madame-helen

[madame-helen]

[madame-helen]

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Outstanding Patriotism

[madame-helen]

[madame-helen]

Re: manbear discourse (this is a discourse iceberg I've mercifully only seen the top of): am I the only one thinking that part of the subtext of the discussion may be that "man alone in the woods" is itself seen as suspicious behavior?

If the comparison isn't "bear to random man" but "bear to man who shows potential signs of hostility/dangerous failure of values-alignment with mainstream society," then being more scared of the man gets significantly more reasonable:

1) That point about the base rate fallacy (you encounter men many times per day without being attacked, you probably rarely encounter bears) gets shakier.

2) Especially because this is exactly the sort of circumstance in which values-alignment failure is likely to lead to actual aggression. This is a man alone with you. A man dangerously values-unaligned with mainstream morality is likely to still be civil and non-aggressive with you in ordinary day to day interactions, as a matter of his own self-preservation. In an encounter in the wilderness with no witnesses and no-one around who might intervene, you lack this "apes together strong" collective protection. Put it more baldly, if this guy was a serial killer, for him this situation would be the perfect opportunity to kill somebody and get away with it.

3) A hostile/dangerously values-unaligned man is in many ways a potentially more dangerous opponent than a bear despite the bear's greater brute strength; a hostile/dangerously values-unaligned man is much smarter than a bear and may have tools that give him many tactically relevant abilities a bear doesn't have (most obviously, he may have a gun, which is a significantly more dangerous weapon than a bear's teeth and claws). A hostile/dangerously values-unaligned man is also much better equipped to pretend to be safe to be around until he can get you into a position of vulnerability; if you meet a bear you know right away that you're dealing with a powerful, dangerous creature that doesn't have human morality, but an ordinary human is likely to extend substantial trust to another human by default.

The problem with this is, uh, it kind of seems to just move the dumbness from "a random man is more dangerous than a bear" to "a man being alone in the woods is a red flag that he might be out to kill, rape, rob, etc. people"; the latter doesn't strike me as a particularly reasonable proposition either!

Also, if this is about gender, it moves the accusation against men from "a random man is statistically more likely to be dangerous than a bear" to "men are more likely to be dangerously values-unaligned with mainstream society than women so a man being alone in the woods is a yellow/red flag for that but a woman being alone in the woods is not." Is the latter a more plausible/reasonable proposition than the former? Offhand, I can see some possible evidence for "men are more likely to be dangerously values-unaligned with mainstream society than women" e.g. most murderers are men, but 1) that's kind of weak, 2) that then raises the question of how much of the difference is the product of dangerously values-unaligned women being more incentivized to submit to the "apes together strong" pro-sociality coalition because physical sex differences and gender roles result in such women tending to have less physical strength, less access to and familiarity with weapons, and less familiarity with violence than their male equivalents. Note point 2) in relation to this.

[madame-helen]

[madame-helen]

#right XD

[madame-helen]

And they both ended the same way...

Stereotypes

The result of a conversation I had regarding how these two are basically two sides of the same power, except their approach is drastically different… 😂

#good drawing tho #others art #death #sarcasm #art #dark humor #sorry XD

[madame-helen]

[madame-helen]

In a fight.

Right?

Yeah, the first three...

[madame-helen]

[madame-helen]

Yeah, no conquest was done without violence...but I want to clarify that the spanish colonizers weren't brutal as the Arab colonizers, they wrote dictionaries to preserve the indigenous languages for example.

(Use the translator if you want to know what they are saying).

And liberated a continent (South America) from the barbarism of two predatory empires (the Aztec and Incan empires) that had subjugated the rest of the indigenous people (and the local religions practiced human sacrifices and cannibalism, Christianity was preferable over that). They twinned with them and shared their culture, knowledge and traditions.

(Agains, use the translator to understand).

#long text

[madame-helen]

[madame-helen]

[madame-helen]

https://archive.is/JMirV

The Entertainment Software Association, which represents the video game industry, said it told the president that “numerous scientific studies” show there is “no connection between video games and violence.”  In fact, Markey said his work shows when a new violent game is released, crime actually drops.

when a new violent game is released, crime actually drops.

CRIME ACTUALLY DROPS.

[madame-helen]

[madame-helen]

#lol #this only looks good in Angron #memes #meme

[madame-helen]

#XD #Poor Corvus #meme #memes