Men have exactly as much power to stop this as women do. None of the things you mentioned are acceptable. I don’t tolerate someone “memeing” Trumps “grab them by the pussy” remark except to paint Trump as a despicable person specifically because he made that remark (among many other reasons). Anyone trying to defend that kind of remark or shrugging off “all women are whores” as locker room talk is wrong and I would call out anyone who did so. But you also need to see how what you’re doing here is essentially the same thing. Someone said “all men are predators” and then when it’s pointed out that’s not acceptable you try to defend it by citing the statistics for women being assaulted and then dumping all the responsibility for fixing that problem on every man.

I’m not a senator, I’m not a congressman, I’m not a judge or governor, I’m not a cop, I’m not even a manager. My ability to fix society’s problems is highly limited, mostly what I can do is call out bad behaviour when I see it which is exactly what I did in this instance. Beyond that I can donate to charities that try to address these problems which I do, and vote for politicians that try to address these problems which I also do (not that it ever seems to make a difference).

You didn’t understand a single thing I said and keep trying to change the subject. You entirely missed the point of the analogy which was to demonstrate that using statistics to try to justify discrimination is wrong and does not in fact in any way justify discrimination but that sailed right past you and instead you’re hyper focused on the fact that the two analogous situations are not perfectly identical.

Then you went on and picked a different analogous situation but one which differs in a very critical way that undermines the entire analogy. You missed a critical point which was for a bear, not a population of bears, the longer you stay around and in close proximity to that bear the greater the chance you will be attacked. Bears, all bears, are dangerous. Not all men are dangerous. It doesn’t matter how long you spend around a man, your odds of being attacked don’t increase. Sure if you spend time around an ever increasing number of men your odds go up, but that applies to any interaction with anyone. The more time men spend around an ever increasing number of women the more the odds of the man being attacked go up. For a large enough population, no matter how small the likelyhood, the probability will always converge towards certainty.

Ultimately though it’s entirely a side tangent as the only reason the analogy was brought up was to illustrate why trying to use statistics to excuse discrimination is wrong.

Bigger problem -> overgeneralization -> backlash over the over-generalization while maintaining status quo. Wash, rinse, repeat.

That’s because making overgeneralizations doesn’t actually do anything to address the problem and only undermines otherwise legitimate complaints. Instead of wasting all this time trying to defend the overgeneralization, maybe instead focus on trying to solve the problem, because attacking everyone in the majority group regardless of their guilt or innocence just discourages any of them from wanting anything to do with you or even listening to your complaints.

You’re putting a bunch of words in my mouth here. I never said any of the things you’re claiming and this feels like moving the goal posts. My issue, was the assertion made in the post that “all men are predators”. There may or may not have been more context to that, but since that was all we were given that’s all we can go on. Either you believe that is an accurate and true assertion, in which case you disagree with me and really do believe all men are predators, or you agree with me that that is not an accurate and true assertion.

The rest of your post basically boils down to “you’re not allowed to defend against gender based discrimination unless and until you can show that you’re doing everything you possibly could to fix all of societies gender related problems”. If we all adopted that same premise nothing would ever improve. Or should we start demanding to see peoples credentials when they call out sexism, racism, fascism, etc. on the internet? Have you done everything you could to stop sexual assault? Have you been writing letters every day to your senators and congressmen to encourage new laws or reforms? Staging protests? Maybe working at abuse shelters? No? Well, seems like you don’t have the right to participate in this discussion then by your logic.

You immediately assumed that because I don’t agree with what you said I must think all men are rapists or sexual assaulters, or that I think that it’s okay to accuse all men of this thing. That’s not the case. But what I’m asking you to acknowledge is that this is a story on the internet with scant details about the interaction from a person who’s got every reason to lie by omission.

No, I didn’t. That was literally the point being argued over. I never claimed that there aren’t details missing or that there’s no potential subtlety here, in fact I very much agree with that, but that still doesn’t excuse broad discriminatory statements.

Had that point been made originally, that there’s missing context and we don’t know what the interaction was up to that point that would be one thing. I never said I thought OP was a good guy, I was just pointing out that saying “all men are predators” is sexual discrimination and wrong, just like the example given in another reply of “all women are whores” is also wrong.

You don’t stop discrimination by giving the minority group a free pass to engage in discrimination as long as it’s targeted at the majority. I would be making the same point (significantly more so) had OP been making discriminatory statements about women, the difference is I wouldn’t need to be defending myself from all of you. You should maybe think about that.

Does it suck to hear “All men are predators” if you’re a good one? Sure. But at the same time, people have no issues claiming all brown guys are terrorists or illegals. Or women are gold diggers. Or whores.

You literally just made my point for me. Every last one of those examples is wrong in exactly the same way. Or are you defending all of those as acceptable generalizations? You’re cool with men going around saying “All women are whores” and that just being an acceptable thing?

Ooph, that is both an incredibly subtle but also amazingly scathing burn. Some real murdered by words content there. I love how this works in multiple contexts at once.

Sure but there’s a world of difference between “women need to be cautious around men” and “all men are predators”. One is an unfortunate but reasonable statement while the other is a discriminatory generalization. The former could honestly just be rephrased as “people need to be cautious around strangers” and it would be just as accurate.

