubled. It's called not being a tap dancing clown.
All right wingers are troubled people to you.
Nope, most are just average folks.
How can you be a right wing person who isn't a troubled person according to you?
The problem isn't that women can't do basic math (I imagine that's true of many men and women in America, with its dismal and still sinking educational standards). It's that women are by nature hysterical because it has survival utility. Taking efforts to avoid risks, even very small risks, pays off if the cost of not avoiding it is even a small chance of you or your children being harmed or killed. The bear problem kind of hacks this because the overactive female imagination is typically not preoccupied with bears, but it is preoccupied with strange men. Men do not understand this, because the typical male imagination is preoccupied with bears. Men love to fantasize about what they would do to survive/heroically defend those they love in dangerous situations. Every man has thought through the bear situation, and if he knows anything about bears quickly realized that there's a good chance that he's fucked. 95% of women have literally never done this because women are more preoccupied with social threats, with human threats, of which men are the primary source. Think about it. For our thousands of years of history, how many women were going into the jungles and forests to tangle with tigers, lions, and bears? Close to zero. They were taking care of kids, sweeping the cave, communally performing tasks in more centralized locations while the men went out toe-to-toe with nature. Wild animals, especially predators, avoid those sorts of human settlements. Roving bands of violent men, especially since polygamy was likely way more common back then, likely sought out these soft targets to attack. It was advantageous for men and women to become preoccupied with different threats, and we still have that little bit of lizard brain inside of us.
How can you be a right wing person who isn't a troubled person according to you?
You can just look at some of the responses in this thread, I guess; some right-leaning folks have responded pretty calmly. Your strong emotional reaction to the man vs bear thing points to a high-anger personality type to me, not someone who was driven to misogyny by a random meme.
Personally I prefer the potential of an animal that may be feral over the potential of a human who may be evil; evil humans are capable of a lot more horrors. Gender enters into it when you ask this question of only women because for millennia women have had to worry more about violent men than violent animals.
Edit: Which Rex also just said more eloquently, apparently.
->some right-leaning folks have responded pretty calmly
Who?
->Your strong emotional reaction to the man vs bear thing points to a high-anger personality type to me, not someone who was driven to misogyny by a random meme.
It's more like I notice patterns (that's the consistent part about me); I notice women saying they want a traditional man but they aren't a traditional woman and I've noticed men saying they want a traditional woman but aren't a traditional man. It's hypocrisy that bugged me.
Then I notice the "facts don't care about your feelings crowd" get all in their feelings when Trump said Haitians were eating pets and the facts were against it. But MAGA didn't care. I was telling all sorts of people how crazy MAGA is.
Then, the feminists, who preach about human rights and who say women are equal to men, decide to label women as goddesses and men as worse than wild animals (all while they shit on Trump for doing that to blacks). I got angry at that too. You call a transman a woman, people claim it's a violation of human rights. You call them a beast that belongs in the woods with bears because women are that scared of them, no woman bats an eye.
I also notice how men let women get away with saying stupid things because of their good looks. I don't want to come off as someone that talks to women differently because of their good looks and gender identity, so I have to over compensate (kindof like a father with a son employee has to try really hard to avoid accusations of nepotism). If a man says something stupid, I call him out. Same with a woman. I don't consider good looks.
->Personally I prefer the potential of an animal that may be feral over the potential of a human who may be evil; evil humans are capable of a lot more horrors.
Then never leave your house. It's the only safe way to avoid all the potential of evil humans. But that's loony. People scared of the woods don't hike. If someone is that scared of other people, then they got to live in a wood cabin somewhere far away from civilization (but no roads allowed; those were built by strange men you don't know).
I get angry at large amounts of ideologically hypocritical and impulsive people that have voting power.
I also don't believe Rex is conservative if they hate strange men this much. I'm not saying they are left wing; I skimmed their profile; maybe they're a Christian theocrat; I don't know. Christain theocrats believe in submission; so I could see them doing that; they say stuff like they deserve an eternity in hell (which is just loony). They are self hating people.
