I don’t know what is more dispicable and sad, that there’s people who would watch this or that there’s people who make this kind of low brow, knuckle dragging sleezebag content.
This headline/title should be
In an act of sheer disrespect and a blatant invasion of privacy, douchebag “influencers” recorded women without consent and publicly shared recordings
Can’t we just call it ‘Stupid piece of shit-fluencers’ or smth?
“Man” prefix + “influencer” = an unholy portmanteau.
Please make it stop
I hate the Internet.
Don’t. It isn’t the internet who’s being an asshole. It’s men.
Maybe you’re entirely right. I don’t disagree.
Correction: After having no success 'Manfluencers" stage interactions with paid women to make them look fuckable.
or to “subtley harass women, stalk them on camera until they relent.”
When they ask themselves “But how can I be even creepier?”
Does anything good come out of meta?
A recruiter called me for a job at Meta and I told them I would never work for them and that the world would be a better place if Meta didn’t exist.
Some pretty good meme pictures from their demos
No
Eeuww…yikes.
EDIT: Return of the Glassholes
I would be interested in watching the crash reel though. Creeps.
google glasses was to cringey/.
I would watch someone successfully negotiating buying a used car for a good price at a dealer.
See, this is the kind of thing we need those glasses for. Just blur the face and the name tag, alter the voice. Not doxxing anyone. Then show what happened in a non-sexual situation.
But no. People have to use it like perverts.
when the google glasses came out temporarily it was used by perverts immediately.
Filming people in public is becoming way to socially acceptable. I hate it.
Cowardice in general has become way too socially acceptable. Actually the norm. If you G-d forbid act so that you can be unambiguously determined as not a coward, then G-d help you.
And cowards understand each other very well. You can even expose them all as cowards, they’ll accept the shame and admit you’re right and all such, and then they’ll still feel victorious, because in a society of cowards cowardice always wins in all ways but one.
Living like “Hagakure” for real is perhaps the only way to preserve your humanity in some life situations, but that won’t lead to happiness. And the author of “Hagakure” refused to commit seppuku when his suzerain died, because “times have changed”.
And meeting people who live by those principles, you damn hard wish they hid or cowered or stepped back that one time that led them to pain for their remaining lives from those not worth their breath.
I’m thinking of a woman, by the way. Men of that quality are far more rare.
What is this? Some LLM hallucinating? Give me back the couple of seconds I wasted reading your drivel.
God
Edit: ⛹️♂️<— this is a picture of Mohammed
I’m not a Muslim.
Talk about cowardice and you’re sensoring the word “god” lol
It’s a reference to how in Judaism it’s considered impolite to write “God” on disposable sheets and such. Nothing to do with cowardice.
Every single ‘manfluencer’ is a closeted loser who specifically wants to take your money and cause you to be alone and miserable like they are. Every time. They should be openly ridiculed and loathed, and I hope this trend just elicits legal action and ends quickly, and that minimal harm is done to the victims in the process.
I dunno. From my experience, just pretending you’re “all that” is enough to make women and girls go crazy.
Your experience huh?
yeah narcissism can temporarily make one interesting until the other person realizes what they got themself into, thats how people end up in abusive relationships
I remember ages ago some show on tv that had a prototype style of these glasses where the person also had to wear a huge backpack and it was like a gotcha style show but it turned out most people just wanted to try and help whoever was wearing the the stuff and I’m rambling.
The show skeeved me out but my parents were like “oh look how bulky it is, you’ll know if someone is using it!” And I tried to articulate yeah, and we use to only have record players and now I have a cd player but they waved it off.
Stomping around annoyed I was right!
I bet you the Venn diagram of doing this crap and being incapable of comprehending why women picked the bear is a perfect circle.
What does “picked the bear” mean?
If you are a woman alone in the woods, would you rather come across an unknown man, or a bear? It’s a thought experiment. As a human woman, which represents a greater immanent threat?
as a human woman, which represents a greater imminent threat?
