Genderes are a problem, races are a problem, creeds are a problem, sports preferences are a problem, anything will do… as long as we stay divided and subjugated.
This was one of those toxic questions designed to cause people to argue. That’s really its ONLY purpose. It really only has 2 answers, and both can be interpreted as toxic.
My 2 cents though, here in Australia, you’ll occasionally get a question about staying safe when hiking as women.
You’ll have a huge majority of women saying its safe to hike in Australia, and then 1 or 2 women encouraging women to bring knives or weapons. The ones who claim this then get a huge negative response by both women and guys pointing out it makes things more dangerous for everyone and that nobody needs them.
As a male guide also, I’ve actually found it difficult to find other guys to hike with, but it is incredibly trivial for me to find women to join me (in fact, doing one this upcoming weekend).
So, interpret that as you will, but, honestly, the people who are incredibly invested in either of these answers, in my opinion, nobody would want to hike with regardless (bears, other women or men), so the answer doesn’t affect them.
well, after having thought about it for hours. And i really mean hours (please help me, also don’t mind me, i’m just autistic as fuck and think about these sorts of things a lot)
I have finally put together my ultimate conclusion on this topic. And it is as follows:
For starters, why am i in the woods? Presumably in this example i was just teleported out there at random, with one other entity, either a human or a bear. Now idk much about bear psychology, but if i were a bear, and a human popped up out of nowhere in front of me, i would lose my shit. So chances are im probably going to die.
As for a human, assuming a statistically random sample from the world, lets assume for the sake of this example, someone from within the same geographical area that i am in, because it makes logical sense for the statement here. The chances of them being 1. significant deviant enough that the second they see me, and decide they want to be a problem, is low enough that i’m willing to take it. Paired with the fact that often times abusers and rapists tend to be people you already know (it’s just a basic fun fact about being around people) and in this case, it’s probably someone i’ve never seen before, much less interacted with. I’m assuming the chances of me getting my shit fucked up are probably between 0-5% i feel like that’s pretty reasonable. i can’t imagine much more than like 10% of any given western population are active rapists. So we’ll go with that. And like i said the bear? Probably going to flip it’s shit. And even if it doesn’t it’s still gotta be higher than 10% i would assume.
Now, moving on to the secondary factors, we’re lost in a forest. The very obvious factor here is that being there with another individual greatly increases your odds of being found/getting out, both due to collective knowledge accumulation between the two of you, and the likelihood that other people realize you’re gone being twice as high (roughly) but we won’t consider that aspect significant. So moving back to the productive aspects of having two people. Assuming we’re the female in this case, and the other person is a male, as per the statement rules. That means we have someone who is more likely to be stronger, and more capable of exerting themselves, which could prove useful in a situation like this. However more people is still more better, so we’ll say about a 100% productivity bonus just to be safe here. As aforementioned, we have a secondary source of knowledge here, so we can collectively decide on things, as well as think about them, which often leads to more correct/better solutions/outcomes. As well as the obvious benefit of having someone to socialize with, this is a natural morale booster. Humans are social creatures. Nuff said.
One more thing though, since we’ve established that there are potential benefits to this situation, we must now compare those benefits to the downsides of the other situation, so let’s do that
being alone (having no additional help, assuming we aren’t immediately mauled and eaten by the bear)
not being alone (the likely potential that you DO get help, and quite significant amounts of it, with the small additional chance of being raped and killed) Ok i think that pretty much sums it up.
Alright, now moving on to the tertiary aspects of this, let’s modify the original statement. And say that we didn’t just randomly teleport, and that we walked into the woods with someone else (we aren’t counting kidnapping because then this statement wouldn’t really apply would it?) Anyway, now that we’ve pulled foul play off of the table. You’re walking into the forest with someone you probably already know, or someone who you’ve gotten to know thus far. They aren’t a stranger or at the very least, not a complete stranger, presumably you don’t just wander into the forest randomly for no reason, so lets assume you’re going on a hike or something. It’s good exercise after all, so for one thing, you’ve got some level of equipment with you. Probably some level of self defense capability (depending on where you are and how much you care) you did not come into this with the intent of being lost, and you are with someone that you know.
