And while I personally saw the “too” as implied, it led to bad-faith actors really twisting it as well as inevitably some people actually not understanding it.
Don't you think bad faith actors will do that regardless? The problem isn't that the names were bad, the problem is a large amount of people had no interest in learning anything beyond the name and/or actively fought against learning what those groups were actually for.
Lmao, what a terrible opinion. "Prejudice is okay because the world isn't perfect." At least you aren't in denial like half the other people in this thread. The world will never be ideal or equitable as long as people like you are justifying, and advocating, the non-ideal and inequitable. Please spend less time in it.
Is carrying pepper spray in an accessible location prejudice? Is declining invitations from acquaintances because I don’t want to be alone with them before I know them better prejudiced?
I already answered this, caution is not prejudice, but being cautious towards a specific demographic is prejudice. I'm not interested in hearing your prejudiced rationales, I've heard many over the years and they're largely the same.
I have much more to fear from a random man than a random woman, statistically
Yes, as said, statistics are not an excuse to be prejudiced. You cannot treat someone differently because of the group they were born as, that is prejudice. Go ahead and carry pepper spray, because anyone can attack you, but your trauma is leading you to rationalize prejudice and that is absolutely not acceptable in a tolerant society.
You keep making strawmen arguments because you cannot accept that someone is simply anti-prejudice.
a misrepresentation of the screenshot - which is what I’m pushing back on
Okay, well let's do some analysis then. If they say they know it's not all men, but then immediately follow it up with saying they can't tell which men it is, what message are we supposed to get? In the context of a comeback to someone disagreeing with "all men are dangerous"
To me, it's pretty clearly justifying the position of "all men are dangerous," just with the caveat that they know it's not actually all men, but that they have to act is if it is because there is no way to tell the difference.
Do you not see that as a rationalization of treating all men like they are dangerous?
Being afraid of black people because of something unrelated to their race is very different than being cautious of men for something directly related to their sex
Not really, you are assuming the behavior of someone based on their immutable characteristics, they are both prejudice.
There is no way to visually distinguish a rapist.
Except if they look like a man, right?
You would have me put myself at risk or be a complete social hermit just for the sake of “fairness.”
No, I would have you be cautious of every human because every human is a possible abuser. Your trauma is not an excuse for prejudice, neither is statistics. Judging any individual because of the group they were born as is prejudice, you are a prejudiced and intolerant person.
It is a simple fact that the vast majority of Jewish people support the Occupation
Even if this were true, it would still be wrong to target a random Jewish person for your message about Israel. Members of a class should not be treated differently because of that class, even if the concerns of the wider class are valid. That is literally prejudice. Pre-judicial thinking, you are judging them early.
Don't you think bad faith actors will do that regardless? The problem isn't that the names were bad, the problem is a large amount of people had no interest in learning anything beyond the name and/or actively fought against learning what those groups were actually for.
Lmao, what a terrible opinion. "Prejudice is okay because the world isn't perfect." At least you aren't in denial like half the other people in this thread. The world will never be ideal or equitable as long as people like you are justifying, and advocating, the non-ideal and inequitable. Please spend less time in it.
Yeah, gosh, why would anyone care so much about being assumed to be a rapist?
Weird false dilemma you've presented, one can simply treat all strangers with a degree of caution.
I already answered this, caution is not prejudice, but being cautious towards a specific demographic is prejudice. I'm not interested in hearing your prejudiced rationales, I've heard many over the years and they're largely the same.
Yes, as said, statistics are not an excuse to be prejudiced. You cannot treat someone differently because of the group they were born as, that is prejudice. Go ahead and carry pepper spray, because anyone can attack you, but your trauma is leading you to rationalize prejudice and that is absolutely not acceptable in a tolerant society.
You keep making strawmen arguments because you cannot accept that someone is simply anti-prejudice.
Okay, well let's do some analysis then. If they say they know it's not all men, but then immediately follow it up with saying they can't tell which men it is, what message are we supposed to get? In the context of a comeback to someone disagreeing with "all men are dangerous"
To me, it's pretty clearly justifying the position of "all men are dangerous," just with the caveat that they know it's not actually all men, but that they have to act is if it is because there is no way to tell the difference.
Do you not see that as a rationalization of treating all men like they are dangerous?
Really? Because the title of the post is "All men are dangerous"
Even if the post didn't say that, that's what others in the comments are defending and/or advocating for.
Not really, you are assuming the behavior of someone based on their immutable characteristics, they are both prejudice.
Except if they look like a man, right?
No, I would have you be cautious of every human because every human is a possible abuser. Your trauma is not an excuse for prejudice, neither is statistics. Judging any individual because of the group they were born as is prejudice, you are a prejudiced and intolerant person.
If you "caution" against all men, then yes that is prejudice, just as it would be if someone was "cautious" against black people.
That is prejudice. Be cautious in a non-prejudiced way, nobody will care.
Judging all men based on the actions of others (pre-judging them, if you will) just because of what group they are in, is prejudiced.
Prejudice is unacceptable for any immutable characteristic, such as sex, gender, race, or sexuality.
That's not how that statistic works.
haha it has no-no words
I'd be pretty offended to be assumed to be a zionist, who wouldn't?
Even if this were true, it would still be wrong to target a random Jewish person for your message about Israel. Members of a class should not be treated differently because of that class, even if the concerns of the wider class are valid. That is literally prejudice. Pre-judicial thinking, you are judging them early.
Prove it then, show me exactly how there are no differences between Republicans and Democrats.
If you honestly believe this, then you aren't living in reality.
Buddy you entered this conversion with two one word sentences. At least your username checks out, you're certainly staying inside your glass house.