-> It's that women are by nature hysterical because it has survival utility.
Basically, you are justifying a dichotomy; men are logical; women are hysterical/emotional. This is a very Andrew Tate style argument (which feminists hate Andrew Tate). He uses this to justify actual horrible forms of misogyny (like saying women are men's property because they are too emotional to think for themselves).
Thinking emotionally is a euphemism for thinking stupidly; that's how people do premarital sex (which since you plausibly are a theocrat, you think premarital sex is bad, but it's what happens when feelings matter and logic doesn't).
->the overactive female imagination is typically not preoccupied with bears, but it is preoccupied with strange men
When I worked at Chipotle, I had to deal with a possible hot stove that I had to put my bear hands on (with gloves). I had to make sure that I didn't burn myself (and it was very hard). It was annoying; it was stressful work. I hated it. I was used to it.
You know what I was not used too? Getting my arm chopped off.
Everyone is more used to touching hot things than getting their arm chopped off; just like every woman is more used to strange men than bears. But you know what? EVERYONE would rather touch a very hot piece of bread (even if they have to carry it for 60 seconds) then lose their arm.
And often being more familiar with something makes the situation less scary; not more. We dealt with COVID; in 2020; very few cases, it as scary. 2021; a lot of cases; we're used to it.
Women are more used to strange men than bears and the left literally has said, "Diversity is a strength" because they believe it helps reduce racism by getting people to have minorities on their mind more often because the whites would see minorities more.
Who?
I had Swag (bubbatheclown) in mind, but we can add Rex too.
I also don't believe Rex is conservative if they hate strange men this much.
I won't speak for Rex; maybe I misread he and Swag. But my impression was that they lean right.
I notice women saying they want a traditional man but they aren't a traditional woman and I've noticed men saying they want a traditional woman but aren't a traditional man.
Shrug. This may be the case sometimes. Personally I don't want a traditional partner.
Then I notice the "facts don't care about your feelings crowd" get all in their feelings when Trump said Haitians were eating pets and the facts were against it. But MAGA didn't care. I was telling all sorts of people how crazy MAGA is.
Your social rage would find excellent companionship among MAGA but I mean I'm happy to hear you disagree with them.
Then never leave your house.
Doesn't follow. Just because I prefer one type of risk to another type of risk does not mean I will accept no risks at all.
Then, the feminists, who preach about human rights and who say women are equal to men, decide to label women as goddesses and men as worse than wild animals (all while they shit on Trump for doing that to blacks). I got angry at that too. You call a transman a woman, people claim it's a violation of human rights. You call them a beast that belongs in the woods with bears because women are that scared of them, no woman bats an eye.
This is really taking the implications of the meme to extremes, Remy.
-> Taking efforts to avoid risks, even very small risks, pays off if the cost of not avoiding it is even a small chance of you or your children being harmed or killed.
Life has risk; nobody avoids all risk at all costs, and bears are riskier than men to a woman's life by a long shot. A woman sees a man walk by her on the sidewalk; she acts like it's nothing. If she sees a bear, then she's running away as fast as she can (and will get herself killed).
The man is more risky in the sense of he plausibly could glance at you or not glance at you. The bear has the risk free relative certainty of killing you if you run away.
It's like saying you'd rather have a 100% chance of being broke (dead) than a 50% chance of $999k (man glances at you) and 50% chance of $1 million (man ignores you).
Focus on the average; not the worst (or best) case scenario. And you wonder why a majority of Latino and Asian men voted for Trump this time (but I didn't). If Kamala called out this crazy bullshit, then Trump plausibly wouldn't be POTUS right now.
We here at McDonalds strongly oppose misogyny and other ideologies that disrupt the normal flow of work.
When you're with us, you're McFamily®!
Hi all!
