We’re all boomers on this blessed day

I don’t think it’s about finding it personally offending but rather that it does paint all men in a certain light and I just don’t think that sort of generalizations are good.

I’d like to say that anyone who hears the reasoning “women have to be cautious around men because some men are capable of violence” and jumps immediately to “women think all men including me are violent and that’s wrong” is sorely missing the point.

I mean I think it went a bit further than that.

As someone interested in the discussion side of this issue and not the actual conflict, which you seem to understand, please tell me how you would handle someone strongly asserting to you that women are bigots because they avoid men or treat them differently when they don’t know how they’re going to react.

If you are acting differently towards someone because of their gender (or skin colour or religion), that would make them prejudiced at least. So I wouldn’t argue that point. I’d probably say they are prejudiced but that might be out of fear rather than malice and rather focus on what to do about that.

Believe me, that’s not the solution you think it is.

How come?

That’s discrimination that you can neither control nor fight against as a man. It also doesn’t affect you if you weren’t planning on assaulting that woman. But just the fact that it is done rustles so many jimmies because the knee jerk reaction men have is “well I wasn’t going to assault anyone so that’s messed up”. But that line of thinking is a way of framing the situation to make it about you. It’s not about you.

I’m not talking about someone switching to another side of the street because of my gender or skin colour or any other reason one might discriminate, but rather the discussion that talks about a group as thing singular thing and makes it seem like it was all of of them. Not to mention going after people who obviously take offense to being labeled in such a way. I find it fucked up and I don’t see any reason to do that.

Bro. I quoted you. The receiving end of “a negative blanket” against men

It wasn’t clear what you meant. Hence the need for clarification. But I got what you meant now.

I’m tired of having this conversation with men who don’t understand and just get offended.

Easy solution would be to talk about it in a manner that doesn’t need a clarification that’s you don’t think all men are like that. That’s really the issue with the way this is discussed.

Nobody is denying the situation here, but rather taking offence to being labeled because of their gender.

You have been on the receiving end your entire life if you are a man, and 9 times out of 10, you have not noticed because it does not affect you.

I’m sorry but receiving end of what?

I don’t know why we’re giving boobie memes to boomers

They sure did

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 don’t honestly understand what you mean with this. Unless you mean you edited your comments, the blanket statements, the discussion, it’s still there? Are you saying you changed the comments…? Because while good, it sure is going to make it confusing to follow the whole thing.

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.

I’m saying yes I am curious and that you should’ve started with that. Instead we got sidetracked about your doubt towards the statistics, that didn’t go anywhere.

I think in this specific case and unfortunately in these sort of discussion, the people being mocked seem to be those who take offense to the discourse that paints men in generic terms as violent or take it personally (which while not meant as such, can obviously feel like it to some).

Unfortunately, the real solution here is actually to take it on the chin, because most of the time, it really isn’t personal, or even consequential.

I think the real solution would be to for the discourse to be such that it doesn’t make it seem like it’s all men. Of course if it seems like all men are being blamed, people will complain. It’s not a huge switch in the rhetoric either to make it clear that’s not what is being said imo. But here it felt like they doubled down on it instead.

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

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.

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.

I’m explaining that when you look at the specific, actual information that is being revealed, the difference is clear.

It doesn’t seem clear to me. What’s the actual difference of men having a higher rate of violence towards women and one of those immigrant groups having having higher rate of sexual violence towards women? Both are real, actual things that are concerning for women, but what makes it okay to be prejudiced towards one group as perpetrators but not the another? That’s something I don’t understand.

I very easily dismissed the one that I could read

Not at all. You saw the word “suspect” and thought it can be dismissed on that basis alone without showing anything for conviction rates. It’s an inordinately high rate of suspects and there’s an inordinately high rate of those convicted.

I mean, you sure dismissed it I guess, but rather with an argument that doesn’t hold much water at all. As the actual statistics show.

Oh no! That sounds like you just made a blanket statement that men and immigrants are violent. That’s actually something I’ve never done, unless you can quote me saying that.

It’s sorta the whole basis of the discussion, that the behaviour and rhetoric employed here is justified because it is backed up by statistics. I don’t think so. You seem to think so, at least in some cases.

You keep talking about “blanket statements”. Can you find the blanket statements I’ve made, please? You keep talking about these “blanket statements”. Which ones? Quote them please. I would like to know what I have said that has got you on this tear about racism and immigration and why it’s unfair to talk about statistics or whatever.

