Would it be so bad if games didnāt have insane budgets? Most of my favorite games from the past decade are from small studios operating on pizza and hope.
Lower budgets would probably be better. High budgets mean high risk, developers and publishers try to minimize that risk and you get bland games that try to cater to too many tastes. Movies suffer from the same problem. They get budgets in the hundreds of millions and you wonder what they spent it all for.
I canāt remember who it was. A famous actor, anyway. They were talking about whatās happened with movies. Thereās nothing in the middle.
Itās either $100m+ or less than $3m. Either it gets a big producer and they pump so much money into it that it must be safe because it canāt lose money. Or is a small producer doing it for the love, but a small budget doesnāt go very far. The risky narratives done well would be funded somewhere between the two extremes but itās just not how itās done anymore.
In a strange way, to get more money in for the riskier productions, we need to get the money out of Hollywood. Canāt see it happening, myself.
Edit: I forgot the reason I told this story: it wonāt be much different in the game industry.
You canāt? We just had a summer filled with high-budget flops, and now both the actors and the writers are on strike meaning that the studios wonāt be able to recoup their losses any time soon. Add the reduced to non-existent theatre turnout in the first couple of years of the decade due to COVID and thereās been a hell of a lot of money āgetting out of Hollywood.ā
I disagree that a flop means lost revenue. This is an industry thatās so adept at hiding income to avoid paying taxes, actors, and every other studio worker that dodgy accounting is known as āHollywood Accountingā. Maybe weāre talking about different things. When I say Hollywood, I mean the movie industry as a whole.
Hollywood has failed to capture some income streams. From theatres, for example, as you say. But thereās still too much money to be made (and too much propaganda potential) for enough big money to leave that the problems of monopoly finance capital go away.
High budgets are killing the film industry. In the case of gaming, it plays a factor, but greed is probably the main issue. Most big budget AAA games in the past made large amounts of money even if they didnāt have universal appeal. Because companies realised that they could make large amounts of money off loot boxes, microtransactions, cash shops and battle passes, they started trying to funnel players into games, mainly so that players would buy things. Thatās one of the main reasons the AAA industry is getting worse: games need to appeal to as many as possible, while coming out as fast as possible, all so that players will buy the overpriced in-game items endlessly shoved in playersā faces.
I love me some good AAA games and want them to stick around. But I think it would be much better if they were a bit fewer and further between, and the big studios shift to more regular AA games, and give their devs chances to do some more oddball stuff with even lower budgets. More expiremntation and risky projects can only enrich the industry.
You never know what those experiments can lead too. There will be a lot of failures however someone is going to look at the failure and realize what needs to be need to be tweaked.
Good point. And itās a lot easier to accept āfailureā (there could still be something learned in a game that doesnāt quite hit the mark) if the budget isnāt astronomical.
There are games like FFXV that get quite creative on a big budget. (Not sure if itās AAA.) I enjoyed that game but some of the novel features bugged me a little bit and they skimped on some important features, I thought. Maybe thereās a better formula for trialling novelty than an all or nothing approach.
Yep. The final fantsay series was a bunch of lads in an attic. Now those lads are legendsā¦ with a fantasic legacy. Yet Iām still waiting for ES5 and GTA 6ā¦
BG3 did have a pretty huge budget though. I would totally be fine if games took notes from BG3 but reduced scope a lot. Bioware used to make games similar to BG, but they stopped and now make garbage. The idea other studios canāt make similar games is wrong. They canāt make games this big usually though without publishers telling them they need to include microtransactions and other bullshit.
Black Isle was the publisher, Bioware developed the game. Baldurs Gate lead to BG2, which lead to Neverwinter Nights, which lead to Knights of the Old Republic.
Kind of! Though if we are being entirely honest, the real thing to blame is the head writer being replaced and the dev time cut by almost a year.
Personally would have enjoyed it more if they went with the Biotics/Dark Energy that Drew Karpyshyn had put down groundwork for, rather than the AI subplot that Mac Walters hastily slapped together for ME3 that directly contradicted ME1 threads and subplots.
True, but IMO the link wasnāt nearly as strong between KotoR and ME as any of the previous games in the link which were all clearly D&D based systems. ME1 had a lot in common with KotoR but there were some major deviations too as they moved away from the table top standard.
