I don’t fuck with anyone who would have a “fuck off we’re full” bumber sticker.

If you’re not born here it’s hard to tell, but if you’re familiar then there are some clear tells that these people are not actually Australian.

It’s complicated. They colonised an entire continent they call “Australia” a little over 200 years ago by genociding the natives. They let that stew in relative isolation and develop its own unique way of talking, and now when an Australian’s native accent is attempted by those not born here it’s extremely difficult for them due to said relative isolation.

Now, this sounds like I’m describing a real country, but it’s a conspiracy somehow.

Signal is open source. That’s why they warn against using third party closed source apps which cannot be security audited.

iMessage is a proprietary app that cannot be security audited. An open source alternative would be more secure, not less.

This theory falls on its face the moment you realise most actors can’t do an Aussie accent to save their life.

I love that based ACAB shit, and this is funny as fuck.

There is the question of how to remove the anaerobically decaying carcasses that keep piling up and filling the moat, however. The wolves stay away, but so does everybody else at this point.

You have yet to ever explain why you think I’m saying what you apparently think I’m saying. I told you I would try to understand if you did, but you declined to.

As to the kind of person this makes you, I want you to hear this: you are an abuse survivor. It sucks that you went through that, but it doesn’t make you good or bad, or qualified to say what other people mean when they talk about the subject.

Some people go through abuse and they learn to be empathetic and understanding, and to put themselves in the shoes of other abuse survivors to understand them. You apparently have come out of it thinking that now every conversation of abuse and violence has to specifically center your experience or it is somehow dismissing you personally.

That makes you selfish. You don’t have to stay that way, but if you keep insisting that everyone else is the problem and you are right, then you will.

I’m pointing out rates of violence to show that women in general do have good cause to be cautious and overly polite when rejecting men. And the point about the rate being so low is just a statistical fact. It is in fact too low to reliably measure.

If you want to explain how this creates an insinuation that your abuse doesn’t matter, or any other insinuation, you need to explain it, because I didn’t say it. I’ll try to understand where you think the insinuation comes from, but I don’t see it currently.

You’re saying you want an explanation from me, but you haven’t provided an explanation yourself either. You have just given me bald assertions.

someone that’s survived DA and has has to fight people like you constantly who want to dismiss it because “☝️🤓 well Women are more often victims of abuse than men”

I would never tell an individual that their trauma doesn’t matter. You keep saying I did this, and you have not even once shown me where or how I did that. Just quote the place where I said this. I would love to understand.

Women are far more likely to be killed by men than vice versa, which is the obvious point I was making. I didn’t want to go find the information because frankly it’s pretty obvious that a man beating up a woman will usually do a lot more damage than a woman beating up a man. That’s why I framed it as a “guess”, so you’re not catching me out on anything here. If you care about the stats you can find them in this thread somewhere.

Should I go ahead and assume that you dodged my question about the thing you clearly admitted because you don’t want to admit it again, because it’s actually really revealing about the kind of person you are, and you don’t want that revealed because deep down you know exactly what kind of person you are?

I didn’t want to relay this while the thread was still so hot, but I’m a large scary-guy-shaped person - I really doubt any of the guys in this thread would say any of this to my face - and I didn’t understand this until my sister asked me to tell our dad something she needed him to hear because “he’ll listen to you because you’re a man”. I said I didn’t think he was that sort of person, and she just said, “No, it’s normal for people not to listen to women.” So I told him the thing and he listened to me where he hadn’t listened to her.

I was pretty shook by that, so I asked my partner if that was normal and she said “Oh, yeah,” without having to think twice about it.

That’s where my journey started. After you start seeing it, you can’t stop.

I also started noticing at a certain point how often women would randomly apologise for existing near me in public. Like they are clearly afraid of me. It doesn’t feel nice, but it’s never once occurred to me to yell “not all men!” or “I’m one of the good ones!” at their retreating backs.

I’ve discovered - through being NB - that I can completely reverse this by even slightly feminising my appearance. I actually get random women smiling at me in public, not politely, but openly and genuinely. It makes me think of what a trans man said about how lonely it is to be a man, how he misses the camraderie of women looking out for each other. From my perspective when I’m fully man-coded I agree, men absolutely do not openly smile at me. That’s too gay, or something.