If you don’t feel like this is one then I’m not sure what it is trying to say:

“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?””

why it’s unfair to talk about statistics or whatever.

I don’t think it’s unfair, I think labeling a whole group is.

I’d prefer to see the discussion happening from the position that some men are violent, which causes women to be cautious. There should be a common understanding in both that men can be violent towards women in high rates, but also that it’s not a reason to label the whole group or speak implying such.

Now we’ve had both a very clear blanket statement about women and people mocking those who take offense to that and talking about “the good ones”. That’s not a discussion that is going the right way. That’s the sorta shit that causes more discrimination and bad sentiments.

I’m not saying women can’t (or aren’t allowed to be) be prejudiced, I know it’s a reaction. It’s the discourse that makes it out to be all men that goes overboard and is just the same as what racists do. It’s one thing to cross to the other side of the street when you saw someone you are worried about coming, okay you probably do fear something so individually whatever, fine, but if you go online and justify it with “well those people statisticially…” you’re just spreading really discriminatory shit and of course people are going to pipe up.

We’re not discussing the kind of discrimination where you instantly and completely dismiss someone as a human being, but the kind where you are careful about what kind of human being they might be.

I know, but it’s not like racism is just thinking someone is a human. I’d say most racism isn’t like that, but small things.

Whenever you look at a racist trying to use statistics to bolster their worldview, it always winds up being thinly disguised bullshit. Not the statistic, but how they abuse them and pretend they say things they don’t. That’s a consistent pattern, and your attempts to do the same thing so far don’t seem to be any different.

I’m not arguing for racism against any groups. My point is the opposite. Yes the statistics (which you claimed are bullshit but haven’t been able to dismiss in any way) show that certain immigrant groups are way overrepresented in sexual violence. Yes, men are more violent towards women than women are towards women. But I specifically don’t think it justifies blanket statements and labeling all of them as violent or rapists and definitely wouldn’t be surprised if any people from those groups get bothered when such blanket statements are made.

Existence of the higher rate of violence (sexual, physical) is not justified reason imo to label all members of a group as such. That’s the whole point.

Of course I looked at them. That is how - please read this, and try to internalise it - I knew they were written in Finnish and I couldn’t read them. What do you want me to do with them, exactly?

If you are claiming they are bullshit then I’d prefer you’d show me how. If you can’t read them, I suggest translating them or providing stats or studies of your own that show the opposite result or dismiss the earlier stats and studies. Those can be in any language you wish.

If you are claiming my claims are “actually twisted made up bullshit if you look into it”, what I’m obviously hoping from you is the explain how. How did you come to that conclusion, is there something about these specific stats, if you perhaps have better ones or studies and or something.

The femicide thing is extremely clear.

I don’t think the exact reasons for that have been made clear, what mix of biology, culture, poverty, misogyny and so on makes it up. Same as the sexual violence case. Hell, a lot of those factors propably overlap. But as said, the end result, these people (men, some immigrant groups etc) are cause of the violence. But the whole point was that while I understand caution (be it towards men in general or just certain men), I think the justification, blanket statements and mocking people who are hurt and alarmed by such blanket statements is bad.

This is almost word for word what racists argue. You even used the term “one of the good ones”, holy hell. How do you not see how fucked up this is?

Part of being one of the good ones, is not taking it personally when someone who doesn’t know you are safe, takes steps to try and make sure you won’t harm them. Because they can’t know for sure that you wouldn’t.

It’s hard to not take it personally when a group you’re member of is being made negative blanket statements about and when those who think it’s hurtful speak up, they’re mocked. And then there’s the belittling language about how if you are “one of the good ones” you should just take it and “make sure you won’t harm them”.

It’s one thing to say that yes, women are more cautious around men and there’s some reason for it. But it’s the blanket statements, "“NOt All mEn” and “just ignore it” shit that bothers me. That’s not fine imo.

since you already know I’m Australian, you probably knew I can’t speak Finnish.

I’m not sure where I was supposed to know that from but I was making a claim and I think it was a fair assumption you knew what you were talking about since you dismissed it right away. So having to read Finnish sources about a Finnish topic doesn’t seem like too much to ask. I’m not sure how you got to your conclusion before that the stats are “actually twisted made up bullshit if you look into it” if you can’t speak Finnish and don’t know how to translate them. If it was through English language sources, surely you can use them here to help your argument about the stats being bullshit.