Yep, youāre right. I didnāt realize they were a studio at that point. Yeah, they have no reason to complain about new expectations. They could have created BG3 if they had kept doing what they were known for, but EA and the money were too goodā¦
You could give studios unlimited budgets and theyād still complain they donāt have enough time / money to get things right. The rhetoric is that āgames are just so complex nowadaysā and that justifies their 4/5/6 year development periods.
Iām not seeing the complexity that warrants that type of long development period. The visual fidelity on some games is impressive, but is it actually worth that 5 year dev time?
Nah they literally used extermination camp forced labour, that much we know without doubt so they were pretty damn complicit. Tried to research whether BMW ever actually made gas vans, but couldnāt find a definitive confirmation or good evidence to the contrary from a reputable source, so gonna say they might have.
A lot of sites add things like that because on average it actually does increase orders and has no real downsides. Not at much with the newer generations but if your target market is boomers then it can help.
Get Koho. E-transfer money into Koho, and use Koho to make purchases on weird websites.
It gives you a real credit card, but you basically treat it like a pre-paid card.
I love it. Takes less than 5 seconds for the money to get e-transfered into the account, and sketchy websites cannot make unauthorized charges if your account has no money lol
Iāve ordered real pet medications from there because american vet wait was two months in my area. It took a few weeks for the cat meds to arrive, but they definitely delivered. Cheaper than a vet in my area too.
Better yet: start getting your coffee from a local shop and stop going to Starbucks at all! The trick is finding a local shop with real specialty drinks, not just a variety of syrup flavors.
Or just at least mid coffee. I live in a coffee producing country, and Iāve tried everything from really expensive coffee to bottom of the barrel, both local and from abroad. The only cup of coffee I sipped and spat out was a Starbucks in Houston.
Itās also done to increase the shelf life of the beans. So if you get Starbucks coffee, thereās a good chance youāre drinking coffee from beans roasted years ago. As someone who exclusively drinks specially coffee, the thought of drinking coffee from beans that were roasted even 3 months ago grosses me out
What the fuck is peopleās fascination with chain or franchise businesses, especially places that serve food.
Starbucks is worth $120 BILLION. Thatās $120 BILLION that gets sucked out of the local economies that these stores are at and gets sent to their HQ in Seattle to pay corporate executive salaries. If you go to a local mom and pop store, that $10 purchase, for the most part, stays local. If you go to Starbucks, they still have rent and equipment to buy and a store manager and a person making your food just like the mom and pop shop. But on top of that, they also have a massive corporate HQ and all the people that work there to pay for. So they HAVE TO either raise prices, lower local wages, or cut corners on the quality of the food to pay for the extra expense of the corporate salaries.
I find it infuriating how people donāt understand that rather basic concept and continue to frequent these establishments.
I am not saying that all local food places are good. Far from it, but the good ones spend the money that would have gone to pay corporate salaries instead on buying better ingredients or possibly paying their wrokers better. Having money sent off to the next level up the corporate ladder is like the feudal system all over again where a serf gave some of his earnings/food he grew to his master and then that master gave some to a king and so on and so forth. The serf is the only one in that chain that actually did any real work.
Agreed, we and other land mammals will suffer greatly, but life on Earth is hearty and just as the great George Carlin said, once weāre gone, the planet will heal itself from the failed mutation that was homo sapien.
Only an idiot thinks that when we say *we are destroying the planet " they literally means the planet will explode or something. Itās clear that we mean the only part of the planet that is meaningful for us, the biosphere.
Well, I guess all the life forms that are going extinct through the Holocene/anthropogene extinction event, which humans caused, donāt matter?
Sure there will be life on earth and it will adapt, but donāt act like weāre not taking down whole families of plants and animals with usā¦ because itās already happening.
Look genius- we know the planet will be just fine. When ppl say we are destroying the planet we obvious (except to you) are talking about our own survival on the planet.
Again Sherlock, nobody is talking about the frame of view of random animals that may or may not be fine. We are only talking about our frame of reference.
If you actually considered the semantics of ātechnically some people will still be alive but living in a mad max like apocalypse or jellyfish will be fineā means that our biosphere hasnāt been destroyed for humans you are being ridiculously pedantic.
But itās the idiots that CONSTANTLY argue that the world will be fine. The framing of it as protection of animals/the planet/the climate makes it incredibly easy for people to pretend itās optional, not directly related to them. This isnāt a hypothetical point, EVERY SINGLE climate discussion Iāve ever witnessed some mouthbreather has argued that āthe climate will continue to exist, it doesnāt need protectingā.
