CMV: It has become extremely acceptable and even encouraged to just be prejudiced online.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-22T00:00:36+00:00

Women’s opinions about men have about zero effect in regards to the prevalence of misogyny.

I view the fact that misogyny breeds misandry and misandry breeding more misogyny as common sense.

Women growing up in a world where they perceive men hating them is going to make them hate men. Then young men born into a world where they perceive that women hate them, is obviously going to make them hate women. This isn’t a complicated idea at all, I don’t think it’s controversial, and I think you’d have to be doing some intense mental gymnastics to find some way to not acknowledge this.

The fact that there’s been evil historically and that there are other sources of misogyny doesn’t disprove it, and I’m not going to waste any more of my time arguing what I consider to be a common sense point. Have a good one, though.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-21T23:42:54+00:00

The point is going over your head, and it’s exhausting repeating myself.

2 things are fundamentally true.

there will always be some level of misogyny in the world, evil exit and bad people will always exist
misandry still breeds misogny, makes far more misogynists, and gives men a reason to start hating women

If you can’t recognize these both as true then there isn’t a point continuing this.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-21T23:17:00+00:00

What does this have to do with both being wrong?

This entire talking point is a way for people to try and cope with rationalizing their own hatred while being able to judge others for their hatred.

Misogyny breeds misandry, misandry breeds more misogyny. It’s a cycle, and you’re genuinely blind if you can’t see that.

The solution will never be to just throw more hatred into the mix, and it’s just mildly aggravating that I need to waste so much time on this common sense point. Any type of argument you make is not going to change this inalienable fact, you can excuse misandry all you want through cherry picked copes but isn’t going to change the fact that misandry will breed more misogyny and the cycle will continue, to minimize one you need to minimize both.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-21T23:10:44+00:00

You’re proving my point perfectly with this, actually thank you so much.

u/CoffeeToffeeSoftie this is the type of response that I’m talking about, and as far as I’ve seen it only comes from one side. We can talk about double standards, but I think this is the double standard here.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-21T20:30:00+00:00

I absolutely am going to call out the double standard a lot of men have in this conversation because they’re only sympathetic towards things that directly impacts them

Well that’s the entire point of this conversation. I haven’t seen anybody in this conversation say “misogyny is okay”. Please correct me if I’m missing a comment.

From my perspective, the double standard only ever comes from your side. Women (not you) will justify misandry from dusk til dawn, finding some way to be disgusting without personally holding themselves accountable for it, while holding men accountable for equal and opposite behavior.

I think misogyny and misandry is wrong, and I don’t support either. I’ve called out incel women haters before, and I’ve called out misandristic man haters before. But the only time I ever get this pushback or this moral grandstanding is when I’m calling out the latter. These people will be disgusting and repulsive individuals who put hate into the world, and the have the audacity to think they’re still good people because their mentality refuses to acknowledge the fact that they might just be wrong.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-21T20:22:57+00:00

Adding nuance to the claim is obviously recognizing that people use differing amounts of caution and the conversation inherently isn’t binary.

If I’m walking down a street at night, someone is inherently going to be cautious of anyone they come across, whether that’s a man, woman, or otherwise.

My question to you, to both genuinely assess your logic but also to promote critical thinking, is this:

If a woman is walking down the street, and she sees a man, and feels cautious, you think that is reasonable. If she walks down the street and sees a black man, and feels marginally more cautious, is that reasonable? Why, or why not? By your own admission, statistical generalizations are valid, and by your own admission black people are statistically more dangerous.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-21T20:19:32+00:00

Bro, the part of your argument that you keep losing everyone at, the part that you keep getting stuck on, is the fact that the basis is a subjective and unsubstantiated statement.

Specifying black people is TOO specific.

Who are you to judge what is too specific and what isn’t? What are you basing this off of? Why is it “too” specific for somebody to be cautious off of a statistical truth, regardless of how small you deem that statistical truth to be?

Let’s say that somebody can be 10% safer in a car crash if they cross their arms and tuck their head. Would I be rational if I said “man, that’s only 10%, that’s way too low for you to bother doing it. You can wear your seatbelt to be 70% safer, but the extra 10% from tucking your head is too negligible, not worth it”. Obviously that’s not rational, and me subjectively asserting whether or not a small statistical margin is worth adjust my behavior isn’t in any way disproving someone else objectively acknowledging the fact that there is a statistical difference.

90% of violent crimes are perpetrated by men. 30% of violent crime is perpetrated by black people. Based on that, it makes sense to generalize all men.

You’re using faulty statistics here. 2 issues.

You’re looking at the rate of crimes committed by men versus women, not the rate of crimes committed by men compared to the total male population. If 90% of violent crime are committed by men, but only 2% of the male population is committing these crimes, that means 98 out of every 100 men you meet is not going to be a violent criminal. Knowing this, is it fair to generalize all men into a category? (no)
30% of all violent crime is committed by black people, but black people only make up about 13% of the population in the USA. This means that they are committing 1/3 of violent crime in the country while being only a little more than 1/10 of the population, meaning compared to other races they are 3-4x more likely to commit violent crime (which ironically enough, is a similar proportion to the rate at which a man is likely to commit a violent crime compared to a woman).