So, our previous post did garner a significant amount of controversy among you lovely fans who were rightfully angered that we dipped our toes into this contentious topic. We respectfully apologize for our indiscretion in this manner and hereby say that we no longer stand by our previous commitment to equality. We hope to make amends too with our investors and White House that issued a statement calling us (rightfully I might add) “losers” who “don’t know how to flip burgers.”
In light of these circumstances we are prepared to offer tangible change in our managerial and customer strategies. Going forward we will:
Fire all women (except on our corporate board)
Create a national McMen® day in celebration of our lovely male customers. Just say you’re a guy and you get a free Big Mac on us.
Become gay (no women allowed in our lives)
Donate millions of dollars to the Incel Legal Fund®
We hope that these steps will worm our way bag into your hearts, minds, (and tummies with all our delicious beef)
-McDonaldsReal
Hi all again!
In response to customer feedback and concerns, we are changing gear once more! While our well-intentioned changes have satisfied some, we know that some of our female customers have not been Loving It®. So, we’re going to make some changes again to make sure we still have willing mouths to eat our yummy yummy burgers and fries.
We hope that these steps will help!
-McDonaldsReal
You're pretty funny.
You forgot something:
"We're committed to having a minimum of 50% of our chicken truck drivers be Ariana Grande Style women!"
RemyBrown stared at his blank monitor. He shuddered with a kind of anger that made bile climb up his esophagus and into his mouth. Remy composed a new message unsteadily. He was typing fast, hitting his keys loudly and imprecisely, hitting two or more keys at a time, making typos at an impressive pace. Then, before he could even send the message, the monitor blinked once shut down. RemyBrown screamed.
Remy heard a soft knock on his door.
“Honey?”
Remy pretended he couldn’t hear him at first. Then, another knock.
“Honey? Is everything alright?”
Remy sighed.
“Yeah… I’m ok.”
Remy’s bedroom door opened and his boyfriend, Dave, shuffled inside. Dave was petite. His full beard tapered off into a string of pink beads. His head was bald and luminous and the skin on top of his head seemed to undulate when he made any sort of expression or when he talked.
“Remy, what’s wrong?”
“I’m… I’m a misogynist and people are being mean about it,” Remy sniffles.
Dave smiled and rubbed his hand through Remy’s hair.
“It’s ok baby. They can’t hurt you anymore…”
“It’s just that women are making fun of me because they said they’d rather be in the woods with a bear instead of me… why won’t women like me?”
Dave affectionately rubbed Remy’s ears.
“Baby it’s ok. You know what? If I was trapped in the woods I would only want to be with you.”
“Do you mean that?”
“Yeah Remy… I do.”
Remy smiles and they hug and make out with each other.
And Remy felt humanized again.
-FakeMcDonalds
Did you know that the McLean Deluxe burger, from McDonald’s deluxe line, was made of seaweed?
Funny, except:
You think I'm this:
I'm really this:
And if we are going to be writing off what women say here as a joke, then here's an equivalent joke:
"I'd rather be with a bear than a strange black Haitian immigrant; the bear doesn't eat pets much; only when they're hungry."
But women get a pass because they look hot and men let them get away with things because men's visual power is too tempting on them.
A joke has to be largely accurate to be funny. Otherwise, you can use any insult with anybody and it gets stale.
Huh? I didn't post that. That's signed FakeMcDonalds. That ain't me.
-RealMcDonalds
I don't care who signed it.
When I market an idea; I need to know my audience.
I know the people that prefer bears to the strange man are overwhelmingly leftist, so I market my idea using very left wing terms (like human rights).
If I was talking to conservatives about abortion (I'm pro choice), then I use more conservative coded language; if they reference a scientific study that says zygotes are humans, then I say, "100% of experts agree with whoever is funding them." because I know they say this with the COVID vaccines.
I know my audience.
Men and women obviously aren't physically, emotionally, or mentally interchangeable, and no person is perfectly driven by rationality. The people who think they are perfectly rational are usually the most delusional of all. A man is driven to assess outside threats and respond to them based on the likelihood of him being able to survive that conflict. A woman is driven to avoid the conflict in the first place and seek safety in a social setting. So for a woman, the scariest thing is something that can follow her into the social context in which she seeks protection and still harm her. Overwhelmingly, that kind of threat will be an unknown man.