What needs protecting isnāt the planet, the ecology, the animals or plants, itās US. Itās ENTIRELY an US problem.
Do we? Because the absolutely astonishing sense of self-importance humans have would indicate otherwise.
Other beings live here, and while humans fuck humans over in the name of greed and power, we bulldoze entire ecosystems without any consideration for the other creatures that lived here whatsoever.
No, youāre wrong. Most humans live, act, and speak as if the entire world, hell the entire universe, should be bent to better serve our naive, entitled species exclusively.
Itās a thought-terminating cliche that serves to downplay the problem because āhurr durr the animals will be okayā (even though they actually wonāt since weāre in the middle of the Anthropocene mass extinction, but never mind that) and to act as a derailment tactic.
Nature will inevitably adjust. This isnāt the first mass extinction and it wonāt be the last. Iām more concerned about agriculture and how the changing climate could lead to mass starvation, refugee issues, etc. The animals can inherit the Earth after we blow ourselves up with nukes.
I donāt read it that way, quite the opposite. So, so many people act like this is mostly about protecting the climate or the environment or animals, not about protecting our way of life. The way so many frame it as protecting the earth makes it so easy to make it sound optional.
But the world will be okay, it doesnāt need protecting. Itās the 8 billion humans that RELY on the world AS IT IS NOW that will be fucked. Itās human protection, not ecological protection.
No, Scandinavian countries just have a healthy government. Countries like China have awful, awful climate impacts, much worse off than most other countries. Though, them and France at least have started a nuclear build-out, which is needed to 100% de-carbonize the grid.
Iā¦ donāt think we disagree? China has a corrupt communist government. I was specifically referring to socialist governments, and the ones that are frequently (mis)labelled as socialist are doing a lot better on oil consumption than either China or the United States.
If youāre splitting hairs about communism, socialism, and āmislabellingā (even though socialism is a generic term that encompasses communismā¦?), why are you describing Chinaās government as communist? Communism is (ideally, at least) stateless, and like all socialist idologies it is fundamentally anti-capitalist.
Youāre right that the Nordic model isnāt socialist, though. Itās a blend of social democracy and corporatism.
How is it not true? Per capital they are lower but that doesnāt mean much when you have over a billion people. I think a more accurate sentence would be most industrialized nations have awful awful climate impacts.
Which is why I said a more accurate sentence would be most industrialized nations have awful climate impact. Diluting their impact behind a per capita graph is misleading. Also out of all my travels in the world China has been the only country I could visibly see that impact without having traveled to it or even being super close. The morning chemical smog Iād see in Korea on a regular basis compares to nothing else Iāve seen and Iāve lived in some pretty dirty regions.
China manages to be the manufacturing hub of the world AND have a lower carbon footprint per capita than the United States. We donāt have time to keep pointing fingers and making excuses, we need to be making changes.
The communist and socialist countries arenāt using any less oil either. We canāt fix a problem if we are blaming random things.
Iāve come to accept that there isnāt hope to stop the runaway train of unchecked capitalist greed, at least not without the hard lesson of collapse and rebuild, and that means there will be apologists like you screaming that the ship (Our habitable world) isnāt sinking as youāre waist deep in ocean(city destroying weather events, crop failures, heat deaths, fresh water crises, etc).
That used to bother me, but Iāve come to appreciate you as the comedy relief you are in this tragedy. So by all means, keep crowing about how competition between humans in matters of life and death are āhealthyā and how the capital markets will save us from the capital markets that donāt care about any future that is more than a fiscal quarter out, and will do anything they can get away with against the species for an extra nickel for shareholders.
Iām sure the benevolence of the sliver of the population that came to own almost everything through Extensive, merciless exploitation and sociopathy ārational self-interestā will swoop in to save you and your loved ones for your devotion.
Nobody is willing to tolerate a drop in quality of life for the climate. Third worlders like the Chinese have finally gotten a taste for a little meat with supper and they arenāt going to give it up so easily.
I donāt even think this is inherently capitalist. Itās a human issue. Obviously capitalism messes up incentives - so companies like ExxonMobil will deliberately lie about emissions or what have you and create PR campaigns to influence people into more carbon emissions.