The problem with statistics like “There’s a sexual assault every 68 seconds” is that they sound really bad but you can do essentially the exact same exercise with any sufficiently large population and come up with similarly scary sounding numbers. E.G. There’s a car crash every 13 seconds.

As for the bear analogy, while I’m sure there are plenty of circumstances in which a individual bear wouldn’t attack someone, as you spend more time around any given bear the likelihood of it attacking you approaches 100% even more so when taken as a population. The same does not hold true around men. There are billions of men on this planet the vast overwhelming majority of which are not a danger to women.

I don’t know this man, or those men, but statistics say 92.1 % of sexual offenders are men

Just like the example of African American crime there’s a lot more to this statistic. For instance is that number so high because most men don’t report sexual assaults therefore skewing the number of women sexual offenders down? There are lots of complicating societal factors there. Regardless that doesn’t justify the sweeping generalization that “all men are predators” or even the slightly weaker “most men are predators”, as very obviously the majority are not.

They’re likely basing it on a verse (that I don’t have handy at the moment) but it says something to the effect that if a mans wife is raped by someone he has to pay a certain amount of silver to the husband in compensation. I couldn’t tell you if it was old testament or not (probably though, sounds very old testament). I think the way it’s phrased was something like “if a man lays with another man’s woman, he must pay him X whatever”.

Uh… What’s the tea app?

Edit: from what I can gather based on the last link attached to this post it seems to be some kind of app for women to talk about men they’ve dated. Why that needs drivers license uploads is a whole other question and definitely should have raised some massive red flags for anyone thinking about using it.

And if you think. “All men are rapists” is a sane and reasonable statement you’re definitely a misandrist and just as wrong as the misogynists.

It’s the bit about claiming all men are a threat. That’s just as wrong as claiming all black people are criminals because they have the largest proportion of incarcerations (and yes I know that’s got a lot more to do with systemic racism than anything else, but that’s kind of the point). Blanket statements based on gender, ethnicity, or even age are wrong even when it’s a minority making a blanket statement about the majority.

When you blindly attack everyone all that does is discourage anyone from wanting to help you, even those that agree with many of your points. Making far reaching easily disprovable blanket statements is not how you go about collecting allies to try to fix societies problems.

If it was staged I’m absolutely certain Trump didn’t plan or know about it, he’d never sign off on anything that risked his life or required him to be even slightly injured. It’s unlikely but the only conspiracy scenario that makes any kind of sense would be something like a CIA operation carried out under the orders of Vance or a senator that kept Trump in the dark.

Or just pulls it from the market. Wouldn’t be the first time a company acquires a competitor for the sole purpose of eliminating it.

My initial thought on this is that it’s treating a symptom not the problem. Ultimately I think the mistake was overloading ‘clone()’ for Rc and Arc types. Semantically clone implies memory being duplicated, but when you clone an Rc or Arc that isn’t what you’re doing. You are in fact explicitly not copying memory which is the entire point. If you think of clone as semantically equivalent to malloc I think the problem becomes more apparent. Had they introduced a new trait and method for “cheaply copyable types” like Rc and Arc we wouldn’t have this problem as the compiler could trivially work out anywhere it could make copies. In short there’s a need for a trait that sits in between Clone and Copy. Heavier than a Copy, but significantly lighter than a Clone.

Edit: thinking a little more semantically this equates to: Copy types can be duplicated without using an allocator simply by copying bits as is. Clone types require an allocator to copy and a method call to perform book keeping. This new trait can be duplicated without an allocator but does require a method call to perform book keeping.

So what you’re saying is King trumps Trump?

It looks a lot like their smart TV interface which has always been less functional than their web or mobile app interface. They’re probably trying to cut the UI down to just the bare minimum that the majority of casual users regularly use. In part I’d assume to reduce the maintenance overhead, but I’m sure it likely will also make things harder for ad blockers.

No because they don’t even bother with any case that can’t be cleared pretty much immediately, even if that means declaring obvious cases of murder as suicides or accidents. In criminal investigations accuracy is the most important metric not speed or even severity of the crime. You could pay based on conviction rates of course, but whether a conviction happens or not is often more about how stupid the criminal or prosecutor is, and would potentially incentivise faking evidence which is already a problem.

I think the problem is the way political parties are structured in the US. At the end of the day the thing that actually matters with a party is how its members behave in their respective offices. It’s how senators and congressmen vote, what bills the president champions and vetoes. For party officers people judge by what they can see and that’s mostly which candidates are receiving support and which aren’t.

So what are people seeing? They’re seeing the same politicians in office today as 6 months ago, voting the same way they always have, and many prominent Democrat politicians attacking Mamdani. Sure they can’t have changed who’s in office without an election happening, but that’s kind of the point, until that happens those people are the DNC to most people. In order to change that perception those politicians would need to be publicly kicked out of the party. Until people no longer see “Senator X (D) from Y” making headlines they are the DNC to most people.

Maybe we’ll get real lucky and land on 1790s France. Probably not, but we can always dream.

More accurate title:

Trump mad that Pam Bondi is failing to make Trump’s involvement with Epstein go away like ordered

What the shit is this? This reads like psychotic ramblings, like the time cube guy or TempleOS. I’m like 90% sure whoever created that site has schizophrenia.