Don't care. Still irrational. Most men won't hurt you if you get too close. All bears will hurt you if you get too close.

They are territorial, wild animals.

“All bears will kill you” you’re perpetrating animal cruelty ideology that animals are monsters, and humans are above animals. Holy hell. Why are you so selfish? I’ve encountered bears while camping and hiking and if you don’t provoke them you will most likely be safe. My Dad saw one that was close enough he could touch him if he raised his hand. Nothing bad happened to him. You know this is the garbage thinking that caused ppl to hunt innocent sharks bc of the Jaws movie.

And bears being dangerous does not justify hunting them down. Stating that fact is not justifying anything.

And cool numbers. Guess who most homicide victims are? Cuz it's not women.

And in terms of rape, guess which sex actually has people reporting their rape, let alone society taking it even a fraction seriously? Cuz it's not men.

Numbers are all good and nice, but if you bother to think for more than 10 seconds, you'd know they do not represent how dangerous each sex is, nor do they make any random man more dangerous than a wild fucking animal. Hell, regarding rape, rapists are so fucking rare, and are more often people you know, that encountering a man in the woods is incredibly fucking unlikely to result in rape.

Tell me, why were you so sure about that data, when you clearly didn't know what its methodology was? How did you expect any other result? And furthermore why isn't it just 100%? After all, rape is a tool of patriarchal control, why would a woman rape anyone? I mean if you are going to use bad methodology and bad data and lies go all out. Claim the female on male rape cases are just due to an rounding error.

Oh and if you are going to go on a fact finding search don't bother. I, with good reason no longer trust the academic process, especially in the humanities. Not after the feminist version of mien kampf was published uncritically among others.

This isn't about the data. There is data that shows parody with male and female rapists, and abusers and everything else, but none of this is convincing to you I know. Because your belief does not have a rational foundation. It's hysterical really.

Furthermore I'm just going to say it, the bear does not have to intend to be cruel or malicious. It is cruel and malicious but has had to learn slowly and painfully the hard lesson that humans are not prey, they are natures apex predators. But when it does choose to hunt men, the cruelty and malice do not need to be intended, they simply are cruel and malicious.

When a bear eats you alive, it's not because it intends you to suffer, unless it's bored, it simply has no empathy for prey.

Just like a rapist.

So between the choice of the rapist which will eat you, and the human being, who is very much just like the people around you. People who want nothing more than to live in a kind and benevolent world, in the hopes that the world will be kind and benevolent to them. And you pick the rapist, the rapist whose only constraints is that if it attacks you it will be hunted by your fellow human beings. The human beings you hate and distrust.

Just so we are clear, when you pick the bear, you are picking the rapist whose cunning malice is mistaken for benevolence. Who refuses to hunt you not out of some empathy or timidity, but a hard lesson, that it is not the apex predator, human beings are.

Which btw also parallels nicely, because rapists are also not the default. They are not the majority of society nor are they societies apex predators. They are a minority of deeply damaged and or disturbed people, men and women. They do not hunt freely because if they did they would be hunted in turn. Hunted and subjected to the same sort of evil they inflict on others.

But when dealing with your fellow men, you treat them worse than you treat those predators.

Says someone about to do precisely that about men.

If women in general were around as many bears as they are with men, the attack rate from bears would be much higher.

Also, a strange man is actually unlikely to attack a woman, despite sexist stereotypes. Most attackers of any kind already know the victim.

Which brings the number down to, what, a few dozen men in over a hundred million?

Pretty good odds, I think.

“All bears will kill you” you’re perpetrating animal cruelty ideology that animals are monsters, and humans are above animals. Holy hell. Why are you so selfish? I’ve encountered bears while camping and hiking and if you don’t provoke them you will most likely be safe. My Dad saw one that was close enough he could touch him if he raised his hand. Nothing bad happened to him. You know this is the garbage thinking that caused ppl to hunt innocent sharks bc of the Jaws movie.

