this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
799 points (74.9% liked)

memes

10399 readers
1862 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"b-but bears are actually dangerous!" Shut the hell up.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 167 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (14 children)

~~I have some extra emotional capacity today so~~ (see edit*) I'll post some wrong think: but can we stop antagonizing populations that feel disenfranchised by society and therefor giving the truly evil fucks out there an easy population to brainwash and feed extra scummy ideologies to?

Young nerdy men who feel excluded from society that dont have any strong female figures in their life are barraged by a constant stream of messaging that could easily be interpreted as "(white) men are evil and the source of all problems with society"

By constantly antagonizing them for not being able to navigate the political nuance of those messages, we give an incredibly easy pathway to the more toxic ideologies that the Tates of the world will pull them into to profit off of them, because they are the only figures who will give them praise and a sense of belonging.

Edit: Its a new day now, and I no longer have the energy. If you want to vent, understanding that venting in this manner will bring about little to no positive change, you do you, I will no longer be responding

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

yeah this pretty much.

Polarized speech does nothing for anybody. If woman are talking about this bear thing to make a point, i feel like we would be better off actually making sure that people understood that it was about making a point, rather than a literal fucking interpretation of the problem

but no, funny internet points are more important, capitalism ruins everything it fucking touches.

[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 30 points 6 months ago (1 children)

These kinds of things are great for letting off steam with friends, but absolutely TERRIBLE at getting a point across to people who dont already know said point

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 6 months ago (2 children)

specifically the intent here is to drum up drama, controversy and attention. Which obviously worked, but the problem is that nobody is using it to do something productive with.

[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Some people are definitely using it to create drama sure, but others are using it to vent, and yet others dont understand why some men wouldnt just try to understand why women would choose the bear... basically its a clusterfuck of a meme

i only said drama since i think the point of it is to bring up discussion around the problem at hand here, the problem being that people dont understand that part of it.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah the whole "any press is good press" idea mostly applies to things you want to make money from because for any position you can think of, there's people out there that will support it. So, given your position, if you can get more attention by creating loud arguments, even if they are generally against you, that extra noise means you'll reach more people that might be sympathetic to your position, and you'll increase revenue from those people.

If the goal is to capture hearts and minds to change the world, controversial attention is the opposite of what you want because antagonizing a group of people will always generate opposition, sometimes where there was none, and sometimes even where there was formerly support.

One of the real dangers of sexism and racism and all that is that it generates more sexism and racism. So even if you decide that you really don't care about group x, you're done with them and they can all die in a fire and you don't even care if that makes you evil, expressing that will contribute to a cycle that will come back to hurt others in your group.

It's why genocide keeps coming up in human history. That's where this all leads when it's a racist or cultural thing. Sexism is different because the genders can't survive without each other, but it is a reason why we're seeing a resurgence of conservatives willing to unironically talk about the worst parts of patriarchism as if they are good things, like women just existing as servants to men.

Though when I look at everything going on in the world, it really feels like humanity in general needs to get the fight out of their system because so many conflicts are caught in this kind of cycle with no peaceful resolution in sight for any of it that doesn't involve some major compromises on things I'm not sure anyone is willing to compromise on. WWIII is going to be messy because I think the national conflicts might be overshadowed by domestic ones, which will cause even more issues as they spill into each other.

If the goal is to capture hearts and minds to change the world, controversial attention is the opposite of what you want because antagonizing a group of people will always generate opposition, sometimes where there was none, and sometimes even where there was formerly support.

i think the intent was to be inflammatory to gather the obvious negative responses and double back on those so you can use the whole thing as publicity stunt essentially. Though there are going to be negative aspects of it, that's why i've been pretty critical over most of it.

As for patriarchy, i think it's both a bit of thinking back to the good old days, and trying to edge a little bit of "trust me bro, it's going to work" out of people. Because for men, it obviously has some advantages that we don't need to talk about, but they also have to sell it to women, so they're selling it by claiming stuff like "you won't have to work anymore" and the list goes on really. None of that is true or beneficial, but an incorrect statement sells a good story, so.

Honestly, i don't forsee a world war 3, i feel like it would've already happened if it would have. At best north korea is going to try and pull some shit, but that will almost certainly do nothing. I think realistically a lot of places are going to collectively agree on "enemy bad" "kill enemy" and there is a non zero chance that some sort of mutiny happens during or immediately after, but given some time people won't want it. I don't really think it's a significant concern to be honest, i think most of the political shit is mostly rhetoric, things seem a lot worse than they are, a lot of bark and no bite essentially.

If ww3 ever happens it's going to be incredibly messy, because ww2 was, and ww1 even more so before it.