So capitalism definitely makes it worse in that regard - but the ultimate cause of this is 8 trillion humans who want access to smartphones, cars, globalized consumer products, laptops, A/C, etc
The only real way to reduce carbon emissions to a point it wonāt inevitably fuck up the planet is not to have humans exist in a large scale industrial society. Go ahead and campaign on that as a politician. It aināt happening. Weāre burning this bitch to the ground.
For what itās worth, itāll take a couple of centuries before we really start to feel the effects in full. Sure, a few unusual heatwaves here and there seem serious but itās nothing like whatās coming.
Absolutely! Using open source software is much cheaper, as well. Hiring developers to work on open source software/OSs would cost less than buying software annually. Governments pay stupid amounts of money for easily replaceable software.
It would be nice if governments could make a āsoftware unionā, pledging to use the same standards. It seems that everyone is inventing the wheel separately in every country or falling back on commercial industry standards.
F.i. the exchange of financial documents. Thereās a standard coming along called SAF-T, and even if it is a standard, every country using it are making their own definitions of what it is. There are also some countries that already have their own completely different standard. The crazy thing is that almost every country worldwide are asking for the exact same info on tax returns, but theyāve all individually come up with that. Only differences is the order of fields on the form.
Same with user identification. Every country has their own almost identical solution for identification, which however does not work across borders, despite the similarities.
Most people if this were a guy, would immediately call this out as toxic, manipulative, and abusive behavior
Iāll err on the side of optimism and assume this was just a joke pic, but I did want to shed light on the fact that fucking with your partners food without their knowledge and consent is abusive and manipulative.
The litmus test of determining if there is bigotry involved is to change the terms in contention. If it is bigoted in one direction, it is fundamentally bigoted in both.
You hit the nail on the head when you posited āif this was a guy doing it to his girlfriendā it would be toxic, manipulative, and abusive.
Letās make misandry as unacceptable as misogyny. Because true equality will be impossible until we do.
So itās been sort of a joke that my current fiancee and my ex both didnāt want me to lose weight because they think I look hot chubby. Both have said that they would leave me if I ever did get skinny. As a joke of course, so I assume this is a joke too.
Thereās this thing right. and itās called voting for an independent or not voting at all. Itās not like your being forced to vote for a turd sandwich or a giant douche. If you want to vote for a giant douche or a turd sandwich then thatās just you using your 15th amendment.
Youāve got a point. But your votes do really count. You could vote towards an independent. and if they get 5% of votes. Theyāll be recognized as a minor political party. they could potentially get tons of money for their next campaign
You are a bit stupid if you think that, no offense, any vote not going to dems is going to the fascists who will grab power in the US if given the chance, on the other hand if you liked the recen Civil War movie and want to role play it IRL in a few years, then who am I to judge
I think of it more as a budding fascist dictator vs a senile moron. Which is why Iām extremely worried that the former wins. At least with the senile moron, the rest of the senate and staff can sort of hamper on reasonably without irrepairably dismantling democracy. This is a 1930s Germany type of situation.
ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9912040āHardware Accelerator for JSON Parsing, Querying and Schema Validationā āwe can parse and query JSON data at 106 Gbpsā
They get to this result on 0.6 MB of data (paper, page 5)
They even say:
Moreover, there is no need to evaluate our design with datasets larger than the ones we have used; we achieve steady state performance with our datasets
This requires an explanation. I do see the need - if you promise 100Gbps you need to process at least a few Tbs.
Imagine you have a car powered by a nuclear reactor with enough fuel to last 100 years and a stable output of energy. Then you put it on a 5 mile road that is comprised of the same 250 small segments in various configurations, but you know for a fact that starts and ends at the same elevation. You also know that this car gains exactly as much performance going downhill as it loses going uphill.
You set the car driving and determine that, it takes 15 minutes to travel 5 miles. You reconfigure the road, same rules, and do it again. Same result, 15 minutes. You do this again and again and again and always get 15 minutes.
Do you need to test the car on a 20 mile road of the same configuration to know that it goes 20mph?
