Not just the men who commit violence. Women have to be careful around the men who sit by and let it happen, the ones who try to argue with women on the internet instead of learning a bit of empathy. The non-violent men condone the behavior of violent men when they focus on trying to defend themselves rather than join in calling out bad behavior.
I feel like we keep dancing around the fact you’re referring to me, so I’ll go ahead and acknowledge that.
No, the fact that I’m here arguing with you doesn’t mean I would let a man put his hands on you. That also doesn’t make sense.
But I can’t be everywhere, protecting you from every other man. Your vulnerability is not a pure function of my agreeing with you, because your vulnerability is not modulated by my relationship toward you.
In short, I cannot protect you from every other man. No matter how much I stop questioning and focus on empathy, it won’t protect you.
And I can step in and protect you from a man being violent, without agreeing with everything you say. I have sufficient empathy to recognize you as valuable enough to protect from a person being violent.
I can see that you really want to tie together two unrelated things:
Men who commit violence against women
Men who argue with women
But I’m not going to let that happen, because it doesn’t make any sense. This story you have about how men who argue with you would have the power to end the threat of violence against you, if they just stopped arguing … it just doesn’t hold any water.
Bro, I don’t need you to protect me. You spend more time arguing with me than arguing with men who think it’s okay to use women. And you are confused why that puts you on the side of men who hurt women? Really?
I think that when people experience real violence they lose the illusion that the really violent people are people who can be reasoned with, who might only be missing a bit of argumentation but otherwise perfectly able to live virtuously.
What I’m saying is that I think you don’t have any experience with this because if you did you would understand what you think of as the solution isn’t effective at all.
What are you even talking about? I’ve never claimed a single solution. I’ve just pointed out that it’s a good idea to avoid men who are apparently like you along with the ones actually committing the violence. In some ways you’re worse because you should know better.
Just like I should know better than to have a conversation with an obvious bad actor, but here we are. At least I have enough brains to change my mind when I realize I’m wrong.
In some ways you’re worse because you should know better.
Certainly not in the ways that matter. We are talking about rape and murder here, and you’re comparing it to me disagreeing with you, and saying that “in some ways” my disagreeing with you is worse than raping and murdering you.
That is so far out of touch I don’t know how to
respond to it other than to point out how absurd it is.
Not just the men who commit violence. Women have to be careful around the men who sit by and let it happen, the ones who try to argue with women on the internet instead of learning a bit of empathy. The non-violent men condone the behavior of violent men when they focus on trying to defend themselves rather than join in calling out bad behavior.
I feel like we keep dancing around the fact you’re referring to me, so I’ll go ahead and acknowledge that.
No, the fact that I’m here arguing with you doesn’t mean I would let a man put his hands on you. That also doesn’t make sense.
But I can’t be everywhere, protecting you from every other man. Your vulnerability is not a pure function of my agreeing with you, because your vulnerability is not modulated by my relationship toward you.
In short, I cannot protect you from every other man. No matter how much I stop questioning and focus on empathy, it won’t protect you.
And I can step in and protect you from a man being violent, without agreeing with everything you say. I have sufficient empathy to recognize you as valuable enough to protect from a person being violent.
I can see that you really want to tie together two unrelated things:
But I’m not going to let that happen, because it doesn’t make any sense. This story you have about how men who argue with you would have the power to end the threat of violence against you, if they just stopped arguing … it just doesn’t hold any water.
Bro, I don’t need you to protect me. You spend more time arguing with me than arguing with men who think it’s okay to use women. And you are confused why that puts you on the side of men who hurt women? Really?
You are clueless at best.
I think that when people experience real violence they lose the illusion that the really violent people are people who can be reasoned with, who might only be missing a bit of argumentation but otherwise perfectly able to live virtuously.
What I’m saying is that I think you don’t have any experience with this because if you did you would understand what you think of as the solution isn’t effective at all.
What are you even talking about? I’ve never claimed a single solution. I’ve just pointed out that it’s a good idea to avoid men who are apparently like you along with the ones actually committing the violence. In some ways you’re worse because you should know better.
Just like I should know better than to have a conversation with an obvious bad actor, but here we are. At least I have enough brains to change my mind when I realize I’m wrong.
Certainly not in the ways that matter. We are talking about rape and murder here, and you’re comparing it to me disagreeing with you, and saying that “in some ways” my disagreeing with you is worse than raping and murdering you.
That is so far out of touch I don’t know how to respond to it other than to point out how absurd it is.