Prejudice is unacceptable for any immutable characteristic, such as sex, gender, race, or sexuality.

Over half of homicides committed against women come from intimate partners and family members.

Like, even when we find men we think we trust, it’s still no better than a coin flip that one day they might violently hurt us, rape us, or kill us.

That's not how that statistic works.

Solutions? No thanks, just a circlejerk here

Judging all men based on the actions of others (pre-judging them, if you will) just because of what group they are in, is prejudiced.

Caution is not the same as prejudice

If you "caution" against all men, then yes that is prejudice, just as it would be if someone was "cautious" against black people.

and that means that I’m going to have to live in such a way that I will mistrust a lot of good men

That is prejudice. Be cautious in a non-prejudiced way, nobody will care.

And if you’re not, why do you care so much for what some women might think of you before they get to know you?

Yeah, gosh, why would anyone care so much about being assumed to be a rapist?

you prefer every woman to trust every man because you’re one of the good ones (maybe)?

Weird false dilemma you've presented, one can simply treat all strangers with a degree of caution.

The post literally says not “all men”.

Really? Because the title of the post is "All men are dangerous"

Even if the post didn't say that, that's what others in the comments are defending and/or advocating for.

I am absolutely not going to take advice regarding mental maturity from you.

It is a simple fact that the vast majority of Jewish people support the Occupation

Even if this were true, it would still be wrong to target a random Jewish person for your message about Israel. Members of a class should not be treated differently because of that class, even if the concerns of the wider class are valid. That is literally prejudice. Pre-judicial thinking, you are judging them early.

I sincerely hope you're a teenager or autistic

Being afraid of black people because of something unrelated to their race is very different than being cautious of men for something directly related to their sex

Not really, you are assuming the behavior of someone based on their immutable characteristics, they are both prejudice.

There is no way to visually distinguish a rapist.

Except if they look like a man, right?

You would have me put myself at risk or be a complete social hermit just for the sake of “fairness.”

No, I would have you be cautious of every human because every human is a possible abuser. Your trauma is not an excuse for prejudice, neither is statistics. Judging any individual because of the group they were born as is prejudice, you are a prejudiced and intolerant person.

Lmao, what a terrible opinion. "Prejudice is okay because the world isn't perfect." At least you aren't in denial like half the other people in this thread. The world will never be ideal or equitable as long as people like you are justifying, and advocating, the non-ideal and inequitable. Please spend less time in it.

haha it has no-no words

a misrepresentation of the screenshot - which is what I’m pushing back on

Okay, well let's do some analysis then. If they say they know it's not all men, but then immediately follow it up with saying they can't tell which men it is, what message are we supposed to get? In the context of a comeback to someone disagreeing with "all men are dangerous"

To me, it's pretty clearly justifying the position of "all men are dangerous," just with the caveat that they know it's not actually all men, but that they have to act is if it is because there is no way to tell the difference.

Do you not see that as a rationalization of treating all men like they are dangerous?

lash out like this when a real one tells them something they don’t want to hear.

That's not why people want them to leave, it's because they have a cringey gimmick that makes Lemmy harder to read

And while I personally saw the “too” as implied, it led to bad-faith actors really twisting it as well as inevitably some people actually not understanding it.

Don't you think bad faith actors will do that regardless? The problem isn't that the names were bad, the problem is a large amount of people had no interest in learning anything beyond the name and/or actively fought against learning what those groups were actually for.

they’d hardly be offended though.

I'd be pretty offended to be assumed to be a zionist, who wouldn't?