JSON is a text-based, uncompressed format. It has very strict rules and a limited number of data types and structures. Further, it cannot contain computational logic on itās own. The contents can interpreted after being read to extract logic, but the JSON itself cannot change itās own computational complexity. As such, itās simple to express every possible form and complexity a JSON object can take within just 0.6 MB of data. And once they know they can process that file in however-the-fuck-many microseconds, they can extrapolate to Gbps from there
Based on your analogue they drive the car for 7.5 inches (614.4 Kb by 63360 inches by 20 divided by 103179878.4 Kb) and promise based on that that car travels 20mph which might be true, yes, but the scale disproportion is too considerable to not require tests. This is not maths, this is a real physical device - how would it would behave on larger real data remains to be seen.
Except we know what the lifecycle of physical storage is, itās rate of performance decay (virtually none for solid state until failure), and that the computers performing the operations have consistent performance for the same operations over time. And again, while for a car such a small amount canāt be reasonably extrapolated, for a computer processing an extremely simple format like JSON, when it is designed to handle FAR more difficult tasks on the GPU involving billions of floating point operations, it is absolutely, without a doubt enough.
You donāt have to believe me if you donāt want but Iām very confident in my understanding of JSONās complexity relative to typical GPU workloads, computational analysis, computer hardware durability lifecycles, and software testing principles and best practices. š¤·
Personally, now that I have a machine capable of running the toolchains, I want to explore hardware accelerated compilation. Not all steps can be done in parallel but I bet a lot before linking can.
The number of people either too dense or too willfully misogynistic to understand what this is about is depressing.
If youāre arguing bear statistics or saying ānot all menā or decrying misandry, then youāve totally missed the point. If you are doing it intentionally, youāre the type of men women would choose the bear over.
The fact that anyone would choose a dangerous animal over a random man is an indictment against the culture surrounding male privilege and should spark introspection and change. Arguments against this is just ignoring women and solidifies the decision that the bear is better.
Iāve seen one video on the subject that my wife showed me, then I had a conversation with my wife about it.
When youāre looking at statistics, women attacked by bears per year vs women attacked by men per year, itās not taking into account the fact that 99% of women donāt get into situations where they are near bears. Most women (and men) donāt go hiking in bear populated woods frequently. Like how the overall odds of getting struck by lightning is low, but some people are struck 8 times are survive.
The better statistic for this argument is that a man is more likely going to kill you in an encounter, should it escalate. I didnāt fact check this, but Iāll take this video at itās word.
Part of the reason many people never see a bear is because they actively stay away from humans. Everything being equal, (the bear is healthy, itās not near hibernation, and thereās no cubs nearby) you could quite easily do the animal version of hanging out with them. (Animals are fine paralleling each other by something like 50 meters)
Same thing with wolves. Theyāre so naturally adverse to human contact that handlers at wolf rescue operations just literally walk into the enclosure, drop their food and walk away. For vet stuff they come in with cushioned sticks and just gently pin them to the ground.
Now I donāt suggest trying any of this (bear or wolf) without some training and backup but it illustrates just how much normal animals donāt want anything to do with humans.
How often are you near a bear? How many bears have you attacked or wronged? Do you wonder how a bear might react if it understood English and you talked about it like you talk about men?
Honestly, no matter what side of the debate you are on its still dystopian to think that women would actually think to go to a bear over a random man when faced with the choice.
I am being introspective about this though. We created a culture of fear. A lot of it is through the consequences of rape culture and I think a large part is through an unhealthy about of true crime thatās being made. Constantly blasting worse case scenarios into peopleās heads. I dunno, I just despise how we all just accepted not to trust one another and it seems like weāve all just accepted that this to way to be about it. I just see it as a example of the alienation being pushed by capitalism.
Itās makes me a little mad tbh. Being perfectly honest it should make everyone mad. Like tbh I still think going with a random guy is the correct answer to this but we all should come together, look at this whole situation and realise the dystopian implications of this.
I agree totally with the first sentiment but I donāt think the recent prevalence of True Crime media really plays into it at all. This is not a new thing. Women have been making these risk assessment decisions for generations in the modern age. Girls are taught this kind of thing with how to protect themselves at a young age.
This is primarily a cultural issue and it wonāt change unless the majority of people propagating (intentionally or not) realize whatās happening and work to change.
I dunno, the media and its relationship to crime is well documented. Many people accept that old people that panic about inner city crime despite it being at a record low since the 1970s are victims of this phenomenon. Why is it difficult to believe that young women who consume a lot of true crime content arenāt also effected by this phenomenon in some way. I have studied psychology and I did do a journalism course which, admittedly, I dropped out of. I just donāt like how fear based society has become. People are just too quick to assume the absolute worst and I kinda view this bear question as a reflection on that.
