How come “not all Black people” is considered a valid argument, but “not all men” is not?

[Anonymous]

[HighValue]

Because liberals mostly hate men just for existing so they don't like anything that sticks up for them. They also know that the majority of Black people fall for the same race baiting bs and vote democrat no matter how much it actually harms their lives in the long run.

Black people commit FAR more crime than other groups is a fact. Facts are not racist.

Also, most trans/gay people are so ignorant that they can't admit there is only 2 genders. LGBTQA+ whatever, do they even understand what the third letter in that means?

[slatyb]

The percentages are vastly different. Not all men means about 50%. Not all Black people means about the same thing as "not all white people".

[In_Trance]

Some context would help

[Asker]

When someone says, “Black people need to stop committing crimes,” and someone responds with, “Not all Black people,” the reply is often dismissed with, “Maybe not all, but too many—Black people, in general, commit more crimes than any other race.” This is immediately condemned as racist.

However, when someone says, “Men need to stop committing violence against women,” and someone responds with, “Not all men,” the reply is often, “Maybe not all, but too many—men commit more violent crimes than women.” Instead of being condemned, this is widely praised as a strong feminist argument.

Why is one considered unacceptable while the other is widely accepted?

[In_Trance]

Most likely because that's the way media tells people to perceive things. There's an agenda and it is driven by mass media and social media.
You're not wrong in your thinking however the narrative won't change. There's countless other narratives that suffer the same fate as this one does

[Anonymous]

Sexism