Now, is the risk very small? Yeah. But the risk of the suspicious character coming towards you at dusk is also small, but you still cross the street. You will take a thousand little steps throughout life to avoid those very small risks, especially if you are a woman. Similarly, if I designed some kind of retarded revolver with 100 chambers and put a bullet into one of them, held it to your head, and started pulling the trigger you would rightly get angry. The risk is small, 1% to be precisely, but what's at stake is everything. Now imagine that I have some sort of crazy M. C. Escher gun with an unknown number of chambers. It could be ten, it could be ten thousand. You'd be even more pissed off because of the uncertainty, because of the possibility that that is a very risky gun. That's what an unknown man is to a woman. Just the possibility that they're a six-chambered gun (serial rapist, serial killer, sadistic lunatic), however rare, drives the risk assessment into overdrive and overrides rationality, to the point that they would even prefer an objectively more dangerous situation because their lizard brain is telling them to run and their imagination isn't primed to be preoccupied with that more dangerous threat.
This even happens to male soldiers in war. Sun Tzu talks about 'death ground', a psychological position in which a group of soldiers know they are going to die with no escape and so will dig in their heels and fight to the death, costing their opponent dearly. He stated that it was a grave tactical error to 'put your enemy on death ground'. Instead, many Chinese and Mongol generals would leave an intentional gap in their lines. Every soldier rationally knew that if they stood their ground and held i, they had a better collective chance of surviving, or at least of taking as many enemy soldiers with them as possible. But once they saw that gap in the lines, their imaginations would go wild with the possibility of escape, and all but the most disciplined soldiers, if the situation became dire, would break ranks and pour through the gap in a desperate bid for escape and survival. The enemy troops would then of course run them down and slaughter/capture them with much lower losses. Rationality often buckles and breaks when assessing risks.
->The people who think they are perfectly rational are usually the most delusional of all.
Nobody believes they are perfectly rational, but people should attempt to become purely (rational, moral, and physical sensation driven). Morality and physical sensations are different from emotions.
->So for a woman, the scariest thing is something that can follow her into the social context in which she seeks protection and still harm her.
That can be a bear just as a man. If a woman sees a strange man in the woods, then why is that man in the woods to begin with? Easy: He likes to hike (or fish, or be in the outdoors). Rape almost never occurs in the woods; it occurs in bedrooms and club parties.
I've endured more burns from stoves than lava; but I'd rather get burned from a stove than a volcano because I'm not emotional/stupid (which are synonymous terms).
->A man is driven to assess outside threats and respond to them based on the likelihood of him being able to survive that conflict. A woman is driven to avoid the conflict in the first place and seek safety in a social setting.
Everybody avoids conflicts/challenges under various conditions. You think men look at a hurricane and think, "I can survive this thing"? Women endure various challenges as well (example: exams in school). Nobody is a fight absolutist or a flight absolutist.
->Now, is the risk very small? Yeah. But the risk of the suspicious character coming towards you at dusk is also small, but you still cross the street. You will take a thousand little steps throughout life to avoid those very small risks, especially if you are a woman.
If a suspicious man comes towards a woman, then she crosses the street. If a bear comes towards a woman, then she's petrified. Also, you are defending sundown laws with this statement, you realize that, correct?
->Similarly, if I designed some kind of retarded revolver with 100 chambers and put a bullet into one of them, held it to your head, and started pulling the trigger you would rightly get angry. The risk is small, 1% to be precisely, but what's at stake is everything. Now imagine that I have some sort of crazy M. C. Escher gun with an unknown number of chambers. It could be ten, it could be ten thousand. You'd be even more pissed off because of the uncertainty, because of the possibility that that is a very risky gun.