I donāt know a single woman who hasnāt been at the very least harrassed by men they donāt know. I know so, so many who have been assaulted, and thatās just the women who have chosen to share their experience. Thinking your couple college classes means you know more about womenās experiences than women themselves is ridiculous.
The media is bad but the sexual assault and harassment statistics are sobering. And theyāre highly under reported because enforcement is often a joke.
Itās not an exaggeration to say most women either know someone who was assaulted or harassed, or they were themselves. And it was likely while they were a teenager. That kind of lesson doesnāt come from MTV.
no, true crime definitely plays into this, because the question is not asking āwhat is saferā, but āwhat feels saferā, and while itās not inherently wrong for anyone to mistrust random people, especially women in decently large parts of society, this is a feeling question, and like it or not, but Society does consist of the stories we tell ourselves and others, and while we still have a long way to go, you can not argue that women are less safe now than during the 50s - 60s - 70s - 80s, yet the perception of many people is that it has scarcely ever been more dangerous, and that also has a reason.
I totally understand why women would pick bear, as bear society doesnāt bend over backwards to victimize women.
Most power structures cater to the people who abuse power. Police, church, courts, military, etc all tend to go crazy easy on men who abuse women.
Republicans want to take away womenās rights/independence, limit/eliminate divorce, force birth for rape/incest. Police who assault women are protected and donāt face consequences, and most religions literally view women as a subspecies that serve men.
Maybe the average man is totally normal and helpful, but the history of violence between men and women is like 98% men killing women with heaps of Rape, confinement, physical/mental abuse etc.
The worst any Bear could do is kill someone in 1-2 minutes, maybe longer.
Itās also an incredibly loaded situation in that being alone in the woods with a bear is ānaturalā and being alone in the woods with a strange man already sounds like a horror movie plot/murder news story.
Thereās also the constant āstranger dangerā fear women will pretty much always experience because men can consistently and easily overpower most women. All women I have met seem to know at least one or more women who have been sexually assaulted, had their drink spiked etc, so itās not some obsession with crime shows or scary movies driving this fear. Itās actual rapists prevalent in society and emboldened enough by lack of consequences to act.
Even in cases where it seems obvious Rape happened, itās a brutal gauntlet of gas lighting, victim blaming, ācanāt ruin their life for a mistakeā, etc that stop a huge amount of reporting and convictions.
Going back to the question itself, answer ratios would probably change depending on the area, would women be less inclined to pick bear if they were in a library instead of the woods because itās unnatural for a bear to be in that environment?
People need to relax, and focus on the real story. Women have an incredibly long and valid list of reasons to be afraid of men and society needs to do better to make women feel safe
Ultimately, bear is the less complicated decision, not entirely because it is without danger, but because it is not subject to gaslighting. Most people understand that a bear attack is bad and wonāt raise concerns about how you led the bear on or that what you were wearing was to blame.
Although, if you live somewhere that grizzlies are common, and you're out hiking or biking without a bear bell, there will be some judgment on what you were (not) wearing.
Yeah Iām probably more comfortable with strange men in a library than strange bears. The woods are where strange bears go. The library is where strange people go.
Now if I have them making advances towards me, bear in a library 100%. My local bears are black bears and they can be scared off easier than some men.
Men having to listen to women and be confronted with reality and the harms their gender and society are actively causing is NOT pitting people against each other. Women donāt want to fight and ostracize men. They want to be safe FROM men.
If you see this discussion and feel defensive, thatās your brain trying to tell you somethingās wrong and you should probably analyze why you feel like you are being attacked.
See, this is what I mean. Stupid arguments. We immediately go to pitting gender experiences against each other.
Youāre not confronting reality when you compare men to animals. Youāre literally projecting your insecurities onto me by assuming Iām defensive over this topic. Iām not defending either man or woman or bear in this argument. Iām saying this whole topic is a stupid hypothetical and all it does is lead people to argue, like you literally did with me. Youāre not confronting reality by saying your safe with a bear, because reality is, youāll never go be with a bear.
If you want to have a real discussion about the very real and serious harms that women have to deal with, Iām happy to discuss that. Thatās a topic worth discussing. This isnāt that discussion. This is a bad faith hypothetical designed to frame a conversation against men for the sake of stirring more shit. And honestly thisāll be the last I engage with this thread because its really already consumed too much of my time.
