99% of rapists are men

…?

…!?!

…Really, you’re just gonna throw this out there, with no reflection on it? Like, not even a pause? Not even a minute to go “wow, that’s really high, like, suspiciously high, like, Glorious-Leader-Wins-Election high!”?

You know what, I’ll rephrase my argument: The M&M argument is to be rejected out of hand, because any standard set for it’s acceptance will inevitably be met by sufficiently determined bigot, and a sufficiently gullible audience.

Feel free to pick which of these two you are, I genuinely don’t care at this point.

The point isn’t that you should eat the M&Ms, the point is that when a batch of food is suspected to be tainted, you throw it away. You don’t keep tainted food around, you order it recalled from the market and incinerate it because merely having it around is a hazard. It’s a matter of public safety. The problem of applying it to people should be obvious - this is why I mentioned “un-poisoning the M&Ms”. And yes, the argument is alienating for both sides, it alienates them from each other, and that is an obstacle. Unless, I guess, we go for the incinerator solution like we would with M&Ms.

I’m “making a linguistics argument” because I don’t think you understand the argument being made. An argument isn’t faulty because it’s used against oppressed and minority groups, it’s used against oppressed and minority groups because it’s faulty - it’s the faultiness that allows for bigotry. Your response is you’re not talking about oppressed and minority groups, so it’s not bigoted, so it’s not faulty. This is getting it precisely backwards. This isn’t a misunderstanding, I know what you - I mean, Pyre - set out to say. But what you actually said - and, frankly, the rest of this conversation - is telling me I was right to speak up. You think I’m “arguing linguistics” because you think the problem is the words themselves, because what you set out to say isn’t bigotry, because you’re not a bigot, you only have a problem with people who deserve it! Hell, your exit admits there is no other M&M metaphor, but it’s OK, because we both agree you didn’t mean it like that! That’s the important part here! Because this is a conversation about you!

You’re gonna think this is more linguistics, but if you read back, you’ll notice I never called you a bigot. I said the argument is a veil for bigotry. The reason for this is both because essentialism isn’t helpful, and because my problem isn’t with you - it’s with the argument.

Back when Russia invaded Ukraine, they issued a statement about how they’re saddened that Europe has descended into violence and are calling for the region to give peace a chance. It was a solid troll.

I know. I normally wouldn’t, but it keeps trying to lecture others on tree climbing, so I thought I could at least try and help it get the basics right.

Palestine? I’m talking about philosophy of ethics.

Unsurprisingly, no, that’s not what the trolley problem is about.

Yep, if you don’t have the courage to sacrifice something for a cause bigger than yourself

For example, this is fascist retoric. If you understood the trolley problem, you might realise why.

You do, of course, understand that presenting this as a trolley problem implies not voting is a justifiable choice?

What a reasonable and not at all unhinged reply!

On the contrary - yes you do. My complaint is using poison M&Ms as a metaphor for human beings. If you’re not gonna present a poison M&M argument of your own, then there’s only The Argument left. Though at least we now agree that it is used to justify collective punishment.

Actually, you know what, since you can’t seem to find the exit, I’ll point you to it. Say:

“The M&M argument is a faulty and dehumanising generalisation, but it’s understandable that someone would feel unsafe after living a lifetime worrying about men hurting you.”

And I’ll say:

"The sentiment is not unreasonable. But generalizations are both suspect and arbitrary (see Sartre’s “Jewish furrier” story), and the wariness itself is alienating for both sides, and an obstacle to fixing things. It’s not strange that a lifetime under threat leads to trauma, but allowing trauma to fester and calcify is the wrong choice.

The M&M argument, THE M&M argument, that the article describes, and that …let’s say Pyre, made, and admitted to making, is, in fact, a justification of prejudice. It’s the argument of exclusion of an entire demographic based on “well, some of them are bad, and I’m not taking the chance.” And if we’re gonna shove buzzwords down each other’s throat, I’m not strawmanning you, you’re gaslighting me. Well, trying to, anyway.

If you wanna make a separate, different M&M argument, one that isn’t the one above, go ahead - I am curious about how you’re gonna talk your way into un-poisoning the M&Ms. But that new, different argument that you have not yet made is not what this conversation is about.

I’m not strawmanning anything, the M&M argument itself is a justification for bigotry. It’s not shutting down the conversation, that is the conversation being had. The M&M argument isn’t about helping people, it’s a justification for prejudice and is to be rejected out of hand regardless of what demographic it’s targeting or what justification it tenders, because human beings aren’t fungible commodities. Read the articles I linked. Crime stats do not need context, because they do not matter at all.

How do you respond to M&Ming Japanese-American internment? After all, not all of them are traitors, but one poison M&M… And in response, do you say “well, if you look at the data, the average Japanese-American was actually…”? No, you reject the argument out of hand, because people are innocent until proven guilty. How do you respond to M&Ming vagrancy? Do you dig up data on shelters and talk about mental health? No, you reject the premise, because freedom shouldn’t be contingent on property ownership. How about migrants? Do you waste time proving that actually they’re all nice people who are worthy of help? No, you reject the argument, because people in need should be helped.

Incidentally, inherentness is also irrelevant. The M&M argument doesn’t claim poison is inherent to M&Ms. You can just as easily make the argument that you know full well that …m e n… aren’t inherently violent, it’s just that the crime stats very clearly show that they, as a demographic, have certain tendencies, and while you sympathize with them, and would like nothing more to help them overcome the circumstances, probably cultural, that are surely to blame for them being that way, the data is what it is, and you just don’t feel comfortable working/socializing/sharing an elevator/being in the same bar/seeing them in the neighborhood, and, I mean, for all they complain, the back of the bus is still on the same bus so I don’t get…

I realize nobody thinks of themselves as a bigot, and I know reexamining one’s own biases is not pleasant, but it is a necessary step for growth.

I didn’t say “invented” either, I said “made up” - I used the exact same wording you did. Don’t put words in my mouth, it’s unhygienic. And I would say that of all the foods to pick for the analogy, going straight for M&Ms in particular is, shall we say, telling.

“FBI crime stats” is, in fact a good critique. If we accept bigotry against immigrants is unjustified because their crime stats are low, logically, we are forced to accept that if they were high, bigotry would be justified, which is the “FBI stats” argument. Now, I realize I might be on the fringe here, but I would like to take the stance that bigotry is inherently unjustified, regardless of what stats someone can dig up. Crime stats, historical oppression, financial disadvantage, and other PMC buzzwords do not matter. Either we agree that a person, an actual, living, breathing, human being with feelings, hopes, and dreams, can be pre-judged based their birth (prejudice: prae- “before” + iūdicium “judgment”) , or they can’t. And I am of the radical, extremist stance that prejudice is wrong, inherently.

And what the fuck do bears have to do with any of this?

Beowulf (2007).

Yes, the cgi aged badly, but everyone panned it for the plot change, which was the thing I liked about it the most!

No, you did not make it up. This article is from 2016. This one is from 2014.

It was a veil for bigotry when Trump said it, it’s a veil for bigotry now. Doing the “FBI crime stats stats but for men” is not the argument you think it is.

This entire post is lashing out when hurt. All of these demographic breakdowns are.

“Still deciding which minority is to blame” -The Onion.

You do, of course, realise that argument was originally concocted to oppose immigration?

And still in use in server racks, though not as originally designed.

You, uh, you do know the movie that’s from, right?

It matters if you’re incapable of processing abstraction properly.