The average woman sees 400 strange men daily. For 50 years (assuming 2% chance of rape) this is 1/438000000 odds of a strange man she sees raping her (less likely than winning a Powerball lottery with one ticket). These are the odds that women are dealing with with strange dudes.
If a woman sees a bear in the woods, then maybe 5% chance (1/20 chance) she's dead from the bear.
For this claim to be acceptable, a woman would have to believe 21,900,000 murders (basically several Holocausts) are worse than 1 rape.
And if proportions don't matter (but only fear does), then Trump can say any xenophobic thing about immigrants that he wants based on one immigrant doing something like murder and use it to dehumanize all immigrants (which given that you are a strong Christian theocrat, you would be against that). You can also say that you prefer the bear to the strange woman because the bear never falsely accused anyone of rape (a woman getting raped is equally as bad as a man being falsely accused of rape).
Your solider analogy doesn't apply here because women aren't in war. If a woman is in the woods, then she's hiking, enjoying nature. If she's being S.A'ed by a guy, then she will mace him if required (which is good) and she is prone to acting on emotion in the heat of the moment (which is fine). But all of her negative emotions should be used solely on the man that S.A.'ed her and nobody else.
Same thing if she got raped by a black guy from Brooklyn.
What I would recommend doing is every point I make you disagree with, signal out the quote so I know what you are referring too. Another point I forgot to add:
The guy that started this thing is all off of the following:
He's not a male feminist; he's an edge lord. Men have a very strong tendency to be edge lords and assuming this edge lord tendency benefits women, then no matter how ludicrous it is, women will latch onto it.
That's why men that want to control women will say edgy statements like, "Men should be the breadwinners, women should be taken care of" because anybody that depends on you to survive, you control them to an extent.
Men that are more capitalist will say, "Gender equality! Men should work; women should work, and neither gender should be emotional!". Women latch onto either of those edgy statements.
Because women are smaller, they agree to give up on being leaders in exchange for being agreeable to the people who are bigger.
There is probably a very good chance that the original creator is a secret Trump supporter; he probably knew women operated like this and wanted them all to say something stupid like this (while he knew there would be very little actual real life consequences for it) so it makes the liberals look crazy and then despite how crazy Trump was to normies, the immigrant races (Hispanics and Asians) who are overwhelmingly motivated by logic and morality, ended up shifting right because a lot of the logical people saw that neither party was logical; the GOP was saying Haitians were eating pets and the left endorsed, "Man vs Bear", so in 2024, the voter turnout among the immigrant races was less than in 2020.
Where I live, it's plausible that immigrants and 1st generation people make up a majority of the population of my city. These people are logical to the core. My Spanish teacher once even went so far as to brag about Spanish because it's a logical language (she did this to elementary schoolers).
I think both are scary. I wouldn’t want to meet a random person (man) or a bear in the forest by myself.
I think a bear sounds scarier to me personally, maybe it’s a gut instinct thing like how some people are irrationally afraid of spiders.
Random person out in the forest would probably be more dangerous than a bear though, if you didn’t stumble into a she-bear’s lair and disturbed her cubs.
I'm not sure whether I find this thread more sad or more hilarious. It's definitely a mixture of the two.
It’s what frustrated men sound like. Don’t let it depress you. Their women are mainly pictures of women. No woman would pay attention to their depraved calls for help.
Because women are smaller, they agree to give up on being leaders
Any country where women are leaders is just doomed to fail. I have never actually met a woman capable of any logical reasoning. they are purely emotionally driven by comparison to others.
LMAO
You mean compared to people who just bitch about women all day?
Have you ever actually met a woman?
This whole thread can’t even be refuted, any more than I can refute Pastafarianism.
The question is just fucking stupid lol. Women can be perfectly rational obviously.
Only reason I posted here is I thought the question of which sounds scarier was interesting.
What you consider "rational" are just your "feel good" emotions which are not rational but merely repeating what is popular to repeat.
Women have much smaller brains than men, and in many species, males are the leaders due to better strength and intelligence.