I love how you threw your toys out of the pram with all this meaningless blather and anecdata…

…and you hope we won't notice that you carefully removed the end of the sentence.

Or maybe you somehow thought it was irrelevant. Doesn't really matter.

murderer statistic used to justify womens' irrational sexist fears

Drink a molecule.

HAFW >Why's it up to women to brush aside and pretend not to be afraid of what is a more than non-zero chance of rape and murder?

The chance of murder or assault victimization is much higher for men, but y'all act like (and sometimes explicitly say) only women "have to" be concerned about being attacked by men.

Also, I love the implication that every single woman shares your fears. Which is, um, sexist.

Why's it that whenever men can't find dates there are ten million articles deeply pondering but when women say they'd prefer the bear- (We KNOW it's deadly) because unlike human men it won't act out of cruelty and malice, it's suddenly women's responsibility to police their frustration with men?

Most people don't like being told that they're considered more dangerous than a notoriously dangerous wild animal.

Also, plenty of women disagreed with Team Bear.

Also, you're assuming the choice was based on actual valid frustrations, and not a single member of Team Bear is a paranoid idiot.

You yourself seem to care more about the assailant's motives than the actual harm it will do to you, which is, uh, kind of proving the idea that you people are deluded.

Also, I love how you think discussing an extremely common human issue - one commonly found in ladies mags too - is on the same moral level as being vocally afraid of half the human race, especially compared to a bear.

More evidence for the delusion theory.

Logically speaking, you should be happy that men are reacting this way. This means many of them will have less contact with women.

Which should make women safer, right?

That's what you want, right?

Or is it really about having moral authority?

If it was a known fact that clowns made up 90% of all sexual-based offenses, avoiding them wouldn't be "irrational"

It would be if there were only 10 sex offenses a year. But something tells me you didn't look up any actual stats.

Also, most sex crimes are done by repeat offenders, IIRC.

khorne> You'll push forward your ideas like they keep you safe but they haven't and don't.

Khorne, you're assuming these people have enough self-awareness to even recognize that their ideas don't work.

People on Team Bear.

Like I've lost count of the amount of times peaceful game or fandom servers have been ruined by people stampeding in with political rants, bitching about world issues, demanding internal activism, demanding vent channels so they can whine about their shitty parents, ect.

They dont want spaces designed for this, they want your spaces so they can subject you to them.

Also, the govt already spends more on welfare, Social Security, and Healthcare than the military.

"What the fuck was that?" the PC asks.

"We're pirates, apologies ain't worth shit, so if you fuck up you gotta pay for it."

I think a better question is "how fragile are you that you need to strawman other people just for criticizing the writing of a mass-market media product in a beloved franchise?"

Also, I'm pretty sure some of the stuff in the clip is not exactly universally accepted even among LGBT people.

Uh oh, looks like you're trying to deliberately misrepresent facts! Need some help?

Here's the transcript of that part of the interview. It can be a little hard to follow, because Baier kept interrupting her - 38 times in 27 minutes - but she successfully makes her point around him. I've also added a few notes of relevant fact-checking:

Bret Baier: Your campaign slogan is a new way forward and it’s time to turn the page. You’ve been vice president for three and a half years, so what are you turning the page from?

Kamala Harris: Well, first of all, turning the page from the last decade in which we have been burdened with the kind of rhetoric coming from Donald Trump that has been designed and implemented to divide our country and have Americans literally point fingers at each other. Rhetoric, and an approach to leadership that suggests that the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down - instead of what we all know, that the strength of leadership is based on who you lift up-

Bret Baier: But you, Madam Vice President-

Kamala Harris: -and the strength of an American president is one who understands that the vast majority of us have more in common than what separates us. That is turning the page-

Bret Baier: Madam Vice President, more than 70% of people tell pollsters-

Kamala Harris: -that is turning the page on rhetoric that people are frankly exhausted of, Bret. People are exhausted.