So like, great job there.

Nobody forced you to make a claim that the stats are bullshit without even having checked them.

Suspects. That right there is the problem.

Not just suspects, as shown in the Government of Finland and University of Helsinki studies. Did you even look at them?

The difference is, racists will take these statistics - which often reveal racist policing and the effects of discrimination rather than saying anything about actual races

Again something discussed in the studies. Racial bias hasn’t been in any study shown to be anywhere near enough as an explanatory factor for having so much higher rate of sexual violence. Another things they’ve considered were for example poverty, culture, trauma and so on. I think poverty was ruled out as well, since even with racial bias, it still was much too high compared to population average. Some sort of combined factor is what they’ve considered, but a lot of the studies are unsure what causes it, but studies are very confident that’s it’s both a real thing and not made up by bias.

Whatever the explanatory factors, same as with men being violent towards women, the discussion is about what the real effect is and if that justifies blanket prejudice.

The difference is clear, and if you can’t see the difference, then maybe you don’t actually care about the people that are being hurt, and you only care about the rhetoric. I don’t know, but I do know you’re missing the point.

I’ve just provided you the studies that show that the much higher than average prevalence for sexual violence among some immigrant groups. It’s a real thing. Men being violent against women is a real thing. I care that people are hurt. I’m saying I don’t think it would be fair to call all men, in a blanket statement way, violent or call all of the men in certain immigrant groups rapists. It’s fucked up imo. I wouldn’t exactly blame women for being alert I guess, it’s a reaction, but when people are justifying it online it does feel hurtful to be grouped in there. So no wonder people speak up. It’s the same with so many types of prejudice, be it because of sex/gender, skin colour, age, whatnot.

You’re supplying nothing and asking me to disprove it. Fuck right off with that.

You yourself already claimed the statistics are “actually twisted made up bullshit if you look into it” and now you are indignant that I’m asking you to show your work. But very well, I’ll supply the sources first and then perhaps you can tell me how they are “twisted made up bullshit”.

Statistics Finland (the national statistical institution): https://www.stat.fi/til/rpk/2018/13/rpk_2018_13_2019-05-16_tie_001_en.html

Government of Finland (pdf): https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/163523/VNTEAS_2021_56.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

University of Helsinki (pdf): https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/fc2ee0d3-2124-4a65-9afa-f4a12dd42708/content

Have at it. Shouldn’t be that hard because you seemingly already are knowledgeable about these stats and know they’re bullshit.

These are not the same thing, and it should be obvious if you’re even slightly paying attention.

Nobody is arguing that all forms and types of prejudice are similar. The argument is that you are using the same arguments for your prejudice as those arguing for race based prejudice. But if your argument really is that the effects from one form of prejudice are better than others so it’s fine, then alright. It’s just a terrible look and makes it easier for racists to get away with their shit since their reasoning have been already accepted in other contexts.

Woah now, you better not be insinuating that men and women are anything but exactly equal in their temperament.

I’ve honestly been taught that blanket statements about sex/gender are usually not fine. So this sort of shit feels wrong in that sense and of course hurtful when you’re at the receiving end of a negative blanket statement. I’m sure many can agree with that sentiment in general terms, whether it’s based on skin colour, sex/gender, sexual orientation or whatever.

Apparently watching out for your own safety as a woman by treating men differently is sexist and completely unacceptable.

I mean treating all men different is sexist and prejudiced. There’s really no way around that. Whether this sort of blanket prejudice is justified in this case, could be. But also that’s not a great look, to justify statistics or stereotype based prejudice.

But if you’re saying, “NOt All mEn” in the face of this reality then let’s be real, you don’t actually give a shit about this. You just feel personally attacked and you want to deflect. Men getting mad because their fragile egos are bruised. Maybe some of them would turn violent if a woman said it to their faces. As they say, a hit dog will bark.

“If you are bothered by blanket statements and sexism towards you, it’s just because your ego is bruised and you might actually be the violent person I’ve painted you as.”

Incredible logic.

Statistics are a dubious justification for blanket prejudice. It’s the exact same thing racists use.

Originally in the book it seems to have been “dude”, then someone made a post where they changed it to “nigga”, but it wasn’t censored. Later on someone decided to censor the word. So not the same people at work there (I mean, I think not lol)

It seems to be from his “What If” book and it wasn’t “nigga” but “dude”