I hate to sound like a broken record, buuuuuuuttttt...
There's a reason "around blacks, never relax" is such a common saying. And before anyone tries to deflect the race card, you've activated my trap card: "Yes, it's not ALL of then, but it's ALMOST ALWAYS them". That stupid fucking m&ms thing the feminists loved to trot out comes to mind; they refused to grab a handful because there might be one or two poisoned pieces, but they expect you to just scarf down the bowl knowing more than half are poison.
The m&ms analogy makes no sense for gender because you absolutely need both men and women to propagate your society, your culture, your people, your nation, your species. If the male (or female) bowl contains poisoned m&ms, then that’s a risk you have to take.
Ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation are not the same. You don’t need to interact with other races or ethnicities or religions or sexual orientations to have a society. In fact, your society is objectively worse if you do so. It’s like seeing a bunch of bowls of m&ms, all of them have labels telling you the percentage of poisoned candies, and then you choose to reach into the bowl with the highest percentage.
European men and women coexisted for centuries in high-trust, low-crime societies. Sweden used to boast of being near utopian. Then mass immigration took off. They're not just lying, they're trying to browbeat you into repeating the lie that it's "men."
Worse now is that most young White woman have been brainwashed from tv and ads showing White woman with nonWhites to be race traitor coalburning scum. Even in redstates msot young white woman are going for brown scum while demonizign White man. Its infurating.
I've known some dirt poor, tobacco chewing gritty country Whites and even they had some morals when it came to fighting or violence. Niggers don't, even the ones that have been hiding among White people all their lives.
"Around blacks, never relax" is a good saying that you and I know well but unfortunately, many Ukrainians came from a 95%+ White country so they're not accustomed to these safety measures. We ought to have signs posted all over the country given all the immigrants we bring in that say: "around blacks, never relax" to adequate warn the newcomers.
Until and unless you return to high trust societal norms, yes. Absolutely yes. Look at what happens to the "open minded" women, the "color blind" women, the "backpack in the middle east" women.
I certainly don't relax around women, especially younger or obvious liberal women. I've seen what can happen to men if women want to make trouble.
We can continue to play the pretend of higher moral calling, but until we live ONLY with people who will ALSO play the morality game with us, we must exercise due caution and engage with the reality that not all people are equal, and the FBI crime statistics as divided by race do, in fact, reflect reality.
Yeah women should be wary of men, that's why they shouldn't assert the right to get blackout drunk and take a random Uber back home or hook up with complete strangers. Men are always going to prey on them despite whatever utopian measures society takes.
Sir, one, you can't "this user" about your own posts, and two, you can't "this user" my posts in direct replies. Please at least try to remember who you're speaking with.
For three, yes, women ABSOLUTELY should be wary of men. We are sexually DIMORPHOUS as a species. Men are in almost every case going to be larger, stronger, with denser bones, and with longer limbs then women. We have absolutely the absolute power to harm them, and there is generally very little they can do to stop us. This is why I make the missus train with and carry a gun, because that's an equalizer.
Here's the thing, though. Men are wary of men all the time.
We look over other guys in the street and make judgements. Is he possibly a threat? Can I take him? Can he hurt me? Am I with anyone I need to protect? Can he hurt them? Are there others? Can I afford to fight, or should we evade and flee?
We make these split second judgements constantly, and it's perfectly normal. It's how we avoid the suspicious guy in the hoodie looking around nervously. It's why we don't walk through dark alleys alone at night.
Because we don't live in perfect world with perfect people. Because nature is red in tooth and claw. Because we are, despite everything, still part of the natural world, and we must be ready to deal with threats as they arise.
So, no, it's not illogical or strange for women to be wary of men. It's like saying it's odd for the deer to fear the wolf.
I already explained why this is retarded in the m&ms analogy comment. Interactions with men are mandatory in every society. Interactions with other religions, races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations are not. They aren’t comparable.
As a woman? Your boyfriend, followed by your husband, brother, father, and son.
You're far more likely to be raped and killed by them than almost anyone else. If we are operating on raw statistics alone, you're safer wandering into a crowd of immigrants alone than going on a date with your boyfriend. Don't forget that most relationships are intra-racial, so the most dangerous person a white woman can be around is her white boyfriend. Don't tell me that's ridiculous, this is literally the argument feminists are using right now to downplay Pakistani Muslim rape gangs.
if we are choosing to play this game with statistics.
This is why this pre-meditated manipulation of statistics as a replacement to actually understanding the environment around you never helps. Yes, you can weaponize statistics to prove your bigotry, that's not the fucking point for anyone looking to improve society.