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But many do just that, then you focus on the ones that don't, every cycle. Over and over. You choose what to focus on. Not we as a society, literally you. You choose to engage with that negative part of it and continue to. Nobody is forcing you

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

it's been getting better as of recent, initially when i first dug into it things were quite a bit worse than they are now, people seemingly have had some time to think about it, and figured out that "yeah this is kind of stupid"

You choose what to focus on. Not we as a society, literally you. You choose to engage with that negative part of it and continue to. Nobody is forcing you

i have a fascinating idea for you to consider. I being an individual person of my own accord, can simply choose what i want to think about. The problem that i have is with the people who aren't engaging with it productively, it'd be weird for me to insult people who were, or pretty fucking pretentious for me to compliment people who do, although i've probably done that at least once. Given that the singular me, doesn't constitute the whole of society, and the fact that i don't proclaim to be god or something, i think that's pretty reasonable.

Like here's another fun fact, you can just ignore me. I won't be offended.

It'd be rather weird to identify a problem in a system, and spend 50% of your time contemplating and observing the working portions of it that you already understand, no?

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Instead of absorbing some kind of stance where now I am the one contradicting myself, you could just skip the defense where I get to be pretentious, and go straight into the realisation that it's only trying to be helpful. I'm not sugarcoating it because it just makes it even harder to understand the root of your complaint, which is that you, yourself, focus on something you don't want to. Not that others do it. Because they choose also what they focus on and have already chosen that. I focus on something I want to when I write to you, I like helping real people that deserve it, to get out of shit that I have been in. So essentially, it's just a long dialog with society that they should x or y, that you are focusing on but you wish it was yourself you were talking to. It's not going to make any difference who reads it and it's easier to run over the choice to make sure stuff in general in your life don't also get more and more compulsive

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Instead of absorbing some kind of stance where now I am the one contradicting myself,

i'm not sure how that would make you contradictory with yourself. I'm just saying that this is a micro specific, not a macro specific, like you were stating. I'm aware that i'm looking at through an incredibly tight view, that's kind of the point actually.

I'm not here to talk about the broad environment here, because if i was, i'd have written a three hundred page study on it, and published it by now. I'm here specifically to discuss the aspects that seem to capture my attention. Which leads to me micro focusing on specific details.

which is that you, yourself, focus on something you don’t want to.

no? I'm focusing on it because i think it's interesting.

I focus on something I want to when I write to you,

yeah, and you did, which is why i mentioned that you could just ignore me, because you were pretty clearly just attacking the way that i was thinking about it specifically, which you are allowed to do. But doesn't help me, because i understand that. Notice how i never said that feminism bad? Or that women lying bad? Or anything like that, i was specifically talking about the interactions that i've been observing as of recent, and had been curious about, and like any good curious individual, i prodded for information, because it's healthy to do that.

You could've asked me why i was being so specific, and focusing so aggressively on things, and i would've said what i just said now. But instead you hit with something relatively inflammatory. Acting like you somehow have knowledge of my understanding of the world, and i don't and wanted to "inform me" about it, through a rather obtuse statement frankly. Why wouldn't i respond in kind?

I like helping real people that deserve it, to get out of shit that I have been in.

that's great, i haven't been in that shit or experienced it before, so i'm not one to talk about it, which is why i'm focusing on the parts that i know i understand in a very explicit manner.

So essentially, it’s just a long dialog with society that they should x or y, that you are focusing on but you wish it was yourself you were talking to.

perhaps? Idk how you expect people to make their points more clearly understood by others. Yeah i'm essentially talking with myself here, that's kind of the point, i'm trying to clearly identify how i think about these things so others aren't outside of the loop, unless you think that other account is my alt account or something? In which case, that's pretty funny.

It’s not going to make any difference who reads it and it’s easier to run over the choice to make sure stuff in general in your life don’t also get more and more compulsive

i'm not even sure how i should read this, it doesn't really make any sense.

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Escalating defense mechanisms... Yo man I'm backing slowly away okay, you good luck with your scientific studies and whatnot peace out

alright then, see you on the flip side i spose

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 32 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I wanted to post something like this but could not write it well. Thanks for posting it.

[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 20 points 6 months ago

Yeah, thats why I posted this. I'm having a good day today, and so I was able to find the words that others who've been affected by the bear meme struggled to find the words to. If I get some flak for it, I have the emotional space to explain my reasoning

[–] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Don't forget the other side, I've seen some of the discussions around this by women turn really TERFy. Both sides of this debate are gateways to the Alt right.

[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 20 points 6 months ago

Tbh the TERF stuff isnt surprising since a lot of these memes have just a hint of Misandry to them, and when it comes to TERFs, they dont see Trans Women as women, and see them as men, so its moreso their ideas on men that are guiding their ideology, than it is about women

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

can we stop antagonizing populations that feel disenfranchised by society and therefor giving the truly evil fucks out there an easy population to brainwash and feed extra scummy ideologies to?

