Obviously I can understand why mysoginists are hated upon, As their belief is all women are trash or men are superior etc. But why are incels also generally hated upon? They are lacking in a way that makes them unable to gey in a relationship, but that shouldn't necessarily mean they are mysoginists, right?
What am I missing here? I haven't ever had a relationship with a woman, but I don't hate all women either. I just consider myself unlucky. Does that make me an incel?
You can't help but draw a false equivalency to make your points, I'm glad it isn't just with me.
Here's the thing, neither lgbt people nor Muslims are defined by their physical superiority to the other. That's why it's a false equivalency.
Furthermore, the argument isn't "all women should be distrustful of all men all the time because of the rapists", it's "women have a reason to, at their discretion and in times of vulnerability, be cautious of men"
You're laying a basis for the "reasonable" use of sex segregation in society and for a bifurcated social grouping of men and women. Which is sexism.
Also your arguments about biological strength differences were used as a justification for racial segregation in the United States and in Apartheid South Africa as a basis for keeping the "inherently brutish and rapacious African" away from the more "civilized" whites, mainly white delicate women. You're doing the same thing here. You're a bigot, and the rationalizations you're using are of the same type that bigots always employ
Maybe you should read a history book. Or just stop othering people and enabling prejudice. It's inherently immoral, illiberal, and counter to Western enlightenment thought.
^ still pushing the same fallacy, using the same false equivalency, as if I'm saying all men need to be taken out back and shot
You literally can't get a foothold in this argument unless you falsely compare what I'm saying to historical genocide, when you said yourself that my initial argument essentially boils down to "Stanger danger"
So yeah, you're misrepresenting a concept you already understand to push some fake genocide that you need to exist so that you don't have to think about women's safety.
The vast majority of Muslims in the west, like Christians, are ideologically against folks that are LGBTQ, but they aren’t out there assaulting 81% of LGBTQ people. This, like the other commenter is saying, is a false equivalence and not relevant.
Again, the definition of bigotry is ‘obstinate or unreasonable’ belief. Empirical data, and the experiences of women everyday, makes the caution reasonable. It is not bigotry for women to be cautious around men, especially strange men but even with men that women know (80% of rapes are perpetuated by someone the victim knows). Trust is earned and the default should always be caution, especially when the person you’re dealing with holds any sort of power over you (authority, physical strength, etc.).
Empirical data, and the experiences of Whites everyday, makes the caution reasonable. It is not bigotry for Whites to be cautious around Blacks, especially strange Blacks but even with Blacks that Whites know (80% of rapes are perpetuated by someone the victim knows). Trust is earned and the default should always be caution, especially when the person you’re dealing with holds any sort of power over you (physical strength, etc.).
Your arguments are the arguments of the white supremacist and the segregationist. It is hate speech. And it is dangerous and is unprotected by the First Amendment and by the Terms of Service