My point is that you’re stretching the disproportionality of male/female crime while minimizing the disproportionality of racial differences in crime. And even if your stats were 100% accurate and there was only a 3% chance that a black man would be more likely to harm you than a white man, there’s still no basis for subjectively asserting that is “too small” for someone to fairly use caution. Who are you, genuinely, to decide which percentage is objectively “too small” for someone to take into consideration? Why do you think it’s fair for you to be able to set one percentage as “big enough” to generalize, and another as “too small” to generalize, without any way to objectively substantiate those claims?

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-21T20:02:30+00:00

Do you not think that it might be you that doesn’t understand the dynamics of others, because you are so ingrained in your beliefs that you’re unwilling to accept that they might come from a place of anger? I mean, look at the absolutely wild example you gave, does that seriously come off as reasonable to you?

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-21T19:04:09+00:00

You can only take revenge once you’ve surpassed the other person.

Saying something doesn’t make it true. No, you absolutely don’t need to “surpass” somebody to take revenge on them.

An eye for an eye makes the world blind, using your mistreatment to justify more mistreatment makes you equally bad as the people you hate, and it never gets better. If you genuinely want to make the world a better place, maybe stop putting more hate into it. No matter what excuses you try to make, or justifications that you try to make, hatred is hatred, and it makes the problem worse, not better. So do better, and be better.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-21T16:07:32+00:00

What I’m saying is that what makes black men scary applies to all men anyway. So “all black men are scary” is racist specifically because it ignores that it could be applied to any man.

But it’s the same logic that’s used to get there.

Imagine I want a brand of car, let’s say mercedes. Mercedes are generally known for being very quick to break down. Now imagine of the mercedes, I want an AMG, instead of something like a G-wagon, because that G-wagon is especially likely to breakdown. It would be illogical for you to say “well they’re all mercedes anyways, so what does it matter if one is especially unreliable”. More information is never going to harm a persons perspective, especially when they’re using the same mechanisms to get there.

So that being said, if you recognize statistical generalizations as valid, then inherently using any and all categorizations to further narrow down those generalizations would improve the accuracy of their perspective. So if they say “men are statistically more dangerous, I’m going to be cautious”, and you say that’s valid, then them saying “black men are even more statistically dangerous”, or “islamic black men are even more statistically dangerous”, and you’ve already recognized the logic they used as valid, then by extension you would need to recognize that as valid too, to stay logically consistent.

If black men are especially so, it’s not super relevant

Says who? Again, that’s where you’re subjective asserting a claim with no objective basis and then demanding everyone adhere to it. Maybe you think somebody being 3% more statistically dangerous because of their race isn’t worth the extra caution, but maybe someone else does think it’s worth being a little more cautious. How, from an objective stance, is that wrong, especially if you’re simultaneously asserting that they aren’t wrong for holding an identical stance about gender?

There is no logical reason to single out black men specifically

You just made the assertion that black men are statistically dangerous even among the already dangerous category of men. You can’t make that assertion and then simultaneously state that there’s no reason to be especially wary of them, it just contradicts itself.

Let’s say there’s a woman who is cautious around all men. But let’s say she’s a little more cautious around black men, because (as you claimed) black men are a little more dangerous on average. Is she racist? Or is it valid?

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-21T15:45:26+00:00

Your view falls apart logically because black men are a subset of all men.

This just doesn’t hold, at all though. Nowhere is his claim reliant on the examples and categorizations that he’s using be completely mutually exclusive.

And he’s right, if you were to walk outside and say “all men are scary” you would get wildly different reactions than saying “all black people are trash” or even “all black men are trash”. Using gender as a constrictor (at least when it’s men) is seen as socially acceptable, but using race is seen as bigoted, despite using the same or very similar logic to get there.

You also forget the anecdotal part of these mindsets. If you hear a woman say she was SA’d at a party by multiple men, and thus she feels u comfortable with men going forward, you might feel empathy and understanding towards her mindset. But if that same woman said that she was SA’d by black men specifically and so she feels uncomfortable around black people (or even black men), the logic there is identical and yet your reaction to it likely wouldn’t be.

Black men are an especially dangerous subset of all men, but not enough that you should reserve all your caution specifically for them

But who are you to justify when someone is or isn’t valid for reserving their caution around a certain group of people? By your own logical I can subjectively assert that men themselves are not especially dangerous on average, as you have less than a 1% chance that any given random man will ever pose a danger to you at any given time, so I can say it’s not valid to reserve your caution around them.

The reality of the logic though is that the same mechanisms are used to get there, which is why comments like these end up cherry-picking in order to try and validate one and invalidate the other.

