Obviously I can understand why mysoginists are hated upon, As their belief is all women are trash or men are superior etc. But why are incels also generally hated upon? They are lacking in a way that makes them unable to gey in a relationship, but that shouldn’t necessarily mean they are mysoginists, right?

What am I missing here? I haven’t ever had a relationship with a woman, but I don’t hate all women either. I just consider myself unlucky. Does that make me an incel?

  • @june
    link
    English
    1
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    No you don’t. Because there isn’t a preponderance of evidence than black people are less trustworthy than non-POC.

    Just because an argument sounds similar does not make it the same.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      19 months ago

      there isn’t a preponderance of evidence than black people are more less trustworthy than non-POC.

      That is true, but is not a universally held belief. Many strongly feel that black people are inherently dangerous and untrustworthy. Others feel the same about Muslims. Or Chinese. Or Russians. Or Jewish people. Or Gypsies.

      People who feel that way about those groups are called bigots. You feel that way about men which means you are also a bigot. Not a difficult analysis.

      • @ReiRose
        link
        29 months ago

        Feelings & beliefs =/= statistics

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          39 months ago

          What do FBI crime stats say about Black Americans?

          Statistics are easily misconstrued, and often are

      • @june
        link
        English
        19 months ago

        We aren’t talking belief here. What I am saying is based off of empirical evidence.

        Why are you being so unapologetically obtuse?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          19 months ago

          You can use FBI crime statistics to make “empirical” arguments about black Americans. Yet I think we both recognize that would be fallacious

          • @june
            link
            English
            09 months ago

            I’m gonna ask you again, why are you being unapologetically obtuse?

            If you want to challenge the data I’m citing, do it rather than refusing to engage in good faith.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              19 months ago

              It isn’t obtuse to state with moral clarity that it is always wrong to treat someone differently on the basis of their sex

              • @june
                link
                English
                09 months ago

                When there’s a preponderance of empirical evidence that a certain group of people poses a larger risk to another group of people, it validates the decision to approach them with caution.

                You’re arguing that women should just ignore the reality that they are likely to be assaulted (remember, 81%) and that the people most likely to assault them are men. It is reasonable and right for women to exercise caution and clarity when engaging with men for that reason. This isn’t hard, it requires a person to be willfully ignorant to disagree with it. Get your feelings out of this matter and look at the reality we live in.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  2
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  When there’s a preponderance of empirical evidence that a certain group of people poses a larger risk to another group of people, it validates the decision to approach them with caution.

                  Literally Nazi rationale for 1930s Germany. Or White Americans justification for segregation. Or Israeli justification for genocide against Palestinians

                  People are people. Immutable traits have no influence on how anyone should ever be treated

                  • @june
                    link
                    English
                    19 months ago

                    In every case you cite there was not a preponderance of empirical data. It was fabricated.

                    Are you arguing that the data I’m citing is fabricated?