This is not true. The numbers vary, but somewhere between 12%-34% of female murder victims are from family members, meaning as a woman you're overwhelmingly in more danger from strangers. And the numbers explode if your family is white or asian and the strangers are black. The total expected lifetime murder rate for black males in the united states is 4.5%. 1 in 22.
No, retard. You are conflating mandatory and non-mandatory interactions. The propagation of the species requires women to interact with their fathers, husbands, boyfriends, brothers, and sons. So whatever violence results from these interactions is essentially inevitable and should not be weighed against the risk profiles of certain races, ethnicities, religions, or sexual orientations.
As they say: we don’t have to live this way. In fact, the entire US housing market famously revolves around avoiding these people.
They should relax, or not relax, relative to statistical assessments of risk.
Statistically speaking, men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women, so for a mathematically literate society, it is men who should not relax around other men. But from a relative risk standpoint, women can assume their generally-safer-standard as a baseline and assess proximity risk based on as many factors as possible. Race, sex, overt religious signage, clothing, wealth approximation: They're all factors that should be kept in mind.
Some factors matter much more than others. Owning a rolex doesn't imply or not imply safety as much as, say, overt terror symbols. But it all matters, and people are able to assess multiple risk factors at once, people are quite good at summarizing traits.
Statistically speaking, men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women
We both know that these are mostly men who are looking for trouble. If you're minding your own business, you are far better off being a man and being able to at least somewhat hold off anyone attacking you than being a woman.
Race, sex, overt religious signage, clothing, wealth approximation: They're all factors that should be kept in mind.
I agree. But OP seemed to suggest that the fact that it's almost always blacks is reason enough to be wary of blacks in general. Maybe it is, but that argument goes equally well for men, even for other men as you point out (just like blacks are the biggest victims of other blacks).
But it all matters, and people are able to assess multiple risk factors at once, people are quite good at summarizing traits.
People are even pretty good at knowing when generalities do not apply. When I see blacks in suits, or working in security, I'm not wary of them at all. But when they're bums, or seem to loiter, then very much so.
I hate to sound like a broken record, buuuuuuuttttt...
There's a reason "around blacks, never relax" is such a common saying. And before anyone tries to deflect the race card, you've activated my trap card: "Yes, it's not ALL of then, but it's ALMOST ALWAYS them". That stupid fucking m&ms thing the feminists loved to trot out comes to mind; they refused to grab a handful because there might be one or two poisoned pieces, but they expect you to just scarf down the bowl knowing more than half are poison.
The m&ms analogy makes no sense for gender because you absolutely need both men and women to propagate your society, your culture, your people, your nation, your species. If the male (or female) bowl contains poisoned m&ms, then that’s a risk you have to take.
Ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation are not the same. You don’t need to interact with other races or ethnicities or religions or sexual orientations to have a society. In fact, your society is objectively worse if you do so. It’s like seeing a bunch of bowls of m&ms, all of them have labels telling you the percentage of poisoned candies, and then you choose to reach into the bowl with the highest percentage.
European men and women coexisted for centuries in high-trust, low-crime societies. Sweden used to boast of being near utopian. Then mass immigration took off. They're not just lying, they're trying to browbeat you into repeating the lie that it's "men."
Worse now is that most young White woman have been brainwashed from tv and ads showing White woman with nonWhites to be race traitor coalburning scum. Even in redstates msot young white woman are going for brown scum while demonizign White man. Its infurating.
WTF are you talking about? White women still prefer White men to an overwhelming degree based on every stat I've ever seen.
Yep, that's why Lincoln was right about wanting to ship them all to Liberia.
I've known some dirt poor, tobacco chewing gritty country Whites and even they had some morals when it came to fighting or violence. Niggers don't, even the ones that have been hiding among White people all their lives.
"Around blacks, never relax" is a good saying that you and I know well but unfortunately, many Ukrainians came from a 95%+ White country so they're not accustomed to these safety measures. We ought to have signs posted all over the country given all the immigrants we bring in that say: "around blacks, never relax" to adequate warn the newcomers.
So women are also right to never relax around any man?
Until and unless you return to high trust societal norms, yes. Absolutely yes. Look at what happens to the "open minded" women, the "color blind" women, the "backpack in the middle east" women.
I certainly don't relax around women, especially younger or obvious liberal women. I've seen what can happen to men if women want to make trouble.
We can continue to play the pretend of higher moral calling, but until we live ONLY with people who will ALSO play the morality game with us, we must exercise due caution and engage with the reality that not all people are equal, and the FBI crime statistics as divided by race do, in fact, reflect reality.
Even in countries that are high trust, like Japan, nearly all crime is committed by men. So the question posed by this user:
Would mean that women should be wary of men.