No. This is NOT the takeaway. The bear is clearly the statistically-imminent threat (let’s say a brown bear to ensure it’s hostile and deadly). The point is that you know exactly what the bear will try to do: kill you. You don’t have to greet it, you don’t have to worry about it’s intentions, you don’t have to worry that your social interaction may push the bear over the edge, you don’t have to worry about hurting it’s feelings and risk making it a threat, you don’t have to worry about sending mixed signals, you don’t have to worry about your clothing choice, and you certainly, certainly don’t have to worry about it raping you without witnesses. It simply is a violent threat. You use bear spray and hope you can run far enough, fast enough. You don’t get to make that immediate reaction to a man, between compassion for the innocent, societal pressure to not ostracize men, and legal repercussions if you get it wrong.
It’s not really a thought experiment, though. It’s a hyperbole, a funny way to say women are afraid of the toxic masculinity types.
I’ve always thought this is such a generalist scenario, meant to deliberately portray all men as dangerous and categorically make them look bad. Imagine we swapped out “men” for another group of people.
If you actually listened to the reasoning that women gave (crazy, right?), they were very clear that with a bear, you know where you stand, but with men, you can’t tell right away whether they’re a danger or pretending to be nice only to be harmful later on.
Any men who get offended by this fact is part of the problem.
It’s kind of a shit take though isn’t it? Animals are potentially dangerous and humans are also potentially dangerous.
The bear will most likely leave you alone if you don’t bother it and so will most humans. No need to bring sexism into it.
Those are the two options?
meant to deliberately portray all men as dangerous
If this were true, wouldn’t it be dead simple for women to just pick the man? It’s interesting that a lot don’t, right?
Swap the word “man” for another group of people based on generic traits and continue your sweeping generalizations.
Oh, race! I love race.
Do you think it would be wrong for a black person to be a little bit nervous about wandering through some small, predominantly white town in middle America? 'Cause I’m gonna be real, I think that’s probably a valid fear.
That’s an excellent analogy. Zooming out from that scenario, should we welcome the notion of being afraid of being afraid of somebody based on their skin color, because there’s an inherent prejudice of them being dangerous? If so, should we be encouraging each other to vocalize these kinds of prejudices? And by extension, is it acceptable to draw sweeping conclusions about a group of people based on their generic traits?
Because most people have a Disneyfied idea of what animals do. Most people think a bear in the woods wears a red t-shirt and carries around a honeypot.
Most species is bear don’t hunt people. You see one, you back away slowly, and you’re good. If there’s food in your, you drop it. They’d rather eat your granola bar than you.
Well, if it’s a black bear, shouting and waving your arms will normally chase it off.
It’s not meant to be a realistic scenario. It’s satire.
So, how does choosing a bear with a honeypot make men look bad?
Uh, it doesn’t? It makes the person choosing the bear look like someone whose life consists of entertainment.
The question always struck me as dumb. Because it doesn’t make any attempt to clarify what geographic region this question takes place.
I don’t care what you’re afraid of a man doing, a polar bear is ALWAYS the worse choice.
But not all bears are as aggressive as polar bears. Some bears will run away from you if you chase them. Some bears will end you if you chase them.
Of coarse you can’t determine how dangerous a man is based on region. But you can likely determine which regions have dangerous bears.
It presumes black bear. You’re over thinking it.
Then say a black bear. It presumes nothing.
Without wading into all the technicalities, could we perhaps agree that if you have to say, “what kind of bear tho’,” that we are already in troubling territory?
Oh, wow, that is actually a really good point!
Me bringing polar bears into the thought experiment was intended as a (really stupid) joke, but I had nonetheless taking seriously that technically it should matter what kind of bear we are talking about. You’ve demolished that angle with your comment, though!
It’s ironic we’re dissecting which kind of bear is dangerous, while implicitly accepting the premise that all men are dangerous.