I’m not worried that any bad actors will abuse this info to get women to let their guard down though, because a consequence of this is getting an absolutely appalling amount of disgust and hate from random dudes, but I consider the trade absolutely worth it when I have the energy for it.

deleted by creator

So you admit that you read “the consequences of that violence” and your mind immediately went to the legal consequences for the perpetrator, instead of thinking about the physical harm done to the victim.

That says basically everything about the butthurt responses in this thread.

“The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 97.2% of men do not report domestic violence to the police, compared to 82.1% of women.[6]”,

that would make a woman 6.3929 likelier to report than a man. So you actually have to normalize reported domestic violence by that, say, if there are 6 times more cases reported to police against women, then in reality it’s about the same.

You would think that a group called the Bureau of Statistics would understand that they need to normalise. You would think they understand something about, oh, I don’t know, statistics, maybe?

In fact, you would think that the fact that they have statistical rates down to a tenth of a percent for how often people report to the police clearly indicates that they have other numbers, independent of those reports, to generate these reporting statistics. How would they know that X% of people report without knowing what the actual numbers of incidents are?

This is rock-banging basic stuff. Just simple, obvious logic. You had those numbers in your hands, you used them to try and make a point, and you didn’t realise this. I don’t think we should be taking your advice on how to use statistics.

Since you said you are curious to understand me, I will extend one more attempt to help you understand. If you don’t work with me, I will stop.

(Edit: I feel I should add that the lone downvotes on your comments aren’t from me. I know you’re not downvoting me at this point so I’m not returning them. I don’t want the fact you were downvoted to make you more defensive against me. Also, I haven’t deleted any statements after the fact.)

Now, since you said “you should’ve started with that”, I feel like I need to explain that I have been saying exactly what I mean this entire time. There is no hidden message behind the words that I am about to reveal to you. I simply believe that there must be a misunderstanding here.

You tell me that these sentences are “blanket statements”:

“Tell me, do you know how likely women are to be killed by men vs the other way around?”

“The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?””

Now, it’s not clear to me why you believe this, since at no point have I said that “all men” are anything. If you believe these are blanket statements, then I don’t know how to help you understand me unless you explain in detail what you believe these sentences mean.

I want you to paraphrase the messages you see (edit: in these two sentences that you specifically named, not in everything, I want to stay focused here), in your own words, so that I can understand what you think I was saying, so that I can explain whether or not I agree.

This appears to be a foundational issue for you, since when I asked what I said that offended you, you named these statements. So, if there’s any hope of reaching an understanding, this is where it starts.

It’s kind of worse than that. They’ve built themselves a machine that has to kill UNRWA workers because it’s a genocide machine; that’s what it does.

In the modern day, a crucial part of any genocide machine is manufacturing consent for the genocide. This is also a large part of why the genocide machine was built - to manufacture consent for the awful people that run it. It creates an enemy and directs its subjects’ hatred at that enemy to deflect from their own horrific abuses.

If they turn off the genocide machine, that hatred goes somewhere and the people running the machine are now vulnerable, so their only option is to keep cranking the handle on the genocide machine.

This doesn’t excuse anyone of course - you don’t start running a genocide machine without being okay with genocide.

Sounds like you cannot help me since it all sounds like prejudiced behaviour towards a group with statistics being used to justify it.

Oh, what happened to “blanket statements”? Sounds like you’ve walked that back rather a long way to something a lot more vaguely characterised without any specific things you can point to. Once again you’ve fallen back on the aesthetics.

I mean better late than never. I would’ve expected that to have been the first thing to have been said here, but instead the whole thing got sidetracked about your doubt towards the statistics.

So are you or are you not curious to understand what I am saying? I need to hear you say it before I waste another moment on this.

“factual statistics” which are… nowhere to be seen.

You won’t be missed.

You said this:

I’m saying I don’t think it would be fair to call all men, in a blanket statement way, violent

I said this:

“Tell me, do you know how likely women are to be killed by men vs the other way around?”

“The problem with “not all men” is that there is an obvious follow up question: “which men?””

Now, if you can’t tell the difference here, if you really think I was making a blanket statement that all men are violent, I cannot help you.

You are completely wrong to call those blanket statements. If you’re curious to understand what I mean, then I will explain, but you need to say that you are curious to understand me. So far I have seen nothing but pettifoggery. I will not translate that word.