Young nerdy men who feel excluded from society that dont have any strong female figures in their life are barraged by a constant stream of messaging that could easily be interpreted as “(white) men are evil and the source of all problems with society”

I think it's a two-pronged problem.

Young men are encouraged to be aggressive, thin-skinned, and superficial. They're sold this idea of sex as a reward for climbing to the top of some nebulously defined social hierarchy rather than an expression of intimacy with a romantic partner.

Meanwhile, young women are victims of the Madonna/Whore complex, simultaneously expected to be sexual and virginal, model-esque and down-to-earth, your plaything and your mom. They're this thing men are expected to fight over, but also personally responsible for the drama created by this social expectation.

And so much of this engineered conflict revolves around selling you something. Gym memberships or diet supplements or fashion accessories or self-help classes or luxury status symbols are all supposed to be a thing we can buy into in order to climb the ladder to an ideal romantic life. All to commodify the idea of love.

By constantly antagonizing them for not being able to navigate the political nuance of those messages, we give an incredibly easy pathway to the more toxic ideologies that the Tates of the world will pull them into to profit off of them

Guys like Andrew Tate are ultimately just bullies. And bullying is a tool that one class of people use to force the others to conform and submit. So much of this boils down to Tate inducting new members of his cult of personality by sending older members out to jump them in.

The only real remedy is to shut these guys down. Stand together. Stick up for your friends and neighbors in the face of fascist bullying. Push back.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 11 points 6 months ago

Also known as: can we please stop pushing people into evil echo chambers by "moderating" them through auto ban because opinion we don't like? Its not only men vs women, it applies to anything slightly divisive.

We wouldn't need the super thick skin that is needed now if we hadn't banned all the people back in the day for merely disagreeing. They went to more evil places and now, consequently, are more evil. We are kinda reaping what we sowed

[–] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 8 points 6 months ago

This is so extremely well put.

You do help by expressing things so succinctly

[–] rsuri@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

That's the thing about memes. They're not really a rational form of discussing a topic, and tend to exploit emotions to boost their spread. But it seems to be more or less the only form of discussing things nowadays. The result is that as a society we no longer solve anything, and only work together to make things worse now.

[–] bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

good comment regarding the ongoing presentation of this meme. i encourage folks who read this to make posts that welcome young men and encourage them to understand the nuance, rather than judge them a priori for not already getting it.

that said it’s important to note that the origin of this meme was i believe just a ~~anonymous~~ poll where women expressed their lived experience and wasn’t meant to be antagonistic at all. bad men were the ones that took offense to what these women felt and made the meme what it is.

not saying you don’t know any of this just feel it’s worth being said :) thank you for your nuanced and leveled criticism of the rhetorical value of the trend.

[–] CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This right here is the reason I still bother to engage people on this topic. The women who honestly believe a bear is less threatening than a random man are a lost cause imo, so my goal is to help men find supportive people and spaces that aren't dangerous idiots like Tate.

You can be a man without being forced to exist in the manufactured redpill/male feminist dichotomy.

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

I am a man and I am affected 0% by this meme. This meme was a chance to display some empathy and understand why it might be that the bear analogy strikes a chord with many women.

When I go to the grocery store, do I have to think about being snatched? My privilege affords me the convenience of not worrying about that. Do I need to worry about being sexually assaulted walking home? Statistically, probably not. There are a whole host of problems and horrific fates that befall women disproportionately, and very often at the hands of men.

Why would a woman feel safer with a bear?

The 750,000 black bears of North America kill less than one person per year on the average, while men ages 18-24 are 167 times more likely to kill someone than a black bear.

Most attacks by black bears are defensive reactions to a person who is too close, which is an easy situation to avoid. Injuries from these defensive reactions are usually minor.

https://bear.org/bear-facts/how-dangerous-are-black-bears

Since 1784 there have been 82 fatal human/bear conflicts by wild brown bears in North America. Yellowstone National Park has seen a mere 8 since being established in 1872, which is only one more than the number of people who have died from a falling tree.

https://bearvault.com/bear-attack-statistics/

Seems to me that even I would be safer with a bear than a man. Makes you think, doesn't it?

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee -2 points 6 months ago

The problem with your logic is it creates a situation where society at large will never talk about this important topic and think about ways to reduce the scope and impact of it.

The sad reality is that men are largely responsible for SA, and saying this is always going to make some men uncomfortable. They're always going to react to negatively, and people are always going to post what you posted.

[–] whoreticulture@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago

L M A O white nerdy young men are not the perfect angels you think, I have multiple friends who were sexually assaulted by such people