I hope you understand, Iām not trying to fight or belittle your opinion or attack you. If you wanna frame this as me being defensive, thatās your prerogative, but I just found this whole question to be dumb when I first heard about it a few days ago, and this article just once again reinforced how dumb I found it.
Wanna be safe from men? Do it the same way men do. Be able to handle yourself when you need to and donāt worry about it the rest of the time. Women having to listen to men and be confronted with reality is not mansplaining.
How does ābeing able to handle yourselfā apply when someone else has removed your ability to handle yourself with drugs or alcohol? How does it apply when your choices are āgo along with it and try to escape laterā or āfight back and probably lose because you have less muscle mass and are physically smaller than themā?
How does your argument apply when you are a teenage girl in high school being harassed by adult men? Reality is a very different place when the world perceives you as a woman (or girl), and your prescriptivist approach entirely fails to account for the fact that your perspective has a lot of blind spots in it.
Try defending yourself from all of society when a girl lies about you for rejecting her.
Are you not responsible for your own drinking? I avoid the hazard of bars by not going to them. Iām also pretty good about not dating total strangers.
Carry a gun. Obviously this doesnāt apply in the teenage girl scenario. I wanna say that you gotta protect your kids, but societyās structure straight up doesnāt let that be practical. Security is hard and young girls are desirable. Judging peopleās character is also hard. Dangerous machiavellians can pretty well pretend theyāre totally chill. IMO, the best security is surveillance, identification, and appropriate punishment which seems unavoidable. I personally fear the future of easy to fake evidence though. Itās not something thatāll hit me directly, but someone that the rich will employ against each other eventually resulting in all of leadership positions being occupied by the worst kinds of people.
Ever wonder how election by lottery might go? I seriously believe that any random person is more likely to make good legislation than the people who seek it out and fund their way in. Iām getting on a tangent now, so Iāll stop myself here.
I donāt even want to post this because itās bad for my mental health to engage on this. But as a dude, itās my unfortunate responsibility to clean my own damn house apparentlyā¦
You said this conversation makes them hate men more. So you think they already hated men, for all the horrible things some men do to them like rape. And then you think this conversation somehow makes it worse?
Itās like complaining that the guy who rear ended your car also spilled your coffee. Like, I get that spoiled coffee isnāt great, but given the scope of the actual problem itās stupid to think it makes it worse.
Iām not sure you understand the privilege that it takes to think that this conversation about bears makes women hate men MORE. It just shows that you donāt understand how much they deserve to hate those guys already. The problem is SO MUCH WORSE than some stupid meme. The meme just gives voice to the actual problem. It lets women relate to each other and bond over their shared painful experiences.
If this meme seems like a big deal to you, that just shows that you were able to ignore the actual big deal that is molestation and abuse. Thatās your privilege I mentioned.
That argument doesnāt hold water. One is an immutable characteristic, and the other is a career choice. A career that filters for certain personalities.
Well first off, being a man is not an immutable characteristic, because transgender people exist.
Second, the difference between the two groups you bring up isnāt relevant in this comparison, because pointing out the differences between them doesnāt negate the similarities. Both are groups with an inordinate amount of power (physical or legal) over any outgroup and are supported by cultural norms that allow them to exercise that power largely without repercussions. Both groups are also protected from consequences by others within the group, regardless if the others agree with their questionable decisions. And most importantly, both groups are human, meaning the individuals vary widely within the group along the moral spectrum. Even if most within the group are good, bad actors will always exist and thereās no way to know which one youāre dealing with at face value.
Even if itās not a perfect comparison, itās apt enough to support my point.
Being a man is immutable, unless you are saying being transgender is a choice.
I brought up the largest difference between the groups, not the only significant difference between the groups. One is a choice, the other isnāt. This difference alone is more important than any similarities your comparison can draw.
It is a highly flawed argument that only serves to get back pats from those that agree with you.
Well first off, being a man is not an immutable characteristic, because transgender people exist.
The aspect of being a man that makes people consider you a threat by default is an immutable characteristic though, if you are a trans woman people will treat you that way even more than otherwise.
The bad apples are organized and lead by other bad apples and actively weed out any potential good apples who wouldnāt have a snowflakesās chance in hell at accomplishing change anyhow. How do you think corruption works?