I feel like i don’t have to expand on why picking the bear in this option would be a bad choice…
alright, that concludes my lengthy essay on my opinion of this “thought experiment” feel free to yell at me or whatever, or engage with this, i probably missed something. New information always adds to the fun :) The whole point of a thought experiment is trying out new thoughts and weird ideas after all. Also just for the record, since some of you are probably curious. I have no opinion about these sorts of situations what so ever, because they aren’t real, and don’t exist, so the only valuable thing i can glean from them is through stats and situational analysis.
i can’t answer the question unless i’m given more information smh.
If we’re talking a magical forest shark, i’m not sure i want to ask questions about why it’s there. And why it hasn’t died yet, presumably. And if we’re in a wet environment, then i’m curious how that’s accomplished. The ocean is very big.
According to science, logical and rational thinking, meeting a random man in the Woods is much better option than meeting a random bear. www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aOOuMQkIzU
The thing these arguments never take into account is a fate worse than death.
That’s the point you’re missing.
Think about why someone would prefer the much more likely bear mauling to the much less likely worst case scenario with a man. If you can wrap your head around that, then consider why these women had that answer ready to go with very little thought. Considerations of a fate worse than death is something that women live with from the age where they first notice grown men noticing them. That averages 11 or 12 years old by the way. Maybe younger if their parents were a little more candid with them than the generic “stranger danger.”
I knew I had to have the talk about men when my girls turned nine. They were playing basketball and one of the dads made a comment about a girl and said “she is going to grow up and look like Mia Kalif (I don’t know how to spell her name, the porn star) and be a hot piece of ass.”
Oh, yeah…you mean that nine year old? The fuck is wrong with you.
Think about why someone would prefer the much more likely bear mauling to the much less likely worst case scenario with a man.
the only reason i can think why someone would take that decision, is that they have no apriori knowledge of the situation, and simply assume something they have no knowledge about is going to be easier than that that they do have knowledge about. (which is often naive)
Or, and this is my theory, this is actually one big metaphor about the problems modern society faces, and it’s not actually based on rational thought or decision making, and it’s supposed to be, because the point is to point out the problem as i already stated. The question that leaves is why nobody seems to be talking about the fundamental underlying problem, and instead seems to be talking about bears.
I get it, there’s a problem with this shit in society, why aren’t we talking about it? Like if you want to make change happen, to improve society, we need to sit down and have a two sided discussion, instead of saying that you would prefer to be eaten by a bear, than be around a man “because a thing could potentially happen” this accomplishes almost nothing unfortunately.
Anyway, that’s my current theory, maybe i’m wrong as fuck, idk, i’m welcome to any ideas, i don’t understand why people keep talking about this the way that they are so i could use some background info (and don’t tell me that it’s because men sometimes rape women, and women don’t like being around men as a result, i understand what the thought experiment is for, you don’t need to explain that part to me, unless i’m wrong about it and misunderstand it lol.)
I’m incredibly bear pilled ngl, as long as I stay a decent distance from it and don’t do anything dumb I’ll be fine, with a random guy idk what might happen, there’s no certain set of rules to follow to get me out of the situation safely - I’ll probably be with a perfectly normal well adjusted guy or I might be with some super transphobe who sees a small visibly trans girl alone in the woods away from all civilisation with no witnesses or some incel who sees his opportunity to get some, regardless of consent. In the bear scenario, all of the power is in my hands to just make sure that I don’t do anything dumb and as long as I don’t I’ll be fine, in the man scenario I just have to trust the luck of the draw to give me a decent man to be alone in the woods with.
A colored flag means a sign giving a clue on something. It doesn’t define a person, and can only be used to describe some abstract fact. You can say “getting angry when talking about the bear discourse” is a redflag, but saying “a man is a red flag” is not correct
Syntactically they should have used ‘displays’ not ‘is’ a green or red flag, but everyone divined the meaning of the damned sentence and the internet is garbage so who gives a rats
The correct answer is to raise both hands and eyebrows, excuse yourself from the table, walk off and keep walking until sufficient distance has been reached. Switching mode of transportation on the way is acceptable.
You’ll often hear smart-alec martial arts masters say that the best self-defence technique is the 400m sprint, but they couldn’t be more wrong. In truth it’s the 1km parcour.
I wish you could call out and force these folks to think before they say this shit.
Force get to spend a night with a random bear. Or send someone of to Mexico the next time they say they want to live there vs the states. Let the rest of the insane people see the results of their uneducated desires or fears. Start with a few of the Internet warriors here trying to pretend this is a sane line of logic.
I m losing faith in humanity any time this conversation resurfaces and I believe it would be a massive benefit to everyone involved if it never happened
Add comment