But of course, it is very rare for these people to take their logic to its logical conclusion. It's supposed to apply only when it suits them.
Yeah women should be wary of men, that's why they shouldn't assert the right to get blackout drunk and take a random Uber back home or hook up with complete strangers. Men are always going to prey on them despite whatever utopian measures society takes.
Sir, one, you can't "this user" about your own posts, and two, you can't "this user" my posts in direct replies. Please at least try to remember who you're speaking with.
For three, yes, women ABSOLUTELY should be wary of men. We are sexually DIMORPHOUS as a species. Men are in almost every case going to be larger, stronger, with denser bones, and with longer limbs then women. We have absolutely the absolute power to harm them, and there is generally very little they can do to stop us. This is why I make the missus train with and carry a gun, because that's an equalizer.
Here's the thing, though. Men are wary of men all the time.
We look over other guys in the street and make judgements. Is he possibly a threat? Can I take him? Can he hurt me? Am I with anyone I need to protect? Can he hurt them? Are there others? Can I afford to fight, or should we evade and flee?
We make these split second judgements constantly, and it's perfectly normal. It's how we avoid the suspicious guy in the hoodie looking around nervously. It's why we don't walk through dark alleys alone at night.
Because we don't live in perfect world with perfect people. Because nature is red in tooth and claw. Because we are, despite everything, still part of the natural world, and we must be ready to deal with threats as they arise.
So, no, it's not illogical or strange for women to be wary of men. It's like saying it's odd for the deer to fear the wolf.
I already explained why this is retarded in the m&ms analogy comment. Interactions with men are mandatory in every society. Interactions with other religions, races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations are not. They aren’t comparable.
Which men commit most crimes?
As a woman? Your boyfriend, followed by your husband, brother, father, and son.
You're far more likely to be raped and killed by them than almost anyone else. If we are operating on raw statistics alone, you're safer wandering into a crowd of immigrants alone than going on a date with your boyfriend. Don't forget that most relationships are intra-racial, so the most dangerous person a white woman can be around is her white boyfriend. Don't tell me that's ridiculous, this is literally the argument feminists are using right now to downplay Pakistani Muslim rape gangs.
if we are choosing to play this game with statistics.
This is why this pre-meditated manipulation of statistics as a replacement to actually understanding the environment around you never helps. Yes, you can weaponize statistics to prove your bigotry, that's not the fucking point for anyone looking to improve society.
This is not true. The numbers vary, but somewhere between 12%-34% of female murder victims are from family members, meaning as a woman you're overwhelmingly in more danger from strangers. And the numbers explode if your family is white or asian and the strangers are black. The total expected lifetime murder rate for black males in the united states is 4.5%. 1 in 22.
Actually it's blacks.
Pravda and Shareblue would love a shill like you. Not even stalin or fdr could lie to your face like that
No, retard. You are conflating mandatory and non-mandatory interactions. The propagation of the species requires women to interact with their fathers, husbands, boyfriends, brothers, and sons. So whatever violence results from these interactions is essentially inevitable and should not be weighed against the risk profiles of certain races, ethnicities, religions, or sexual orientations.
As they say: we don’t have to live this way. In fact, the entire US housing market famously revolves around avoiding these people.
If they can’t do math, then sure.
Let's say they can do math. "Yes, it's not ALL of then, but it's ALMOST ALWAYS them".
Always who? Women are more likely to have multiple abortions versus being murdered by a white man in the US.
They should relax, or not relax, relative to statistical assessments of risk.
Statistically speaking, men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women, so for a mathematically literate society, it is men who should not relax around other men. But from a relative risk standpoint, women can assume their generally-safer-standard as a baseline and assess proximity risk based on as many factors as possible. Race, sex, overt religious signage, clothing, wealth approximation: They're all factors that should be kept in mind.
Some factors matter much more than others. Owning a rolex doesn't imply or not imply safety as much as, say, overt terror symbols. But it all matters, and people are able to assess multiple risk factors at once, people are quite good at summarizing traits.
We both know that these are mostly men who are looking for trouble. If you're minding your own business, you are far better off being a man and being able to at least somewhat hold off anyone attacking you than being a woman.
I agree. But OP seemed to suggest that the fact that it's almost always blacks is reason enough to be wary of blacks in general. Maybe it is, but that argument goes equally well for men, even for other men as you point out (just like blacks are the biggest victims of other blacks).
People are even pretty good at knowing when generalities do not apply. When I see blacks in suits, or working in security, I'm not wary of them at all. But when they're bums, or seem to loiter, then very much so.
The coalburners and racemixing traitors are willingly playing russian roulette with a revovlor full of ammo