No. The bear choice is misandry clean and clear. The men who donāt like the idea of misandry are just reacting the same way as anyone when you give them a label and call them bad for it.
Iām sure thereās some bear people who are just cool with bears and whatnot or maybe would just rather be alone.
Nah, the choice is between a being that will likely leave you alone and one that likely wonāt. Most people who arenāt seeking contact want to be left alone. Interestingly enough, most bears want to be left alone too. As people, we need to allow others the distance and boundaries they want. The best way to befriend someone is to make them feel comfortable around you. Space and respect are important.
If a woman prefers the bear, maybe consider treating her like one. Treat her with respect, donāt make sudden movements, give her space, donāt mess with her cubs, and donāt pressure her into going to a local bar with a really neat vibe.
I would rather be in the forest with Cthulhu than a woman. Itās true because I said it on the internet.
Do you really think given the REAL choice women would be that stupid? This is insulting the intelligence of women. Any rational person would chose to be with another person than a wild animal.
I canāt believe weāre even taking this poll seriously. Look, Iām all in for womenās rights but these are just unbearable (ha) levels of stupidity.
Honestly, what the fuck is happening to society, this is fucking sickening. Yes, we need to improve as a society. No, women would not really choose the wild bear, itās a fucking internet poll, not reality. Fuck.
Because I called out that the poll is bullshit and women would really pick a man 10/10 times?
What do we need to reflect? We already know what we need to know without this stupid poll. That poll is literally providing zero relevant information to a very real issue.
Yes, that means that Iām a rapist who will kill a woman if Iām alone with her in a forest. Thatās very sound logic. I mean, itās true because you said it on the internet. But maybe you should make a poll to REALLY make it official.
I wouldnāt go THAT far on my assumption. I would certainly place you into the fragile and possibly volatile masculinity category that can be dangerous to be around though because of the instability involved. I say this because you get very defensive over stupid internet arguments as if theyāre a direct challenge to your personal identity, which is a very sure sign of fragility in that identity.
Itās not challenging my identity in any way or form, Iām 100% supportive of women and all of their rights. Itās just so retarded that people are acting like it is something that we need to pay attention to, that it triggered me.
So, pointing out that the poll is obviously stupid and pointless gets people saying youāre the kind of rapist/murderer that would fuck up women even worse than a WILD BEAR.
This is just too retarded. I canāt believe people are defending this poll and ācalling outā people who criticize the poll as mysoginistic or insecure about their sexuality. Itās so retarded. Like I swear Iām face-palming myself in my mind 10 times per second reading all of these white knights.
So now people are fighting over this retarded poll when real sexism is still out there. I just canāt deal with how stupid people are in general, this shit is so infuriating, I swear I wish I was never born into this stupid planet.
The fact that you think this is somehow pithy and not just demeaning and dehumanizing is what makes you the problem.
If we swapped the sexes in the scenario, or changed it from men and women to black people and white people, you would be screaming your head off about hate speech and racism. Your extreme narcissism might be the reason you have had such a bad history with men. I suspected that only the worst kind of men are willing to put up with your shit.
I would choose the bear over any person that would choose the bear.
Pretending men and their societies arenāt a unique problem is misogyny. This isnāt applicable to taxes, nationalities or other issues. This is the patriarchy. And youāre supporting rape culture by pretending it doesnāt exist.
Assuming only women are responding like I am is also misogyny you chud.
āMen and their societiesā, Jesus Christ, do you even hear yourself? The layers of misandry and hate in this comment are so fucking off the charts that it would take me literal weeks to unwrap it all. āRape cultureāā¦ holy fucking shit, you have some serious phsychosys going on here. Also, talk about rampant misogyny/misandryā¦ I never even once alluded to your sex at all. Your rampant false victimhood is so out of control that you canāt even separate your own hate from what I have actually said.
Pretending men and their societies arenāt a unique problem is misogyny.
hereās a shocker for you, women are part of society as a whole, and no misogyny isnāt a unique problem, it mirrors the same issues that are ever present in racism, ableism, poverty etcā¦
you REALLY need to brush up on your intersectional theory
PS: if your reference to āmenās societiesā was to the idea that men somehow control society, then may I redirect your attention to ārich peopleā (who do actually control society)
lemmy.world
Top