We don’t even really need to check who has been defending or denouncing what if you want to see who’s committing violence, there’s an even more damning statistic.

Number of People Killed in Deadly Attacks in the Post-9/11 Era, by Ideology

• Far Right Wing: 134

• Jihadist: 107

• Ideological Misogyny/Incel Ideology: 17

• Black Separatist/Nationalist/Supremacist: 13

• Far Left Wing: 1

It should also be noted that Jihadist terror attacks have almost as many victims as far right terror attacks because the former are just more efficient, but far right terror attacks are far more common. Check the graph in the article.

The fact that the far right candidate has been under a murder attempt by another far right loon is just the cherry on top.

Cuba (country right next to the US) aligned itself with the USSR after Castro’s revolution, and the US has attempted to coup them, invade them, murder their leaders, then sink them in isolation and starvation. I’ve always defended that Cuba had the right of self-determination for their own foreign and domestic policy, and that the US was in the wrong for retaliating against them.

It would be extremely hypocritical of me to defend that Ukraine has no right to self-determine whether they want to be in a defensive pact or not, and whether they want to join the EU or not, just because a third country would like them not to do so - just as it’s extremely hypocritical of tankies and campists to say that Cuba had the right to choose their own future but Ukraine doesn’t.

To be fair to anon, they’re asking sincerely if you take them at face value. A lot of people just don’t know why others just fall down that rabbit hole.

Enough talk about trans rights, it’s time to talk about trans wrongs /s

This feels like the meme equivalent to a dad joke.

Do you know what’s worse than stimulating your fear response? Stimulating your anger response. And millions of people choose do that daily in their interactions with social media.

Man, NGT gets so much bullshit thrown his way. Sure, he’s an annoying shitposter on Twitter, but the vast majority of the time he makes a public discussion with someone he’s either one of or the voice of reason, and that sentence does definitely throw all nuance he has out of the window.

Transphobic legislation usually doesn’t make the distinction, because, you see, it’s transphobic legislation.

How is that wholesome 💀 Put the doggo’s photos NEXT to your child’s photos.

Come on I know being bland isn’t ideal but there are worse things in the world /s

Giftedness easily becomes a social disability if your environment isn’t good for it. The education system isn’t ready to handle you constantly being ahead of the class? Get ready to sleep in school as the best years to take advantage of it pass by. Your topics of interest are too complex for everyone else around? Have fun enjoying your friendships less than everyone else. You don’t mask your intelligence? Here, have 10 lottery tickets to get bullied, no, you can’t return them. Congratulations, you graduated from college. Do you have the money for a masters degree? Oops, guess you studied for nothing. Got into debt and got a masters, but the job market isn’t booming? Do you have rich parents, or rich friends? Aw shucks, guess you couldn’t network your way into the type of job you would have liked.

Being intelligent helps, if you’re patient, hard-working, and have the means to look out for the less conventional options, but not so much as one would instinctively think.

Only the inscrutable mind of an American can comprehend this.

Those kids are going to love Israel growing up. I wonder which organization could they join to show their thanks.

There, the tourists “violently intimidated one of activists, who is a racialized woman, calling her ‘fascist’, ‘monkey’, telling her to go back to Africa and even threatening to kill her.”

Sounds on par for ethnic supremacists.

So I ask… please be understanding. Men are, on the whole, bigger and stronger than women, so a bad encounter has a much stronger chance to go very, very bad for us.

I’m on the side of feminism, I’m not arguing against you. I’m trying to get you to understand the “battlefield”, because that’s literally what you asked for.

Why wouldn’t the safety of women have overwhelming support? Why are we always on the back foot when it comes to discussions like these? Why is this such a ‘small position’ that women find themselves making ludicrous arguments about bears in the first place?

Differentiate between these two groups: the people who are going to be radically against you because they’re assholes and just don’t want equality, and those who, for one reason or another, think that you aren’t really defending equality. In my experience, the first group is much smaller, and they usually try not to have their behavior be too usually noticeable in public, while the latter is larger, more numerous, more vocal, and will receive the silent support of the former for entirely different reasons.

Let me go back here:

Men are, on the whole, bigger and stronger than women, so a bad encounter has a much stronger chance to go very, very bad for us.

This, and its natural conclusion (“be cautious in situations where a potential aggressor may suffer no consequences”) is extremely reasonable, and I don’t think people should be blamed for that cautiousness in some situations. But getting that across to someone who hasn’t suffered the same kinds of victimization that lead you to take that position is difficult, because the position they’ve started the discussion at is “I haven’t done anything wrong and I’m being treated like a criminal!”, and they aren’t having that discussion in a perfectly quiet stage in front of someone who will express perfectly woven arguments, but on social media, where they fill find dumb arguments, stupid comparisons, unfair criticisms, real experiences, dubious narrations, tellings of statistically rare events, good arguments, and people spewing hate in one direction and the other, so even when you make the best possible case for your cause, people who in other circumstances would easily be capable of seeing your point, will already be angry, and therefore predisposed against it.