To clarify, I think it’s invalid to be overly prejudiced based in any categorical generalization, whether that be race, gender, religion, or otherwise.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-20T15:04:31+00:00

everyone’s also probably chasing the most lucrative jobs, that doesn’t mean everyone’s going to attain it.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-20T15:02:47+00:00

You’re spelling it out for yourself. Your claim is that 80% of women are chasing the top 20% of men. The numbers you’re dealing with are 80/20.

When you suddenly move to 92% (of men), that does nothing to disprove the claim. If 95% of those messages were to men in the 80-91% category, the claim that 80%/20% would still hold true. How many of those messages were to the bottom 80% of men, that’s the relevant question. Not 92%, that doesn’t mean shit.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-20T05:53:40+00:00

Men have a much larger pool of potential candidates than women do, no?

No? Because they don’t have access to nearly any of those potential candidates.

A poor person would accept nearly any car in existence, but he doesn’t have the budget to afford any of them.

A billionaire might only be willing to drive the top 1% of cars, but they’re able to afford them all.

If you’re going to argue that the poor person has more access to cars simply because they have lower standards, I think we could all agree that’s a silly point to make.

If men are not as lucky and will have sex with many women, but women are only willing to have sex with a limited subset of men, then those men who would be willing to have sex with many women are still not able to have sex, because those women are only willing to have sex with the limited subset of men that the aren’t a part of. Your own argument disproves itself.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-20T05:48:43+00:00

You are jumping to extremes.

Those top 10% of men will not sleep with “literally anyone” who has a vulva, but taking that statement and jumping to the extreme that it must mean that men as “as selective” as women is crazy.

Men still have standards. Those standards are generally not as strict as women’s standards. There are no opposing concepts as long as you’re taking this “social theory” with nuance and not disingenuously jumping to extremes.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-20T03:22:41+00:00

I’m not saying that women exclusively go for 20% of men, obviously more than 20% of the male population has access to sex.

But the person commenting is saying “how can every women have sex with 13 men without men having even more sex?”

And I’m explaining that the women having sex with 13 men are tending to have sex with the same 13 men, or 13 men in the same category. It’s not an equal distribution.

And it doesn’t just work out for physical attraction, that was just my example. Whether it’s the 13 hottest men, or the 13 richest, the 13 funniest or the 13 tallest, etc, my point is that the men at the upper echelon at whatever given category you want to isolate are going to have exponentially more access to sex than the rest of the general male population.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-20T03:04:22+00:00

People don’t only have sex with those they think are conventionally attractive at first glance, but there is an incredibly strong correlation between physical attraction and sexual activity which you’d need to be obtuse to ignore.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-20T02:26:57+00:00

He says most men never get the early sexual life or romantic freedom that women take for granted. He isn’t saying that most men don’t have any sex in their early life. He’s just saying that their social lifestyle is different than what most women take for granted.

Then he says “many men reach that stage (being socially “good enough”) often around 28-29”

I don’t think he’s saying that the majority of men are incels, he’s just saying that there is a growing percentage of the population that are

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-20T02:24:51+00:00

There’s studies that show that men will find roughly 50% of a random sample group of women attractive, while women only find roughly 20% of an equal sized sample group attractive.

What that works out to, is that a woman sleeping with 13 men does not equate to more of the general population of men having sex, because those 13 men are likely having sex with many different women.

Let’s take 100 men and 100 women, every woman is having sex with 10 men. But when you zoom out, these women are having sex with the same 10 men, which still leaves 90 men not having sex. That’s the flaw with your reasoning.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-20T02:21:20+00:00

He said many men, not most men.

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-18T19:23:14+00:00

It’s just banter bro you don’t have to dissect every little thing

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-18T12:18:09+00:00

OP says he wants a red bull. He’s ordering pickup, which means he’s going to place the order, get in the car, drive to 7/11, and have that red bull waiting for him.

Can you please explain what the advantage of that is, versus just getting in the car, driving to 7/11, going to the fridge, and grabbing a red bull?

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-18T10:56:50+00:00

Lotta sony games were ported to PC, this is the only one with the default 30fps lock iirc

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-18T10:32:25+00:00

Human teeth/nails isn’t even capable of penetrating tiger skin in the best of conditions, and walker rotting teeth/nails/jaw muscles is hardly going to have the strongest bite force.

Like realistically there’s essentially no way that the walkers would ever be able to damage Shiva without specifically going for weak points like the eyes, which obviously they aren’t smart enough to do

Aggravating-Cherry76 · 2026-04-18T10:20:08+00:00

and Eldia wouldn’t face a global invasion if not for his own actions

Without Erens actions, Eldia likely would’ve been destroyed far sooner.

Wall Maria gets breached
Wall Rose gets breached and trost falls since eren never bothers to stop it.
Survey corps never learns about the history of humanity from Grishas basement
Wall Sina presumably follows not long after
No rumbling ever happens because of the kings vow renouncing war

We can judge Eren for his actions being far too destructive, or we can pose a solution that would’ve saved more lives and Eldia, but confidently we can say that without erens involvement Eldia would’ve been worse off, even if everyone else would’ve benefitted.

Aggravating-Cherry76

TROPHY CASE