So for those who are out of the loop, r/ActualPublicFreakouts formed from the frustration of non-public freakouts were becoming more common on the original subreddit. As of late there has become a more noticeable shift in what types of posts get to the top of the pages. I've also seen comments in passing the past few months accusing r/ActualPublicFreakouts being full of racist nazis in other subreddits.
The question is how long before a move to censor or outright ban the spin off subreddit since the political and cultural shift goes against the Reddit group think.
You mean the thousands of samples that identify men as the primary antagonists of all violent crime on Earth?
Yes. And of men, which type is the most represented in violent crime?
What does that matter? Obviously the problem is men. That's the most correlated category to all violent crime. Don't you understand pattern recognition, or are you just brainwashed by the patriarchy?
Okay, fine.
Men between the ages of 14-40.
Honestly, they're just a bunch of uncivilized savages. I don't know why we even allow them outside. I say just get rid of them all so the world can finally be safe from their savage and criminal behavior.
Oh I 100% understand pattern recognition. And you're getting closer. What type of men in that age range commit more violent crime than all other groups put together?
We want to be accurate, don't we?
It's not just "men". It's a specific subgroup of men. The most correlated category in all violent crime is....
Here's a hint: Biden says they lose their racial identity if they don't vote for him.
Ones with previous criminal history
We are being accurate: Men. Don't let the savages out. You know what they say: around men, never relax. That's how women keep themselves safe. They'll kill you for just saying no to them. Can you imagine a world where women could walk around at night safe because men could be curfewed for the benefit of society? I don't have to bring out the bowl of M&M's meme again do I?
Yes it is, the only other relevant factor is age. Men under the age of 14 don't commit rape too often. And Men over the age of 40 finally start deciding that raping women walking down the street is a young man's game, and considering the amount of women who still have to deal with pervs like Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and Harvey Wienstein; even that isn't a guarantee.
But I can see where you are going: you're trying to blame Pakistani Men for raping all those English girls. But that's just you cherry picking. You're ignoring the fact that White Men commit the most acts of pedophillia in England. You're ignoring the hate fact that the most likely person to rape or kill a woman is her boyfriend, husband, brother, husband, or son. You're ignoring the hate fact that every major religion has needed reform in teaching their men not to rape or beat their wives. You're willing to condemn some rape cultures, by letting others go. You're letting some men off the hook because you don't like them. You want to say #NotAllMen because you want to protect some men and not other, while ignoring the crimes that are almost exclusive to men as a whole.
You just want to sweep over the crimes of your gender and blame it on someone else, but I won't. You're all guilty by action if not guilty by complicity, promotion, tolerance, rationalization, or silencing of your gender's victim's voices.
#YesAllMen
Men, and I'm not being sarcastic this time. It is men. No other category is a stronger correlate to violent behavior.
You don't.
Statistics won't protect you if she has a gun and intends to rob you, or if she has a honeypot trap for an armed home invasion. It's actually a very common tactic of terrorists and intelligent criminals to use your assumptions and stereotypes as a weapon to literally fucking kill you with.
I was in Iraq during a summer when there was a spate of suicide bombings that were mauling the Iraqi Police. AQI had been training female suicide bombers to exploit Iraqi patriarchal biases. They'd recruit a female, indoctrinate her, train her to be a suicide bomber, and then they'd do the following:
For the attack, she would be laden with an explosive vest underneath traditional garb. She'd take a knife and cut her forearm or wrist, only enough to be a minor wound, let it bleed for a bit. Then she'd approach a police checkpoint. She would call for help from the police and tell them that she and her husband/brother were attacked in the street and she was in need of assistance.
In one particular case, the local town's police chief was at the checkpoint at the time of this incident, walked her right past all of the guards in the checkpoint, directly into the most protected part of the checkpoint where she could be made safe... once there she shoved him to the ground, Allah Akbar, and about a dozen people were dead.
It's true that female suicide bombers are statistically exceedingly rare. It's also true that everyone could be exposed to serious violence in the streets of Iraq. It's also true that if a female and her male escort were attacked, she would flee to the police checkpoint... and yet all those people got blown to pieces.
Yes, as unpossible as it seems, individual cases are not determined by statistics. Statistics, it turns out, is not a form of plot armor that allows you to determine any certainty of your particular case. "BUT MUH STATISTICS" isn't gonna do you any good when it turns out that your particular case didn't reflect the majority of all cases.
The best way to determine if someone is a threat, is by their behavior towards you, not by their genital shape.
Do you just not understand how crime works? The point is that criminals (and terrorists) intentionally use biases as a weapon against their victims. That's the fucking point.
Any given man or worman walking down the street at night is not an equal threat, they are an unknown threat. You can't know who is the biggest threat to you without pre-attack indicators. The statistics can't tell you about your individual case.
Statistics aren't plot armor.