When you’re arguing on an online space large enough for a position that doesn’t yet have overwhelming support, you’re always going to get some pushback of some kind. It’s never going to be completely pleasant. The silver lining is that, if you’re arguing for your positions well enough, you’re going to bring some more people to your side each time. Many of them will not be vocal, many of them will have to meditate of what you’ve said, for many of them it will just be a fleeting thought, but it might be a stepping stone that leads them to actually change their mind in a later discussion. I have this mindset because it’s coherent with how I’ve changed my mind over the years after engaging with different people, and so, when I’m advocating for something on a space that isn’t overwhelmingly welcoming (which might usually be autism advocacy, anti-capitalism, secularism, depending on the site), and I’m in a tempered mood at the moment, I immediately assume that I’m going to get pushback even on things that I’m objectively correct, but that doesn’t mean I’m not making useful progress, so I should argue with more charitability than I think the other person deserves.

On the gender issues topic specifically. Discounting a minority of people whom you’re never going to make see reason, your goal is to make your positions understandable to the men who either don’t have a strong opinion yet or are only mildly hostile. I’m going to use the example of an user I saw the other day out of memory: picture a man who has had an aggressively mediocre life: few meaningful relationships if any, no romantic or sexual partners, hating his job or whatever it is he’s studying, he hasn’t (or hasn’t seen himself having) acted particularly mean towards anyone in his life but he has particularly vivid memories of women or girls provoking him pain (be they a rude teacher, an abusive mother, high school bullies, or whatever). Now picture him reading these two messages:

(…) Life feels very unsafe to me. I have been catcalled, had my opinions dismissed and driven out of spaces I wanted to be in ever since my teens, (…) There are always some men who make the world a dangerous place for me.

and

(…) Life feels very unsafe to me. I have been catcalled, had my opinions dismissed and driven out of spaces I wanted to be in ever since my teens, (…) Men make the world a dangerous place for me.

I’ve made the nuance very obvious here, but it will usually be far more subtle. Sometimes it will be someone not making their position as fair and impartial as possible, sometimes it’ll be that they literally do not realize their words might be misinterpreted, but a good chunk of the individual shitshows I’ve seen in the past few days here are easily understandable if I picture someone saying: “I’ve been a sad shit for my whole life without harming anyone, and if anything, I’ve been treated unfairly. And now you’re telling me I’m the culprit!?”, and the difficulties of this guy through his life might have been several degrees less severe than your own, but if he’s misunderstood what you’re saying, or the message he’s read is less charitable, or if the person he’s just read has been perfectly reasonable, but five minutes ago he’s read a different message from someone else who hasn’t been, which twists the context, he isn’t entirely wrong, because he was minding his own business but now he feels accusations fall upon him out of nowhere.

On the bear argument specifically. Ignore the goddamn bear. You can make a lot of good arguments about why choosing the bear is wrong, and this derails PLENTY of discussions that could otherwise be useful and meaningful into a stunlock where one side wants to argue about why some people choose one way, and the other about the specific hypothetical. Don’t go into “(…) and that’s why I’d choose the bear”, ignore the metaphor, redirect the conversation in an useful direction, such as the actual living experiences of women, what kind of society would you want to see and what kind of specific changes would you like to see people make.

This advocacy is almost never going to be completely pleasant. This isn’t a justification, or discouragement, it’s just acknowledgement of the fact that plenty of people are going to be predisposed against your position, or skeptical, or outright hostile, and you personally are not going to see the fruits of your own, individual, specific labour, because whatever useful progress you make will be brewing on the background. Plenty of people whom you’ve made think will perhaps upvote you at best, but very, very few will admit “You’ve completely changed my mind on this”, but that doesn’t mean what you’re doing isn’t useful. Sometimes you won’t make the perfect argument, because you don’t have the exact perspective of what the other side is thinking, and because no human is omniscient, and you might have to rethink nuances, strategies and approaches, but engaging other people with the ultimate goal of creating a society where everyone is accepted in equality and freedom is always, on the long run, worthwhile.

I wouldn’t call it “planned”, average people do stupid things all the time, and I wouldn’t blame the average person for not realizing the bear thing wouldn’t help get the points of each side across. I just wish more people acknowledged that arguing about the hypothetical is pointless, and we should actually discuss gender issues, personal experiences and how to make things better.

My grandma used to work at a Catholic charity to distribute food for people without resources.

There were a few Muslims who requested food from there, and they always complained that the meat wasn’t halal. Their very Catholic response was that they treated everyone the same, and weren’t going to change the food they offered just because some Muslims were complaining.

Then again, quite very Catholicly, they didn’t offer any meat during Lent to anyone.

Irony on the public side of internet died with Gamergate. It’s all been downhill since then.

Edit: In case this was misinterpreted, I meant that irony died when Gamergate started, because vitriol and far right dogwhistles infested everything.

The list of names at the left creeps me the fuck out.