If the dangerous men were as easily distinguishable from the not dangerous ones as bear species, then the answer would be different. Because that’s women’s entire point - you often can’t tell until it’s too late
Has anybody looked into the possibility that we put down all these dangerous creatures before more people get hurt? Better safe than sorry.
That’s not at all what is implied by the thought experiment. It’s not all men, it’s a random man. And it’s not that they are dangerous, it’s about what feels riskier from a woman’s perspective.
That’s why all the fretting over which kind of bear is missing the point. It’s not about arguing with women that they are wrong, it’s about listening to them and understanding that they have no idea whether the man is the sort that would kill them if they say or do or don’t do the right thing — but the odds are sufficient that all men must be treated like a potential threat.
It’s not all men, it’s a random man. And it’s not that they are dangerous, it’s about what feels riskier from a woman’s perspective.
How is that different? It’s still a prejudice based on somebody’s unalterable trait. The entire premise is a deliberate generalization to place men and wild animals into the same category.
I would take “worse than a panda” as a compliment, but I understand your point.
Do polar bears occupy habitat that could realistically be called “the woods”?
I always assumed this question was referring to a brown bear - black bears are pussies and polar bears are instadeath. Pandas are adorable, obviously better than meeting a man. Other species are unlikely for most english speaking people to meet in the woods. Brown bears are the only species that make this question interesting.
Where I’m from, you’re just as likely to get a polar bear as a black or brown bear in the woods. So it’s all unrealistic.
A polar bear in the woods? They’re an aquatic mammal that lives on sea ice… Where are you from?
Australia mate. We have no black bears and no polar bears.
a black bear did drop on a hunter and killed it in the news last year.
Would you rather have a man drop on you in the woods or a black bear?
You forgot the Dropbears. Want to reassess relative threat levels of the various species of alpha predator?
Yeah I’d pick a man of a dropbear any day 🐨🩸☠️
Are there non human women?
See Pam Bondi.
Every other genus: “We don’t want her either.”
I would have given Kristi Noem as an example. Fun fact: her full name is Kristi Lynn Arnold Noem
Krusty Gnome.
KLAN
It’s a stupid thought experiment, though, because I think that woman who chose the bear have not seriously considered the possibility that it might be a polar bear!
(Like, if it’s a regular bear then you are probably fine, but you have to think about the worst case scenario here!)
Polar bears do not live in the woods
I want to believe!
Well then where the fuck do they shit?!?
I think those are the ones that shit on the pope?
Ah so the bears are catholic
Wow are you entirely missing the point.
All I am saying is that if polar bears were wandering around the forests then people might have responded differently.
But having said that, arguably the thought experiment is not meant to be taken too literally in the first place. It is really more like meme mean to be shared and responded to than a serious scientific assessment of the actual risk involved in running across a man versus a bear, especially since the risk posed by the bear depends on the region and what species live there.
But of course, all of this is besides the point, because what is important about the thought experiment is not that so many women choose the bear by that it expresses a collective sentiment of general severe distrust towards men, which came about because enough men have regularly abused their position of strength and power—which, unlike assessments of the relative risk of men versus bears, is definitely backed up by statistics—to impose themselves physically on women, and this is a big societal problem regardless of whether it actually literally makes more sense to prefer running into a bear over a man in the woods.
And just to be clear, I am not criticizing the thought experiment so much as that I love the image of polar bears wandering around in the woods.
Yeah bro. It’s obviously a grizzly because polar bears are going extinct soon.
My point is that global warming is going to drive them down south, and I don’t think that any of us are prepared for this.
I for one am trying to do my part by correcting one thought experiment at a time!
You didn’t correct it though. You added a random element to an existing thought experiment based on the way the world is as we currently know it. That’s like “correcting” the trolley problem by saying “but what if aliens appeared with a second switch that saved everyone!?”
The solution involves hammers.