Bret Baier: More than 70% of people tell the country is on the wrong track. [Here Baier is referring to a single poll from Twitter that was aimed at Fox viewers and was filled out by about 150 people. It is worth noting that even among this extremely cherry-picked poll, 45 Fox viewers do not agree with this statement.] They say the country is on the wrong track. If it’s on the wrong track, that track follows three and a half years of you being vice president and President Biden being president. That is what they’re saying, 79% of them.Why are they saying that? If you’re turning the page, you’ve been in office for three and a half years. [The office Kamala Harris currently holds is that of Vice President, whose only three responsibilities in office are to certify election results, to cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate, and to step in as Commander In Chief if the president is incapacitated.]

Kamala Harris: And Donald Trump has been running for office since-

Bret Baier: But you’ve been the person holding the office. [Again, the office she currently holds is extremely limited. She does not have the legal authority to do any of the things Baier is criticizing her for not doing.]

Kamala Harris: Oh, come on. Come on.

Bret Baier: Madam Vice President-

Kamala Harris: You and I both know what I’m talking about.

Bret Baier: I actually don’t. [I believe he does.] What are you talking about?

Kamala Harris: What I’m talking about is that over the last decade, people have become-

Bret Baier: But you’re the lever of power. [Again, she isn't. Here Baier is repeating Fox's current misinformation strategy of implying, or outright stating, that the US government works differently than it does.]

Kamala Harris: -over the last decade, it is clear to me, and certainly to the Republicans who are on stage with me - the former chief of staff to the President Donald Trump, former defense secretaries, national security adviser and his vice president [I believe she's referring to the Republicans who are endorsing her with the slogan "country over party"] - that he is unfit to serve. That he is unstable. That he is dangerous, and that people are exhausted with someone who professes to be a leader who spends full-time demeaning and engaging in personal grievances and it being about him instead of-

Bret Baier: Madam Vice President-

Kamala Harris: -instead of the American people. And people are tired of that.

So in context, Baier is trying to say, incorrectly, "you've been running the country for three years", and Kamala says, correctly, "Trump has been running the Republican party into the ground for ten years."

I recommend you watch the whole interview, because it's good for your soul to watch a strong intelligent black woman absolutely refuse to cowtow to a lying bigot who spends the entire interview trying to vaporize her with his mind:

Uh oh, looks like you think made a good point and told someone they deliberately misrepresented facts only to proceed to prove that in fact they did not! Need some help?

Posting more of the exchange did absolutely nothing for you and doesn’t hurt the original post at all. It in fact just gives more of a look into the idiocy and incompetence of Kamala Harris.

Nothing about what you think Baier was saying or implying makes Kamala’s response less stupid.

Kamala Harris has had far more power than Donald Trump the last three and a half years. True, she wasn’t the president but come on. We all know Biden wasn’t the one running the country.

What you have done is show that I was not misrepresenting facts like you claimed, but just confirmed that Kamala Harris is incapable of answering a question without trying to blame Donald Trump even when it makes no sense to do so.

When someone gets asked why people are saying the country is headed in the wrong direction after they’ve been in office, regardless of if they were the president or not (because just in case you don’t know people who hold office in the United States, even if they aren’t the president, have more to do with the direction the country is headed than people who aren’t in office and are just running for office) and that person chooses not to respond to the question asked and instead tries to divert the attention to someone else by saying they’ve been running for office that makes that person look like an idiot.

So all you did was confirm that yes, she was avoiding the question and trying to change the topic of discussion to Donald Trump because she’s incapable of actually answering a question and doesn’t want to admit that she and Biden did a shit job and she’s an absolute disgrace to the country but she knows it.

So you proved the point in my original post, not debunked it. But also thanks for providing the whole interview so everyone can watch it and relive seeing her destroy her chances at winning the election in this epic fail of an interview she did.

“it's good for your soul to watch a strong intelligent black woman absolutely refuse to cowtow to a lying bigot who spends the entire interview trying to vaporize her with his mind:”

Kamala a “strong, intelligent black woman”

This is kind of hilarious, coming from the Presidential candidate of the party that's spent the last 9.5 years demonizing Trump and his supporters.

Up to and including saying they share the beliefs of the most infamous regime in human history.

I'm not sure why you thought this would make her look better.

Especially when she keeps dodging the question.

And you had to editorialize extremely charitably to try and make her sound good.

Heck, by your own argument, the people on your team who demonized Pence in the past and Vance right now are just tilting at windmills.

So you failed to defend Harris, AND you made your own side look worse.

The Democrats have been in power 16 of the last 20 years.

- Frederic Bastiat, The Law

Vaguely worded. I'm guessing this is about free school lunches?

Plenty of people are homeless because of mental illness and addiction, not because they're poor. (And no, free healthcare won't fix all of them) There are also rare people who are voluntarily homeless, sometimes because they get benefits. Also, people disagree with the idea of the government just seizing homes and property, which is controversial on both sides of the aisle. There are loads of people across the world who have been put in government housing, and then ruined it, and got put in other housing, and ruined that too, and so on.

Universal Healthcare doesn't necessarily treat all sick people. In fact, many healthcare systems are overloaded and underfunded, private, public, or hybrid.

Turns out literally all laws control people's bodies, because thoughtcrime is not a thing. Also, the Draft is still legal in the US, just unused, and mandatory for men only. There's also the obvious fact that many people DO think women should control their bodies, but DON'T consider a fetus part of a woman's body.

So people should be able to marry children and animals? Do you think the government should test if it's love? Or do you just mean gay marriage between consenting adults?

It’s happened! The first Blaze post has haunted my dash, and it’s the fucking 95 theses. 

And also, they're spending more effort attacking Project 2025 than his actual campaign platform.

Meanwhile, in countries with universal healthcare:

These three children, Alfie Evans, Charlie Gard, and Indi Gregory, all died after court ordered removal from life support despite parents wanting to pursue treatment in other locations that had offered it.

And you know why? Because the government decided it wasn’t worth the cost.

I had to wait 6 months to be diagnosed with endometriosis AFTER 5 years of debilitating pain & the doctors telling me it was “mystery pain” every time I went to the ER.

Both of these things happened bc universal healthcare means longer wait lists for specialists, a high volume of patients & lower pay for overworked doctors (lower incentive for them to do their job or go to med school in the first place).

The man is a celebrity reality TV game show host who has had appearances at pro-wrestling matches. This is like if there were a commercial that featured Shaquille O'Neal working the drive-thru at McDonald's, only here, we get the 'backstage version.'

The argument is that this is a fake campaign stop by the politician Donald Trump, rather than a real shift at a McDonald's restaurant.

It's a fake in-person campaign stop by the politician Donald Trump, with, presumably, a few real McDonald's workers.

It's a real reality TV photoshoot of the celebrity businessman character "Donald Trump," who eats McDonald's food and drinks Diet Coke, for the campaign of politician Donald Trump.

The character "Donald Trump" is played by celebrity actor Donald Trump, who eats McDonald's food and drinks Diet Coke. His enjoyment of french fries is authentic.

It's a behind-the-scenes look at the reality TV photoshoot of the campaign ad for politician Donald Trump, featuring celebrity actor Donald Trump, showing us the cameras and set.

The shirt, tie, apron, and lighting are a callback to the 1980s, the time most associated with the brash businessman persona of the character "Donald Trump," seen in movies such as 1992's Home Alone.

The shirt, tie, and apron while serving food at a burger joint feel like a callback to the 1950s, and there are lots of photos online of McDonald's managers looking a lot like this from the 1970s. It has a very "Americana" feel.

It's a real 21st-century campaign PR event spread across social media (with lots of photos and clips circulating) and news media, being used for memes, causing arguments or discourse that cause it to spread even farther.